|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated? 40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash that preserved the footprints. 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Laetoli, Tanzania | SpringerLink
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't know - but E looks like John Lennon and B looks like Charles Darwin. G looks like the Phantom, but is it not true that the Phantom cannot die? Skull A looks like me! Am I dead but don't know it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCat'sEye writes: the usefulness of this science Yeah, right - just like the Theory of Parallel Universes is useful!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Dredge writes: I don't know - but E looks like John Lennon and B looks like Charles Darwin. G looks like the Phantom, but is it not true that the Phantom cannot die? Skull A looks like me! Am I dead but don't know it? I will take that as a tacit admission that those fossils are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: the very definition of a transitional fossil That's what they say about, Archaeopteryx, but there are many scientists who disagree.My personal favorite transitional is the Platypus, extinct for 3.3429087 million years. Some folks in Australia claimed to have seen them (!) but all these so-called witnesses turned out to be loony Jesus-freak creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: That's what they say about, Archaeopteryx, but there are many scientists who disagree.My personal favorite transitional is the Platypus, extinct for 3.3429087 million years. Some folks in Australia claimed to have seen them (!) but all these so-called witnesses turned out to be loony Jesus-freak creationists. Given your sudden attempts to change the subject, I will also take this as a tacit admission that you accept Lucy as a transitional fossil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCat'sEye writes:
Are you saying that I must accept, for example, that humans evolved from a hominid, in order for biology to make sense to me?
Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: Are you saying that I must accept, for example, that humans evolved from a hominid, in order for biology to make sense to me? Go to posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Try to explain those same observations without using evolution. The whole point is that you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution. This point is further supported by your inability to even address those posts, much less explain them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: 40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash I bought one of those 40Ar/39Ar dating kits from K-mart ($12.95) and found it to be unreliable. Then I read the instructions and tried again - it was worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Dredge writes: I bought one of those 40Ar/39Ar dating kits from K-mart ($12.95) and found it to be unreliable. Then I read the instructions and tried again - it was worse. Given your pathetic attempts to dismiss radiometric dating, we will conclude that you have nothing to counter the dates given in the peer reviewed literature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion. What extrapolation? We can directly see a combination of human and ape features in the fossil, no extrapolation needed. If a transitional is not a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features, then please explain what features a transitional should have. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes? Of course, you will never accept any fossil as being transitional, right? No matter what a fossil looks like, you have already decided before looking at it that it can't be transitional. All you have is denial, and this is evidenced by you inability to deal with the fossils themselves. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown. you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong. You still can't explain those observations in those posts. Go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown. A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong. Thank God scientists are not philosophers and don't simply come up with a theory but rather test it. In the case of the Theory of Evolution they have been testing it for hundreds of years and in fact EVERY new discovery, EVERY new testing method has shown that the Theory of Evolution is correct. What you describe is the utter nonsense marketed by Creationists.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024