Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 3:12 AM
194 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 181 of 207 (502433)
03-11-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:06 PM


What happened to honesty?
Kelly writes:

I guess you can make that become whatever you want to, hm?

No, the transitional fossils I linked to clearly show it becoming a horse.
If I could make it whatever I wanted, I'd probably make it a dragon. Dragon's are much more interesting.


Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false?

Great! Then you should have no problem demonstrating what it is about the transitional fossils I actually linked to that is "false." (Hint: I didn't link to a textbook, it's a webpage)

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

Of course he didn't. Do you see a connection between that picture I showed and the modern-day horse?
How does this demonstrate that the transitional fossils I linked to are false?

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

...and? How did he do? Did he fail? If he failed, why did he fail?
Perhaps he did not have all the transitional fossils that I linked to.

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

But... I didn't link to any public lecture that Huxley and OC Marsh gave in New York.
This is very interesting, but how does it demonstrate that the transitional fossils that I actually did link to are false?

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

The simple answer is "who cares?"

I didn't link to any scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh.
I linked to transitional fossils showing the evolution of the horse. You said it is demonstrably false. When are you going to start demonstrating that what I actually showed you is false?

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

Okay... maybe you're onto something new here, let's see what you say:

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

What? Why would this be true? Simply the "lowest" rock strata isn't always "the oldest" rock strata.

And, if we actually look at what I linked to, we see that these pictures do progress from oldest to youngest.

Perhaps you didn't look at the link I provided for the transitional fossils? All the transitional fossils in that link are in chronological order. So this seems to be another thing that you merely say when I have already shown it to be false.

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

What "assumption of evolutionary progress" was made?
What different continents?
Which fossils or fragments?
Are you actually trying to claim that it's impossible for roaming creatures to move around? Really? That doesn't sound very honest.
If we make the "assumption" that creatures with legs were actually able to move around... how is that circular reasoning?

Even if the transitional fossils are found on different continents,
How would that demostrate that the transitional fossils are false? Wouldn't that still show that they exist?

Quote deleted because of copywrite in order to "respect the legal rights of owners to control their creative works."

Again, where are you getting this?
I gave you a site with transitional fossils. That's all it had on it.
Where does anything I showed you "assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years?"

Again, I'll ask you about your honesty.

Are you going to be honest and focus on this topic, to whatever honest truth it leads to?

Or are you going to be like a creation scientist and jump all over, pulling whatever confusion you can into the issue?

From this last post of yours, you have shown that you:

1. Refuse to acknowledge the transitional fossils I linked for you.
2. Start talking about other people and other fossils that no one has mentioned in order to demonstrate something to be false that no one claimed to be true in the first place.


Rest of old post hidden. (Actual copyrighted material deleted).



After thinking about all this copyright stuff, I think I'll just give you another chance.

Try to stay focused on the information I've actually provided to you. I don't want to talk about stuff that may or may not deal with the actual issue. That's what creation scientists do... they grab whatever information they can to confuse the issue.

Let's forget about that previous post. Let's wipe the slate clean again. Perhaps you just jumped to conclusions without actually reading my post. Here it is again if you missed it:

Message 168

And the transitional fossils that I'm claiming to exist:

Little Dogs to Big Horses

Now, let's try again. While being honest can you tell me why these transitional fossils are "demonstrably false?"

These fossils exist. Their progression is obvious to anyone who actually clicks on the website and looks at the pictures. They are in chronological order.

I may very well be wrong (I really don't know much about this stuff). But in order for you to show that I am wrong, you have to show that what I've presented is wrong. You can't show that I'm wrong by showing that other people are wrong... that doesn't make any sense.

That's what honest exploration is about. Showing things to be correct or wrong. Creation Scientists don't show things, they simply say them. Anyone can say things.

Are you going to be honest and show how what I have provided is false?
Or are you going to act like a Creation Scientist and simply say that what I have provided is false and move onto other areas?

Edited by Stile, : Deleted portions of text... completey, did not just hide... that quoted some material from Kelly's post that are apparently under a copyright system covering "creative work" :
I did, however, simply hide my responses that only made sense to those remarks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2009 2:25 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 182 of 207 (502436)
03-11-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Son
03-11-2009 1:33 PM


Re: back to the topic
This kinda is the topic... as long as we stress the methodology.

