Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 6:55 PM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,615 Year: 6,652/19,786 Month: 1,193/1,581 Week: 15/393 Day: 15/30 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 173 of 210 (531263)
10-16-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by greyseal
10-16-2009 10:05 AM


Re: hi again arphy! (last words from me on Patterson)
I know you want this to be the last thing on patterson however:

* Patterson himself calls his speech "radical" - I believe from context he means it to be provocative and thought-provoking, argumentative.
Yes, but does this mean that he doesn't believe his own arguments? It certainly sounded like it on the audio, and especially when confronted by the other people at the presentation discussion time.

* Patterson himself says there was a creationist who unknowingly to him had a tape recorder and produced the "unauthorized" version
How does patterson know it was a creationist if it was recorded "unknowingly". Remember that I do have the recording that was recorded in full view of patterson and is the "official" recording, so why bring this up again. My quotes were from the authoritative version.

* Patterson himself says that he is "inaccurately quoted"
Sure he may have been, but have i commited that here? I even went to the trouble of buying a copy of the audio and transcript to check it out fully.

Your whole contention is based on this one sentence

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
in a letter to Mr Theunissen. Yes, Mr Theunissen's interpretation may be correct
What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.
however this doesn't mean that all the creationist interpretations are wrong, some may have been, some might not have been. I really don't see how adding this
"... 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."
in any way creates a postive endorsement for evolution. This sentence fits in very well with his presentation. There he basically says that the general evolutionary theory (common descent of all organisms) should not be used in systematics. in other words we shouldn't be making up "stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection", but rather to take a "creationist" approach (yes, i know, sounds crazy, but hey that's what he said) to systematics.
This doesn't question whether or not patterson believes that the general theory of evolution is true, or that there are what may seem like transitional forms (i.e. they have features that are usually associated with a completly different group of organisms e.g. Archaeopteryx).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by greyseal, posted 10-16-2009 10:05 AM greyseal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 10-17-2009 5:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 176 of 210 (532562)
10-24-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Granny Magda
10-17-2009 5:59 AM


Hi Magda! Thanks for your comments.

Huh? That is a total non-sequitur. No-one would think any such thing. The whole point about attempts to determine ancestry is that they use all available data. There is no reason to concentrate only on one aspect.

ok, a bit of an extreme example. But i still question whether ancestery is really determined by using all the avaliable data. Allow me to combine the above with your comment
There is broad agreement between morphological and genetic hierarchies.
Do these two different data sets really paint the same picture? Is one more reliable than the other? This is an interesting subject and I will hopefully open a thread about this soon.

I don't suppose you'd care to back that up would you? It sounds like nonsense to me.


http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119%5B1187:BADSAT%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Please pay attention to what Caffiene said about transitionals. Just because there are other, more derived birds around at the same time as Archy, doesn't mean that it is not a transitional

Sure you can use this argument to try and harmonise evidence with the evolutionary view but it is not direct evidence for evolution.
Anyway even this does not work in this case, so the researchers reassigned the Jehol Group (rock where fossils were found) from the jurassic to the early Cretaceous because of the birds present. i.e. this was not done because there was any evidence placing it there but rather because it did not fit the evolutionary story and therefore had to be changed.

That isn't how it works. All forms are "fully functional". There are fossils though, which display features halfway between two forms, such as Tiktaalik. Nonetheless, it is still fully functional.
ok, so Why, according to evolution are there no 'halfway features' that are "on their way" to becoming functional?

with recognisable bones moved into a more vertebrate-like position.
Really? With some serious imagination maybe. This part of an article about pandericthys shows the large gap that still exists between Tiktaalik and tetrapod limbs.
The small distal bones found between Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are nothing in comparison to the changes that need to be made between either of them and a limb, as one of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Per Ahlberg, has admitted before:

‘Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning.’7
They do not claim that the digits themselves in Panderichthys are any more advanced than Tiktaalik; but they do claim that some of the features of the so-called ‘wrist’ and the positioning of the digits are more tetrapod-like. However, they also acknowledge that Panderichthys and Tiktaalik are close in pectoral fin morphology, exhibiting largely the same bones in comparable proportions. The problem is that neither of them are anything like a tetrapod limb because the wrist morphology is all wrong.8

As Luskin points out, there are a number of things that need to radically change from Tiktaalik to get a proper tetrapod wrist/hand:

