Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 406 of 969 (724681)
04-19-2014 12:58 PM


I have never argued here "God did it," that's a lie.
So is any reference to "magic water" or "magic" anything from me. If there is any argument based on magic it's the establishment claim that the sea could rise to enormous depths and fall and rise again, all based on a few fossils in rocks, the depth of which seems to be of no consequence in this magical scenario. Nobody ever treats that as magic but it is physically impossible. And as I also argued, the idea that the Great Unconformity is the root of a mountain chain that was thrust up and then eroded down to enough flatness for the strata of the GC from the Tapeats up to build up from there, is insanely impossible. And of course there is no real evidence for such a thing. But that doesn't stop Geology. Geology can say anything it wants, but a YEC is ridiculed for ideas that are more reasonable than theirs.
Oh and the question about marine sediments has to do with the fact that I dispute that the strata represent landscapes that formed in place, so unless you are specific I don't know if you are talking about something that looks like it must have had a marine origin or something you KNOW had a marine origin.
But my experience of your arguments is that you have no sense whatever of physical reality, from your bizarre misreading of that photo of the Great Unconformity months ago, to your bizarre straw man arguments with me about the Grand Canyon also months ago. But that's OK because you are the boss here and nobody is going to take you on.
Some complain that I believe what I post and don't give in. What a weird idea. I haven't noticed anybody here ever acknowledging anything I say or giving in on their views, some of which are really stupid, but if I'm sure of what I say that's a big no-no.
I posted that same diagram, Percy, I am aware of the Cardenas basalt illustration, which I posted because it's the only one I found that shows it as intrusive into the Supergroup. How any of that proves anything I've said wrong I have no clue.
Schist is a metamorphic rock that has transformed what it is made of, but if you know what it is made of why don't you say instead of attacking me for guessing.
Edge's snark got to be beyond tolerable. I'm sick of the snark and the lies at EvC.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2014 1:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 415 by edge, posted 04-19-2014 4:45 PM Faith has replied

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


(2)
Message 407 of 969 (724683)
04-19-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
04-19-2014 12:58 PM


I have never argued here "God did it," that's a lie.
Well, pretty much everyone who believes in Noah's flood does ascribe it to God. You yourself used to do so, as you stated, for example, here.
But after the Fall and the increasing wickedness of humanity He destroyed the entire earth with water.
Before you call Theoderic a liar, then, you should contemplate the possibility that he didn't know you'd changed your mind.
So is any reference to "magic water" or "magic" anything from me.
But your water does in fact have magical properties. By analogy, if you were to tell me that you'd seen someone wave a wand and turn a pumpkin into a coach, then even if you didn't use the word magic, even if you denied fervently that what you had seen was magic, then what you are describing is, in fact, magic.
If there is any argument based on magic it's the establishment claim that the sea could rise to enormous depths and fall and rise again, all based on a few fossils in rocks, the depth of which seems to be of no consequence in this magical scenario. Nobody ever treats that as magic but it is physically impossible. And as I also argued, the idea that the Great Unconformity is the root of a mountain chain that was thrust up and then eroded down to enough flatness for the strata of the GC from the Tapeats up to build up from there, is insanely impossible. And of course there is no real evidence for such a thing. But that doesn't stop Geology. Geology can say anything it wants, but a YEC is ridiculed for ideas that are more reasonable than theirs.
Hey, Faith. Remember how you don't know anything about geology?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 408 of 969 (724686)
04-19-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Percy
04-19-2014 10:49 AM


Re: granite schist and basalt
pit nick
... the Cardenas Basalts intrusion that I've drawn a red square around also formed a layer, this one parallel to the Unkar Group. ...
Don't you mean perpendicular?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 10:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by edge, posted 04-19-2014 4:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 409 of 969 (724688)
04-19-2014 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2014 1:47 PM


