|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Please read the Rules
quote: We don't play link 'volley ball' here. We debate. All members share responsibility over the quality of debate here at EvC. This thread is going sharply downhill. If your post doesn't improve the quality of discussion, consider that it might be contributing to its downfall and make the revolutionary decision to not post it. Do not respond to this post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5523 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I wasn't aware of all these technicalities. I am so glad that you took the time to investigate this for me
I have been copying and pasting excerpts from AIG--usually linking them, but not always directly, for many many years. I never thought of it as anything wrong since I am not actually publishing anything or taking credit for anything or making any money, Sheesh. Now that we have straightened all this out, I wonder if anyone will seriously consider the content of the article? Probably not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jester4kicks Junior Member (Idle past 5523 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
Now that we have straightened all this out, I wonder if anyone will seriously consider the content of the article? Probably not.
How about getting back to the other side of this discussion?
Message 179 Edited by AdminModulous, : edited long url down to dBcode
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. As it says in the movie "Happy Gilmore", it's all in the hips. The pelvis of A. afarensis is very much like that of a modern human. No other non-human ape has hips like that seen in A. afarensis. A. afarensis was a bipedal ape, just like us. That makes A. afarensis transitional.
And the walking fish:
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
| Answers in Genesis
Nowhere do they refute the transitional nature of Tiktaalik. They think by calling Tiktaalik a "fish" they have somehow made a point. They haven't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I have been copying and pasting excerpts from AIG So let me get this straight. You claim that creation science has nothing to do with the bible. This seems to be contradicted by the fact that you link to stuff written by Answers in Genesis.
Now that we have straightened all this out, I wonder if anyone will seriously consider the content of the article? Probably not.
Can you please quote for us where they describe what a real transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods would look like? Their entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that because Tiktaalik does not have limbs exactly like those of tetrapods that it is not a transitional fossil. But isn't that what you would expect from a transitional fossil, a morphology that is not completely like that of a tetrapod and not completely like that of a lobe finned fish? Surely even you can see through this double talk. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. Because they insert mechanisms that are based on their religious beliefs but not on any evidence. They also ignore evidence which conflicts with their religious convictions, such as the presence of xenoliths in the Mt. St. Helens dacites. When they try to explain the nested hierarchy produced by a comparison of ERV's they claim that the pattern is due to God putting them there, an obvious injection of their world view. We don't have to be mind readers. It's right there in the print.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grandfather raven Junior Member (Idle past 5473 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: |
They think by calling Tiktaalik a "fish" they have somehow made a point. They haven't. and THAT is Creation Science in a nutshell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5523 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4744 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
San Dimas High School Football Rules! Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. If we stripped away these supposed worldviews, what criteria would we use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? specifically, what features would a real transitional between humans and a hypothetical commmon ancestor with chimps have? From the creationist approach, what features would link the human "kind" to the chimp "kind"?
Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation. Please explain how the theory of evolution is a religious faith. Is it by faith alone that orthologous ERV's fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution? Is it by faith alone that fish fossils with legs appear in the fossil record? Is it by faith alone that bacteria produce mutations that confer antbiotic resistance and phage resistance? Is it by faith alone that rabbits are not found in Cambrian strata? Is it by faith alone that bats do not have feathers, birds do not have three middle ear bones, and fish do not have teats? What you seem to ignore is that the theory of evolution makes very specific predictions that can be tested independently of world view or faith. Your challenge is to list for us creation science hypotheses that can be tested in the same fashion. You have yet to do so. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Is that it?
quote: Three sentences? Even with a fifteen-minute post limit, you're really happy to post so little? Just three sentences, consisting of nothing more than buzzwords? You have brought us two arguments that have already been refuted. You have ignored the refutations and merely repeated the arguments. Do you really think that this is going to convince anybody? You accuse us of being closed-minded, but when you are willing to put so little into your arguments, why should anyone be convinced? Your contribution here has been equivalent to merely repeating "But creation science is real science" over and over again. Do you imagine that we haven't heard this kind of crap before? As long as you are going to keep repeating refuted arguments and discredited creationist slogans in trite one or two paragraph messages, you are wasting your time here. Why not try arguing with evidence? Why not take the AiG Tiktaalik article and rephrase its arguments in your own words for example? Why not? Because you can't be bothered. That is astonishingly lazy, especially given that, if your world-view is correct, our immortal souls might depend upon our being brought around to your way of thinking. For God's sake, make an effort! Present something we can get our teeth into, not just bare links and the mindless repetition of creationist mantras. [/rant] Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : "You're" vs "your". "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Is It Science? forum. We're now in the Free For All Forum.
