Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Brightmoon]

but we can claim that such a rabbit shape just evolved twice, or we can claim for unknown process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

Organisms can superficially resemble each other ( dolphins and ichthosaurs or ceratopsians and rhinoceroses) but a anatomist or paleontologist can tell the difference even if uneducated laymen can’t. A lagomorph ( rabbit)or any other mammal is not going to be mistaken for anything else that lived during the Precambrian

 

[Speedwell]

its like saying "just because its a car isnt enough to conclude design".

Correct. It has to be a man-made "car" in order to conclude design. Otherwise no conclusion is possible.

 

[inquiring mind]

its like saying "just because its a car isnt enough to conclude design".

Xianghua, they’re not going to accept "design" in any form or fashion. Design implies no need for “time,” and evolutionists must have time, and lots of it for layers of the earth to slowly build up, crawling things to walk, etc., or their belief is shot down. That’s why they dispel any argument like questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale, and Adamic-man's creation with words like ignorance and stupidity. There is no better defense for your belief than convincing people that those who oppose your argument are unenlightened.

 

[Speedwell]

Xianghua, they’re not going to accept "design" in any form or fashion. Design implies no need for “time,” and evolutionists must have time, and lots of it for layers of the earth to slowly build up, crawling things to walk, etc., or their belief is shot down. That’s why they dispel any argument like questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale, and Adamic-man's creation with words like ignorance and stupidity. There is no better defense for your belief than convincing people that those who oppose your argument are unenlightened.

I'm afraid that the present argument is not that lofty. Xianghua is trying to play a trick on us by conflating two different definitions of the word "design." We don't object to the idea of design so much as we resent having such cheap sophistry imposed on us. That is why even some of us who are theists are opposed to him.

 

[tas8831]

Xianghua, they’re not going to accept "design" in any form or fashion.

1. There is no need to
2. there is no evidence that would convince anyone otherwise - certainly none has been presented here.
3. Do YOU really think that analogies to cars being designed by humans proves that Jehovah made a man from dust?

There is no better defense for your belief than convincing people that those who oppose your argument are unenlightened.

Ah - so THAT is why, at some point, creationists will trot out the old Psalm 14:1 gambit... That makes sense.

Of course - if the shoe fits.

In another thread, there is a creationist/designinst insisting that a quote from a 1979 essay claiming lots of scientists are 'leaving' evolution proves that evolution is dying as a concept. But the same essay indicates that most of these scientists 'leaving' evolution had been creationists all along. But the creationist refuses to acknowledge that this undercuts his us of the essay as 'proof' that evolution is dying. Is that ignorance or something else?

Another creationists claims - despite admitting that he doesn't know much biology - that the gut and the aorta can produce 'vocalization impulses' that go directly to the larynx, and that this is how we make noises when we are scared and such. I said he was wrong. I provided detailed descriptions of the nerves involved and their actual functions, and he replied that 'science might not have all the answers.' He also provided a couple of links to articles he claimed showed he was correct - but in reading the articles, they indicated no such thing, and upon having this explained, he just went right on making the same claims over and over.



Is that ignorance? Malice? Deception? Self-deception?

Creationists just love playing the snowflake victims all the time, but the best thing you could do is STOP making claims that you cannot support, assertions that have no basis in fact, proclamations that your own claimed sources of support undermine.

IOW - if you don't like being thought of as "unenlightened", stop acting that way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but we can claim that such a rabbit shape just evolved twice, or we can claim for unknown process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

No, being shaped like a rabbit and being structurally identical to a rabbit are different things. There are tons of organisms over the course of evolutionary history that superficially look like human penises, but they aren't structurally identical to a human penis. You are talking about an actual Precambrian rabbit, not a Precambrian animal that looks like a rabbit. What would disprove the theory of evolution would be a rabbit fossil, complete with rabbit bone structure, etc. Obviously, an outline in a rock that vaguely looks like a rabbit has no significance.

 

[xianghua]

That's a lie.

You can't support this.

support what actually? you dont believe that a creature can evolve fast?

The Tasmanian wolf and the dingo are four legged predators who (until recently) hunted in Australia... but if you look at their remains they extremely distantly related.

since the tasmanian wolf has a pouch this is why is different from a dog. see how easy we can clasify those two species only by even a single trait in this case?

