Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 10:46 PM
24 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 91 of 210 (525176)
09-22-2009 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Arphy
09-21-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
He says that natural selection is unable to stop the deteriation of our genome.

I see you make no attempt to debate his main point, that "evolution" is going in the opposite way that philosophical naturalists want it to go.

I have just read both of your links. They consist of dumb lies about genetics. They also contain dumb lies about what biologists say about genetics.

Tiktaalik:
These sort of animals are arguments neither for nor against creation or philosophical naturalism. That is because in the YEC model we see animals as made out of "modules", this works similar to electronic equipment. There are many different types electronic equipment however there are many similarities between all of them. There are also parts that are shared in some equipment but not in others. Some parts are also only found in one type of equipment. These combinations of parts/modules can be arraged in various ways. Some equipment may combine many of the same parts while others will have somewhat unique combinations, (such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik). So while we can't predict which modules have been used in which combinations, animals like Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are no surprise to us.

Wow.

So, some creationists deny that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form by pretending that it's a modern bird, some creationists deny that it's an intermediate form by pretending that it's a Compsognathus to which feathers have been added by fraudsters, and a tiny minority consisting in my experience solely of you simply claim that the existence of a perfect intermediate form such as Archaeopteryx is "no surprise to us".

As in its comparative "depth" not the surface location. The researchers who found tiktaalik were also not able to predict its surface location.

This, is, of course, completely untrue. How do you suppose they found it?

Why do the experts have such opposite opinions and yet you guys take the evolution of birds as basically fact when the debate still rages as to how and from where.

But the experts do not have opposite opinions. They have opinions so similar that it takes considerable study to know what they're disagreeing about.

To help you out, here's a picture.

On top, a basal bipedal archosaur. On the bottom, a derived theropod dinosaur. Spot the significant morphological differences.

Feduccia and his chums say that archosaurs are ancestral to birds which are ancestral to theropods, whereas all the other scientists think that archosaurs are ancestral to theropods which are ancestral to birds.

Both sides agree that birds are descended from bipedal archosaurs. Both agree that theropods and birds were the closest of relatives. Both sides agree that Archaeopteryx is a lovely example of an intermediate form between ancient archosaur and modern bird.

And these views you call "opposite"?

Oh, but now you can pull your tiresome, dumb switcheroo. If scientists disagree about some minor point, that proves that you can't trust them on anything. But if they agree on some major point, that proves that they're fanatical dogmatists. Well, so long as they're talking about some aspect of science that you don't like. If scientists agree that the Sun is hot, then since you don't object to that, I guess that's OK.

Also for his comments about creationists at the end of the interview, there is an excellent response to this at the end of this (http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur) article. In fact i think it is a must read so will post it.

When I read stuff that dishonest, I begin to understand why vengeful people like to fantasize that Hell exists.

If there is one person who deserves to have God spit the word "liar!" in his face forever, I believe you just quoted him.

What was the creationist interpretation anyway? Even with the rest of the quote added "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test." I think this second part is just as damning as the first part.

And you are ludicrously wrong.

---

P.S: Why do you keep raving on about philosophical naturalism when you know perfectly well that biologists have a wide diversity of philosophical views?

---

P.P.S: Is this thread turning into a complete Gish Gallop where you just make false statements about any random subject that takes your fancy?

The subject is how creationists continually lie about and twist statements made by scientists. Any ranting you wish to do other than pretending that these creationist bullshitters are being honest is off-topic.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 7:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 92 of 210 (525179)
09-22-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Granny Magda
09-21-2009 9:57 PM


Re: The Term Evolutionist
Hi Magda

Will reply to post 87 before 85.

Yay!! I won! Oh wait, that wasn't a compliment... Oh well.

