Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 106 of 304 (419851)
09-05-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iceage
09-04-2007 2:10 AM


Re: A dino in the grass....
Vashgun please don't embarrass yourself this way.
Same to you, your story is corroborated by no one. Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.
http://www.mokelembembe.com/
http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iceage, posted 09-04-2007 2:10 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 12:48 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 114 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 2:00 PM Ihategod has not replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 107 of 304 (419857)
09-05-2007 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
09-04-2007 2:39 AM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
So here you feel free to proclaim that an entire field of science - and one which you don't understand - is wrong. Geologists don't use strict uniformitarianism and haven't for some time. The only place you are likely to find it now is in YEC arguments for a young Earth.
Biology doesn't need any "drastic environmental changes" that are rejected by geologists - in fact geology is a major source of evidence for the nature of the environment. ANd there are no plausible major environmental changes that could even theoretically disrupt radiometric dating. The only contradiction is in your imagination.
Appeal to authority and popularity, don't make me give another example. I Would very much like to see links backing up your views instead of wild assertions.
Behe's argument relies on a simplistic model of evolution. Mueller, using a more realistic model predicted that evolution would produce irreducible complexity, decades before Behe wrote his book. There's at least one experiment where a two-part system has evolved in the laboratory and a theoretical studiy using a computer model (AVIDA) has also demonstrated the evolution of irreducible complexity.
What like PE? Produce irriducible complexity? Provide some links so I can entertain myself. All you seem to gots is wild assertations.
Polystrate fossils - those that actually exist - are adequately explained by geology.
Ok, sure. Links.
Every out-of-place artifact I know of has a questionable provenance - there is no reliable record of where they were found. One "the Coso artifact" turned out to be the remains of a spark plug - it was even possible to identify the manufacturer.
http://s8int.com/index.html
http://byerly.org/whatifo.htm
Angular unconformities are evidence for an old Earth.
Under the model of relative geology, of which I currently debate.
There are no confirmed human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints.
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
Human and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan? | Answers in Genesis
If some dinosaurs (other than birds) had managed to survive the KT extinction and live on to modern times it would have no signfiicant effect on evolutionary theory at all.
Honestly? Explain how it would not.
There are many transitional fossils and that article is nowhere near exhaustive. And it DOES list several examples of invertebrate transitions. DId you read it at all ?
Yes, and it was reminiscent of a movie by F. Gary Gray.
The first article is a pack of nonsense. I really wish that more creationists would pay attention to Dembski's saner utterances. At least he has some idea of how to frame a probability argument. The probability argument - which I assume is the one you refer to - assumes a single attempt with a single successful outcome, accomplished by pure random combination. As such it is simply a strawman.
The second article has the same flaws.
Avoiding the topic? Or assuming that I am as knowledgable as you seem to think you are? This assumption has been proven wrong at the EvC many times, just click on my name and follow the topics.
The talkorigins article is hardly an apologetic. The section you quote points out that order to disorder does occur naturally without an intelligent agent or information "embedded" in nature.
Hardly unbiased information. Please prove me wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 09-04-2007 2:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2007 3:21 AM Ihategod has replied
 Message 109 by Vacate, posted 09-05-2007 11:01 AM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 12:39 PM Ihategod has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 304 (419867)
09-05-2007 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:31 AM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
quote:
Appeal to authority and popularity, don't make me give another example. I Would very much like to see links backing up your views instead of wild assertions.
While an appeal to authority is not strictly a valid logical argument it is certainly a rational argument where the authorities are appropriate. In this case we are talking about an entire scientific field. The only "wild assertion" seems to be your assertion that geology and evolutionary biology require differing conditions - something you haven't offered any support for at all.
quote:
What like PE? Produce irriducible complexity? Provide some links so I can entertain myself. All you seem to gots is wild assertations.
PE is about modes of speciation, based on Mayr's work. And it was published well after Muller's work. IF you understood PE you wouldn't even mention it.
Muller's 1918 Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors is online and free.
This section is relevant:
thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong
any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system
(emphasis in original p464
His 1939 Nature article "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." is available on line, but must be purchased.
quote:
Ok, sure. Links.
You mean like the links you used to show that there were polystrate fossils ? Oh, right. You didn't have any.
But try this which deals with a 19th century explanation that still holds up.
quote:
http://s8int.com/index.html
http://byerly.org/whatifo.htm
The second link proves my point about provenance.
The "chain in coal" simply states that a local newspaper reported the "find".
For the crystal skull it states
Evidently the story of the skull's discovery is a fabrication
And do read the comments.
quote:
Under the model of relative geology, of which I currently debate.
But you've yet to offer even a good reason to think that angular unconformities could form in a YEC scenario, let alone that they are evidence for a young Earth.
quote:
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
Human and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan? | Answers in Genesis
Like I said. Here are no confirmed examples. All we have is the opinion of a few people all of whom happen to be YECs - and some of them pushing obvious fakes like the "Burdick track"
quote:
Honestly? Explain how it would not.
How WOULD the discovery of living dinosaurs affect evolutionary theory ? It might let us fill in some details about dinosaur evolution because we can get more information from living specimens then we can from fossils, but that's about it. The reason the dinosaurs are belived to have died out isn't because evolutionary theory said so - it's because the physical evidence for living dinosaurs stops 65 million years ago. The extinction is a fact to be explained, not a theoretical prediction.
quote:
Yes, and it was reminiscent of a movie by F. Gary Gray.
Want to explain why you didn't notice all the examples of invertebrate transitions ?
In fact lets be honest. You didn't read it at all. You just assumed that it was Kathleen Hunt's FAQ on vertebrate transitionals, didn't you ?
quote:
Avoiding the topic? Or assuming that I am as knowledgable as you seem to think you are? This assumption has been proven wrong at the EvC many times, just click on my name and follow the topics.
I'm certainly not assuming that you are as knowledgable as I am. But it seems you aren't even knowledgable enough to follow my point.
So, you claim was that mathematics was evidence against evolution. Your claim was false.
Firstly an argument that incorporates a mathematical calculation does not mean that mathematics supports the claim. To take an extreme example, if I said 2 + 2 = 4 therefore the speed of light in vacuo id 4 metres per second I could not claim that mathematics supported my claim even though the mathematics is completely accurate.
SImilarly the probability calculations only validly argue against the scenarios that they assume. Since these are not the scenarios proposed by scientists working in abiogenesis or evolution all they have done is disprove something that nobody believes.
The calculations are not valid arguments against evolution or abiogenesis even if they are accurate because they do not address the real issues involved.
quote:
Hardly unbiased information. Please prove me wrong.
Since my only points concerned what the article said (and its nature) I don't see any need to provide further evidence. If you won't even believe that it says what it says then there isn't anything to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:31 AM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM PaulK has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 109 of 304 (419892)
09-05-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:31 AM