The difference between Creation Science and Science is the difference between just saying something and actually showing it.

When Kelly's just talking about anything... she's just doing Creation Science. It's only if she ever shows something that it will actually be Science.

Obviously Kelly doesn't understand this by telling it to her, that's why we need to show it to her. (It's quite possible that this method will fail as well, but I'm hoping against that).

Showing Kelly that the proper way to convince someone is to show them and not to simply say it to them is exactly the topic.

It is kinda confusing that what we're using "to show" is other evolutionary data... but, well, it's readily available at this site :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Son, posted 03-11-2009 1:33 PM Son has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 183 of 207 (502438)
03-11-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:06 PM


Reiteration of site rules.
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

From the site this material comes from:

quote:
Do NOT post any material from ChristianAnswers.Net on any other Web site, newsgroup or chat room. All material is copyrighted under U.S. and International Copyright Laws. Please respect the legal and inherent human rights of copyright owners to control their creative works.

To those who may have considered taking material from this Web site (or any other Web site) to use on their own or someone else's site without permission…

Without express written permission, it is not only presumptuous, but also against the law to publish, copy, reproduce or plagiarize material from this Web site or any other and put it on your own Web site or anyone else's. This includes all pages, content, pictures, audio, video, code, etc. The same is true of posting it in a newsgroup or chat room. Such use is a clear infringement of the copyright owner's rights under U.S. and International Copyright Law and carries serious penalties. By the way, there is no waiver of this law for religious or educational organizations; we all must abide by it.


I am deleting your material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 4:41 PM AdminModulous has responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 184 of 207 (502442)
03-11-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Stile
03-11-2009 1:47 PM


copyright
In light of the copyright issue, could you please edit your post so that it falls comfortably within fair use? I haven't the time to check how much you of the total page you ended up quoting, but I suspect it might be a significant percentage of the total work.

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 1:47 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 710 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 185 of 207 (502445)
03-11-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Kelly
03-11-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Is it Science?
I am interested in settling the misconception that creation science is not a science

The Institute for creation research
http://www.icr.org/

Departments -> employment

The Institute for Creation Research has a long history of hiring the best and brightest for our work in the fields of scientific research, education, publishing, and other areas vital to the successful communication of our message.

Please review the jobs listed below. All candidates must agree to ICR doctrinal statements and tenets. All positions will be filled at our Dallas headquarters. Local candidates are preferred.

For inquiries or to submit your resume, please email jobline@icr.org.

Look at hotlink:
ICR doctrinal statements and tenets

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

This is a small excerpt of the list posted there. I was going to post the whole list but did not because of the admins last post. To be employed by the ICR you have to sign off on the their model first. So they are only looking to shoehorn evidence into their model. They start with the conclusion, then look for ways to support it.

By DEFINITION that is not science.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 9:49 AM Kelly has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006


Message 186 of 207 (502447)
03-11-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Is it Science?
Let me give you an example. I'll go back to the fossil record. If evolutionists and creationists are honest, we all know that the whole record is sparse at best and that transitional fossils do not exist.

"Evolutionists". Could you please provide a definition of that term? And describe what it's supposed to mean? And what an "evolutionist" is supposed to believe (since Dr. Morris in his other writings has not been reluctant to describe an "evolutionist's" beliefs). You see, it's a term almost universally used by creationists and yet they almost universally refuse to define it or to discuss that definition. Care to break that long creationist tradition?

Anyway, for the large part "evolutionists" are honest about transitionals, while creationists are almost universally dishonest about them. As a matter of fact, that is one of the first things I learned about creationists. Here is my description of that which I had posted on my old web site (no longer hosted):

quote:
I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't know of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.

This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature.