1.‘Shrink Tiktaalik’s [and Panderichthys’] radius and reposition it so that it articulates other bones further down the limb.
2.‘Evolve a radiale [a third bone alongside the ulnare and intermedium that articulates with the radius].
3.‘Dramatically repattern, reposition, and transform the existing radials by lining them up, separating them out to form digits.
4.‘Evolve metacarpals and phalanges so that there are real digits extending distally from the radius.
5.‘Evolve the ‘lotsa blobs’, i.e. evolve other carpal bones between the radius, ulna, and the now-aligned digits to form a real wrist. In other words, evolve the bulk of the wrist-bones.’8
Another important consideration is function. Since these particular fins have never been seen in live operation, there is no reason to suggest that they provide evidence for fish–tetrapod evolution. Coelacanth is a prime example. Before it was known that its limbs were used for deft manoeuvring of the fin, the coelacanth’s limbs were thought to be evidence of the fish–tetrapod transition. Now we know better.9 The situation is no different in Panderichthys.

http://creation.com/panderichthys-a-fish-with-fingers

I don't recall that. You are not going to find any examples

Hence why i said look at previous posts. Here is one such example, look back at my previous posts for more.
Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwins—whereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins.
http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise

For more on kinds and hybrids see Thread What is a "kind"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 10-17-2009 5:59 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Granny Magda, posted 10-24-2009 6:23 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 178 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 6:32 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 10-24-2009 8:37 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2009 10:54 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 1:53 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 182 of 210 (532616)
10-25-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Granny Magda
10-24-2009 6:23 AM


Because natural selection can't select for something that may be useful in another million years. It can only work with what it has to hand. Each stage must be functional, at least at the level of gross morphology.

I guess from here we could cross over to irriducible complexity. Surely there would have to be similtaneous changes in other features that compensate for the changes in a feature so that the new feature would remain functional. How does this work? In fact the point would surely be to have a new feature that has a new function, which just makes things even weirder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Granny Magda, posted 10-24-2009 6:23 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:09 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 183 of 210 (532618)
10-25-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dr Jack
10-24-2009 6:32 AM


Re: Fedducia remains not a credible source
In other words, Fedducia's table of comparison is based on the wrong theropods!
Really? More please, could you extend your quote a bit.

We have already found teeth like those of Archaeopteryx in theropods and those teeth are found in the group closest to Archaeopteryx which also share other anatomical features with Archaeopteryx including feathers.
Really? let's see.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 6:32 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 185 of 210 (532620)
10-25-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
10-24-2009 8:37 AM


You're getting your information from a website (http://creation.com) that is making up things whole and lying to you, for example:
please show how it is a lie.

Holy fakery, Batman, fossil flimflam! There's no shortage of creationist websites out there willing and able to engage in mudslinging at wholly innocent scientific endeavors. As Feduccia himself says in the same Discover magazine interview that your Creation Ministries website references:

What does this have anything to do whether or not birds have evolved from dinosaurs or not?
For you interest you can read this once again:
Postscript: Feduccia v Creationists
Evidently some evolutionists have ‘got to’ Feduccia for the fact that creationists have cited his damaging arguments against dino-bird evolution. Discover therefore tried to close the ranks by asking a leading question.3 So we had better head this off at the pass in case skeptics spout all this as ‘evidence’ for their paranoia about creationists ‘misquoting’. This and Feduccia’s response is indented, and my point-by-point response is interspersed.
Discover: Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely.
A misrepresentation when it comes to Feduccia’s work. Rather, blame the evolutionists, e.g. the Skeptics at the Australian Museum, for using the dino-to-bird ‘evidence’ as ‘proof’ of evolution and against creation. It is perfectly in order to cite Feduccia’s severe criticisms as evidence against this specific evolutionary argument; after all, there can be no doubt that he is a world-class expert on fossil birds.

Also, Feduccia used dissimilarities in the development of bird and dino digits to argue strongly against the dino-to-bird theory. So it was totally legitimate to apply the same logic to the development of amphibian and amniote digits to argue against a far-bigger–picture aspect of evolution, i.e. that amniotes descended from amphibians—see Ostrich eggs break dino-to-bird theory.

Discover: How do you feel about that?
A tug at the heartstrings.

Feduccia: Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, …
He should grace us all with a specific example, rather than an assertion.

…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!

Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not.
Once again, when dino-to-bird dogmatists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, it is perfectly legitimate to cite Feduccia’s comment that this is ‘paleobabble’ because ‘Archie’ was clearly a ‘perching bird’.9 See also An anatomist talks about Archaeopteryx.

These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution:…
This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming ‘there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.’

But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining life’s complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favoured mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, as shown above, so it’s perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.

…Animals and plants have been changing.
This is a classic equivocation or ‘bait-n-switch’. Of course, we have long pointed out that we don’t deny that things change (the Bible even predicts this); rather, we point out that evolution ‘from goo to you via the zoo’ requires changes which increase genetic information in the biosphere. See Definitions as slippery as eels. But in Feduccia’s case, it’s not likely to be conscious deception, but merely ignorance of what creationists actually say, because he’s never been an aggressive anti-creationist to my knowledge.

