|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
meldinoor, my hat's off to you.
theist you may be, but you do not shrink from the facts. I hope you're listening Peg. Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
yes, mike, there's archaeopteryx and the four-leg-winged raptor who's name escapes me, at least (very well could be more).
I'm sorry if you think that the fact that it's rare to get a fossil is "weak" - it really is pretty rare. If you're asking for transitional forms between DINOSAURS and BIRDS alive right now...well, that's a different kettle of fish. I don't know enough to answer. There are plenty of transitional forms alive now (platypus, platypi...platypeople? and bats, flying foxes...) - you'd have to have a good reason for saying they're not "transitional" (and saying they're complete organisms doesn't count, we all agree that's not how evolution works). ground rules set, go!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Hi Peg,
Sorry to break in, but your understanding of what evolution is and how it works is lacking, as is your knowledge of the transitional forms. The fact you say this:
...im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage. * there are no "crocoducks" - I can't say this enough. Doesn't happen. No teenage mutant ninja turtles, no pokemon. * no direct dinosaur --> egg --> bird jumps over a single generation - it doesn't happen like that either. * so broadly, no non-functioning mutants. All "transitional" fossils are examples of complete organisms - if you think that's an oxymoron, then it's probably a good point for further elaboration by people far more schooled in the literature than I. * What it IS is a slow progression from one form to another, via what you would happily call "microevolution" until what we call "speciation" occurs (and yes, people with greater knowledge than me may well disagree on some points and the definition, but I think for this level, it's broadly true) * what we HAVE is a remarkably complete set of fossils displaying changes over time from one "species" to another - horse, human and more - I'm sorry if you don't agree with them, it's probably a good point for further elaboration on. * I'm not sure what to say about your skepticism with regard to eohippus and archaeopteryx - they really are quite exemplary and well understood, and it is only dogmatic creationist literature which does not admit this. I hesitate to say "does to" but there's a huge thread on Archy alone somewhere around here... * I'm also not sure that you'd like to talk more about heribert nilsson - The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Setting * darwin's finches "oscillating back and forth" - uh, so? Not a problem, really it isn't.
We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other. No, sorry, I disagree - there is no reason god couldn't create everything way back when...and then have it all evolve. from then on. Of course, it does negate the bible as a literal account, but we all know you don't think it's a literal account either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
mike the wiz writes: The real question for me, is this; are there, honestly, a large amount of "missing" in-between progressional forms where you might expect to see them. well, if we all agree that getting a fossil is rare, then great - I can point out that it's practically impossible to have every single transitional of every single lineage because every single generation is a new example of transitional creatures... so what you'd be happy with is *enough* transitionals? Well, I'm worried that if you saw two forms (say "dinosaur" and "bird") you'd say "oh, where's the fossil between them?" Given three - dinosaur, archaeoptery, bird (for example) - you'd say "oh, look, THREE forms, where's the TWO fossils between them?" If you're not going to do that, we can get somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good". And I quote: "god moves in mysterious ways" I wasn't aware you understood the fullness of the plan of The Almighty one?
In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism, which is why it is dogmatically defended. You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong. well - it's harding proving a negative. What I can say is that there is no conflict between a god and evolution. there is a conflict between biblical literalists and evolution, but that's a different argument.
I mean come on, it's entirely obvious. That's my line!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Peg, you're just proving my point and reinforcing my opinion.
If a lot of people spent a lot of time, effort and money to force mutations hoping to get a better breed and wasted all three resources then more fool them. I don't think the quote means what you think it means (and I think it's a quote mine) - they were talking about forcing mutation, and you reported the effort as failed. Without even checking up on the work itself I can tell you that I'd say exactly the same thing and it wouldn't change my opinion of evolution one jot. That you don't understand this just proves my point. If Darwin's finches, to you, are just microevolution "within a kind" then don't bring it up as a problem for evolution - that you don't understand evolution doesn't change the fact that the theory is not negated but reinforced by observations regarding them. That you don't understand this just proves my point. and regarding the bible being literal, forgive me but I have either crossed you with somebody else who didn't have an issue with Genesis not requiring strict 24 hour days, or you have misunderstood what I mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Hi Peg,
This IS getting off topic - so please only one good answer to it and I'll let it lie, but you say this:
the salamanders interbred to much that the genes become narrowed down so much that these ones could no longer breed with the other ones What is your evidence that your "theory" about genes is true? If you take genetic samples of two sets of salamanders that can't interbreed (I presume this is your theory), then you should expect to see what exactly? I mean to say you could do the same with horses, donkeys and zebras. I'd like to see some evidence there, perhaps, that a donkey, a horse and a zebra are "narrowed down" in some way since they can obviously interbreed (although really, really badly) and yet breed true to their "kind" perfectly adequately. Horses, for example, are an ever-improving breed. We race them and they seem to get only faster. I certainly don't see zebras dying out because of lion predation, so their genes aren't bad. Donkeys are everywhere, but there's no consistent breeding program as there has been with dogs, so they might not be so "noble" but they certainly aren't dying out, so their genes appear fine too. Yet they can't interbreed all that well. so, are they the same "kind"? If they are, why can't they interbreed well? If they aren't, why are they apparently faring perfectly well as independant "kinds", and why CAN they interbreed? Finally, where in all this is the "degeneration" and "narrowing down" of the genetic code that you talk about? You must have some proof? Some peer-reviewed work? Something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Peg,
This:
I wasnt trying to pretend anything. He is clearly saying that he sees 'design' in nature. Isnt that what ID proponents say too? There is design in nature and therefore there must be a designer?? Is entirely at odds with the context of his quote when given in full. Either do not quote mine (I know, it's tempting, but you're a christian and should be able to resist) or make damned sure that the quote you are using to prove a point is a) In Contextb) Reliable c) From a reputable/known source Your quote-mine of Sagan fails on points a) and b) because it wasn't in context and (being unfairly snipped to change it's meaning) wasn't reliable. You may not have meant to change it's meaning or pretend, but the quote miners did - and you DID inherit their "crime".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined:
|
oh dear, you guys really don't know why what you're doing just makes us all roll our eyes and sigh on the stupidity of it all, do you?
