Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

[praisejahupeople]

Well praisej, i see very little that he posts that would make it into the 'true" side of the ledger.

IF he cared to bring up one pint, and present it in a reasonable way, that could be discussed. A shotgun spray of nonsense and lololol and hahaha isnt worth writing in the first place let alone responding to it. As i learned.

His point regarding scales into feathers.Pretty impossible.Cant be demonstrated, never been observed

 

[juvenissun]

I know that creationism is little more than denialism but could you give a DETAILED response instead of just vaguely stating an opposing position which was known before you posted?

You need to tell me where to elaborate.

 

[gaara4158]

Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.

Yeah, that's basically dad's tactic as well.

 

[juvenissun]

I am yet to see a reply from a Creationist that stays focused on the science, and gives a respectful and reasoned response, or without resorting to ridicule of their opponent.

In the approximately 300 years since the scientific revolution what advances has either religion or science made in our understanding of the universe, and our ability to make use (for better or worse) of nature for our benefit?

Why do Creationists rubbish scientists? This really puzzles me.

Can I have a respectful and rational answer? If not, please don't reply.

Some creationists ARE scientists. Rational enough?

 

[praisejahupeople]

Some creationists ARE scientists. Rational enough?

Some just read everything to do on the topic from both sides,the more ive read the less i know.

Im certain there was a superintelligence at the beginning of creation,its the only explanation that is logical.

 

[juvenissun]

Would you like to tell us why it's wrong? you obviously know a lot about the subject to be able to just dismiss it off hand, I for one would like to be enlightened, please try and simplify it as much as you can.

Because I know too much of it, so there would be no answer to the nebulous comment such as one in the OP. If you like to learn, ask a specific one. Basically, dating+tectonics+... do not make a MILOE. They do not converge to a single message.

But everything converge to Christian faith.

 

[Hespera]

Praisej...scales into feathers?

Ok lets see. first off, our hero knows nothing about anatomy, geology, paleontology, zoology etc. i see a lot of cut and paste interspersed with hahahaha.

As for scales... what do you know of scales? Could you describe a few different kinds?

Could you tell me something about their structure?

Are you aware that the chicken has both scales and feathers?


Do you know anything about how the feathers of a bird grow, from what structure they are derived? do you know anything about the relationship between how bird scales and bird feathers grow? Anything about different kinds of feathers?

if its presented as fish scales growing into feathers, of course it hasnt been observed, of course its not going to happen.

You simply, like TA, dont know enough about the subject to have a valid opinion.
Sorry, not being mean here, but you dont. Its like you think a chalkboard covered with strange markings at a math conference is nonsense, because you dont know enough to understand it. someone says "its not even math! look! no NUMBERS! these mathists are all stupid and believe sutpid things.

Honestly Praise, if it was really that easy to just discredit all of higher math, or the work of thousands of scientist.....dont you suppose they would have noticed? doesnt your common sense buzzer tell you that its not going to be that simple, the first amateur who comes along can just say hahahah scales to feathers hahaha and knock the whole thing down?

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez....Because I know too much of it, so there would be no answer to the nebulous comment such as one in the OP. If you like to learn, ask a specific one. Basically, dating+tectonics+... do not make a MILOE. They do not converge to a single message.

But everything converge to Christian faith.QVOTE//////////////


hespera sez...

Juv, yuou keep TELLING us you have the highest possible degree of educaiton, that you are this or that kind of scientists and that you "know too much".... but you never demonstarte any of it.


how does that seem to you?

I know how it seems to the rest of us.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.

Crazy like a fox I am, at least I am not crying wolf like evo's have done countless times. I understand your anger and frustration because I wont accept your fables. Are you stuck on that scales to feather thingies? No assuptions how this happens? No speculations? Because without a DOUBT you have no empirical evidence for this, no eyewitnesses or scientific proof you therefore have to assume and have faith and find a fossil an suppose then stick it in your tree. Get out of the ToE box now. Thats it, pull your head out.

 

[Hespera]

Anger and frustration. That is almost funny, in its unintentional way. You never get anything right, do you, TA?

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Anger and frustration. That is almost funny, in its unintentional way. You never get anything right, do you, TA?