Moderation has been turned to low gear. If anyone thinks they get something productive out of this thread have at it. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
lyx2no and Kelly have been suspended for 24 hours. I promised that Message 196. I'm a man of my word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation. Nonsense! A creationist even tried that in federal court and got his case thrown out as be frivolous: John E. PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994. Excerpts from the court decision, No webpage found at provided URL: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html:
quote: I only posted excerpts pertaining to the claim that evolution is a religion. He was also suing over being reprimanded for proselytizing to students. This was a local case, so I had the opportunity to hear Peloza speak. It sounded like everything he knew about biology he had learned from the ICR, practically word-for-word (somewhat like you, Kelly). Ironically, he got reassigned to teach PE. Ironic, because that was his field to begin with. His bachelor's was in PE and his MS Education with his thesis having been on coaching softball. According to fellow teachers, he had taken the bare minimum biology classes require to graduate. While teaching on Catalina Island, he got the biology class; I guess that they didn't have anyone qualified so they filled the position with him, a common enough occurance in small communities. When he transfered to San Juan Capistrano, I guess he had used his experience to get a position there teaching biology. So the final outcome was that he was finally in the position that he had been trained for. So, Kelly, if you still want to claim that evolution is a religion, then you will need to support your claim. Not that we can expect you to, since you have also refused to support your claim that "creation science" is science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
Since we're now in Free For All, I'm comfortable sinking to Kelly's level:
(insert everything Kelly has said thus far) Nuh uh! QED. On a more serious (though perhaps less satisfying) note, Kelly has failed utterly to support even in the slightest that Creation Science follows the Scientific Method, and has in fact been shown repeatedly by multiple people exactly how Creation Science methodologies are different from the Scientific Method. Creation Science is Christian apologetics. Nothing more. It is a lame attempt at justifying irrational beliefs in the face of objective evidence contradicting those beliefs by wrapping them in sciency-sounding terms and experiments. It is, in all honesty, the result of massive cognitive dissonance on the part of the true believers, and an unfortunately effective con job for the rest. Most people, people like Kelly, do not have the knowledge of actual science, nor the critical thinking skills (and willingness to apply those skills to one's own position) required to differentiate between science and apologetics. Because Creation Science engages in experiments like Percy's carbon dating example, the average individual assumes that these people are actual scientists and that their conclusions are valid. They trust the Creation Scientists because they, too, want scientific validation for their faith-based beliefs. Unfortunately, being able to con the irrational masses has no bearing on objective reality. Evolution still happens. The Theory of Evolution remains one of the most successful and accurate models in all of science, with more supporting evidence backing it than the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, or a slew of others. Human beings remain an ape, related to other extant apes through an ancient common ancestor. Transitional fossils abound, and are accepted by the vast majority of scientists, having passed through rigorous testing and the peer review process; through this process, frauds and sloppy conclusions are brought to light and discarded, while strong evidence supporting logically sound conclusions are vindicated. Kelly remains woefully ignorant of not only evolution and the processes and evidence it entails, but of science as a whole and even of basic logic. She seems incapable or unwilling to participate in debate and rationally examine her own claims or even participate in a two-sided conversation, preferring instead to talk at everyone else and parrot the same, tires PRATTs over and over and over again. Kelly, you're wrong. You're too ignorant of the subject matter to even compose an argument entirely in your own words, preferring instead to cut-and-paste from other sources when you think a relevant point is addressed. You literally lack sufficient competency in the fields of science and logic to be able to comprehend why your conclusions and even your very approach are wrong. You're debating with a group of people comprised not only of laypersons who debate these subjects as a hobby like myself (and have done so for far longer than you have), but also of college professors, biologists, physicists, and other honest-to-goodness scientists who know and comprehend this subject matter better than you ever will because they have devoted their profession lives to the study of objective evidence and the pursuit of ever-increasing accuracy through the scientific method. For you to support your barely-coherent assertions with only a few sentences and a total disregard for those who do know betteris shameful. Learn a little humility, Kelly. Concede that your position may in fact be incorrect, stop repeating already-refuted points, and you may actually be able to learn something here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024