Sure they can be, but a reliable eye witness is far better than "forensic evidence"
And reliable forensic evidence is better than an eye-witness.
This has nothing to do with the relative merits of forensic evidence and eyewitnesses and everything to do with the meaning of the word "reliable".
This impression is given by the fact that the definition for evolution used on this forum is very broad ...
That's why we keep trying to narrow it down to what it actually means, despite the witless attempts of creationists to change the meaning of a well-defined scientific term.
This "predictive power" is not limited to an evolutionist worldview. It was found in a freshwater fish "graveyard" which again works well with the creationist model.
How does creationism predict the existence of fish-amphibian transitional forms? How does it predict the radiometric date of the rocks in which they will be found?
You (and others) seem so sure that the scientific community supports them in the dino to bird model and yet here is a nice open letter which shows that the layman's view of scientist's opinions is often very different from the actual experts ...
Olsen is not the scientific community. The scientific community does think that dinosaurs are ancestral to birds. That's what Olsen is so upset about.
Feduccia: His quotes which were against the ground dweller dino bird to bird theory is just "another feather in the cap" in what creationists are saying. Namely that there is great difficulty as to how Reptiles could evolve into birds.
Let's quote Feduccia again:
The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution....
Please do feel free to wear this feather in your cap. It would look good just above the big letter D.
Platypus: It's your theory, all i said was that there were avian features, whether derived or not, I didn't specify. And it does have avian features whether the evolutionary story puts these features as having evolved in reptiles who were the descendents of both the birds and platypuses or not does not really worry me. There are still enough problems for the evolutionary story with just looking at the mammal and reptile features
Summary: it doesn't matter that you were completely wrong, because you can always make more stuff up and supply no evidence for that, either.
No, It is in line with how evolutionists think, i.e. making up highly imaginative explanations to try to fit an animal into the ToE.
You do talk a lot of crap, don't you?
What part of, He is desperatly backpeddaling to save his standing in the scientific community, don't you understand?
The reason why you should tell such a blatant falsehood.
As has been shown, he named a number of species as intermediate forms in his book, the very same book that creationists are lying about. It is, therefore, not "backpedaling" for him to continue to assert what he has always asserted, namely that there are intermediate forms.
Let's hear it from Patterson, in his own words, in the very book that creationists are lying about:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
How, then, can it be "backpedaling" for him to say that he thinks that there are intermediate forms? He said so in his book Evolution ... before creationists started pretending that he'd said that he didn't mention any such forms in that book because he couldn't think of any.
(I just love this part "I mean, they must have evolved from something") And this is what creationists have been saying all along. Even if evolutionism (is that the correct term now, look, all i want is a term that you guys are happy with that describes the belief that all living things share a commen ancestor) doesn't know how, the underlying BELIEF or presupposition remains.
Oh look, a creationist dishonestly takes a quote out of context in a thread about creationists dishonestly taking quotes out of context.
The book "evolution" by colin patterson was written BEFORE his interaction with creationists and his lecture on "Evolutionism and Creationism". yes he certainly used to have the view as in your quote, however this changed as seen by the quotes i have supplied.
First of all, his "interaction with creationists" is (according to themj) him saying that he could think of no transitionals to put in his book. But he did put them in his book. They are simply lying about what he meant in his letter.
Second, the letter he sent to the guy at TalkOrigins saying: "You are right and the creationists are wrong" was written twelve years after this famous lecture.
As for Olsen, is he really just a fringe scientist? He holds quite a high position at a reputable institute for being a fringe scientist, especially when his area of expertise is Birds.
I don't think that throwing insults like "fringe scientist" about clarifies the situation.
It is, however, true to say that the views he expressed in that letter are contrary to the consensus of the scientific community.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"
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").
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?
It makes it worse because genomes are in a state of decay. Again see article for evidence
But "a creationist said so" is not evidence. It's pretty much the opposite of evidence.
If you have any actual scientific evidence for this impossible imaginary decay, feel free to present it. On some thread where it is on topic.
It is the rule and custom of this forum that merely linking to, or copy-and-pasting, some crud that some creationist has made up, does not constitute debate. This is, I believe, because the moderators wish you to think about what you're saying and take some sort of responsibility for it, instead of just regurgitating someone else's nonsense.
Now, the topic of this thread is the way that creationists continually lie about the opinions of real scientists. Do you have anything to contribute to this subject?
Again, which means what? It certainly was an admission that there are no directly transitional fossils. i.e. none where he feels that the evolutionary story told about the fossil can be said to necessarily be true.
No. This is why he said that the creationist interpretation of his words was wrong.
I think it is clearer to him what he means than it is to you.
Exactly, a mechanism explains the event. We believe in the event and then explain it using evidence. The event comes first, and then it is explained. In other words the story of evolution comes first and then you try to support this with mechanisms.
Or, in plain English, we find out what the evidence says did happen before we try to find out how it happened.
If you wish to advocate the opposite procedure, is this not putting the cart before the horse?