There is not one true representation in your post of anything I've said.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2014 1:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2014 6:20 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 410 of 969 (724689)
04-19-2014 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
04-15-2014 11:56 AM


prediction: nested hierarchies; anti-prediction: not nested hierarchies
Let's see if we can get back on topic ?
Yes, but again you can't say that that MUST happen if it was false, you can only say that it can't happen if it's true.
If descent with modification were not true then nested hierarchies would not form, and instead there must be some other pattern formed.
When we look at vehicles we see that no single nested hierarchy can be formed that explains all the homologies, and that any attempt to do so results in significantly different patterns when different aspects are used for homologies.
Using color you get one pattern
Number of passengers gives another pattern
Number of openings gives another pattern
Engine cylinder number gives another pattern
Carburetor construction gives another pattern
Rear window wipers gives another pattern
Tire type gives another pattern
etc
When you try to combine them you get cross-links rather than linear branches.
This is what you should see if descent with modification were wrong, and this demonstrates that the changes seen in vehicles are not due to biological evolution but to another process.
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2014 11:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 4:26 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 427 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2014 12:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 411 of 969 (724690)
04-19-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by RAZD
04-19-2014 4:16 PM


Re: prediction: nested hierarchies; anti-prediction: not nested hierarchies
Nested hierarchies is some kind of article of faith you think proves evolution but although I've looked at discussions of this phenomenon I must be missing something. Could you please explain graphically and in detail what a nested hierarchy is? Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 4:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 5:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 420 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2014 6:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 412 of 969 (724691)
04-19-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
04-17-2014 5:22 PM


Re: The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Faith writes:
So far all you've talked about is subduction, not uplift, so now you are saying the sea floor will be tilted and raised into mountains and that will be a new continent? I don't get it. Tectonic force buckles continental land and raises mountains, it doesn't make continents. The high mountains that have been raised by tectonic force, Rockies, Himalayas etc., are buckled continental land, not former ocean floor. Oh I see, on YOUR model they were once ocean floor.
Of course they were once ocean floor. Since they're composed of the same type of marine sediments we see being deposited today on ocean floors, and since these marine sediments contain marine fossils, of course they were once ocean floor.
But you have a different model:
On mine they are simply once-horizontal strata full of fossils that accumulated on the land mass that were then tectonically raised into mountains.
Most sedimentary layers are marine and they contain marine fossils. So please describe your evidence that these marine layers and fossils accumulated on land?
They never COULD have been ocean floor, they weren't pushed up from such a depth.
You're making no sense. How can you believe that a land mass can be uplifted to be mountains, but that ocean floor can't be uplifted to be above sea level?
In any event, it's more complicated than that, which is why I didn't provide any elaboration for how sea floor becomes continent, and I certainly wasn't so explicit as to say it occurs only through uplift. As has been described many times before, sea levels rise and fall. An ocean encroachment onto land during a period of elevated sea levels will leave behind marine layers on land. And land can be uplifted above sea level and can subside below it. And ocean floor can become part of a continent through accretion and other processes.
These are all processes we observe happening today, and of course they also happened in the past. So when you talk about geology being made-up you're being particularly idiotic, because you're in effect denying that we can tell what is happening before our very eyes.
Never ever "forgot" Mount Everest, I've always explained those high mountains as formed by tectonic force after the Flood, including the Rockies which were produced by the same tectonic force that created the Grand Canyon with its Great Unconformity and all the rest of the formations in that area.
But this is just another example of the extreme contradictory nature of your various claims. Mount Everest, uplift okay. Sea floor, uplift not okay. And not only not okay but yet another reason why modern geology is cuckoo. By what delusional mental episodes do you reach such absurd conclusions?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 04-17-2014 5:22 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-20-2014 12:08 AM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 413 of 969 (724692)
04-19-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by RAZD
04-19-2014 3:36 PM


Re: granite schist and basalt
pit nick
... the Cardenas Basalts intrusion that I've drawn a red square around also formed a layer, this one parallel to the Unkar Group. ...
Don't you mean perpendicular?
The diagram is confusing. It does indeed show the Cardenas as being perpendicular to bedding, but most of the RW Cardenas is a flat lying basalt flow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 3:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 414 of 969 (724693)
04-19-2014 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by NoNukes
04-16-2014 1:31 PM


