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:   What I have noticed about these debates...
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 238 (27687)
12-22-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Joe Meert
12-22-2002 7:29 PM


Joe
When was the last time you picked up a paleontology book and read it from cover to cover to see ehat the evidence of transitions was? Benton's 1990s 'Vertebrate Paleontology' contains dozens of fossil distribution diagrams and hundreds of anatomical drawings and hundreds of cladograms but almost nothing on transitonal forms.
In the one place you would expect to see transitonal forms, from arguably the most famous active contemporary paleontologist, we see almost no transtional forms.
I am completely serious. I can flip through the entire book with almost no examples of transitonal forms. Just lots of fossil distribution diagrams and lots of cladograms. The links are drawn in between the most similar oranisms. There are systematically almost no transitional froms. That is a fact.
When it comes to the definitive texts there are almost no transitonal forms. It is only in your mind and in a very few pages of mostly popular books that the few examples appear.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Joe Meert, posted 12-22-2002 7:29 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 12-27-2002 1:46 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 137 of 238 (27982)
12-27-2002 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Tranquility Base
12-22-2002 7:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Well, I simply disagree. The data and the mechanisms of layering we know about now are compatible with a catastrophic flood origin of much of the geo-col.
Wrong, they are compatible with the conditions and materials used in Brethault's experiments. We have been over this ground many times, TB. Brethault's flume experiments do not mirror shallow water limestones, corals, pelagic sediments, or deltaic distributary channels among many others. They only reflect a high flow regime in in beach or sand bar type deposits. They do not match real-world conditions where the laminations form, are destroyed to be formed again and again before a single lamination is preserved.
The experiments are compatible with only PARTS of the geological column, by no means even a majority of it.
quote:
The 19th century guys had little idea about layering under flow and paleocurrents in general.
Too bad you cannot debate them. You might do better.
quote:
The present lab and field models of catastrophism we have make the flood a very attractive scenario for most formations and the geo-col as a whole.
Okay, then show us the lab experiments that imitate deep sea conditions or black shale basin conditions. You have shown us only a single set of unrealistic experiments with one type of sediment and a temporary temporary flow regime. You are committing (still) the logical fallacy of a hasty generalization. Please show us more complete evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 7:46 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 138 of 238 (27983)
12-27-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tranquility Base
12-22-2002 7:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
When was the last time you picked up a paleontology book and read it from cover to cover to see ehat the evidence of transitions was? Benton's 1990s 'Vertebrate Paleontology' contains dozens of fossil distribution diagrams and hundreds of anatomical drawings and hundreds of cladograms but almost nothing on transitonal forms.
Probably because this is not the big controversy that creationists see for transitional fossils.
quote:
I am completely serious. I can flip through the entire book with almost no examples of transitonal forms. Just lots of fossil distribution diagrams and lots of cladograms. The links are drawn in between the most similar oranisms. There are systematically almost no transitional froms. That is a fact.
Maybe you need to look at a text that addresses your problem.
Now, please address Schraf's comment/question:
quote:
How is this part of the statement of faith from AiG not blatantly admitting that they filter ideas?:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
This is filtering. They are required to do it. It is part of the doctrine. I really do not understand how this can be viewed in any other way.
Do you still maintain that AIG does not filter its 'science?'
[This message has been edited by edge, 12-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-22-2002 7:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 11:18 AM edge has not replied
 Message 140 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-28-2003 1:19 AM edge has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 139 of 238 (30307)
01-27-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by edge
12-27-2002 1:46 PM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 12-27-2002 1:46 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 238 (30402)
01-28-2003 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by edge
12-27-2002 1:46 PM


Creationists believe that any scientific theory will be ultimately in line with Scripture. This may or may not lead to filtering depending on how it is practiced.
If you have a machine that takes data and outputs theories please tell me where I can get it. I practise science via proposing hypotheses and testing.
Creationists are testing some hypotheses that you guys have simply ignored for too long for religious reasons.
We appear to filter because you left all the good hypotheses for us!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by edge, posted 12-27-2002 1:46 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Quetzal, posted 01-28-2003 4:31 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 11:03 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 141 of 238 (30416)
01-28-2003 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tranquility Base
01-28-2003 1:19 AM


Creationists are testing some hypotheses that you guys have simply ignored for too long for religious reasons.
Really? Cool. What are the hypotheses and how exactly are they testing them? I've been waiting for a creationist to come up with something that isn't simply an "attack" on ToE, but rather provides actual positive support for any flavor of creationism (whether YEC or ID or anything in between). It doesn't count if the answer starts with "Evolution can't explain XYZ."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-28-2003 1:19 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 142 of 238 (30717)
01-30-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tranquility Base
01-28-2003 1:19 AM


quote:
Creationists believe that any scientific theory will be ultimately in line with Scripture. This may or may not lead to filtering depending on how it is practiced.
So, is the Statement of Faith that I cut n pasted here, in which is says that any conclusion reached by anybody which contradicts Scripture is to be considered untrue, intended to filter, in your opinion?
Yes, or no?
If yes, can you now understand why mainstram science just might not take anything coming out of AiG seriously?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-28-2003 1:19 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:48 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 238 (31133)
02-03-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nator
01-30-2003 11:03 AM


bump

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 11:03 AM nator has not replied