For example, a detective would start with the "hard-core" fact that Joe Bloggs has been shot dead before investigating whodunnit. It would be kinda futile to start questioning suspects for the murder without having some sort of evidence that he was dead.
In the same way, scientists discovered the incontrovertible fact that birds were descended from reptiles before arguing about details of the mechanism such as whether they did so "ground-up" or "trees down". Do you actually think that they should have proceeded the other way round?
So you are saying that ToE is closer to the "base of the tree" (using your diagram analogy) however your the first quote says that this is not the base. So what is your base? You see what i'm getting at? While the ToE is i agree important to "evolution", is it the base of the tree?
The base of the tree:
Every hypothesis must be tested by having its predictions compared against reality, without fear or favor. If the facts smash your hypothesis, it wasn't any good, and it's no use trying to glue it back together with faith, special pleading, making up your own "scientific method", making up your own facts, or repeated claims that God likes your hypothesis best.
When we see things like fossils in the ground one could come up with a nearly infinite number of reasons as to how they got there e.g. One could claim that someone put them there somehow, or that they grew there somehow, or some aliens visited earth and somehow managed to with highly advanced technology to somehow insert them into the earth (I'm just making these up as i go). However we reject all these, why? We can't directly refute them. however we choose to reject them because they are sound unreasonable and unsatisfactory. Methodological naturalists would add the description of history given in the bible as another example that sounds unreasonable.
The Bible does not in fact give a reason why there are fossils, nor, indeed, mention fossils.
Methodological naturalists would add the description of history given in the bible as another example that sounds unreasonable. They believe it is reasonable to take the assumption that everything can be explained with naturalistic reasons (i.e. excluding the supernatural).
No, that would be philosophical naturalism.
The difference is this. A philosophical naturalist, if he lost his spectacles, would dismiss a priori, on philosophical grounds, the idea that God had sent an angel to bear them up to heaven.
A methodological naturalist would admit the intervention of the angel as a philosophical possibility, but he would also admit that he must pursue the search for his spectacles on the basis that that is not what has happened: he does not rule out angelic intervention, but his method for searching for his spectacles cannot in any meaningful way incorporate this possibility.
Now that we have our presuppositions that we find reasonable we can now interpret the evidence in the light of these worldviews.
If you guys think that this does not apply to evolution, that it is somehow exempt from any presuppositions then this just becomes undebateable. You guys see this debate as facts vs superstition, right? And that these facts are not interpreted according to an presuppositions, right? this just seems totally illogical and sorry i just don't buy it. It becomes undebateable because we are no longer comparing two worldviews to see which worldview is supported by the evidence, instead of comparing for example apples with apples, we are trying to compare apples with a tricycle. It just doesn't work. It is undebateable.
But you have it completely the wrong way round.
Leaving aside "worldviews" we have two different claims as to how we should try to know the world.
Epistemology #1: Scientific Epistemology
The scientific method of knowing the world is this. We can take any proposition, whether we believe it or not, and we can then use formal logic to figure out what we should observe if that proposition is true. We can then observe reality, and if reality is contrary to the logical consequences of the proposition in question, then we must abandon that proposition as being contrary to the evidence.
Epistemology #2: Faith-Based Epistemology
We can decide, as a presupposition, that some proposition is true, and then we can interpret every datum in the light of that belief.
Now, it is the second method that is "undebatable". You refer to your pal Archangel. He has written that nothing can be considered "true science" if it conflicts with a literal reading of the book of Genesis. No data can change his mind about his beliefs, because any scientific facts that threaten to do so can be interpreted, according to his presuppositions, as being not "true science". It can't be true science if it conflicts with his interpretation of Genesis. That's the final word on it.
Consider his further behavior. We were discussing a minor, trivial question: was "Orce Man" a fraud. He claimed that it was, but he could find no evidence of fraud with respect to "Orce Man".
So, what did he do? Did he admit that since there was no evidence that "Orce Man" was a fraud, he had no basis for alleging fraud?
No. He interpreted reality on the basis that he was right --- by alleging that the evolutionist "cult" had destroyed all the evidence that he was right! That's why he has no evidence that he's right ... it's because an evil conspiracy of liars has hidden all the evidence, by using our strange magical powers to delete stuff from the Internet.
And you see, if you start with the proposition that you're completely right about everything, and interpret every datum on that basis, then you can defend your beliefs against any facts. You need never give up your interpretation.
Whereas the scientific method allows every proposition to be debatable. Show me "rabbits in the Cambrian" (in Haldane's famous words) and I shall concede that everything I ever thought about evolution was bollocks.
The scientific method allows every proposition to be debatable. The faith-based method allows every proposition to be protected from debate. And yet you say that evolution is "undebatable" unless and until we adopt a faith-based epistemology instead of the epistemology of the scientific method.
Evolution is debatable only because it rests on scientific epistemology, which says that a piece of contrary evidence could smash it down. The reason that I think that it is true is that so far no-one has produced such evidence. Whereas Archangel's nonsense is undebatable because it rests on the faith-based epistemology of interpreting every piece of evidence according to the presupposition that whatever he says is true.
And you claim that we should be like him? I'd rather hang myself.