Every time Behe and co came up with another a viable example was proposed.

not realy. you want me to test this claim in details?

If you would clearly define both your terms, and what you mean then we might be able to have discussions.

ok. do you agree that a walking robot that is made from organic components is a robot?

 

[xianghua]

Organisms can superficially resemble each other ( dolphins and ichthosaurs or ceratopsians and rhinoceroses) but a anatomist or paleontologist can tell the difference even if uneducated laymen can’t. A lagomorph ( rabbit)or any other mammal is not going to be mistaken for anything else that lived during the Precambrian

lets say that they are looking the same in every trait. there is no problem to claim for an unknown process that may insert this fossil into the wrong layer, or even claiming for external contamination. so evolution cant be falsify.

 

[PsychoSarah]

lets say that they are looking the same in every trait.

Has never occurred. It'd be like a person being physically human in every regard, and even on the genetic level human, but they were born of a pig. It's never happened. Furthermore, even in cases of convergent evolution, the overall structure of the organisms isn't identical. You have no precedent upon which to base your hypothetical example.

there is no problem to claim for an unknown process that may insert this fossil into the wrong layer, or even claiming for external contamination. so evolution cant be falsify.

Find an example of two organisms with distinct lineages being the same inside and out and you will not only falsify evolution, but you'll be shoving a wreaking ball through the entire study of genetics.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. There is no need to
2. there is no evidence that would convince anyone otherwise - certainly none has been presented here.
3. Do YOU really think that analogies to cars being designed by humans proves that Jehovah made a man from dust?





Ah - so THAT is why, at some point, creationists will trot out the old Psalm 14:1 gambit... That makes sense.

Of course - if the show fits.

In another thread, there is a creationist/designinst insisting that a quote from a 1979 essay claiming lots of scientists are 'leaving' evolution proves that evolution is dying as a concept. But the same essay indicates that most of these scientists 'leaving' evolution had been creationists all along. But the creationist refuses to acknowledge that this undercuts his us of the essay as 'proof' that evolution is dying. Is that ignorance or something else?

Another creationists claims - despite admitting that he doesn't know much biology - that the gut and the aorta can produce 'vocalization impulses' that go directly to the larynx, and that this is how we make noises when we are scared and such. I said he was wrong. I provided detailed descriptions of the nerves involved and their actual functions, and he replied that 'science might not have all the answers.' He also provided a couple of links to articles he claimed showed he was correct - but in reading the articles, they indicated no such thing, and upon having this explained, he just went right making the same claims.



Is that ignorance? Malice? Deception? Self-deception?

Creationist just love playing the snowflake victims all the time, but the best thing you could do is STOP making claims that you cannot support, assertions that have no basis in fact, proclamations that your own claimed sources of support undermine.

IOW - if you don't like being thought of as "unenlightened", stop acting that way.

Well that was certainly enlightening... and invigorating. When I can compose myself I'll respond.

 

[pitabread]

and evolution still be just fine.

Not in the slightest. If you think otherwise then you may need to re-visit your understanding of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

why not? a ic system can be such a barrier. or even a deisgned trait.

No, irreducible complexity is NOT synonymous as "un-evolvable". That said, I'm pretty sure we've already been over this.

 

[inquiring mind]

1. There is no need to

That's why I don't spend a lot of time expressing my opinions.

2. there is no evidence that would convince anyone otherwise - certainly none has been presented here.

In my statement I included three pretty good possibilities, although general, which I thought a scientific-minded person might want to explore: "questionable rock dating, rapid cataclysmic formations on a huge scale, and Adamic-man's creation." There's some pretty good ideas 'out there' on the first two, and of course you know the story on the third one.

3. Do YOU really think that analogies to cars being designed by humans proves that Jehovah made a man from dust?

No, I'm not a used car salesman. I was just saying that analogies wouldn't work, or at least I thought that was what I was saying.

Ah - so THAT is why, at some point, creationists will trot out the old Psalm 14:1 gambit... That makes sense. Of course - if the show fits.

Yes, I'm afraid I'm just like Cinderella on this one.

In another thread, there is a creationist/designinst insisting that a quote from a 1979 essay claiming lots of scientists are 'leaving' evolution proves that evolution is dying as a concept. But the same essay indicates that most of these scientists 'leaving' evolution had been creationists all along. But the creationist refuses to acknowledge that this undercuts his us of the essay as 'proof' that evolution is dying. Is that ignorance or something else?