The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that’s not evolution in action, I do not know what is.
Wow, so the best proof of goo-to-you evolution he can come up with is corn turning into corn?! But he has yet to prove that this is an increase in information, which would be required to turn scales into feathers or a reptile lung into a bird lung (something Feduccia never explains in his encyclopaedic book The Origin and Evolution of Birds10). Rather, this is yet another example of sorting or loss of previously-existing genetic information—this sort of change is in the opposite direction from evolution (see The evolution train’s a-comin’).

Note also a common phenomenon. An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a palaeontologist says, ‘The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.’ But an embryologist says, ‘Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor’. However, the molecular biologist says, ‘There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.’

Earlier in the dialogue, Feduccia stated:

The difference between feathers and scales is very, very small. You can transform bird scutes [the scales on bird feet] into feathers with the application of bone morphogenic protein.
This totally misses the point that the cells from which scutes are formed have the genetic information for feathers already present, but turned off. Somehow the chemical induced the genes coding for feathers to switch back on. Feduccia’s ‘evidence’ offers not the slightest support for the idea that the genetic information for feathers arose where none previously existed. It would be a totally different matter if bone morphogenic protein could transform scales into feathers on a reptile, which has no genetic information for feathers! Feduccia’s claim parallels an earlier misinformed claim that retinoic acid (vitamin A) could turn scales into feathers. See Putting Feathers on Reptiles and The strange recurring case of the feathered reptile for further explanation, and for electron micrographs showing the immense differences between feathers and scales. Also, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins).11

http://creation.com/new-four-winged-feathered-dinosaur

Whatever level you examine in the geologic record you'll find a fossil record of life that differs from life at lower and higher levels.
So what? This is not proof for evolution.

The deeper you dig down through geologic layers the more different that life is from today.
ummm... Stasis. But yes it is different, again is this proof of evolution as opposed to biblical creationism. Um, no.

Piecing all that randomly and serendipitously preserved evidence from all the eras back together into a single consistent evolutionary narrative probably isn't possible.
Sure.

There's still disagreement about how many people shot JFK, so naturally there's disagreements and contradictions concerning the order of events millions of years ago. That's just reality.
That's right "we don't know how but it is a fact that evolution has occured from 'simple' organisms to the range of 'complex' organisms we have today"

But creationists have chosen the correct strategy of making up false criticisms of legitimate science,
umm.. what are you refering to here. It was Feduccia who was criticising the prevailing theory of bird origins.

because focusing on the evidence for their own ideas only reveals that there isn't any.
Rubbish

If current scientific theories about geologic and evolutionary history are incorrect, they at least have a great deal of evidence supporting them and cannot be replaced by cockamamie ideas for which there is no evidence at all.
Percy, i am disappointed. I didn't think that you would resort to these types of arguments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 10-24-2009 8:37 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2009 5:28 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:45 AM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 186 of 210 (532621)
10-25-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Jack
10-24-2009 1:53 PM


Hmm... source please?
http://creation.com/...mitarian-re-dating-of-the-jehol-group

I know they radiodated it. My argument is with the revisions.
Note the first sentence in the article you cite.

The timing of the Jiufotang Formation remains speculative despite recent progress in the study of the Jehol Biota.
(emphasise added)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Jack, posted 10-24-2009 1:53 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 189 of 210 (532673)
10-25-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
10-25-2009 5:45 AM


Feduccia is an evolutionary scientist who accepts evolution.
Have I or CMI or any other creationist said any different?

He believes in a different evolutionary pathway for birds than other evolutionary scientists, but he still believes birds are a product of evolution, just as he believes all life now on the planet is a product of evolution.
Yes, I agree and so does CMI.

No amount of creationist lying and distortion is going to change that.
I really don't know what you are going on about, we are neither lying nor distorting. My big quote has a few paragraphs that deals with this please read it again, I'll even post it again below:
…and they’ve put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Once again, see what we actually say about the late Dr Gould (Did Creationists ‘hijack’ Gould’s ideas?). Our main point is, there are a number of creationist alternatives consistent with both the Bible and available evidence, while the supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the other camp. E.g. supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!

The same logic applies to the dinosaur-bird debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite Feduccia’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are both right—birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all! This is consistent with the Biblical account that distinct kinds of birds were created on Day 5, while land animals were created on Day 6 (Gen. 1:20–25)

Note, we always make it very clear that Gould and Feduccia are evolutionists, and explain what they believe. E.g. my book Refuting Evolution has a chapter on birds which includes Feduccia’s support of the arboreal theory of bird evolution. It is also perfectly appropriate to quote them as ‘hostile witnesses’ who can’t be accused of believing what they do because of any creationist bias. However, to many evolutionists, a creationist quoting an evolutionist presenting evidence against a specific evolutionary ‘proof’ is ‘out of context’ by definition, because the person quoted still believes in evolution!