Yeah, oh well, better luck next time

The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss.".
I do not doubt that you believe this. however my point is this you have a worldview that you say has very compelling evidence, in fact you think it is so compelling that you don't have any doubt about it at all, but i also say that i have a worldview which has very compelling evidence. So who is right? this is where debate comes in. While i may not be able to change your worldview, what i hope i can do is to firstly challenge many of the misconceptions about the YEC creation model, that seem to abound. 2nd, i hope to be able to show you that you can not dismiss a YEC, simply for being a YEC, but if you do dismiss me then it is because you think that YEC arguments are easily refuted.

Linnaeus: ok, even if linnaeus catagorizes humans like this, it still doesn't necessarily make it true.

In the context of debate sites such as EvC, we need a way to refer to the opposing sides. In this context, the term "evolutionist" seems fine to me. I have no objection to being so described.

Sweet, Thank you.

I can see you're pretty snowed under. Such is the eternal fate of the creationist who chooses to brave the slavering evolutionist hordes...
Hehehe ah well, that's the way it is, I guess I'll just have to deal with it.
Anyhoo lets get onto discussing post 85

Even amongst YECs (perhaps especially amongst YECs) there is still widespread failure to reach any kind of consensus.
Example?
Your scepticism on this issue is to be applauded, but you are mistaken. There is broad consensus on the major points of the ToE.
hmm...I guess it depends on what these major points are, but theories like gradualism, punctuated equalibrium, Evo Devo, all have their proponents which claim that their idea is the major force of how evolution works.

Do you understand the terminology you are using? Because I notice that you lifted your definition from the web.
Yes. What is wrong with using a definition from the web?

What syngameon is a horse in for instance? What else is in the same syngameon?
zebras, horses, and donkeys are all part of the "equine" syngameon or kind (http://creation.com/zenkey-zonkey-zebra-donkey). While there is still much work (testing animals for hybridization) that needs to be done to compile a complete list of syngameons plenty of work has been done in this area.

I hope you also realise that there is absolutely no way that you could fit all of those critters on his big boat. There must be millions of discrete inter-fertile groups in existence!
There is an excellent book which i am reading at the moment called Noah's Ark: A feasibility study, by John Woodmorapppe which deals with these "problems" The number of kinds needed to take on the Ark is estimated to be about 8000.

Because if you accept natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift, evolution (whether macro- or micro-) is inevitable.
Haven't you read my previous posts? these mechanisms cause "devolution" not evolution.

All the creatures we find with a mix of traits from different groups are combined in such a way as to be consistent with gradual change over time. Under creationism, there is no reason why the fossil record should present us with this smooth gradual change in species. Evolution explains this.
The "smooth gradual change" is only found in textbooks not in reality.

We never find a ancient Cambrian creature with the traits of a more modern Pleistocene creature. In your system, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.
I'm guessing your talking about fossil succession. Here is a snipet from an article by John Woodmorappe
But what are the ramifications of fossils seeming to occur in multiple, different horizons in the earth’s rock strata? Is the succession of life-forms, over long periods of time, the only way to explain the succession of fossils in earth’s sedimentary rocks? Certainly not.

Creationists, including myself,1 have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth....

The irony of the position taken by Cuvierists, neo-Cuvierists, and standard evolutionary-uniformitarians is the fact that fossil succession is a reality only to a limited extent. As we shall see, the Flood-related mechanisms discussed above need not have been overly efficient to account for only the limited degree of fossil succession that does exist. Successive episodes of time, however conceived, also are completely unnecessary to explain the limited degree of fossil succession.

When we consider the fact that fossil succession is limited in overall extent, it is another way of stating that there are many fossils which are found at many stratigraphic intervals. In fact, only a minority are confined to rocks attributed to only one geologic period.2

Since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in ‘wrong’ places as more and more fossils have been collected, and this process continues to this very day.3,4,5 And even this does not include the numerous instances where fossils are supposed to be reworked from older strata, often with no independent supporting evidence.6

http://creation.com/the-fossil-record

We ever find a mammal with bird features. Under creationism, there is no reason why we wouldn't. Evolution explains this.
hmm.. you mean a mammal with feathers. Sure none have been found. Doesn't mean they didn't exist, And even if they never did exist how is this proof against creation?

