|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What I have noticed about these debates... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Too bad you cannot debate them. You might do better.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Probably because this is not the big controversy that creationists see for transitional fossils.
quote: Maybe you need to look at a text that addresses your problem. Now, please address Schraf's comment/question:
quote: Do you still maintain that AIG does not filter its 'science?' [This message has been edited by edge, 12-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5892 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cybereagle Inactive Junior Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cybereagle Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cybereagle Inactive Junior Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
One recent one would be http://EvC Forum: Kent Hovind is a Doctor (READ ON) personally debunks the issue -->EvC Forum: Kent Hovind is a Doctor (READ ON) personally debunks the issue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024