All this hype about tiktaalik being a premium fossil for a transitional. Apparently its in really, really rough shape and the fins wont support its weight. Thats the truth of it. Look back at ALL the post evo's have said about it and see if you find this ANYWHERE. Not once, not even close, it was hailed as perfect, without doubt a transitional. I was right , right from the start. And as it says in Ecclesiates "There is nothing new under the sun". I have said I have heard it all from evo's and nothing has changed and I am right there too. Just assuptions, speculations, biased indoctrinated head in the ToE box dogma. Twist, distory ,omit data, add data thats not there. ANYTHING to make it fit in the ToE box. I know I am right here, no doubt. Go look up anything said about tiktaalik and see if any one who holds it as a premium fossil states its in really poor shape. Of poor quality. Ironic how quick evo's are to say creo's are guilty of this.
Here is a question. Is the supposedly 370 million year old fossil "tiktaalik" in good enough condition to come to a scientific conclusion that it is in fact a transitional form? If you answer yes, then you lie. If you answer no then it should be thrown out and NEVER used again as an example.
Just go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7294827/ and hear all the evos praise their god.

 

[Baggins]

His point regarding scales into feathers.Pretty impossible.Cant be demonstrated, never been observed

Wow another person who has never looked at a chickens leg

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...eathers from scales&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

ooh look nearly 29,000 hits on google scholar on the evolution of feathers

I swear the creationists on this site just get worse, making categorical statements about things you are entirely ignorant of doesn't make you look good you know.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

14 huh? According to who?Evo's? hahahahaahahahaaahaaha Every fossil is transitional...hahahahahahaahahahahaha..You guys have cried wolf to many times.
Explain to me the probability of scales turning into feathers. hahahahahaahahahaha Oh yah one person in here doesn't like probabilities. How about IMPOSSIBILITIES. You want to live in your fairy tale land, have at er. You are not gonna drag me in with your assumptions, speculations and biased indocrinated foolishness.

1. Feathers and scales are embryologically derived from the same tissue.
2. Feathers and scales are both made of B-keratin.
3. Birds retain reptilian scales on their feet.
4. All animals with structurally modern feathers are reptiles or descended from a group of reptile.
5. Velociraptor had feathers as evidenced by quill knobs in its forearms and other members of its group (Dromeosauridae) possesed feathers that were structurally identical to those of modern birds. Dromeosaurids are considered a sister group to birds.

 

[dad]

The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

We did have an interchange of dna with chimps. Whoopee do. If it wasn't this state, that may mean something like catching a cold, or something more vile. All the evidence suggests is that there was a mix. So? Radio isotopes are merely something that work a certain way here i.e. decay. They can't really be checked in any meaningful way with the strata. All one has to do is ask how the strata is dated!!! Same with fossils, or drift. They argee with nothing but themselves, and even that requires hammering millions of imaginary years into place as needed. Get serious.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

All this hype about tiktaalik being a premium fossil for a transitional. Apparently its in really, really rough shape and the fins wont support its weight. Thats the truth of it. Look back at ALL the post evo's have said about it and see if you find this ANYWHERE. Not once, not even close, it was hailed as perfect, without doubt a transitional. I was right , right from the start. And as it says in Ecclesiates "There is nothing new under the sun". I have said I have heard it all from evo's and nothing has changed and I am right there too. Just assuptions, speculations, biased indoctrinated head in the ToE box dogma. Twist, distory ,omit data, add data thats not there. ANYTHING to make it fit in the ToE box. I know I am right here, no doubt. Go look up anything said about tiktaalik and see if any one who holds it as a premium fossil states its in really poor shape. Of poor quality. Ironic how quick evo's are to say creo's are guilty of this.
Here is a question. Is the supposedly 370 million year old fossil "tiktaalik" in good enough condition to come to a scientific conclusion that it is in fact a transitional form? If you answer yes, then you lie. If you answer no then it should be thrown out and NEVER used again as an example.
Just go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7294827/ and hear all the evos praise their god.

Do you know how tiktaalik was found? Paleontologists knew almost exactly what they were looking for. they knew what age it had to be to fill in the gap and they knew geographically where other fossils in the transition had been found. So they knew where to look and they found precisely what they were looking for. Incipient stages of limbs, a shoulder girdle, and a rib cage. Earlier fish in the transition had none of these, yet they were fairly well developed in early tetrapods on the other side of the transition.

IOW, they made a hypothesis and the fossil find confirmed their hypothesis. Hypothesis testing is the EPITOME of science.