Why is your own home country so full of species that exist nowhere else? There is no reason why a created world should be this way. Evolution on the other hand can explain it completely.
Firstly, it was a predator (more or less) free country. Secondly the animals that we see work well with flood theory, i.e. mainly birds, as they eventually flew there after the flood.

These "predictions" in no way prove the YEC model wrong.

They are not holding it back. It is already in the public domain.

Great! So then we don't have to worry about that. As I've said before Tiktaalik does not seem to be a transitional fossil (http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link)

exactly how "flood theory" explains the position of Tiktaalik.

See J. Woodmorappe quote above.

in this message Message 73 and I don't see anything specific about you favouring one version of bird evolution over another. You are simply attempting to use it as one of a number of attacks on the general concept of transitional forms.
ehh...??? the only thing about birds in that post is
me writes:

Archaeopteryx: There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” This was also the conclusion reached at the International Archaeopteryx Conference in 1984

which in no way says anything against evolutionism or transitional forms in general. I was and am debating details. As i have said before, the culminative effect of refuting the details will show that evolution is false, not just a single detail.

You must understand that for those of us who value the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion, is seen as a good thing. My beliefs are not dogmatic (at least I strive to avoid such thinking). They are subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of experts.
Great I also see myself as valuing "the scientific method, holding an opinion tentatively, with the possibility of later finding new information that would force a change of opinion". In some of the details of YEC theory I also think that some of my beliefs are "subject to constant comparison to evidence and possible re-evaluation. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept the evidence I have seen and the consensus of the majority of..." YEC experts.

I have read your cited article before. It makes a number of very bad arguments
What one, and, how so?

Damning to what exactly? Why?

If you can "not make a watertight argument for any (transitional forms) being directly ancestral to living species groups" then where is the clear progressive tree? If you can not say that "this evolved into that, which evolved into that..." then where is this "clear" progression of what evolved into what? Then the only thing linking them is a good story. And as patterson said "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 09-21-2009 9:57 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2009 10:53 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 93 of 210 (525181)
09-22-2009 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 4:03 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Oh look, a creationist dishonestly takes a quote out of context in a thread about creationists dishonestly taking quotes out of context.

Rubbish. The way I used the quote was to show that evolution is a belief, the last part of the quote "The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss" shows that Magda believes that there is evidence that supports his belief. Whether or not Magda thinks there is evidence for his belief is irrelevent as to the point I was making i.e. that he has a belief. The two are different topics. I have addressed this last sentence in my detailed reply to him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 7:26 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18374
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 94 of 210 (525182)
09-22-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Arphy writes:

Firstly you have just put a label on something which doesn't really mean anything.

You mean like "evolutionism?"

By extension, what you are saying is that, if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues.

Again you are putting words into mouths of creationists that we never said. PLEASE STOP doing that.

When you stop doing it, we'll stop calling you on it. In the very message I'm replying to you said, "And on this point there are some notable experts in the evolutionary community who disagree with this," as if this argument over details of the evolutionary history of birds called evolution itself into question.

Evidence is not a worldview.

Uh, yes it is. The only worldview that those on the side of science share is that only evidence from the natural world can tell us about the natural world. Anything we come to accept about the history of life on Earth must be based upon evidence gathered from the real world. That's our worldview.

The term devolution is used to show that creationists see evolution working in the opposite way that evolutionism does. A mutation can be both degenerative to the genome and beneficial.

So creationists believe mutations can be both "degenerative" and beneficial? And evolutionists believe mutations can be both disadvantageous and beneficial? Yet creationists see evolution working in the opposite way from evolutionists? I think you need to explain why creationists believe that the combination of advantageous and disadvantageous mutations can only result in "devolution." Oh, and a definition of "devolution" would help, too. How can you tell when something is "devolving?"

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.

Yip, and this makes the dilemma even worse.

How so?

That is to say that humans are STILL apes

you may classify them this way, but that doesn't make it true.