Even when it gets pointed out to you that the quote deliberately and incorrectly makes it appear as if (insert name of famous person here) holds a different viewpoint than they do, you cling to that quote like a limpet to rock. The quote, as displayed, is a lie. It is at least a lie of omission - the missing context, the actual viewpoint of said person, the greater relevance of the quotation, new facts brought to light afterwards... I didn't think you'd stoop to saying it was okay to lie. shame on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
im doing a darwin and giving a theory without evidence here...im sure the salamander population was interbreeding...its genetics. Darwin had proof. Lots of it. Decades of research. You have obviously read none of it or you would understand the magnitude of his work. I understand I cannot ask you to actual give a rebuttal to a lifetime of work by a real scientist, but at least you should have the decency not to pretend it doesn't exist. You can say you don't like it (and we'd like to know why) but you can't say it doesn't exist. I acknowledge the bible exists, but I don't regard it as authoritative (and when quizzed on specifics, I can tell you why). you are also ignoring my request for clarification of the evidence regarding "narrowing of genes", and infact saying it is perfectly ok to bring up nonsense ideas and that you don't have to prove anything. I shall take that as you do NOT have any proof, and I may safely ignore it as irrelevant speculation, and cease wasting my time on it. Of course you may bring it up, but I needn't dignify it with a reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
if he didnt think there was design in nature, why say "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer"? He used that sentence, Peg, because we are living in a world populated by people like you who think everything was designed, and think that "apparent design" means "design". Sadly, he expected people like you to comprehend the entirety of what he was saying without cutting and pasting and lying for jesus. He was saying it could be but. You read that, apparently deliberately, as it is. Are you lying for jesus, or do you not understand plain English?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
the quote of sagan reveals that he sees design even though he doesnt believe in a designer No, it doesn't. It really doesn't. He says "could be" - which is logically correct. He doesn't say it IS design, and doesn't say that any "who" designed it. What you did (maybe unintentionally) was take a quote that made it appear (poorly) as if he believed in intelligent design when he does not. His intent is to say something like "it looks like design but it isn't" * You may disagree with his conclusion* You may hold the opinion (and defend it) that he is lying about his beliefs * you may present a different conclusion from the same evidence (after all, that's what science is) but you may not misrepresent what he said. Edited by greyseal, : clarification and addition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
more to the point, despite (I'm reasonably sure) being told a thousand times that this is not so, Mike (and others) still think that you can get from (say) an ostrich to a sparrow.
This isn't what evolution is about (and yes, this one is for the creationists) - you could get from something like an ostrich to something LIKE a sparrow, but you would not get TO a sparrow - understand the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
he became convinced of evolution after a mere 5 weeks on the golapogas islands, that is not much time to truly research your subject. How much evidence did he have back then? very little if any. Okay, now that's a good reason to doubt. You are incorrect, but at least you have a good reason. It's a little bit like saying "Neil Armstrong walked on the moon" and expecting us to believe that America went from non-player to world-leader in space in around ten years, back in the 1960's before the computer had been invented. It skips over the rest of the work that a lot of other people did to make it possible - the development of the rocket technology, the electronics, the space suit, the air filtration systems... I'd advise you to read "the origin of species" because it's remarkably accessible to laymen like me and you. It makes it quite clear that what he found and put into words wasn't so much that animals changed (he KNEW that and tested what he knew) but how it could happen beneficially even in the absense of mankind. The lightning bolt from the blue was "natural selection". It took him far longer than 5 weeks. It might not have taken more than 5 weeks to become sure of it, but that was hardly the entirety of his effort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3889 days) Posts: 464 Joined:
|
Peg,
I don't want to clutter up this thread on Carl Sagan in particular, nor any other scientist/specialist who has written words that have been taken so clearly out of context by creationist quote mines. I don't know what to say other than that you are entirely misunderstanding the intent of the people whose words you so blithely quote in support of an argument they themselves do not believe in. I am going to go for "fails to comprehend" rather than "liar for jesus" because you seem genuinely distressed that I "don't get it". I will leave this subject with this thought: If Sagan was such a believer, why did he not write "The designed world: Faith as a candle in the dark" - why did he write "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark" ? Edited by greyseal, : minor edit (i should learn to use preview)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024