|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I've looked back at the initial message in this topic, and it struck me as being two rather vague topics, made into one topic.
Has this topic run its course, and wandered off into somewhere else? Time to close it? Adminnemooseus ps. I was thinking of a contest we could have. Compile a listing of all the topics of 100 messages or greater. Then everyone makes their attempt at determining at what point the discussion went off topic (of course, this could be a grey area situation, but all the better for the arguement). ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Admoose,
quote: No. The topic has basically remained on topic, maybe not the CE, but the fossil intermediate issue is still being discussed, well, I'm trying, anyway. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear mark,
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP: Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE. PB: Since you agree not with my definition why don't you define it yourself. O, you already did that? An organism halfway becoming another organism? Who is going to judge that it is halfway? You? Or me? Evo's or creo's? That's the question. It all depends on the paradigm.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody. PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it. MP: If you want to see what it was, track back through this thread, I'm not doing the work for you. PB: according to you a transitionform is an organism that is halfway becoming another organism, if I recall properly? MP: Now, for the 8th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE. We both know you won't, because that would be an admission that the ToE's predictions are borne out in the fossil record, & that can't be allowed, can it? PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination. MP: You'd get caned if you actually defined it. This is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty: sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, & going "lalalalala". PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that. MP: The longer you hold out, the more ridiculous, evasive, & dishonest you look. In all honesty, Peter, this is the only reason I continually ask you to commit yourself, it makes you look sillier, & sillier.Not that most posters here need convincing, but the lurkers have seen your evasion, they've seen your fallacious definition, & they've seen your equivocation. What will they think when you try to force GUToB down their throats at a later date? Not much, I'll warrant, they know how you operate. PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions. I remember a 'mind control' series called "A beautiful accident" and a lot of leading scientist were involved, including Gould, Freeman, a leading neuroscientsist, a leading physicist. And everyone was eagerly awaiting the debate between these 'wise' men. To provide an answer to what everybody wants to know: the origin. Then they started to discuss definitions. For two hours. Nothing was contributed, the answers not provided. There probably are no answers. So, make up your own definitions and provide your own answers. You will never be disappointed. And I don't mind. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, it's fairly easy. I use what I now about my field and see what makes sense from elsewhere.
quote: Well, I was trying to make it easy for you. I just asked for evidence, not prooof. That was in order to overcome your reluctance to answer. I didn't say that I'd accept what you gave us. Why do you read so much into what I say and yet complain that evolutionists are simply connecting dots without evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion. But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well...
[quote]PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.[quote]
As opposed to whom? And is that a problem? What do you think the role of imagination is in science?
quote: Hmmmmmm, I guess I missed something. It seems to me that you have utterly failed on this thread.
quote: Agreed, as TB and TC have shown, they continually redefine scientific terms. That's why we keep trying to nail you down.
quote: Yeah, well I suppose we're used to people making up definitions as they go. Should be easy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Hi Edge,
Still around? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody. PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edge: Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion. PB: I said, I will have a look. It doesn't say I will give an opinion. Edge: But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well... PB: No, you don't get it. If I would agree with a definition from an evolutionary stance I would agree with evolutionism and I would deny my own paradigm. Since the two paradigms are not compatible, we live in a different worlds. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Borger, you are being disingenuous. You have tiptoed around the issue of transitional fossils for too long.
If you expect to have you gutob to be tanek as a serious alternative to the theory of evolution then it has to be compatible with the fossil record. A significant feature of the fossil record is the presence of transitional forms. Your gutob needs to explain them. Further dithering would adversely affect your credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear WJ,
WJ: If you expect to have you gutob to be tanek as a serious alternative to the theory of evolution then it has to be compatible with the fossil record. A significant feature of the fossil record is the presence of transitional forms. Your gutob needs to explain them. PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB. best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: Ambulocetus natans
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
hi WJ,
Are you serious? I asked for a TF and you present me an ancient otter. Best wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
A 12 ft otter!! LOL.
Do you have a serious response?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Do you have a serious example?
This another MPG. Best Wishes,Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Ungulate or cetacean mpg? Or are you going to be evasive again and refer to an mpg for each kind?
BTW, if all vertebrates are from the one mpg, why don't we see transitions between dogs and cats?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Let's see now ... you won't say what you think an evolutionarytransitional fossil would be in case we think you believe in evolutionism??? The question asked is:: 'If evolution is an accurate description of the emergence ofdiversity of life, then we should expect to find some transitional forms in the fossil record. What would one expect to find in a fossil that would indicate that it might be a transitional fossil in an evolutionary sense?' This does not require you to accept the evolutionary paradigm,but to explore it. That, afterall, is the guts of scientific enquiry ... propose an idea, make predictions about what should be found if the proposition is correct, see if the evidence matches the predictions. If you will not accept 'our' definition of what an evolutionarytransitional fossil would look like, supply one yourself. If you do accept 'our' definition of the above, show us why theevidence does not match. List for us the predictions for fossil evidence that your paradigmhas, then show us whether there is data to affirm the predictions. (Got me formatting wrong so edited ) [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Peter,
quote: You don't. A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of character between two taxa. Now, for the 9th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE.
quote: And of course you honestly compared it to what expectation, exactly? Your honest comparison between the fossils themselves & what is actually predicted by the ToE? I think not. Peter, your words are empty.
quote: No, it's "lalalalalalalala". You aren't even prepared to look at the ToE's prediction, if you did, then you might go "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm".
quote: In order to have a discussion, the terms must be defined. Why do you think this practice is useless? How can you possibly have a discussion when the point of disagreement is undefined? How do you know you are even in disagreement, for chrissakes? You appear to have decided in advance of knowing what the ToE predicts. The discussion that is so "useless" hasn't yet begun, I appear to be the only one prepared to define terms so that the discussion can take place at all. More equivocation. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024