Then explain to us how scientists are wrong about the shared characteristics that cause them to classify humans, chimpanzees and gorillas as apes.

caffeine writes:

their heirs do not all need to be eliminated. Some of them may mate with the mutated pair or their descendants; or their descendants may do so. This way, many of the descendants of individuals without the mutation may wind up possessing the mutation.

Again this takes time which is not helpful, as my link above supports.

A population of bacteria can have nearly a hundred generations a day. A population of chipmunks can have 500 generations per millenium. A population of humans can have 50,000 generations per million years. The earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has been present for at least 3.5 billions years. So where's the time problem again?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:47 AM Percy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 95 of 210 (525183)
09-22-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 4:11 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
"You are right and the creationists are wrong"

So what did Mr Theunissen tell Patterson the creationist interpretation was. Or what was the belief of what the creationist interpretation was. In other words, what was the creationist interpretation, and was it different to Mr Theunissens interpretation?

This is the way CMI defended themselves:

[Theunissen] ...wrote to Patterson asking for clarification about the comments in Sunderland’s book. Patterson replied that the quote was accurate in its reproduction, but its interpretation was faulty because he had also written:

‘The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’1
Well, precisely. So why have evolutionist textbooks almost universally and dogmatically declared Archaeopteryx to be an obvious transitional form? But the issue goes deeper. Patterson’s ‘revision’ seemed to be claiming (or at least it was in the way the sceptic tried to highlight it) that all he meant with his original quote was that it is impossible to determine whether any ‘candidate’ fossils (ones that might have the appearance of transitional forms) actually were real transitional ones—not that there was a scarcity or absence of inbetween forms in the fossil record. In other words, they might look like missing links, but how can one know for sure?

However, to suggest that this was all he was saying is really impossible to square with the words of the quote itself. Note, for example, how Patterson referred to comments by Stephen J. Gould and ‘the American Museum people’ who are well-known to have specifically admitted the rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record. They actually proposed a theory of ‘evolution in jumps’4 to explain away the fact that links seemed to be absent.

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5

So if one rereads the original Patterson quote above, it is clear that it is perfectly legitimate to use it to highlight this ‘extreme rarity of transitional forms’ in the fossil record. Otherwise, the reference to Gould is meaningless.

Note that Gould et al. were committed evolutionists; even interpreting the record through evolutionary eyes, they admitted that it was ‘extremely rare’ to find transitional forms, not that it was impossible in principle! Creationists would of course claim that there are none, except within a created kind. But even candidates for transitional forms are clearly so rare that Patterson was able to refer to Gould et al. as saying that there were (for all practical purposes) ‘no transitional fossils’. Yet a straightforward understanding of neo-Darwinism would suggest that there were many more transitional forms than the ‘end’ forms we see today. So one would expect ‘transitional’ fossils to dominate the record.

The context of Sunderland’s letter to Patterson also needs to be remembered. He was simply asking why Patterson didn’t show even one single picture of any proposed transitional form anywhere in his book. Patterson’s reply made it abundantly clear that if he did, it would be storytelling, not science! In fact, he went on to say in his original letter to Sunderland:

‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.’

http://c.../that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils

Also the quote at the top of this post needs to be read IN CONTEXT with other sources that show pattersons position. I have ordered the transcript of his lecture so hopefully we can discuss it again in a few week's time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 4:11 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 7:35 AM Arphy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 96 of 210 (525184)
09-22-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Arphy
09-22-2009 6:50 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Rubbish. The way I used the quote was to show that evolution is a belief, the last part of the quote "The general evidence for evolution is simply too compelling to dismiss" shows that Magda believes that there is evidence that supports his belief. Whether or not Magda thinks there is evidence for his belief is irrelevent as to the point I was making i.e. that he has a belief.

You're being mendacious about being mendacious. But we can all read what you wrote.