Another creationists claims - despite admitting that he doesn't know much biology - that the gut and the aorta can produce 'vocalization impulses' that go directly to the larynx, and that this is how we make noises when we are scared and such. I said he was wrong. I provided detailed descriptions of the nerves involved and their actual functions, and he replied that 'science might not have all the answers.' He also provided a couple of links to articles he claimed showed he was correct - but in reading the articles, they indicated no such thing, and upon having this explained, he just went right making the same claims.
Is that ignorance? Malice? Deception? Self-deception

I'm a somewhat educated man myself, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently on the knowledge of others by just basing it on their comments. I do suspect the lack of it is not limited to one side of the aisle though.

Creationist just love playing the snowflake victims all the time, but the best thing you could do is STOP making claims that you cannot support, assertions that have no basis in fact, proclamations that your own claimed sources of support undermine.
IOW - if you don't like being thought of as "unenlightened", stop acting that way.

I don't claim to be an expert, about all I can do here is refer you to a good documentary, "Is Genesis History," it's free on NetFlix now. Of course you won't watch it, but if you did, it pretty much presents supportive evidence for the Creationist's claims presented in these type arguments. You should watch it, if for no other reason than it is interesting... and to see where Creationists are coming from with their beliefs.

 

[Brightmoon]

lets say that they are looking the same in every trait. there is no problem to claim for an unknown process that may insert this fossil into the wrong layer, or even claiming for external contamination. so evolution cant be falsify.

This is about your scientific illiteracy as far a geology is concerned.
What you’re describing is almost impossible. Usually when organisms fossilize they absorb minerals from the surrounding sediment and fine particles of that sediment will also settle into the nooks and crannies. This has a specific chemical signature. If the fossil slips into a deeper crevasse and shows up with older fossils in a different sediment layer, chemists can tell because the second layer will have a different chemical signature . And as I’ve mentioned before aboutthey also can tell because of the micro crystals stretching due to being squashed by the weight of the above hardened sediment . A moved fossil micro crystals will show an odd orientation . An out of place fossil is obvious if you know what to look for. This is part of the reason scientists hate it when amateurs dig up the fossils. They lose important information.
Those geology classes I took were fun

 

[Shemjaza]

support what actually? you dont believe that a creature can evolve fast?

That's not what you implied.

You said that the sciences of paleontology and biology could just connect any species who happen to be found together.

This is a lie. It's a lie about the science and it's a lie about the morals of the scientists who work on it.

since the tasmanian wolf has a pouch this is why is different from a dog. see how easy we can clasify those two species only by even a single trait in this case?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

If all we had to differences them was the pouch you world have a point. But if all we have were bones we could tell that the Tasmanian wolf and dingo were not closely related.

A border colly has floppy ears, but it is still a dog. A Tasmanian wolf has more bone structure in common with a kangaroo.

not realy. you want me to test this claim in details?

Yes.

The ID crowd have never been able to present a single example of something that is impossible to evolve on small steps.

ok. do you agree that a walking robot that is made from organic components is a robot?

No.

One: robots made of organic parts don't exist.

Two: it's sufficiently different that it will cause confusion.

Three: mostly you aren't even taking about machines built from organic parts, you seem to want to talk about living, breeding, adapting creatures... that are somehow designed.

Robot is a terrible term in English for what you want to talk about. Come up with something better, or just be clear.

 

[Brightmoon]

questionable rock dating ? Oh yes like the one Andrew Snelling did on that 50 year old rock . I have a biology degree and even I can tell you what he totally screwed up. First he used a dating technique normally used on very old rocks on a very young one . It’s like measuring a bacterium with a yardstick.

Then he played footsie with the error bars . Claiming that the legitimate dating lab he used gave him a date of 2.3 million years for that 50 year old piece of lava. Snelling told them to use the old rock technique which means he misrepresented the approximate date to the lab. Paleontologists and geologists usually have an idea of how old the rock they’re dating is. 2. The lab told him that the rock was between zero and 2.3 million years old . Fifty falls on that time line but Snelling misrepresented his results to make radiodating look suspect. This case was the exact reason I stopped reading creationist crap pseudoscience papers. I was so disgusted

 

[pitabread]

You seem to think your "material" is 100% and if it doesn't convince someone, it's their fault, automatically.