 

[Baggins]

Crazy like a fox I am, at least I am not crying wolf like evo's have done countless times. I understand your anger and frustration because I wont accept your fables. Are you stuck on that scales to feather thingies? No assuptions how this happens? No speculations? Because without a DOUBT you have no empirical evidence for this, no eyewitnesses or scientific proof you therefore have to assume and have faith and find a fossil an suppose then stick it in your tree. Get out of the ToE box now. Thats it, pull your head out.

You would serve yourself well if you went to google scholar and did a search before making ridiculous statements like this.

You'll only serve to turn yourself into a figure of fun like juvenissum if you don't

Face it Thomas you're like AV if god in his heaven came down and told you evolution was true you'd tell him to take a hike because you have built you're whole world on foundations that are easily shown to be in error therefore the only way to proceed is fingers in the ears ignorance.

Beats me why you'd want to come on a scientific discussion board really, it can only add to your obvious fear of being wrong. Which you are.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

We did have an interchange of dna with chimps. Whoopee do. If it wasn't this state, that may mean something like catching a cold, or something more vile. All the evidence suggests is that there was a mix. So? Radio isotopes are merely something that work a certain way here i.e. decay. They can't really be checked in any meaningful way with the strata. All one has to do is ask how the strata is dated!!! Same with fossils, or drift. They argee with nothing but themselves, and even that requires hammering millions of imaginary years into place as needed. Get serious.

98% is more than a simple mix. You only disagree with the dating methodologies because they all assume that they have been constant for hundreds of millions of years. But if they werent constant then why is it when we roll back the plate tectonics to the point that agrees with the radioisotope measurement we are suddenly able to connect geographic fossil ranges which are now separated by thousands of miles? Are they non-constant at the same rate? The ASSORTMENT of fossils is very strong because fossil species occur within a consistent chronology, i.e. if you see T-rexes and triceratopses and every other species found is consistently a late cretaceous species then you know that the fossil bed is late cretaceous and thus the radioisotope dating should be consistent with that, and in such cases it ALWAYS is. Lastly we can use the stratigraphy to also give us an age. if we are in between middle cretaceous and early paleocene then we know our layer is late cretaceous and the date should reflect that, and in such cases it ALWAYS does.

They all agree, they are all distinct methodologies. Stratigraphy and assortment of fossils dont necessarily require a constant rate like others but they do require consistent paleontologic and geologic chronologies.

 

[dad]

98% is more than a simple mix. You only disagree with the dating methodologies because they all assume that they have been constant for hundreds of millions of years. But if they werent constant then why is it when we roll back the plate tectonics to the point that agrees with the radioisotope measurement we are suddenly able to connect geographic fossil ranges which are now separated by thousands of miles?

How do you think you do that, precisely? The short answer is that you apply the hand waving, and belief system across the board! I kid you not. If they were looked at honestly, and on their own 2 feet, they would be whacked like little moles popping up. You simply think that having enough moles pop up confuses the issue enough to allow the same state past hand waving to have credibility. No. Not to the informed.

Are they non-constant at the same rate?

Now, one would assume that decay is at a same rate. Why would it not be, now??

The ASSORTMENT of fossils is very strong because fossil species occur within a consistent chronology, i.e. if you see T-rexes and triceratopses and every other species found is consistently a late cretaceous species then you know that the fossil bed is late cretaceous and thus the radioisotope dating should be consistent with that, and in such cases it ALWAYS is.

Meaningless, in a world where rapid evolution occurs, as well as rapid sedimentation and stratification. Not to mention fossilization. The issue is what is the basis for cooking up a date in the strata alone, or in the fossils alone, or in decay alone? That basis is a same state. And nothing else. Which means...no basis.

Lastly we can use the stratigraphy to also give us an age. if we are in between middle cretaceous and early paleocene then we know our layer is late cretaceous and the date should reflect that, and in such cases it ALWAYS does.

Great. Show us how!!!!!!? Give an example of that puppy on it's own! Something dated by stratigraphy.

They all agree, they are all distinct methodologies. Stratigraphy and assortment of fossils dont necessarily require a constant rate like others but they do require consistent paleontologic and geologic chronologies.

We shall see, you were given a chance to strut your stuff. Use it wisely.

 

[Cabal]

How does a person EVER expect to see MILoE from the perspective of creationism if their head is in the ToE box and that is ALL they can see.

And I don't suppose we get to see MILoE for creationism - never mind multiple lines of evidence, a piece of empirical evidence would be fantastic!

They not only cannot get out of the box , they wont. Here is an example. "All hail tiktaalik".