When you put the word "BELIEF" in capital letters, were you just trying to equate evolution with the belief that the Earth is not flat? When you wrote "BELIEF or presupposition", thus dishonestly conflating the two terms, would you have used that phrase to describe an affirmation of the non-flatness of the Earth? When you said that you "loved" the quote you snipped out of context, would you have had similarly amorous feelings towards a statement that the Earth is not flat?

Of course you cut away Granny Magda's statement about compelling evidence because quoting it would not have allowed you to make your snide and childish point. As you know as well as I do.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 6:50 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 97 of 210 (525185)
09-22-2009 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: To my numerous opponents
I really wish you'd split off the subtitle, but let's take a look...

arphy writes:

completely the opposite of what most YEC's will say, which is that ALL mutations are harmful
Read it again, it says "Genetic drift is a good way to drive devolution". The term devolution is used to show that creationists see evolution working in the opposite way that evolutionism does. A mutation can be both degenerative to the genome and beneficial.

I don't see the problem with my statement - I was commenting on the fact that it says, basically "positive mutations can occur" - you're right though, it still says all mutations are harmful, just in a roundabout, double-negative way. very disengenuous, and pretending it's science won't help - "devolution" is a made-up word without foundation.

To continue, you apparently totally disregarded the refutation of the Dilemma that you yourself brought up from the quote mines of creation.com, because you continued

Another one is that you never get just ONE mutation. You get many - 4, 5? 50? All happening at once.
Yip, and this makes the dilemma even worse.

why would it make it worse? It only makes it worse IF "all mutations are harmful" and you're a hell of a long way from proving anything of the sort. Examples have been given of positive mutations (sickle-cell under some conditions, moth colouration and far, far more) so that part is bunk.

Stick to proving one point Arphy - stick to either "evolution can't have the desired effect even in the timeframe from evolutionists" OR "devolution is bad, mmmkay?", because you carried on again:

Evolution is sslllooowwwww - I thought you knew this?
Hmm... again this makes the dilemma even worse still. Hence why evolutionism came up with puncuated equalibrium. To support this i will again put up the link to http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end the point is that the more time you add, or the longer you strech out the process the worse it becomes.

which basically says "all mutations are harmful" and I feel confident in saying that that page is dreck from top to bottom, full of outdated information, misquotes, mistakes and outright lies.

It is entirely science-free and really does little to bolster the opinion you would apparently like others to have of you of somebody who honestly looks at both sides of the issue. Every single one of those issues has been dealt with in at least one place, and that's "talk origins".

"punctuated equilibrium" is another canard - it's always trotted out by creationists who would like everyone to believe that it means evolution is impossible because apparently "everything evolved at once".

Just go to talk.origins and search for the term, you'll find out why your view of it is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:09 PM greyseal has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 98 of 210 (525187)
09-22-2009 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:24 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
So what did Mr Theunissen tell Patterson the creationist interpretation was. Or what was the belief of what the creationist interpretation was. In other words, what was the creationist interpretation, and was it different to Mr Theunissens interpretation?

Here.

This is the way CMI defended themselves:

This drivel of gross, stupid, clumsy lies does not so much constitute "defending themselves" as condemning themselves out of their own mouths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:24 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:52 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 99 of 210 (525188)
09-22-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-22-2009 7:18 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
You mean like "evolutionism?"

ehh...????

as if this argument over details of the evolutionary history of birds called evolution itself into question.
See you did it again. Where did I say that?

Anything we come to accept about the history of life on Earth must be based upon evidence gathered from the real world. That's our worldview.

What the..?? Again, the things that you "come to accept about the history of life on Earth" (worldview) you think is "based upon evidence gathered from the real world". Again, I don't doubt you think there is good reason to accept your worldview. However the evidence is not the worldview. Evidence is used to support or refute a worldview.

Degenerative is not the same as disadvanntageous.

I think you need to explain why creationists believe that the combination of advantageous and disadvantageous mutations can only result in "devolution." Oh, and a definition of "devolution" would help, too. How can you tell when something is "devolving?"
Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end. Our genomes are in a constant state of decay. This also answers your next and also last objection.