This appears to be a complete misinterpretation of both motivation and consequently the outcome of this entire discussion.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. At the end of the day, I don't care what you believe. Whether you accept evolution as legit science or reject it as a bunch of fairy tales is completely irrelevant.

My only real goal in these respects would be understanding. If you decide to reject a scientific theory, but can at least demonstrate a reasonable understanding of it, then more power to you. Thus anything I present for purpose of knowledge or discussion, I'm hoping anyone wanting to argue about it will at least make the effort to understand it first. If they don't, then it's moot.

Where I assign fault is if someone continually asks for something, then refuses to make an effort to read/digest/understand what they are given. That's entirely on them.

But lets clear it up right now, give me material that proves evolution, and if I reject it, I'll tell you why. That is, the material you just mentioned/claimed you have put out there already.

The couple times I've presented you with something for your perusal (both written material off-site as well as actual courses in evolution) you indicated zero interest in even looking at it. At which point there is really nothing else I can do.

Oh, and to save the embarrassment, either don't list it, or tell us ahead of time if any of your proposed material is obtained through conjecture, assumption, or anything else that might make it not actually material at all.

When you write out a bunch of pre-qualifiers by which you already ready to reject anything you are presented with, it doesn't speak to any honest effort on your part to actually absorb and understanding anything you are given. As I've said previously, your continual asks for "proof of evolution" don't appear sincere and statements like the above only reinforce this.

Also, if you fall flat of your face, don't blame me/us, we already told you, you have nothing.

You appear to be assuming that I'm out to "win" an argument here. I'm not, especially since by your own postings you appear to have long since made up your mind.

 

[inquiring mind]

questionable rock dating ? Oh yes like the one Andrew Snelling did on that 50 year old rock . I have a biology degree and even I can tell you what he totally screwed up. First he used a dating technique normally used on very old rocks on a very young one . It’s like measuring a bacterium with a yardstick.

Then he played footsie with the error bars . Claiming that the legitimate dating lab he used gave him a date of 2.3 million years for that 50 year old piece of lava. Snelling told them to use the old rock technique which means he misrepresented the approximate date to the lab. Paleontologists and geologists usually have an idea of how old the rock they’re dating is. 2. The lab told him that the rock was between zero and 2.3 million years old . Fifty falls on that time line but Snelling misrepresented his results to make radiodating look suspect. This case was the exact reason I stopped reading creationist crap pseudoscience papers. I was so disgusted

You can google many pro & con reports concerning the accuracy of radiometric dating or radioactive dating of rocks. I may have misinterpreted what I have read, but it appears the accuracy depends on original conditions, and whether they are truly known. If that's correct, it kind of reverts back to 'what you want to believe' it seems.

 

[pitabread]

You can google many pro & con reports concerning the accuracy of radiometric dating or radioactive dating of rocks.

And this is precisely why various dating methods (radiometric AND non-radiometric) are cross-correlated and calibrated to be as accurate as possible. The whole goal is to build the best understanding of our planet (and universe) as possible.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This appears to be a complete misinterpretation of both motivation and consequently the outcome of this entire discussion.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything.

Yours is the misinterpretation.

And you answer that like others here who say they aren't trying to convince anyone of anything, yet here you are trying to convince us, and often...don't you see what a laugh that statement is?

The couple times I've presented you with something for your perusal (both written material off-site as well as actual courses in evolution) you indicated zero interest in even looking at it. At which point there is really nothing else I can do.

Indicated? Either way, you now have my interest.

When you write out a bunch of pre-qualifiers by which you already ready to reject anything you are presented with, it doesn't speak to any honest effort on your part to actually absorb and understanding anything you are given. As I've said previously, your continual asks for "proof of evolution" don't appear sincere and statements like the above only reinforce this.

Cop out. Normally I wouldn't even have to pre qualify someone to use truthful/real evidence, or facts, but here, I can already see that's going to be a problem for you. Yes, you are going to be pre qualified not to use assumptions.

You appear to be assuming that I'm out to "win" an argument here. I'm not, especially since by your own posting, you appear to have long since made up your mind.

Oh, no, none of you are trying to do anything like that, no more than you're not trying to "convince anyone of anything"...