Back to the topic: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
You could go on a fossil hunt, but let's say that you are unable to do that? So what? The question of falsification is not about what you personally can do, it is about what is possible and what has or has not been found.
The probability of a single organism becoming fossilized is low ... very low, agreed?
The probability of a single fossil being found is also low ... very low, agreed?
So this test has a very low probability of being actualized even if a precambrian cow existed.
Except that it is not the only test. The answer is deliberately flip ...
Then why not provide a real test that is not flip and dismissive (which is one of my objections to it. It is condescending and obstructive rather than educative and elucidating.
... Anyone, even a disbeliever, who if familiar with the science ought to be able to come up with their own falsification. ...
Curiously I am not so impressed with the ability of Americans raised on watered down science to even think that they could develop their own test, and I also think that it should be considered a valid question, one that should be answerable for every theory.
... But someone ranting about the TOE being just mind games is not that person. I would not spend 2 minutes trying to explain a scientific topic to Faith. You do seem to have that kind of patience, but I doubt you can get any better results.
And I am not concerned with Faith so much as I am with other readers who may be put off by flip responses to serious questions.
What I would prefer to see would be comments more on the lines of:
The theory of evolution predicts nested hierarchies based on descent with modification, and thus if the theory is false then the nested hierarchies must be violated. An example of such a violation would be an otter with octopus eyes, a mammal with eyes from a cephalopod. Another would be an organism that uses another molecule than ATP for energy transfer.
This would mean that a new\additional process would be needed to explain the anomalies, such as a mechanism for horizontal transfer of whole sections of DNA.
AND the result would likely be more a refinement of the ToE to include this new mechanism (in the way that relativity refined Newton's law of gravity).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by NoNukes, posted 04-19-2014 4:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 415 of 969 (724694)
04-19-2014 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
04-19-2014 12:58 PM


I posted that same diagram, Percy, I am aware of the Cardenas basalt illustration, which I posted because it's the only one I found that shows it as intrusive into the Supergroup. How any of that proves anything I've said wrong I have no clue.
Well, most of the Cardenas is actually a subaerial lava flow which kind of goes against your scenario.
quote:
Schist is a metamorphic rock that has transformed what it is made of, ...
Well, kind of. However, your post appeared to indicate that it is an intrusive rock.
quote:
... but if you know what it is made of why don't you say instead of attacking me for guessing.
Heh, heh... YECs attack me all the time for 'guessing'. Why should you be immune?
quote:
Edge's snark got to be beyond tolerable. I'm sick of the snark and the lies at EvC.
Life is tough when you are wrong most of the time. I think your problem is that I showed you to be wrong. I've been a lot snarkier in the past.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Faith, posted 04-20-2014 2:18 AM edge has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 416 of 969 (724695)
04-19-2014 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
04-19-2014 4:43 PM


Re: Back to the topic: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
So this test has a very low probability of being actualized even if a precambrian cow existed.
Right. But what you argue is irrelevant to the question whether the theory of evolution is not falsifiable and hence not science. You are addressing some other question.
And it actually turns out that most answers to the question, is TOE falsifiable are going to be beyond the ability of the non-scientifically inclined people because the theory is well grounded.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 4:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 417 of 969 (724696)
04-19-2014 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
04-19-2014 4:26 PM


Re: prediction: nested hierarchies; anti-prediction: not nested hierarchies
Nested hierarchies is some kind of article of faith you think proves evolution but although I've looked at discussions of this phenomenon I must be missing something. Could you please explain graphically and in detail what a nested hierarchy is? Thank you.
When speciation occurs you have two (or more) daughter populations that have evolved from a common ancestral (pre-speciation) parent population, daughter populations that no longer share genetic material and the different mutations the populations accrue.
When one of these daughter populations has another speciation event, dividing into (grand)daughter populations they too will not share genetic material or the different mutations those populations accrue. Same with any further speciation events, and when we plot these lineages we will see something like this:
Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.
The C clade (C, D, and E) are nested within the B clade (B, C, D, E and F).
The B clade (B, C, D, E and F) and the G clade (G, H and I) are both nested inside the A clade (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I)
Deriving cladograms from the available evidence is not without problems ...
Cladistics - Wikipedia
quote:
Every cladogram is based on a particular dataset analyzed with a particular method. Datasets are tables consisting of molecular, morphological, ethological[18] and/or other characters and a list of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) which may be genes, individuals, populations, species, or larger taxa that are presumed to be monophyletic and therefore to form, all together, one large clade; phylogenetic analysis infers the branching pattern within that clade. ...
Until recently, for example, cladograms like the following have generally been accepted as accurate representations of the ancestral relations among turtles, lizards, crocodilians, and birds:[19]
Testiduines
           ---------------- turtles
           |
           |              Lepidosauria
           |            ------------------ lizards
           |            |
----------▼|            |                   Crocodylomorpha
           | Diapsida   |                 ------------------ crocodilians
           ------------♦|                 |
                        | Archosauria     |
                        -----------------•|
                                          | Dinosauria
                                          ------------------ birds
If this phylogenetic hypothesis is correct, then the last common ancestor of turtles and birds, at the ⊣ connection near the ▼ (a ⊤ in some browsers) lived earlier than the last common ancestor of lizards and birds, near the ♦. Most molecular evidence, however, produces cladograms more like this:[20]
Lepidosauria
           ---------------- lizards
           |
           |              Testiduines
           |            ------------------ turtles
 Diapsida  |            |
----------♦|            |                   Crocodylomorpha
           |            |                 ------------------ crocodilians
           ------------▼|                 |
                        | Archosauria     |
                        -----------------•|
                                          | Dinosauria
                                          ------------------ birds
If this is accurate, then the last common ancestor of turtles and birds lived later than the last common ancestor of lizards and birds. Since the cladograms provide competing accounts of real events, at most one of them is correct.
Here we see that there is a slight disagreement between the fossil based cladogram and the genetic based cladogram ... mostly over which branched off first, turtles or lizards.
This disagreement doesn't violate the nested hierarchies formed, but flying turtles with bird type feathered wings would, because birds and bird type feathered wings evolved after turtles split from the lineage of descent.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 4:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Faith, posted 04-20-2014 2:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 418 of 969 (724697)
04-19-2014 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Percy
04-19-2014 10:54 AM


