Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 91 of 530 (526775)
09-29-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Jack
09-29-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Mr Jack writes:
I'm talking about transitionals between existing species.
In that case it's quite obvious that there are none. They are cousins after all.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2009 9:31 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2009 9:38 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 92 of 530 (526776)
09-29-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Parasomnium
09-29-2009 9:36 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
In that case it's quite obvious that there are none. They are cousins after all.
I know that. But Mike made a claim very similar to one I've seen lots of other Creationists make that you could just line up existing species and call them "transitionals" and that's all the transitionals we have found are - scientists lining things up and saying they're transitional.
This is not so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Parasomnium, posted 09-29-2009 9:36 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Parasomnium, posted 09-29-2009 9:43 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 94 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 9:50 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 93 of 530 (526779)
09-29-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Jack
09-29-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Mr Jack writes:
I know that.
I know that you know. Let's say I replied for the edification of our esteemed creationist fellow forum members.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2009 9:38 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 94 of 530 (526781)
09-29-2009 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Jack
09-29-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
more to the point, despite (I'm reasonably sure) being told a thousand times that this is not so, Mike (and others) still think that you can get from (say) an ostrich to a sparrow.
This isn't what evolution is about (and yes, this one is for the creationists) - you could get from something like an ostrich to something LIKE a sparrow, but you would not get TO a sparrow - understand the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2009 9:38 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 95 of 530 (526787)
09-29-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by greyseal
09-29-2009 9:22 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
greyseal writes:
I understand I cannot ask you to actual give a rebuttal to a lifetime of work by a real scientist, but at least you should have the decency not to pretend it doesn't exist. You can say you don't like it (and we'd like to know why) but you can't say it doesn't exist.
he became convinced of evolution after a mere 5 weeks on the golapogas islands, that is not much time to truly research your subject. How much evidence did he have back then? very little if any.
the Encyclopaedia Britannica basically says that what he observed was that living things on the Galapagos were similar to those in South American and therefore must not have being created on the Galapagos.
also he noted that over the years, those animals changed from their mainland cousins. This reinforced his belief that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
quote:
The World Book Encyclopedia states: Much evidence of evolution comes from plants and animals that live on islands far from continents. The Galapagos Islands, for example have 26 kinds of land birds, all resembling species found in western South America. But 23 of these species seem to have changed since they reached the islands, for the Galapagos birds are distinct species. Comparable differences are shown by lizards and tortoises, of which there were 11 species on as many different islands. They apparently developed there because of changes that took place after their ancestors drifted from the mainland of South America.
this is the theory he proposed in just 5 weeks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 9:22 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Parasomnium, posted 09-29-2009 10:02 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 98 by Huntard, posted 09-29-2009 10:07 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 99 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 10:10 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 100 by Parasomnium, posted 09-29-2009 10:18 AM Peg has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 96 of 530 (526789)
09-29-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
09-29-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
It's "Galapagos", darling. Have you read "The Voyage of the Beagle", or "The Origin of Species"? You should, it's great stuff. And you learn a thing or two.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 97 of 530 (526791)
09-29-2009 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by greyseal
09-29-2009 9:30 AM


Re: don't use quote mines!
greyseal writes:
He was saying it could be but.
he was most certainly saying it 'could' be
If he was 100% certain that it could NOT be, then he would not have made such a statment. Nor would he have said
"Each plant and animal is exquisitely made."
this is an acknowledgment of how well made things are, or appear, in nature. If he didnt view things as being well made, he would have had no need to ask this rhetorical question....
"Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start?"
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 9:30 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 10:21 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 98 of 530 (526793)
09-29-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
09-29-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
Peg writes:
greyseal writes:
I understand I cannot ask you to actual give a rebuttal to a lifetime of work by a real scientist, but at least you should have the decency not to pretend it doesn't exist. You can say you don't like it (and we'd like to know why) but you can't say it doesn't exist.
he became convinced of evolution after a mere 5 weeks on the golapogas islands, that is not much time to truly research your subject. How much evidence did he have back then? very little if any.
the Encyclopaedia Britannica basically says that what he observed was that living things on the Galapagos were similar to those in South American and therefore must not have being created on the Galapagos.
also he noted that over the years, those animals changed from their mainland cousins. This reinforced his belief that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
quote:
The World Book Encyclopedia states: Much evidence of evolution comes from plants and animals that live on islands far from continents. The Galapagos Islands, for example have 26 kinds of land birds, all resembling species found in western South America. But 23 of these species seem to have changed since they reached the islands, for the Galapagos birds are distinct species. Comparable differences are shown by lizards and tortoises, of which there were 11 species on as many different islands. They apparently developed there because of changes that took place after their ancestors drifted from the mainland of South America.
this is the theory he proposed in just 5 weeks!
First of all, he didn't propose his theory after those five weeks on the galapagos, second, he had, by your own admission, evidence for it.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 99 of 530 (526795)
09-29-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
09-29-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
he became convinced of evolution after a mere 5 weeks on the golapogas islands, that is not much time to truly research your subject. How much evidence did he have back then? very little if any.
Okay, now that's a good reason to doubt.
You are incorrect, but at least you have a good reason.
It's a little bit like saying "Neil Armstrong walked on the moon" and expecting us to believe that America went from non-player to world-leader in space in around ten years, back in the 1960's before the computer had been invented.
It skips over the rest of the work that a lot of other people did to make it possible - the development of the rocket technology, the electronics, the space suit, the air filtration systems...
I'd advise you to read "the origin of species" because it's remarkably accessible to laymen like me and you.
It makes it quite clear that what he found and put into words wasn't so much that animals changed (he KNEW that and tested what he knew) but how it could happen beneficially even in the absense of mankind.
The lightning bolt from the blue was "natural selection".
It took him far longer than 5 weeks. It might not have taken more than 5 weeks to become sure of it, but that was hardly the entirety of his effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 100 of 530 (526799)
09-29-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peg
09-29-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Inconsistent Worldview?
Peg writes:
this is the theory he proposed in just 5 weeks!
No, it isn't. He only "saw the light" in 1838:
Darwin writes:
In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work...
That's well after he returned from his five year voyage on the Beagle. You would have known this if you had read those books I mentioned.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


