|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Transitional fossils and quote mining | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The problem is that creationists are not doing science, they are doing religious apologetics, and the latest iterations of this are creation "science" and "intelligent design."
The methods and the evidence required are completely different. They think creation "science" is a way of killing off science, particularly any evolutionary science. Within the purview of creation "science" they are correct. In the real world, which is where science is found, they are wrong. Laughably wrong! Because of the vastly different methodologies, quote mining is actually evidence for creation "science!" It is junk science at best in the real world, but to them quote mining is an evolution killer! Its no wonder scientists laugh at the nonsense we see from these folks. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
eh????? where did you get that from? From the various creo sites which do nothing but attempt to debunk science with quote mines .
Creationists never state why creation is right
ummm, yes we do. Maybe we could get into that once we have sorted this mess out. I would like to see some for a change.
if science can't show that their theories are not 100% right, then they are 100% wrong.
eh????? where did you get that from? Same as above
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. If your ideas are correct, you don't need the scientific community, they should stand on their own
Just because scientists disagree as to how evolution works does not make it wrong.
ok then, what makes it right? Evidence, whether it is gradual, descent or punctated equilbrium does not matter the result is there. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
only in terms of bird evolution, as far as I know. Which is the only subject in evolution he ever discusses, so far as I know. Do you know anything different? --- Skipping over the rest of your mess, I find at the bottom:
Well, it just so happens that the answer from the Bible does have supporting evidence. Please start a thread presenting the "supporting evidence" for "the answer from the Bible". Thank you. Please note that halfwitted and incoherent attacks against the current state of scientific knowledge do not actually constitute evidence for the story about the talking snake and the magic tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2360 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
Arphy, you really are embarrassing yourself here. The main topic of thread is "Transitional fossils and quote mining", and it starts with an example of quote mining attributed to you.
And now, here you are giving another example, using just the very opening sentence from the abstract of an article in a fairly blatant attempt to overstate the "uncertainty" regarding a particular point in the geological and evolutionary literature. In that same abstract, from "Timing of the Jiufotang Formation (Jehol Group) in Liaoning, northeastern China, and its implications" by H.Y. He et al., you will find this other sentence:
quote: And right after that, we see these two additional sentences (the end of the abstract):
quote: In other words, your original quotation ("The timing ... remains speculative despite recent progress..."), as presented by you, completely misrepresents the content of the article. When understood in context, that use of "speculative" actually means "not sufficiently nailed down in terms of how many millions of years ago those particular geological strata were laid down." The point of the article is to narrow down the amount of uncertainty -- in this case, to within a margin of plus-or-minus 700,000 years around the central estimate of 120 million years ago -- i.e. reducing the "speculation" to within a margin of error less than 1%. (I didn't pay the $9 to get the whole article, so I don't know how much of a reduction this represents relative to the earlier uncertainty. Presumably, the previous "speculation" would have been on the order of 10% around a similar central estimate. Not the kind of uncertainty that could lend credence to any sort of YEC conception.) Then in a subsequent reply, you reiterate the absurd creationist opinion that "naturalism is a religion" -- which indicates that you are refusing to understand anything at all in that single sentence you used when you quote-mined the paper by He et al., let alone even trying to understand the rest of the abstract or the body of the paper itself. Can you identify any religion where the people practice their faith by describing existing religious texts as "speculative", gathering additional physical evidence about the issues that are not resolved, using peer-reviewed and objective methods to answer specific questions on those issues, and presenting their findings to revise the statements in the existing texts? How often do creationists apply these methods to the Bible? Do you really refuse to comprehend the difference between empiricism and religious faith? And then you suggest that the Bible has "the right answer", and that there is somehow "supporting evidence" for this. Now, are you going to reconcile your interpretation of biblical text with the established physical evidence about specific fossils that have been shown to be 120 million years old? (As Dr. A, indicates, this will have to be done in a different thread.) Or are you going to admit that, in order to sustain the assertions entailed by your inflexible interpretation of scripture, you can only make groundless denials of existing evidence, and cannot provide any real supporting evidence? Hey, if all you want to do is deny evidence, that's the whole point of freedom of speech, and who's going to stop you? But at least be honest: admit that you are abandoning objectivity, and don't push the canard that the people who accept objectivity are just doing faith-based stuff the same way you are -- people aren't stupid enough to believe that, especially the ones who accept objectivity. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4462 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So they finally found a dating method that also agrees with their biostratigraphic evidence (or at least as it stands at the moment)? What do you mean "they finally found a dating method"? Argon-argon dating and uranium-lead dating have been around for decades. Of course they agree with the biostratigraphic evidence. This is because of, y'know ... that thing about evolutionists being right, and creationists being wrong. Remember that? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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. Yeah, agreement between independent methods of measuring something is meaningless, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Wha...?