Then explain to us how scientists are wrong about the shared characteristics that cause them to classify humans, chimpanzees and gorillas as apes.
I'm not saying we don't have any shared characteristics. I'm not sure why scientists classify humans this way as there are many big differences between an ape and a human.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 7:18 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 10:48 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 103 by greyseal, posted 09-22-2009 10:54 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 09-22-2009 12:24 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 09-22-2009 1:57 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2542 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 100 of 210 (525190)
09-22-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2009 7:35 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
ehh..how did you answer my question? I have read that already, and it doesn't say, hence why i asked.

This drivel of gross, stupid, clumsy lies does not so much constitute

Whatever Dr Adequate. You just keep dismissing stuff with no basis with the use of your favourite word: "lies". Great, really helpful (note the very sarcastic tone).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 7:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2009 9:14 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2009 11:18 AM Arphy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 101 of 210 (525192)
09-22-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
ehh..how did you answer my question? I have read that already ...

Then I can only recommend that you read it again.

Whatever Dr Adequate. You just keep dismissing stuff with no basis with the use of your favourite word: "lies". Great, really helpful (note the very sarcastic tone).

You keep linking to pages of creationists telling lies.

If you would like to present any evidence for any of this creationist mumbo-jumbo, feel free. Otherwise, I just look at the latest slab of creationist rhetoric, wince at the stupidity and dishonesty of the person who wrote it, giggle at the stupidity and credulity of the people who fell for it ... and call it dumb creationist lies.

There are rules on this forum. We're not meant to debate by posting links. Otherwise (as a reductio ad absurdum) our arguments would end up consisting of you saying: "Creationist lie #5!" and me replying: "Well-established scientific facts #2059 - #4392 inclusive!"

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:52 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 102 of 210 (525194)
09-22-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:47 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
See you did it again. Where did I say that?

Post #76, also some of the slabs of creationist trash that you linked to and quoted --- or do you disclaim responsibility for that stuff?

What the..?? Again, the things that you "come to accept about the history of life on Earth" (worldview) you think is "based upon evidence gathered from the real world". Again, I don't doubt you think there is good reason to accept your worldview. However the evidence is not the worldview. Evidence is used to support or refute a worldview.

Wow, you inadvertently said something true.

Yes, you are right. The people who look at the evidence (they're called "scientists") can use it to distinguish between different "worldviews" (they're called "hypotheses"). This allows them to identify the hypothesis consistent with the evidence (which is called "evolution") and to identify the hypothesis which, in the light of the evidence, is shrieking, gibbering lunacy (which is called "creationism").

Degenerative is not the same as disadvanntageous.

Unless one happens to speak English.

Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end.

But it is not your article, and it is a mess of gibberish and lies from beginning to end.

Our genomes are in a constant state of decay.

Since I speak English, I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you later going to claim that "decay" is not "disadvantageous" and does not constitute "degeneration"?

I'm not saying we don't have any shared characteristics. I'm not sure why scientists classify humans this way ...

I'm sure that there are many things that scientists do that mystify you, like everything.

Are humans and chimps more different than, for example, an ostrich and a hummingbird? Of course not. Yet we classify both ostriches and hummingbirds as birds. So why, except for dumb religious taboos, should scientists not have a word for apes, namely apes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:47 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1971 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 103 of 210 (525195)
09-22-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:47 AM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Everything is always devolving. As my article clearly explains http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end. Our genomes are in a constant state of decay.

I'll tell you what, but that sounds like a creationist quote if ever I heard one.

why?

Because it sounds like this, but dressed up to appear scientific to the ignorant layman:

quote:
in the beginning, god made everything perfect. Since the fall, sin and corruption have been in the world and things are only (ever) going to get worse.

And I'm quoting myself - I'm not a creationist but I can play one on the internet.

that people get old and die is not evidence of a genome in decay - that would mean people couldn't have babies, and would be stupider now, and more full of things like cancer and deformities, than they were 6000 years ago.

