Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 9:08 PM
23 online now:
dwise1, frako, Tanypteryx (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 29/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   Creation science II
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 196 of 207 (502475)
03-11-2009 5:20 PM


Suspensions will follow this message
Please read the Rules

quote:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

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 3575 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 197 of 207 (502477)
03-11-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by AdminModulous
03-11-2009 5:07 PM


Thanks Modulous
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2009 5:07 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 5:26 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 200 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 6:03 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 198 of 207 (502479)
03-11-2009 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kelly
03-11-2009 5:21 PM


Re: Thanks Modulous
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:21 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 199 of 207 (502482)
03-11-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Kelly
03-11-2009 5:03 PM


Re: No need to go on..
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:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:03 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by grandfather raven, posted 03-11-2009 6:15 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 200 of 207 (502485)
03-11-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kelly
03-11-2009 5:21 PM


Re: Thanks Modulous
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 5:21 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 201 of 207 (502487)
03-11-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by ICANT
03-11-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Is it Science?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 4:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Taq has responded

grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3525 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 202 of 207 (502489)
03-11-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Taq
03-11-2009 5:30 PM


bingo!
They think by calling Tiktaalik a "fish" they have somehow made a point. They haven't.

and THAT is Creation Science in a nutshell


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 5:30 PM Taq has not yet responded

Kelly
Member (Idle past 3575 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 203 of 207 (502492)
03-11-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Taq
03-11-2009 6:07 PM


When it comes to historical science
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 6:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by lyx2no, posted 03-11-2009 6:57 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 03-11-2009 6:57 PM Kelly has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 03-11-2009 7:01 PM Kelly has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2795 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 204 of 207 (502494)
03-11-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 205 of 207 (502496)
03-11-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 206 of 207 (502499)
03-11-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
Is that it?

quote:
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.

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? You're 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


"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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 207 of 207 (502502)
03-11-2009 7:08 PM


Thread copied to the Creation science II thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019