|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Take RAZD's link and go to 'Origin of Species'. You'll find in the chapter on 'problems with the theory' that Darwin acknowledges the lack of transitional forms. Does he not say it is a serious problem? With me so far? Now follow closely: If ALL forms are transitional, as you folks keep insisting; how could there ever have been any LACK of them? There was a lack of provably intermediate forms. As you well know. As Darwin said: "[A]n infinite number of those fine transitional forms [...] on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life." But producing actual morphological series in the fossil record to confirm this was difficult. If you have any more trouble understanding the bleedin' obvious, please don't hesitate to ask.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
CTD writes: Now follow closely: If ALL forms are transitional, as you folks keep insisting; how could there ever have been any LACK of them? Number of fossil remains available for study in Darwin's time: maybe hundreds. Number of fossil remains available for study today: maybe millions. Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, before most methodological fossil finding efforts. For example, the voluminous dinosaur fossil discoveries of Cope and Marsh mostly postdate Darwin's death. What Darwin had in the fossils available at the time was a very, very sketchy outline of evolutionary history, and so he noted how very easily future fossil discoveries could invalidate his theory. Fortunately for Darwin and his theory, the fossil record we have available to us today strongly supports the evolutionary view. No pre-Cambrian rabbit fossils found, no fossils discovered completely unrelated to any existing fossils. The expectation of scientists is that the universe makes sense, and that therefore the evidence left behind from events is consistent with, and if we're fortunate informative of, those events. If an ancient band of Jews cooked a sheep on a spit over a fire a few thousand years ago, then when archaeologists investigate the site today the expectation is that they'll find sheep bones, not goat bones. If an ancient cat ancestor some millions of years ago became buried in river sediment after a flood, then when paleontologists investigate the site today the expectation is that they'll find a cat ancestor fossil, not a dog ancestor fossil. I know this is obvious, but I explain this because you seem to be missing the point that the evidence for evolution reflects what really happened in earth history. It isn't fictional or made up or contrived by a facetious God. Though huge portions of earth's history are lost forever either because layers have eroded or subducted away or because events left behind no record, there is still a huge amount of earth history left behind for us to study, and study it we do. You seem largely unaware of the enormous body of research from paleontology. Evolution is certainly a legitimate target of criticism, but directing the criticism without knowing what evidence it actually possesses is like firing your gun before you've loaded it. In other words, most of your criticism is irrelevant. As I said before, it looks like you'll first have to learn what science actually says before we can complete the discussion of the Big Bang and abiogenesis. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We've always had a lot of transitional fossils. The "lack" refers to the lack of sufficient fossils to elucidate the processes, timing, and sequenceof forms by which the panoply of life arose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CTD writes: http://< !--UB EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact? -->http://EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact? -->EvC Forum: How is Evolution a fact?< !--UE-->post # 69 from jar includes a quote box with just the term "macroevolution" and responds There is no such theory except in the minds of the Biblical Creationists. If anyone checks, post #69 in that thread is not even from me but rather modulus. That thread has several message from me; Message 6, Message 26, Message 29, Message 32 (the one I think you meant) and Message 49. No where do I have a quote box with just the term macroevolution. Further, in this thread I also address the issue of Fact vs Theory in Message 126. There I address both the differences between FACT and Theory and also explain why Theories must change when new information is found if we are to be honest. So far you have not addressed any of those points. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When creationists argue against the story, if they argue against the version in textbooks (and they must tackle all versions), they use yesterday's language (invariably invented by evolutionists). They're portrayed as either "behind the times" or "liars making up terms 'science' doesn't even use". Why? Why, why, why can't you folks make an honest case? Or would you prefer: Why don't you make an honest case? The thing is - there are many biologists (especially in academia) who aren't happy with one element or another of biology textbooks. Gould was quite outspoken about the way in which textbooks are put together and how difficult it becomes to correct a system that references itself for confirmation. These people successfully argue against the contents of textbooks without also failing to understand the science.
In 'Origin of Species' Darwin uses the term just like one would expect. Yep - like this:
quote: Oh yes. And my favorite mischaracterization of creationist arguments as "straw man" because they're arguing against a version that isn't mainstream. I almost left that out. Anything goes, right? No matter how stinking lame! Strawmen are lame. Stinking lame. It's like Jesus, a blind man with autism who took magic mushrooms and learned the secrets of hypnosis from the great riverwalker, "John" and went on to mesmerise the middle east, and indirectly the western world and how that demonstrates the falsity of Christianity. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3463 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
quote: This misconception is the basis of much creationist "argument".The idea that EVERY "fact" we know will one day be overturned. Long ago,we thought the world was flat, then, we realised it was a sphere, then we found out it was an oblate spheriod. Creationists believe that one day we will find out thr world is NOT really an oblate spheriod, but is actually a CUBE or something else. By believing this sort of nonsense, creationists can therefore pretend that ANY fact they disagree with will one day be shown wrong. This allows them to dismiss ANY fact with an airy wave. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
My experience with creationism is actually more textual than graphic.