If transitional fossils don't exist, then why are there so many of them? From a reply I had posted on CompuServe back on 08 July 1989:

quote:
As for the fossil sequences themselves, you obviously have not looked very far. You can find many such references in the article "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution" by Roger Cuffey in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu (Oxford University Press, 1984). In that article, Cuffey conducted a brief search, by no means exhaustive, of readily available materials to compile a bibliography of about 160 references of transitional fossils, including species of algae, corals, angiosperms, foraminiferans, bryozoans, brachiopods, gastropods, pelecypods, ammonoids, trilobites, crustaceans, echinoids, condonts, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, the crossopterygian-amphibian transition, the amphibian-reptile transition, the reptile-mammal transition, hominids, etc. He listed the references according to the following classifications of transitional fossils (going from more complete to less complete knowledge):

1. Sequences within a single higher taxon which grade continuously
from one species to another without break.
2. Sequences which grade continuously from one species to another
without break and linking across from one higher taxon to another.
3. Series of chronologically successive species within a single higher
taxon which grade from an early form to a later form.
4. Series of chronologically successive species which grade from an
early form to a later form and cross boundaries separating
different higher taxa.
5. Continuous series of higher taxa grading from earlier to later forms,
sometimes crossing from one higher-rank taxon to another
(not usually used to construct transitional-fossil sequences).
6. Isolated individuals (e.g. the most famous example, Archaeopteryx).

If you want me to give you a few of the references, I will be more than happy to do so, but I do balk at typing all 160 references. For that you should track down the book yourself. It also contains a number of other interesting articles, describes the events surrounding the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" law, and contains the decision of the court.

I had given you a link to that court decision. Have you read it yet? What about Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker?

Also on that same forum on CompuServe, though a few years later in 1993, I met a remarkable creationist, Merle Hertzler. He was the first honest creationist I had encountered -- and I think the only one. He would honestly try to respond to questions and honestly engage in discussion. He was one of "creation science's" better and more coherent advocates. But honesty can have its price. He found his position to be indefensible and within a year went over to the side of evolution. This appears to be why we find so few honest creationists, because they eventually find that they cannot defend something as dishonest as "creation science".

Merle's site is at http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/index.html. He's no longer a Christian, but it's far more the fault of "creation science" than of evolution. On his "Did We Evolve?" page at http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html, he describes how his creationist position kept evaporating as he actually examined the evidence. In much abridged form, so as to not create a massive post, here's what he wrote about transitional fossils:

quote:
Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. ... My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. ... He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . ... Perhaps [Gould] made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

. . .

This is only the briefest of overviews of these strange creatures. In reality, there are thousands of species that span many millions of years, with many intermediate stages of many different features.

Now what on earth was God doing? ... Did God learn from past experience and introduce new creatures with improvement every several thousand years or so? Creationists would cringe at that suggestion. Then why do we find this progression? It is difficult to escape the all-too-obvious conclusion: God allowed the first mammal to evolve from reptiles through a process involving many millions of years. As a Creationist, I finally came to the point where I considered that possibility. ... Think for a minute of all of the varieties of mammals that you know--elephants, tigers, mice, dogs, and whales, to name a few. Did all of these descend from a sequence of mammal-like reptiles? Is there any other way to explain all of these intermediates?

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. . . .

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.


Kelly, "creation science" is lying to you about transitional fossils. In many testimonials given by atheists, I found the most common reason for their having become atheists was discovering that their religion and religious leaders had lied to them. It's not evolution that turns people into atheists; for many it's the teachings of "creation science".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 187 of 207 (502449)
03-11-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Nice arrangement
It doesn't prove a thing, though. There is no proof that these fossils are stages from one to another. Just placing them as so is not proof. These are not [necessarily] transitional forms. Sorry.

To me, a transitional fossil must contain incipient developing or transitional structures--such as half-scales,/half-feathers, or half-legs/half-wings..etc. No such fossils are known.

This is not true.

Why didn't you find out if it was true before repeating it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Kelly has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3162
Joined: 05-02-2006


Message 188 of 207 (502454)
03-11-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Kelly
03-11-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Is it Science?
Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.

Evolutionists do the same thing. It is the nature of the beast, really, since none of us were there in the begining.

Science doesn't do that.

I am not sure who you mean by this? Evolution scientists? They certainly do. The nature of operational science is the only kind of science where we do not need to use any kind of guesswork.

. . .

That's what "science" means... that everyone comes to the same answer. World views do not enter into the picture.

Ideally, yes, that would be great. However, in historical or origins science, we really can't help it. Guesswork is a criteria.

Therefore it is very misleading to say the two are "on equal footing." Because they're not. They're very different, one is science and the other is not.

I do not believe that you have shown me how evolution is different from creation in the study of origins. Both sciences are based on their particular worldviews of what might have occured in the begining.

You may wonder why creation scientists do not come to the same conclusions that all other scientists (across the entire world) come to. And the answer is very simple... creation scientists are not doing science, they are allowing their world-view to corrupt their conclusions.