So they finally found a dating method that also agrees with their biostratigraphic evidence This is exactly why people get frustrated with creationist rhetoric. "Finally" very clearly implies that a number of dating methods were tried and that they failed to agree with the stratigraphy. Otherwise, why write "finally"? There is no excuse for writing this unless one had evidence that several other dating methods were tried and fell flat. Do you have any such evidence Arphy? Of course not. You just threw it in as a rhetorical flourish. In effect however, it is an essentially dishonest attempt to cast false doubt upon the painstaking work of professional scientists, without actually addressing what they have to say or why they are saying it. As such, it's typical creationist fare. As an aside, I's love to see you present the positive evidence for creationism, because I've never seen any. I always assumed that the way creo sites are obsessed with making impotent attacks on the ToE meant that you guys had no positive evidence and were incapable of making a positive argument. Perhaps you'll prove me wrong. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Arphy writes: Well, it just so happens that the answer from the Bible does have supporting evidence. Your most recent argument was that the Bible provides the correct answer whenever there's a scientific disagreement, and believing that answers can be found by default rather than by evidence is as unscientific as you can get. You cut-n-pasted arguments that the lack of agreement about the origin of birds means the story in the Bible must be correct. If you really believe the Biblical accounts have supporting evidence then it is the evidence you should be talking about, not irrational arguments that religious stories are the default answer, or even more irrationally, that fundamentalist Christian interpretations of the Bible trump the answers from all other religions, both Christian and otherwise. But this thread is about transitional fossils and quote mines, and now that you understand that Feduccia's minority view on the origin of birds is not that Archeopteryx was not transitional, and not that disagreements about evolutionary pathways calls the theory of evolution into question, I think someone needs to introduce another quote mine. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Who said that the Bible, the Koran and Hindu sacred texts are equals?
Either you missed the point or your fundie is showing. The point is why should we believe the bible more than any other religious text? You can not show why your religious text should be trusted any more than any other religious text. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Arphy.
Arphy writes: However, Thanks go especially to Bluejay and Magda for some good posts for debate on this thread. See ya round. I hope that doesn't mean you're leaving. If you are, it's been fun debating with you. If you are not, let me try something new.
Here is an article written by intelligent designist John Woodmorappe about bird evolution. In this paper, he attempts a cladistic analysis of avian traits in birds and theropod dinosaurs. This is what Mr Woodmorappe has to say about dinosaur-bird evolution:
quote: Let's ignore, for the moment, the redundancy problem of redundancy. Here I have quoted a well-known intelligent designist stating that his own research shows a gradual, progressive emergence of birdlike traits in a sequence from theropods to modern birds (and he is correct: his research does show this.). Now, read the full article, which I linked to above, and tell me if the above quote accurately reflects Mr Woodmorappe's beliefs and conclusions about avian evolution. Then, tell me whether I can use this quote as evidence against intelligent design, and give me a reason why. Once you have done so, compare your objections about my Woodmorappe quote to our objections about your Feduccia quote. I think you will find very little, if any, difference between your objections and our objections. You will, of course, find that you are completely justified in objecting to my usage of Woodmorappe. You will also, I hope, find a greater appreciation for the frustration your Feduccia quote is causing us on this thread. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I thought the point was quite obvious. I'll try putting more words in bold to see if that helps Why did you just ignore what I wrote? Once again: the sentence you quoted is setting the scene. They are telling you why their paper is important; not telling you how they dated anything. The article which I, unlike you, have read does not make any reference to dating by biota; it is using a radiodating method. Now do you want to respond to this objection, or do you just want to keep misrepresenting them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024