Of course it will entertain....
Vashgun writes:
http://s8int.com/index.html
I actually spent a fair amount of time on this site. It was e-mailed to me by a family member and though he took it serious - I did manage spray coke on my monitor laughing too hard.
Here is a good one regarding the Oklo reactor:
quote:
This particular group of reactors was, incredibly moderated using --water.
and another:
quote:
There are at least six zones of depleted uranium (usually means mined)with plutonium as a by product! You've got to really be trying to manufacture plutonium--its a complicated process.
-Ooparts: Evidence of Ancient Atomic Knowledge?
I am certainly not an expert at nuclear reactions, but the author of this site is just feeding junk to the gullible. "complicated process" - That is what happens to U238, it becomes plutonium239.
Has it not become evidenced, based on your posts here, that it would be a good idea to start checking your sources? This site is full of bad information and questionable "out of place objects", its a fun read though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:31 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 11:46 AM Vacate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 304 (419898)
09-05-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Vacate
09-05-2007 11:01 AM


Oklo Natural Reactors (slightly OT)
That is what happens to U238, it becomes plutonium239.
When it is in sufficient concentration. Most U238 does not and did not meet this criteria, except in this one location that we know of. Existence of ancient natural reactors was predicted if the required conditions were met, such as occurred at Oklo.
See http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/
quote:
This is one of the most fascinating stories in the relatively short history of Science and especially in the even shorter history of Nuclear Physics.
In 1972 the very well preserved remains of several ancient natural nuclear reactors were discovered in the middle of the Oklo Uranium ore deposit.
Since their discovery the Oklo reactors have been studied by many scientists around the world who have uncovered the answers to the following questions.
* Where are the Oklo reactors located?
* When did the nuclear reactions occur?
* What caused the nuclear reactions to start?
* Why are these reactors worth studying?
* Who discovered the reactors
* How were the reactors discovered?
At this site you can explore the answers to these and many other questions about the Oklo natural fossil reactors and investigate many other things about nuclear fission.
Note last time I visited some of the links were being revised, so you may get link errors. There are multiple paths to the various pages though (the side bar copies them) so you can work around this problem.
Note that the existence of these reactors is just another piece of evidence against a young earth (including any fantasy that reaction\decay rates changed magically at some time in the past).
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Vacate, posted 09-05-2007 11:01 AM Vacate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 304 (419911)
09-05-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:31 AM


Galloping Off
But this is just a Gish Gallop.
The question raised by the OP is --- how come you're right about these things, having never studied them, whereas all the people who have studied the various fields involved are all wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:31 AM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 304 (419912)
09-05-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:11 AM


Re: A dino in the grass....
Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.
Accepted by you as a fact, but not by actual naturalists who have actually been to Africa, and who would be thrilled to make the discovery of the century.
So, again, how is it that you can "accept" this "fact" from your desk, while they can't accept it having seen the supposed habitat of Mokele Mbembe?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:11 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by arachnophilia, posted 09-05-2007 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 113 of 304 (419917)
09-05-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2007 12:48 PM