(1)
Message 101 of 530 (526803)
09-29-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Peg
09-29-2009 10:03 AM


Re: don't use quote mines!
Peg,
I don't want to clutter up this thread on Carl Sagan in particular, nor any other scientist/specialist who has written words that have been taken so clearly out of context by creationist quote mines.
I don't know what to say other than that you are entirely misunderstanding the intent of the people whose words you so blithely quote in support of an argument they themselves do not believe in.
I am going to go for "fails to comprehend" rather than "liar for jesus" because you seem genuinely distressed that I "don't get it".
I will leave this subject with this thought: If Sagan was such a believer, why did he not write "The designed world: Faith as a candle in the dark" - why did he write "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark" ?
Edited by greyseal, : minor edit (i should learn to use preview)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 10:03 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 530 (526831)
09-29-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by mike the wiz
09-29-2009 7:58 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
And what assumption do we go with? If it's a biblical one, ALL creatures would have been there at the start, "owph", "flying things". So there's the problem of assuming a progression rather than an initial variety.
All you have to do to support the idea that "all creatures would have been there at the start" is find discrete fossil layers with all creatures represented.
Give it a try and see what you find.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 7:58 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 103 of 530 (526834)
09-29-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Peg
09-29-2009 9:23 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
i wouldnt put australopithecus as a transitional link either. It has a skull that differs from humans with a much smaller brain capacity
Some say that its skull is simiannot human. They are more like liviing living monkeys and apes then us.
and that goes for Lucy too. Robert Jastrow in the 1981 book The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Unverse, says: This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain. even New Scientist said that Lucys skull was very similar to a chimpanzees.
Everything you point out argues that Lucy was a transitional, rather than the opposite.
(Except the "monkey" comment--monkeys split off many million years before the time period under discussion.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 9:23 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 530 (526837)
09-29-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Peg
09-29-2009 8:43 AM


Reptiles are cold-blooded and heavy/solid, whereas birds are warm-blooded and very light.
Apart from the fact that what you're saying probably doesn't apply to all dinosaurs ---
You are arguing that birds can't have evolved from dinosaurs because birds are not the same as dinosaurs.
Do I wake or sleep?
THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS. The descendants are different from the ancestors.
Really? no one ever claimed Darwin's finches as evidence of speciation?
except for a brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences
A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galpagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.
the article specifically calls darwins finches an example of speciation.
And of course "Darwin's finches" are an excellent example of speciation.
You are trying to confuse two completely different ideas. If you are trying to do this deliberately, then shame on you for a disgusting liar.
If you have not understood the concepts that you are trying to discuss --- then shame on you for not trying to find out what you're talking about.
Shame on you, the person who thought that a salamander was a fish, shame on you, the person who stated that hyraxes were "fox like", and shame on you, the person who is currently posting abject nonsense about the Galapagos finches. SHAME ON YOU for talking garbage about biology without ever having taken the slightest interest in biology or learned anything about it. Shame on you. Shame on you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 8:43 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 105 of 530 (526849)
09-29-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Peg
09-29-2009 8:11 AM


Re: don't use quote mines!
if he didnt think there was design in nature, why say "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer"
to me thats an acknowlegement of design even if he does believe in evolution.
Then I guess if I say that the way my socks keep going missing could be consistent with the idea of a magic sock-stealing fairy ... you would take that as an acknowledgment of the existence of a magic sock-stealing fairy?
If you lie about what Sagan meant, then you are, how can I put this ... lying about what Sagan meant.
It is true that by employing willful stupidity so gross as to amount to a psychosis, you can lie to yourself about what Sagan meant. This does not change what Sagan meant, nor what he said.
And why do you bother? Oh ... yes ... I remember why. It's because there is no evidence for creationism. Therefore, in order to pretend that there is, you have to recite lie after lie after lie after lie about what scientists think, so as to pretend that they said that there's evidence for creationism. This saves you the trouble of producing any such evidence, something that you are completely unable to do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 8:11 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024