I did not find any one creationist saying that the Earth is cube or something against observation. I found the literature important for simply drawing attention to popularization of a rather intricate process. I had studied/compared forms of creatures (reptiles and amphibians) and organized them in my mind but I could not simply become an evolutionist by going to school and trying to become one. Why was that? It has nothing to due with cubic creationism but instead seems to me in hindsight to be simply that evos never tried to complete in a geological horizon the logical horizon of Kant. This can be explained in many ways. As to the origin of life in our univerise, through the time the Earth and Chaos mixed and up to the discuussions of a prior "ice age" with man etc, creationists point to an "External" intellectual reflexion that must be determinatively related to material before it can make sense. When CTD speaks of a complaint about continual revision of theories in science this is small comment. Scientists parochially assert what they are working on out of practical necessity just as any given minister will assert a particular theology. Many theologians can reach some kind of ecumenical sentiment and many scientists DO not keep claims and assertions dogmatic necessarily. Our personal horizons are not the same that of some idealized gestalt average of scientific opinion under (Kant's) architectonic. If an external perspective that is not naturalistic leads one to think that facts otherwise are not as factual as being asserted then one needs to asses plausibility rather than rejection of the horizon altogether. So it seems you have related cubic creationism to rejction of a world-view. This need not occurr. I do know that Will Provine "hides" behind the changing nature of today's theories but he does this because he has another synthesis (so he thinks) that asserts evolution has no purpose. What it means to pretend and what fear one has of retraction are prejudices hard to eliminate from the current debate. Now it may matter exactly what shape the Earth has to subsequent formations from a big bang or equivalent (towards Newton's view (Earth as a point etc)) and particularly to patterns of form-making and translation in space leading and to the topological defintions of cladistics but we do not have enough information to asses this, it seems to me. Consequently... one side sustains a tradition where it says all or nothing and the other fails to produce the content implicit. Too much about nearly nothing for my coarse taste.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Iasion
Creationists believe that one day we will find out thr world is NOT really an oblate spheriod, but is actually a CUBE or something else. I expect I've met my share of creationists. I know I've read more than my fair share of the literature. But I've seen no cube earth claims. Not a single one. I suspect you're taking the word of the local atheists and/or talkdeceptions as an accurate description of creationists. You might try investigating yourself before repeating such. Your choice. My I take a guess: you work as a writer or editor in some media vocation, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Vacate
Nice work, the ghost of poor wording rises up to bite my nose. Did you read further in the thead where I was corrected and then posted my withdawl of the claim and revised my statement? No, I didn't read any further. Time and tolerance limits caught up. Your new wording could stand some improvement, although I would agree if you mean there's no scientific support for macroevolution. It's not as clear as it could be. By one possible interpretation it could seem to say essentially the same thing as before. By now we should all know that evolutionists are behind the term and the 'theories' which seek to make the concept plausible. This is true of several other terms, although it is common practice to pretend otherwise. I hope you shall not be numbered among the practitioners.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
I think anyone can figure out I meant message #32 (of 69). According to the ASVAB, my lowest aptitude was for the clerical field and now we have some supporting evidence for the validity of that conclusion.
jar:
So far you have not addressed any of those points. Not unless one counts anticipating, predicting, and posting a response in advance. I thought I did well, but maybe I'm biased. Would you care to name any 'field of science' other than the ones I mentioned which behaves in the manner I described? Or better still, would you contend that these fields do not behave in this manner? Should be good for some chuckles. Now if you mean I should quibble over more new definitions for terms, you may be disappointed. We've seen who needs new definitions to make their ideas seem to measure up. You want to define 'evolution' and 'fact' in a manner which makes it appear one can truthfully say "Evolution is a fact." What else is new? Knock yourself out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Your new wording could stand some improvement, although I would agree if you mean there's no scientific support for macroevolution. No, I don't mean there is no support for macroevolution. I mean that there is no Theory of Macroevolution, and claims that it exists are simply assertions from ignorance.
It's not as clear as it could be. Your likely right, I try to make my posts as clear as possible.
By one possible interpretation it could seem to say essentially the same thing as before. I don't see how. There is no Theory of Macroevolution so anyone who claims that there is would be wrong. Macroevolution is an observation not a theory.