Oh boy, nope, looks like we're going for strawmanning tiktaalik for the nth time. No-one even mentioned tiktaalik in this thread, which is ironic seeing as your posts usually accuse us of always citing tiktaalik.

Every time you here a ToE believer speak of this all you hear is the biased, indoctinated head in the ToE box explanations. Just check out ANY site that evo's speak of it. It is like a god to them.

Seriously, how old are you? If you have something you consider a good point, there's no shame in citing it. It does not mean you worship it.

They post a 370 million year old stamp on it because of where it was found and where its suppose to fit in their fairy tale like tree.
370 million years old, that in itself is ridiculous. But if your head is in the ToE box you accept it without question. Just like EVERY other so called transitional fossil , tiktaalik is no different. It is NOT empirical proof other than a complete creature like ALL others.

Really? All of them? Post your evidence for that - and try and avoid resorting to conspiracy theories if you can.

Here are a few things on tiktaalik that you will NEVER hear a evo with their head in the box say about it.
As I was skimming through the list of “transitional” fossils, I found that the Tiktaalik (a fossil fish) was listed as an intermediate form. This particular specimen, lately, has become a very popular example of an intermediate from sea to land because of it’s fins. The problem with this claim, it turns out, is that the its fins are not connected to the main skeleton and therefore could not have supported it’s weight on land. Although Darwinists hypothesize that they could have been used to prop itself up on a water bed, they had similar hopes for the Caelocanth which turned out to be totally wrong.

So what does it matter what the limbs were or were not used for? It still has all the physical features one would expect of this transitional. This does nothing to discredit tiktaalik.

It doesn’t help that it has been admitted, even by those that believe it’s a transitional form, that the “quality of the specimen was poor.Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the specimen’s quality is poor, then isn’t it presumptuous to claim it is an intermediate form?

Citation needed. And several have been found, btw - there's not just one.

It only takes these two statements to verify what I have been saying all along, Biased and indocrinated to accpet it for what they assume it is and ignore data that might say otherwise. Already placed in the fairy tale tree.

Here's thing, Thomas - you are clearly not an evolutionary biologist, or any kind of scientist. HOW DO YOU KNOW they haven't considered the other options? In science, that's kinda what you do. Have you gone through all the peer-reviewed literature on this species to determine whether or not they have considered these things? I'll bet you anything they have - and the fact it still stands means that IS a strong piece of evidence.

It seems anything goes with evo's, anything to make it fit in that ToE box. So really now, sak yourselfs WHY? WHY? should we believe ANYTHING you pull out of your ToE box and try and feed it to us. The fossil is in rough shape yet you can boast of such great claims as if matter of fact. Get your heads out of the box. Put some real empirical evidence on the table. I (we) have heard ALL your assumptions, speculations and probablies. and dont buy it.

You wanna know what the REALLY tragic thing is? For all your hysteria in the quoted post, even if you had something resembling a point, this would do NOTHING to validate creationism. Maybe stop posting copypastes of stuff you have no training in and start doing like I've been asking you do for several threads now, which is POST EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF CREATIONISM.

And by that I don't mean more ways in which evolution might be wrong.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

See what I mean. By your replies it is so obvious. Your head is stuck in the ToE box, you cannot and will not see out side of it. You want me to see things in your biased indoctrinated way but you cannot see my point of veiw. The reason some of my stuff is copy and paste is because its information that is contray to what you evos have in your box. Your still trying to claim tiktaalik is a premium fossil. I do not care how many of your scientists say or the hyperbole fo the 'great prediction" that, all I have to hear is its of "poor quality" and its "fins could not of supported its legs " to know that the assuptions by those with their head in the ToE box are WRONG. But it has to be they say. It fits soooooo well in our fairy tale tree.
Oh and good one on the scales of a chicken, hahahahahahaha, how can one help from not laughing when such stupidity is spewed forth. Its all assumptions. Why cant you see and accept that. I see it with ease, it is so obvious. Has it been repeated in the lab? Do we see it happening now? Were we there when it happened? No, No, No. So whats the problem then? Please, just get your head out of the box just for a moment to see where I am coming from and dont try and turn it around to try and make me put my head in the box to see things in evo's indoctrinated, biased way. Tonights science horror movie is called "The attack of the lizard/bird with their leg/wingy thingies". This takes a million years are so to develope so get yourself a BIG bag of popcorn.