  
Cybereagle
Inactive Junior Member


Message 144 of 238 (51988)
08-23-2003 5:34 PM


Hello everyone. I joined this forum just for this area. Lucky you huh? Ok before I say a thing about this topic I want it known that I have not one credential save of course The Most High. In fact I am only 14 going on 15. But when I saw this forum I near jumped out of my skin with joy. I finally found a place to talk about Creation vs. Evolution so since I have no credentials that would get me any job at a science lab I will mainly stick with quoting people who actually do have the credentials. First I must state I noticed the gro-col mentioned so I will Quote from Dr. Kent E. Hovind The geologic column exists nowhere except in the text books. The only thing those layers are is a bunch of sand layers seperated by the great flood. Now I noticed that a lot of you said that the Creation vs. Evolution area is not touched on when you were in school (High school or college it does not matter) I hate to break it to you, but you were fed evolution through your whole time of going to grade school, even if it wasn’t directly called evolution. Creation on the other hand would not be mentioned much unless it is really brought up and then it would be slammed like crazy. In fact again I mention Kent E. Hovind. In one of his seminars I believe it was he mentioned a time that he attended a seminar on evolution and helped out with the preparation and everything. At the end Kent gave the man his card and said If you ever have real evidence for evolution give me a call. (The significance of that is more then what meets the eye because Kent has a standing offer in fact it is a much greater sum now of $10,000.00 to whom ever can give true evidence for evolution. Now it is $250,000.00.) That night both of them were teaching on there fields (Kent on Creation and the other man on evolution) and the other man pulled out the card and said this is how dangerous Creationism is getting they think there is no evidence for it. One question..How come he did not give the evidence then and ask for the money? Well that is all for now. I could go on quoting for the next hour, but I will stop here.
------------------
Ben, "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth."

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 08-23-2003 5:52 PM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2003 6:04 PM Cybereagle has replied

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


Message 145 of 238 (51992)
08-23-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 5:34 PM


Kent Hovind (who is not a Doctor) is well known and has little credibility. His offer is a fraud. I am afraid this is one of the things that has been discussed to death here because unfortunately he is still deceiving people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 5:34 PM Cybereagle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 238 (51994)
08-23-2003 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 5:34 PM


I hate to break it to you, but you were fed evolution through your whole time of going to grade school, even if it wasn’t directly called evolution.
Nope. No evolution in my high school, or grade school for that matter. And I was looking out for it - I was a creationist just like you at the time.
Then, thank goodness, I actually started to read about the theory, and not what my church was telling me about it. Then I realized that Kent Hovind (no Dr.) was a joke.
(The significance of that is more then what meets the eye because Kent has a standing offer in fact it is a much greater sum now of $10,000.00 to whom ever can give true evidence for evolution. Now it is $250,000.00.)
Actually, he doesn't have the money. Now what kind of a man would make an offer that he could never be able to pay? Not an honest one, I think.
On the other hand, I have a standing offer of one whole American dollar to the first creationist who can explain what a "kind" is, and how I would go about telling the difference between two "kinds". Seriously. (And unlike Hovind I actually have the money I'm putting at stake.)
How come he did not give the evidence then and ask for the money?
Many people have done just that. Guess what? Hovind welches on his offer every time. The man is not very honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 5:34 PM Cybereagle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:30 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 148 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cybereagle
Inactive Junior Member


Message 147 of 238 (51997)
08-23-2003 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by crashfrog
08-23-2003 6:04 PM


Ok I am going to respond to both people who responded to what I posted. First as far as the "kind" thing goes. I will tell you what I have learned as far as that goes (and no I am not interested in the offer just the truth.)A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind. Whether or not it can interbreed is not necessarily the issue a doberman and a chuwawa could never breed, but they are still a dog. Now as far as the credibility of Kent's doctorate goes. In one of his debates the woman who debated him started attacking is credentials. So at this point the debate was interrupted and he showed his degree from the college he went to. As far as his offer goes if you can tell me one person that you actually know (not just hear say) that he has done so too and I am told by that person him/herself that it happened that will give your claim more credibility. If you would like to speak with Hovind about these things I can give you his website url and his e-mail address or I can ask my step father for Mr. Hovind's phone number and you can personally talk to him yourself. I know it works because I have personally spoken with Mr. Hovind. I can also start quoting from others. I will list a few and see what you have to say.
1.Charles Liebert
2.Walt Brown Ph.D
3.Philip E. Johnson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2003 6:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2003 12:05 AM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 153 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2003 12:33 AM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 156 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 10:53 AM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 157 by nator, posted 08-24-2003 11:03 AM Cybereagle has not replied

  
Cybereagle
Inactive Junior Member


Message 148 of 238 (51998)
08-23-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by crashfrog
08-23-2003 6:04 PM


One other thing I forgot to mention, as far as reading about evolution and not just paying attention to what the church says. I have been and plan to continue watching debates (which include both sides of the story) on this subject and eventually I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think. I also plan to read other books. Carl Sagan seems to have some odd views I would like to know about one day, but not yet. Oh and what do ya'll think about Steven J. Gould? If Dr. Hovind is such a fraud why did the leading evolutionist in ths country refuse to debate him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2003 6:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-23-2003 8:11 PM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2003 12:10 AM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 158 by mark24, posted 08-24-2003 11:27 AM Cybereagle has not replied
 Message 160 by Mammuthus, posted 08-25-2003 4:37 AM Cybereagle has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 149 of 238 (52002)
08-23-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cybereagle
08-23-2003 7:35 PM


Kent Hovind has been previously and extensively beat on at evcforum. I can't tie up the phone line long, so I'll have to get back to you later, with a list of those other topics.
None the less, you are certainly welcome to start a new Kent Hovind topic. I would offhand suggest it be in the "Miscellaneous Topics" forum.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cybereagle, posted 08-23-2003 7:35 PM Cybereagle has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 238 (52007)
08-23-2003 11:24 PM



  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024