By now we should all know that evolutionists are behind the term and the 'theories' which seek to make the concept plausible. I should hope so, but its not a 'concept' its an observation.
This is true of several other terms, although it is common practice to pretend otherwise. I am really not sure what you mean. I can't think of any examples.
I hope you shall not be numbered among the practitioners. Totally possible, you make it sound devious however, so I hope for more information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
crashfrog
So, you're saying you'd punch me in the mouth if I offered you a "hamburger"? I mean, I know how much you hate it when words are co-opted with new meanings, right? You couldn't possibly be using a computer, right now, unless you were talking about a person hired to do mathematics - right? And you wouldn't, under any circumstances, be caught dead using something called a "computer network", unless it was to catch fish, right? Oh, well, not to worry. The things I just mentioned don't even exist, right? Because "Redefining terms is not how language evolves." Except, of course, when it is. For the benefit of anyone who might somehow have mistook what I was saying, I'll try to clarify. Language evolves by adding new terms. Language devolves when useful, worthy terms are lost. It is valid to coin new phrases and words when we have something new for them to mean. A mechanical computer computes, as does an electronic or human computer. Now when we take a word and attempt to substitute a new meaning for an old, it leads to confusion. A person hearing the term may only be aware of one meaning when the other is intended. Thus the language is more imperfect and has devolved. When new meanings are intended, some way to distinguish between the old and new should be implemented. This is frequently done by means of context. Many nouns have made the transition to verbs, and vice versa. But in the cases involving evospeak, the new meaning of the term is always used as a direct replacement. Terms are used in exactly the same context as they were before, but new meanings are assigned. I cannot say that's an improvement in the language, or even an honest practice. Now as long as I'm here, I might as well point out that 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are terms a good number of evolutionists dislike (intensely). Why? Since I've seen no valid reason, I think it might be because they are more specific and clear than just plain 'evolution'. And clarity is something they're not very comfortable with. There are exceptions - just look at how many of them continue to use these terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5890 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
I don't see how. There is no Theory of Macroevolution so anyone who claims that there is would be wrong. Macroevolution is an observation not a theory. There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage. One could quibble over capitalization, as this would imply that it's a proper title. (And one could go beyond quibbling over if it be valid to call such things 'theories'.) Vacate:
I should hope so, but its not a 'concept' its an observation. Well, I generally think of things that have been observed when I encounter the term 'observation'. I believe that's in keeping with science. I'll try to remember not to make such bold assumptions when reading anything from you in the future.
Totally possible, you make it sound devious however, so I hope for more information. Taking a term coined by evolutionists, and pretending it is something creationists made up? How could that be devious? How could I even make it sound devious? Surely you jest!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
There are certainly many stories put forth as macroevolutionary theories. Now we reach the meat of the debate. This is the part where you say there are no transitional fossils because we have not seen a half eye or partial leg?
None may be officially entitled 'theory of macroevolution', but the term is still perfectly valid per established English usage. But invalid in the scientific usage of the term theory.
One could quibble over capitalization, as this would imply that it's a proper title. (And one could go beyond quibbling over if it be valid to call such things 'theories'.) One could also quibble that it has not been presented as such in the scientific field. Capitals nor no. Don't fret if its valid to call it a theory, its not called a theory.
Well, I generally think of things that have been observed when I encounter the term 'observation'. I believe that's in keeping with science. Yes, observation is indeed needed to call it an observation. We are circling the transitional fossils arent we?
I'll try to remember not to make such bold assumptions when reading anything from you in the future. Good idea. Take me only for what I say, we could debate my motives on another thread.
Taking a term coined by evolutionists, and pretending it is something creationists made up? The Theory of Macroevolution is a made up term unsupported by evidence or even a decent quote box. I am not pretending the issue doesn't exist, only assuring you that the theory does not exist. Perhaps you could show me where scientists have talked about the Theory of Macroevolution?
How could that be devious? How could I even make it sound devious? Surely you jest! When you said "I hope you shall not be numbered among the practitioners" I did not get the impression that the group you spoke of was highly regarded. A "common practice to pretend" certainly does imply devious intent, as such I would not include myself in such a group. Perhaps you could identify the group in question and show examples of common practices of pretending?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I expect I've met my share of creationists. I know I've read more than my fair share of the literature. But I've seen no cube earth claims. Not a single one. I suspect you're taking the word of the local atheists and/or talkdeceptions as an accurate description of creationists. You might try investigating yourself before repeating such. Your choice. My I take a guess: you work as a writer or editor in some media vocation, right? I think you'll find that that was a parable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024