Actually, creation scientists study in all different scientific fields and when it comes to things observable, there is little disagreement. The argument will usually stem not from what is observed, but what it means--the interpretation?

Or, as leading creationist writers have stated (Gish, I'm pretty sure of, though I think also H. Morris), of course they're biased, but at least they admit it whereas "evolutionists" are just as biased but don't admit it. You're just repeating that recurring creationist rant, so let's take a look at it.

There is an element of truth that the scientific world-view does come into play. We have been stressing that scientific work is based on the evidence. But Kelly and other creationists see us as starting off with certain "assumptions". As Sir Isaac Newton wrote:

quote:
If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants

Scientists don't start at the very beginning in every experiment, but rather build upon what others have done. For one thing, this is what demands the high standards of scholarship in science, because everybody else's work depends on yours so everybody wants to make sure you get it right. That is why shoddy work or perpetrating a hoax is such a career-stopper, unlike the situation in "creation science".

Also, more practically, you don't want to have to start from scratch every time you conduct research. It would be like having to re-derive the Quadratic Formula every single time you want to use it -- well, actually, I have done that, though for fun as well as from being too lazy to go look it up. Or like having to write a C compiler from scratch every time you want to compile a C program.

So this "bias" of scientists, the scientific world-view, is something that has been developed over the centuries. It has been built up from observation and experimentation and tested and verified and improved over and over again by countless scientists. The more fundamental and foundational experiments are studied and repeated by most all science students. The history of each facet of the scientific world-view has been written and studied and the reasoning behind each facet has been studied and is available for anybody to read and examine. The scientific world-view has been built up based on the evidence and through the use of the scientific method. It serves to direct research by giving us an idea of what still needs to be discovered, some idea of what we can expect it to be like and where to look for it. And it does provide us with a starting-point to proceed from as we continue to develop and improve it in accordance with the evidence that we find.

In contrast, the "creation science" world-view is derived not from the evidence, but rather directly from a narrow religious interpretation of a religious text -- and very common one particular version of that text as translated to a non-biblical language. And it remains unresponsive to the evidence, seeking only to use some of the evidence which can be twisted into appearing to support its a priori conclusions and ignoring the rest of the evidence, even to the point of denying that evidence's existence.

To the charge of bias, we find that the "bias" in the scientific world-view is in favor of the evidence, whereas the self-admitted bias of the "creation science" world-view is against the evidence and based solely on religious dogma.

The scientific world-view is indeed scientific. And the "creation science" world-view is the antithesis of science.

Edited by dwise1, : added second-to-last paragraph


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 12:08 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 189 of 207 (502457)
03-11-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:29 PM


Re: Nice arrangement
It doesn't prove a thing, though.

Then how can you say that the fossil record supports creation science if you can not tell from the morphology of a fossil what it's ancestors or descendants looked like?

How can you state that there are NO transitional fossils when you can't even tell us what one would look like?

To me, a transitional fossil must contain incipient developing or transitional structures--such as half-scales,/half-feathers, or half-legs/half-wings..etc. No such fossils are known.

Half legs:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Half wings:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/category/dinosaur-bird-transition/

Upper torso is chimp-like, lower torso is human-like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

A complete series with a half-mammalian and half-reptillian jaw at the half way point:

Link

Need I go on?

Established species are developing so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occuring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.

You are a bit off. The quick transitions are occuring between SPECIES, not larger groups.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:29 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:03 PM Taq has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 190 of 207 (502460)
03-11-2009 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Stile
03-11-2009 12:09 PM


Re: Is it Science?
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.

They could both be wrong also.

Stile writes:

So you are saying these scientist who believe in creation do scientific experiments studying and testing. Just like the real scientist.

You really got this from what I said? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Well yes. But you concluded their experiments were tainted with their world view. I don't know how you could determine that without being a mind reader.

Stile writes:

But on the other hand the scientist that does not believe in creation is immune to his/her world view affecting his/her conclusions.

Where do you get this stuff?
That's not what I said.
I said that "doing science" is when you control and ensure that your world view does not affect your conclusions.

You said in Message 181

Stile writes:

And, yes, creationists do experiments, testing and studying.

But that's where the similarities end.

Creationists then add in the additional information from their world view to skew their findings into a particular conclusion.