Re: A dino in the grass....
Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.
Accepted by you as a fact, but not by actual naturalists who have actually been to Africa, and who would be thrilled to make the discovery of the century.
oh, how i would love for mokele mbembe to be real. probably more than these lake monsters. mokele mbembe has been the one idea that REALLY intrigues me. a large sauropod species alive and well in the congo? how freaking cool would that be?
every few years, someone pops up and cites the lake tele sauropod. and i go madly hunting for evidence. sadly, i can not find nearly as much about mokele as i can about nessie. and nessie is more popular -- i can almost promise you that i've seen every nessie picture in existence. mokele... it harder. the congo isn't really a tourist destination. i'm not even sure any serious pictures claiming to be of mokele mbembe exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 12:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 114 of 304 (419920)
09-05-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 2:11 AM


Re: A dino in the grass....
vashgun writes:
your story is corroborated by no one
err what story. I don't have a story.
Vashgun writes:
Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.
Need I remind you that the evidence is on par with leprechauns and fairies and unicorns?
Why would you believe in things with absolutely no physical evidence or evidence that is obviously tampered or contrived.
Some people sadly are motivated to perpetuate lies and falsehoods for some form of internal gain. I just don't understand it.
The website you provided is absolutely stupid and designed to snare the unwary and undiscerning.
Do you really believe that an animal of this size could go unnoticed for this long?
Think critically about this for a minute and estimate the tonnage of food that such animal would require each day. Think about about the range required to support a group of these animals. Think about the large number of dino tracks that would be made around a water holes that would have to go undetected. Think why no one has ever presented the remains of such an animal - a single fresh bone would be more valuable then ivory. Think about why this animal this size never finds itself in within the frame of a camera lens. Think about why the sources promoting are obviously trying to misinform...
For example, on your referenced site they display this image without any legend or caption.
It is obviously a picture of a plastic kids toy dino taken with a backdrop of weeds.
Why would they do that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 2:11 AM Ihategod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 09-06-2007 2:33 AM iceage has not replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 115 of 304 (419935)
09-05-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
09-05-2007 3:21 AM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
You mean like the links you used to show that there were polystrate fossils ? Oh, right. You didn't have any.
But try this which deals with a 19th century explanation that still holds up.
I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas. *If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture.
Also, I think it is important to notice the reason he gives for this.
"...that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions,"
This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this. The fact is that roots will bind and hold together soils. Hostas are extremely good plants for this, also most broadleaf grasses. It could have taken a massive chunk of soil with root ball intact.
This is way off topic, I will propose a polystrate fossil thread to discuss this further.
Mullers response is confusing as it does not address how these machines appeared. He speculates why there will be many vestigual parts, which is and has been proven ignorance on the part of the scientist.
honestly i don't want to spend so much time on off topic topics. i have much more to say but too tired to care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2007 3:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 09-05-2007 4:24 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 4:31 PM Ihategod has replied
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2007 4:57 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 120 by iceage, posted 09-05-2007 5:20 PM Ihategod has not replied
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2007 6:48 PM Ihategod has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 116 of 304 (419939)
09-05-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Polystrate Fossils
Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that?
I do hope that you will start that thread on polystrate fossils. That claim is so pervasive in the creationist literature and at the same time is one of their most poorly documented claims. I do hope that you will cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence.
BTW, in 20 years I have only seen one creationist offer an actual citation for a polystrate fossil claim. That creationist cited Steve Austin of the ICR who in his Catastrophes in Earth History quotes from this article: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
When I looked that article up in the library, I found that Austin had selectively pulled out that quotation out of contex such that (as I try to remember back about 18 years) it mentioned the geological evidence of rapid depositation but ignored the article's explanation that that rapid depositation was due to local flooding and it furthermore explained how geologists tell the difference between rapid and slow depositation.
Edited by dwise1, : changed the title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 117 of 304 (419940)
09-05-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
*If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water.
That was most odd.
No-one maintains that fossils have to be alive when they're buried.
This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this.
Things which are found in situ were evidently not deposited by anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 4:52 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 118 of 304 (419945)
09-05-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Dr Adequate
09-05-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
survive was a poor choice in words. Stand up would have been better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2007 4:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 09-05-2007 6:10 PM Ihategod has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 304 (419947)
09-05-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


"polystyrate trees" and "ghost forests" (slightly OT)
This is way off topic, I will propose a polystrate fossil thread to discuss this further.
Please do. Then I will delete the following and link it to a reply there:
Now at Message 3
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : moved to new thread

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 120 of 304 (419956)
09-05-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Ihategod
09-05-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Of course I will entertain....
We all should be mod-slapped ! But I must make one small point
Vashgun writes:
*If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized?
Vashgun a very common misconception that the Young Earth Creationist attempt to promote is that modern geology disallows rapid deposition. Not at all - it is really a crazy strawman. The flawed thinking is that if they can show examples of rapid deposition this somehow disproves modern geology. Deposition rates can vary from 10's feet an hour to 1/4 inch a decade. Forests can and do get buried upright quickly and sometimes over decades.
This is not proof of a flood and perhaps proof against a flood since upright buried trees are found in a variety of different states ranging from completely fossilized (including agate) to coal to non-fossilized. There are even pictures of a recently uncovered forest in Michigan that was over 10000 years old that was cut with a chainsaw. If all forests were buried at the same time by the same mechanism you would expect they would be found in a similar state.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Ihategod, posted 09-05-2007 3:52 PM Ihategod 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