Re: Faith knows THE TRUTH
She's arguing that it happened naturally, obeying scientific laws. Of course, she thinks that scientific laws include magic water and magic rotating layers and so forth.
Faith does not think she's invoking magic; she just does not know any science. She claims to be an expert on stuff like geology without having studied the topic because she has a 'Fine Scientific Mind'. She grades herself as knowing 80 per cent of the topic, and then excuses herself for not understanding the parts with which she disagrees. She makes similar excuses for herself when it comes to biology. She cannot read a scientific paper on any subject, yet she feels uniquely positioned to declare subjects 'unfalsifiable' without looking at a single experiment. It is a challenge to express the level of hubris that comprises such an attitude, but I'm going to try.
Very few posters here, certainly including you and I, but possibly excluding people like Dr. Adequate and the actual professionals on the subject have any business expressing a serious opinion on how geology works with consulting a reference. The list of people who should be backing up what they claim they know surely includes Faith. You might drawn on a knowledge of physics, engineering, or chemistry and make some relevant comment, but Faith cannot even do that.
Yet she does not even consult Creation Science or Biblical sources before spouting off pure nonsense. The idea that water sorted living creatures into the current fossil record is not merely wrong; holding such a belief and calling it scientific is beyond a level stupidity any of us needs to excuse as ignorance. As you've recognized, there may be no point in spending much effort trying to dissuade a lurker from that belief. But at least we can justify doing so for a lurker who is just repeating what he's heard.
But it is not productive to engage the type of arrogance on display here. First this ridiculous crap is just a rehash of the same non-working ideas we've seen before. Secondly geology is not even on topic. The sole reason for having these kinds of discussions is that they are entertaining/interesting to the participants. And to a point they are entertaining for me. But at some point, I can see that it is entertainment at Faith's expense. And when it gets to that point, perhaps it is just too cruel to be take it much further.
It is not my call as to when things have gone too far, and it's not like we are hampering other discussion. And I am still laughing.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 04-19-2014 10:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 419 of 969 (724700)
04-19-2014 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
04-19-2014 3:58 PM


There is not one true representation in your post of anything I've said.
There was a direct quotation from you, with a link to the original post. Many people would think that was a true representation of something you've said, but then you evidently have your own unique take on this as on so much else.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 3:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Faith, posted 04-20-2014 2:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 420 of 969 (724702)
04-19-2014 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
04-19-2014 4:26 PM


Re: prediction: nested hierarchies; anti-prediction: not nested hierarchies
Nested hierarchies is some kind of article of faith
Hey, Faith, you remember how you don't know anything about biology?
Although I've looked at discussions of this phenomenon I must be missing something. Could you please explain graphically and in detail what a nested hierarchy is? Thank you.
Oh, you do remember. Then why make shit up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 04-19-2014 4:26 PM Faith 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