Science doesn't do that.

You said they do experiments, testing and studying.

Then you asserted they add in the additional information from their world view which taints their conclusion.

Then you assert science does not do that.

The only man that does not let his world view effect his thinking and findings is a dead man.

In Message 168 you state: "Little Dogs to Big Horses"

How about little horses to BIG horses as in my avatar?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Stile, posted 03-11-2009 12:09 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-11-2009 4:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 6:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Kelly
Member (Idle past 3357 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 191 of 207 (502462)
03-11-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by AdminModulous
03-11-2009 1:59 PM


Two things...
I added AIG credit to the end of my post. So I don't believe there was any copyright infringement. I creditied Answers in Genesis for the article. The only reason I didn't link you directly was because this article was copy and pasted in my folder and I didn't feel like searching it out. I thought writing AIG was fine.

The second thing is that you found the wrong link.

Here it is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/horse.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2009 1:59 PM AdminModulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2009 5:07 PM Kelly has responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 358
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 192 of 207 (502464)
03-11-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ICANT
03-11-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Is it Science?
You said they do experiments, testing and studying.

Then you asserted they add in the additional information from their world view which taints their conclusion.

As evidenced by Morris' statement posted earlier. Repost for the forgetfull:

It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day"

Could that be more clear?

The only man that does not let his world view effect his thinking and findings is a dead man.

Precisely why peer review is essential. And why CS avoids it like herpes.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 4:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3357 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 193 of 207 (502466)
03-11-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Taq
03-11-2009 4:25 PM


No need to go on..
All I had to do was check on one: Australopithecus afarensis, remembering that from some time ago and also knowing that at best, you have an ape.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/selam-from-ethiopia

And the walking fish:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

This is the problem, because we can play volley ball about all these claims back and forth. But all I really wanted to acheive was a better understanding of just what creation science is. I think I have done that because of the eagerness by all here to debate or debunk creationist findings. In fact, I sense a huge level of intolerance and anger over it. That's not very spirited in the way that would encourage anyone to want to engage any of you.

Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 4:25 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2009 5:18 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 5:30 PM Kelly has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 194 of 207 (502470)
03-11-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Kelly
03-11-2009 4:41 PM


Re: Two things...
Unless you have the permission of the author or whoever the copyright holder happens to be, which presumably both AiG and Christian Answers do have, reproducing the copyrighted work of somebody else is a copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if you tell us whose copyright you were infringing upon when you do it. Here is AiG's written policy:

quote:
Since we are constantly updating the articles on the website, we request that any reference to website published articles include no more than the first paragraph, and must include the ministry’s name and a link to our website, preferably to the actual article. Copying entire articles (other than the first paragraph) or materials to other websites is strictly prohibited; however, we encourage links to the article from your website.

Emphasis in original.

For completeness, the original article is Creation magazine Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 14–16, Peter Hastie reproduced with permission at Aig and Christian Answers etc etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 4:41 PM Kelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:21 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 2372
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 195 of 207 (502472)
03-11-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Kelly
03-11-2009 5:03 PM


Re: No need to go on..
quote:
All I had to do was check on one: Australopithecus afarensis,

I'm sorry Kelly, but that is most ridiculous thing you have said yet. You only need discredit A. Aferensis and then you will have proved that there are no transitional fossils? Is that really what you are saying? I am amazed.

Even if we accept your view that aferensis is only an ape (and by the way, humans are only apes), that still leaves every other proposed transitional fossil for you to debunk. Even if aferensis is not a transitional, Tiktaalik still might be. Do you see where I'm coming from?

To claim that no transitional fossil has been found requires that you address every fossil. It's an unenviable task, but I'm afraid that debunking one fossil just doesn't cut it.

Besides, you're wrong. A. Aferensis is a transitional fossil. A simple comparison of its cranial capacity compared to that of earlier apes and then to humankind should demonstrate this, along with its appearance at exactly the point in the fossil record where we would expect to see a transitional hominid. Remember, that the existence of hominids was not known to Darwin. They were predicted by evolutionary theory and they were subsequently found. To my mind, that is extremely powerful evidence in favour of evolution.

I note that you link to an AiG page. Isn't that the same AiG that you described thus "AIG is not a Creation Science study..it is a biblical creation organization"?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:03 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018