Your message 184 was much better and will try to reply sometime, but got to dash at the moment.

Edited by Arphy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 5:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by bluescat48, posted 10-25-2009 3:28 PM Arphy has responded
 Message 191 by Granny Magda, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 3:38 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 197 of 210 (532716)
10-25-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dr Jack
10-25-2009 3:34 PM


I thought the point was quite obvious.
I'll try putting more words in bold to see if that helps
The timing of the Jiufotang Formation remains speculative despite recent progress in the study of the Jehol Biota.

You do know what Biota means, don't you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 10-25-2009 3:34 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-26-2009 2:57 AM Arphy has responded
 Message 210 by Dr Jack, posted 10-26-2009 4:31 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 198 of 210 (532719)
10-26-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by bluescat48
10-25-2009 3:28 PM


You seem to have fallen into the creationist idea that if there is a conflict between scientific theories then all are wrong and creation wins.

eh????? where did you get that from?

Creationists never state why creation is right
ummm, yes we do. Maybe we could get into that once we have sorted this mess out.

if science can't show that their theories are not 100% right, then they are 100% wrong.
eh????? where did you get that from?

The only way in which creation would be accepted is the event that creationists could come up with a valid source of evidence showing that creation is right regardless of whether it debunks evolution or not.
Unfortunatly creationists don't have the privilage of having the majority of the scientific community backing their view of the evidence. So yes, unfortunatly we also have to debunk the ruling paridigm in order for people to even begin to listen to what we have to say. In other words, if people think that the present paradigm is just fine the way it is then they are less likly to accept a new one. They first need a reason to doubt the old one.

Just because scientists disagree as to how evolution works does not make it wrong.
ok then, what makes it right?

Whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or not has no bearing on the validity of evolution, just on the validity of that part.
Yes
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by bluescat48, posted 10-25-2009 3:28 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by bluescat48, posted 10-26-2009 12:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 200 of 210 (532722)
10-26-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
10-25-2009 3:38 PM


Hi Percy!

Feduccia is way out of the evolutionary mainstream
only in terms of bird evolution, as far as I know.

In essence you're arguing that when scientists disagree that the true answer is contained in stories from the Bible. Why not stories from the Koran or the Hindu sacred texts or the texts of other religions?
Who said that the Bible, the Koran and Hindu sacred texts are equals?

Why is it not that where the various religions disagree that the correct answer is found in science?
naturalism is a religion. The correct answer is what it is. if it is in the bible then tough luck that's just the way it is. Also a note to all these replies, stop equating science to the evolutionary view of origins. Creationists are not anti-science. We just disagree with some of the interpretations of historical data.

All disagreement means is that there is insufficient evidence to settle the issue.
The problem is that evolution and its various components is presented as having been settled i.e. fact.

Insufficient evidence, incomplete evidence, gaps in our knowledge, definitely do not mean that we should accept an answer with no evidence.
Amen to that.

but if neither is right that doesn't mean that an answer from the Bible with no evidence at all suddenly wins. With no evidence, it is still in last place.
Well, it just so happens that the answer from the Bible does have supporting evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 10-25-2009 3:38 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2009 1:34 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 10-26-2009 9:49 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 208 by Theodoric, posted 10-26-2009 11:36 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2567 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 203 of 210 (532732)
10-26-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Otto Tellick
10-26-2009 2:57 AM


Re: How Arphy Stays On Topic: Yet another example of quote mining
Hi Otto

So they finally found a dating method that also agrees with their biostratigraphic evidence (or at least as it stands at the moment)? Somehow I'm not impressed. But yes I didn't pay for the full article either so maybe should lay off a bit. Maybe should have also just highlighted the words "timing" and "Biota" rather than the other words in my quote to show the point I'm trying to make.

The rest of the post reads in the same way that this rapidly deteriorating post is going, yes, I probably didn't help matters with some of my comments, but I'd prefer if you guys don't goad me into these kinds of pointless arguments. So i think it would be good to end this thread before to much serious mudslinging ensues.

However, Thanks go especially to Bluejay and Magda for some good posts for debate on this thread. See ya round.

Arphy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-26-2009 2:57 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2009 7:17 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 205 by JonF, posted 10-26-2009 8:32 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Granny Magda, posted 10-26-2009 9:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 209 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2009 2:40 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019