Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 11:17 AM
24 online now:
edge, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,701 Year: 4,738/19,786 Month: 860/873 Week: 216/376 Day: 9/57 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils and quote mining
Coyote
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 196 of 210 (532712)
10-25-2009 10:33 PM


Creation "science" again
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 2536 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 2536 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

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 199 of 210 (532721)
10-26-2009 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Arphy
10-26-2009 12:22 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 12:22 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2536 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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 201 of 210 (532726)
10-26-2009 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Arphy
10-26-2009 1:02 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 1:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 202 of 210 (532730)
10-26-2009 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Arphy
10-25-2009 11:20 PM


How Arphy Stays On Topic: Yet another example of quote mining
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:
40Ar/39Ar step heating analyses of K-feldspar and the SHRIMP U-Pb zircon data indicate that tuffs at the Shangheshou section erupted at 120.3 0.7 million years ago.

And right after that, we see these two additional sentences (the end of the abstract):

quote:
This result confirms an Aptian age for the Jiufotang Formation that was mainly based on biostratigraphic evidence. It also places stringent controls on the age of the fossils from the formation, providing a minimum age (120 Ma) for the four-winged dinosaur, Microraptor, and the seed-eating bird, Jeholornis.

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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 11:20 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Otto Tellick has acknowledged this reply

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2536 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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 204 of 210 (532745)
10-26-2009 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Arphy
10-26-2009 4:38 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4534
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 205 of 210 (532751)
10-26-2009 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Arphy
10-26-2009 4:38 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 206 of 210 (532760)
10-26-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Arphy
10-26-2009 4:38 AM


Re: How Arphy Stays On Topic: Yet another example of quote mining
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18363
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 207 of 210 (532764)
10-26-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Arphy
10-26-2009 1:02 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 1:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5999
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 208 of 210 (532779)
10-26-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Arphy
10-26-2009 1:02 AM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 1:02 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 209 of 210 (532803)
10-26-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Arphy
10-26-2009 4:38 AM


Woodmorappe for Arphy
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:
Throughout the theropod-bird sequence, there does appear to be an almost monotonic progressive emergence of avian traits throughout the sequence.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Arphy, posted 10-26-2009 4:38 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 210 of 210 (532819)
10-26-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Arphy
10-25-2009 11:20 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Arphy, posted 10-25-2009 11:20 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910111213
14
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019