Our genomes would have obviously decayed by now when compared with ancient DNA samples. The DNA of all animals AND plants would be seen to be "devolving" and decaying - especially when compared with old samples from thousands of years ago.

I can confidently say that is not occuring. "biblical facts" of Adam living to 900 and so on notwithstanding, that's patently, obviously false.

Your (non) scientific theory is proved false by practical observation.

Peer review, in other words.

would you like to try again?

(PS, if that page is actually yours then wow, you're in-famous! but sorry, you don't get credibility for writing words on a web-page)

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:47 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:13 PM greyseal has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 104 of 210 (525197)
09-22-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Arphy
09-22-2009 7:52 AM


Re: Lies, Damn Lies and Creationist Quote Mines
It says sufficient in the first sentence of the second paragraph:


During the lecture a quotation of Dr. Colin Patterson was used to justify the standard creationist argument that 'there are no transitional forms.'

Clearly the creationist in question read it as an admission that there were no transitional fossils.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 7:52 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 8:18 PM PaulK has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 105 of 210 (525204)
09-22-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Arphy
09-21-2009 9:28 PM


Re: To my numerous opponents
Hi, Arphy.

I recognize the enormity of the task you have ahead of you in this thread, with so many opponents, and I commend you for your intelligence and your good demeanor.

Arphy writes:

So you are saying that natural selection, genetic drift, etc are the hard core. Yet as I showed at the beginning of this post, this doesn't seem to be the case. The hard core seems to be that everything evolved from something else (except you might say possibly abiogenesis).

First, leave genetic drift out: it's just a side effect of mutation and reproduction. Side effects, by definition, cannot be hard-core.

Second, the hard core is the portion of the worldview that defines the rest. "Everything evolved from something else" is clearly an extension of evolution, so you cannot say it is the "hard core." If your hard core is an extension of something else, then clearly, the "something else" is more central to your worldview than the extension of it, right? Common sense.

-----

Arphy writes:

This is the worldview. The mechanisms are then supposed to show how this worldview is viable. It doesn't make any sense to say that your worldview IS a collection of mechanisms.

Why not? A mechanism is the ultimate explanation for any event. Thus, the logical way to cluster events into a workable worldview is mechanistically.

-----

Arphy writes:

Bluejay writes:

By extension, what you are saying is that, if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues.

Again you are putting words into mouths of creationists that we never said. PLEASE STOP doing that. I have never said that "if any two people disagree on soft-core issues, they must also disagree on hard-core issues".

Arphy, I'm trying to be patient with this.

You acknowledge that arguments against the soft core do not translate into arguments against the hard-core, but yet, you still think that arguments about natural history (a soft-core topic) can expose flaws in evolution (a hard-core topic).

Let me try to represent it graphically. Here is a picture of a generic tree diagram:

Think of each of the dots as a different component of a worldview. See how everything in the worldview traces to a single, central concept? That’s the hard core: ToE. The letter’s A-F (pretend one of those E’s is an F) represent auxiliary ideas. Let’s say that A is “common descent,” and that C is “birds evolved from coelurosaurs.”

What happens if I remove C and replace it with G (“birds evolve from stem-archosaurs”)? Does that change anything else on the diagram? No: it only changes A--C to A--G.

Remember my Christology example: there are hundreds of different opinions about the nature and teachings of Jesus. Remember Arius? He thought that Jesus was not God Incarnate, but a creation of God. Here is a quote from Arius (source):

quote:
But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter... We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

Arius very clearly stated that Jesus is not God the Father. Would I be within my rights to use this quote to support an argument that Jesus was not a real historical figure?

-----

Just because you repeat ad nauseum that you are not doing it doesn't mean you actually aren't. So, I will continue to ignore your claims that you are not conflating soft-core and hard-core arguments until you actually stop conflating them.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Arphy, posted 09-21-2009 9:28 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Arphy, posted 09-22-2009 9:47 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019