Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 36 of 102 (27260)
12-18-2002 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DanskerMan
12-18-2002 2:38 PM


Sonnikke,
quote:
If you're looking for "new organism being designed, formed, and plopped", then look to the fossil record, 140+/- years of documented fully formed distinct creatures extracted from the earth, validating the record of the process you mentioned.
Please tell me how the fossil record fits your version of creation.
If you are going to bring the flood into it, when did it end? The K-T boundary? If not, at what rough geological time (equivalent) did the flood deposits cease to be laid down?
quote:
We can infer design simply by common logic based on thousands of design cases in every day life,
Logical fallacy: Argument From Spurious Similarity.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/...ptic/arguments.html#similarity
quote:
and if you really want, we can back it up by archaeologically verified ancient documents describing the creation event by an intelligent Designer.
What's an "archaeologically verified" document? Do we know the alleged authors had actual knowledge of what they wrote? Do we even know who they were?
What creation event did you have in mind that has "archaeologically verified" documents?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DanskerMan, posted 12-18-2002 2:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 102 (27542)
12-20-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by peter borger
12-20-2002 5:45 PM


quote:
PB: Here Dr Page demonstrates again that he is unable to discuss scientifically on the topic of evolutionism.
Well, I'm not anyone else could, either, since know one but you knows what "evolutionism" is.
quote:
PB: How can one be wrong while we don't know what truth is? It were my INTERPRETATIONS and they are as good as yours.
...but then repeating the same falsehoods over and over without ever substantiating the claims.
So how can you not be wrong, but tell SLPx he is repeating falsehoods? Surely they are his interpretations, non?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 5:45 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:50 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 63 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 10:03 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 61 of 102 (27548)
12-20-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by peter borger
12-20-2002 8:50 PM


and the latter part of my last post, Peter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by peter borger, posted 12-20-2002 8:50 PM peter borger has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 80 of 102 (27730)
12-23-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by DanskerMan
12-23-2002 11:30 AM


Sonnike,
quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
That is just a bit too conveeeeeeeeeeenient. Try this, the fossil record IS complete enough that there should easily be loads of fossils ranging from, say, 100% reptile, to 95% reptile 5% bird, 90% reptile 10% bird, etc. until we reach 100% bird 0% reptile.
Really, & how did you quantify that?
quote:
2ndly, if we start discussing fossilization, everybody agrees that it does not happen with the processes we currently have (ie. 2.4" sedimentation a year). It requires rapid burial away from destructive agents, which very much lends evidence to a global flood.
Then everything should be buried & fossilised as if a global flood happened, shouldn’t it? Why hasn’t it, then? Why are there transitional fossils at all? Why are there transitional sequences found in ascending order? How could that happen in a flood?
Why do you interpret local catastrophe as global, when the same aged rocks elsewhere don't show the same evidence of "catastrophe"?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by DanskerMan, posted 12-23-2002 11:30 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 82 of 102 (27735)
12-23-2002 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by joz
12-23-2002 11:45 AM


Joz,
Quick correction, the dinosaurs were reptiles.
Series Amniota, Class Reptilia, Subdivision Ornithodira, Superorder Dinosauria.
It would be more accurate to say that the birds appear to have evolved from therapod dinosaurs, since Archaeopteryx (among others) share many synapomorhies (shared derived traits) with birds & dinosaurs. And before any creationist wants to jump in with Protoavis as a rebuttle, it shared NO synapomorphies with dinosaurs, is known from an incomplete skeleton (sans feathers) that many palaeontologists believe represents two different organisms anyway, one of which is a crocodiomorph type archosaur.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 11:45 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by shilohproject, posted 12-26-2002 8:21 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 90 of 102 (27948)
12-26-2002 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by shilohproject
12-26-2002 8:21 PM


Shiloh,
quote:
It is interesting to consider that, among noted paleontologists, there is some discussion as to the possibility that dinosaurs were warm blooded. If so, we will need to rethink our definitions of their classification.
Why can't their be endotherm members of the reptilian class?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by shilohproject, posted 12-26-2002 8:21 PM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2002 9:41 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 95 by shilohproject, posted 12-27-2002 2:53 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 92 of 102 (27973)
12-27-2002 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coragyps
12-27-2002 9:41 AM


Coragyps,
quote:
As I understand it, the newer classifications with a cladistic leaning don't view Reptilia as a valid classification anyway. Crocodiles and pigeons are apparently more closely related than either is to cobras, and we mammals share a common ancestor with all three of them.
Correct, but we have to classify them as something. But we're digressing, since crocodiles, snakes & lizards wouldn't be reptiles either, not just the dinosaurs. I've never been convinced about not being able to name paraphyletic groups. Why can't we call them the paraphyletic class Reptilia? It happens elsewhere, after all.
Here's a related question, are mammals amniotes? Or is the amniote group paraphyletic?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2002 9:41 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2002 11:53 AM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 96 of 102 (27989)
12-27-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Coragyps
12-27-2002 11:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
Amniotes, along with modern amphibians, may all be descended from Acanthostega or some similar beast. I don't think that the fossil record is quite complete or detailed enough as yet to say with any authority whether amniotes proper arose once or twice. I'm currently reading Gaining Ground by Jennifer Clack, and that seems to me what she is implying - and she's one of the heavy hitters in the Devonian/Carboniferous paleo game.
Gaining Ground is sitting on my bookshelf, once Vertebrate Palaeontololy (Benton) is finished, Clacks book is next on my list. It looks pretty exhaustive stuff!
Regardless, that's precisely my meaning, if mammals aren't amniotes, then amniotes don't exist because it is a paraphyletic group, just like reptiles, right? Do you see what I mean? Benton takes care to describe groups as monophyletic or paraphyletic, so I don't see why any cladistician should be offended if we accept that the reptile clade is paraphyletic. What should we call reptiles before birds & mammals diverged, if not reptiles? It seems a silly rule to slavishly follow to refuse to categorise post-bird-divergence reptiles the same as pre-mammal-divergence reptiles. Surely the point of classification is to identify synapomorphies, & group organisms into a nested hierarchy using those traits? If reptiles & basal amniotes possess the same traits, then surely they should be classified similarly, though as I have said, the group should be accepted as being paraphyletic.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2002 11:53 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 99 of 102 (28413)
01-04-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coragyps
01-04-2003 6:22 PM


Coragyps,
quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
Kingdom, Phylum, ??, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
?? = Subphylum?
quote:
How about Many Volcanoes Erupt Moldy Jam Sandwiches, Usually Not Palatable?
I give up!
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coragyps, posted 01-04-2003 6:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 7:46 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 102 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 7:51 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 101 of 102 (28417)
01-04-2003 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by shilohproject
01-04-2003 7:46 PM


Oh yeah, I hate it when I miss the obvious!
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by shilohproject, posted 01-04-2003 7:46 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024