Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 12:20 AM
24 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Pressie, ramoss, Tanypteryx (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 331 of 385 (565367)
06-16-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
This is bad logic. Yes common ancestry requires a nested hierarchy, and yes we seem to have an ontological model that looks very similar to a nested hierarchy.

It is more than very similar. It is a nested hierarchy.

However, you need more than that to prove common ancestry - if this weren't the case then scientists would have no reason to go "hoopla!" every time they find a so-called transitional fossil. They are desperate for something to support this massive assumption.

And that is exactly what ERV's and shared pseudogenes demonstrate: common ancestry. You continue to ignore this evidence in favor of made up fantasies.

Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others).

Island endemism, biogeography, the nested hierarchy, new variations produced by artificial selection, fossil sorting in the geologic record, and many more facts were used by Darwin to support his theory. It is much more than opinion, and you know it. Not only that, I have shown time after time how the theory of evolution makes specific and testable predictions, and those predictions bear out in experiments. With all of this how can you claim that it is just opinion?

I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists.

How many of them made advances in modern science using baraminology in their research? And how many are named Steve or derivations thereof (I will explain this later)?

If you'd like to discuss this I am happy to. Let's take them one at a time. You pick.

I asked first. Using the letters next to the fossils please tell us which species belong to which baramin, and please list the objective criteria that you used to determine this.

For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.

As I have already shown, the common ancestry model combined with evolutionary mechanisms is extremely useful and has born fruit. Creationists have been working on baraminology for 50 years and it has born exactly zero fruit. It would seem that the creationists are the ones wasting their time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 10:33 AM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:49 PM Taq has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1999
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 332 of 385 (565370)
06-16-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 10:33 AM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
Hi Bob,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it.

So you cannot name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation.

Can you show a single piece of evidence that a single scientist from your list used Creationism in a single significant (or even insignificant) advancement of science?

BobTHJ writes:

For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.

So you are saying that this is how science works? All the scientists decide to throw out the current theory they use to explain all their observations and then start looking for something new that explains them better?

it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.

Are you serious? You are screwing with us right?

Edited by AdminModulous, : various portions hidden that are either too general or did not advance the discussion meaningfully. press peek to see the hidden content


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 10:33 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 333 of 385 (565376)
06-16-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Wounded King
06-15-2010 4:27 AM


quote:
Care to give us anything to substantiate this other than just your word? Given that 'Junk DNA' was a term only coined in the 1972 and by 1992 there was already a growing body of research into functional elements in what had been termed 'Junk'.

By the far the bigger barrier to genetic research has been technical limitations. When Ohno coined the term 'Junk DNA' there was basically no sequencing technology whatsoever, the following year it was a big deal when 25 base pairs were sequenced. Nowadays centres like the Sanger sequence entire human genomes in a day.

So where exactly was this hinderance to the advancement of science? in the 20 odd years between Ohno publishing his paper and functional elements in non-coding DNA being widely recognised? It seems to me that our understanding of the functional aspects of all elements of the genome have only been held back by our technical abilities not any theroretical framework of genetic function.


The argument was based on logic. Scientists who view organs as vestigial or view DNA as junk had no reason to search for another explanation. Thankfully, some did anyway.

quote:
As to vestigial organs, there is already a thread discussing those , 'Vestigial Organs?'. The simple answer though is that what you and other creationists mean by 'vestigial' is not what Darwin and other biologists mean by 'vestigial', it doesn't simply mean functionless.

As I understand the evolutionary definition of the term a vestigial organ is one that has lost some or most of its original function. My point was however that vestigial organs were not found in the quantities predicted by Darwin - nor (in my opinion) the quantities required to support his common ancestry hypothesis.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic material hidden, press peek to view the hidden material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2010 4:27 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 334 of 385 (565385)
06-16-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Granny Magda
06-15-2010 12:52 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
No, that isn't a scientific argument, nor is it the argument I was making. You have the wrong end of the stick.

I am not arguing that evolution is true by making an argument from popularity. What I am saying is that the vast majority of professional biologists and palaeontologists, those best qualified to understand the data, think that life looks evolved. I'm only talking about appearance here.

Now I understand that you do not think that evolution/universal common ancestry is real. So effectively, what you are suggesting is that an entire body of scientists has got it wrong. Not only that, your ideas demand that these scientists are so stupid, so breathtakingly incompetent, that they believe in evolution even though it doesn't even look true.


Not at all....and this fits with the example I gave. During the events leading up to WWII in Germany nazism LOOKED appealing to many. That didn't make it any less wrong.

quote:
Is that really what you think? Isn't it more likely that evolution - even if false - does look rather convincing? Even you have admitted that "Darwinism" as you call it, looks good from a distance; all I am saying is that the view from close-up is pretty convincing too. Whether it is true or not, evolution holds out as a hypothesis beyond a mere superficial examination. In fact, it is convincing enough to have fooled almost every biologist on Earth.

No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.

quote:
One of the tasks a new scientific hypothesis must perform is to explain why any previous (mistaken) hypothesis looked so convincing. YEC fails this test. The failure is especially glaring given that you refuse to accept an omphalist god.

Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God. It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true. Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.

As for omphalism, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that God created to look like darwinism - but (see my last paragraph) darwinism is an invention to explain what God created without his incorporation. That's circular reasoning.

quote:
You are wrong about this. The arguments that people like AiG put forward on the starlight issue are just as omphalist as ever, they just lie about it, to hide the unfortunate ramifications. The idea that the speed of starlight has speeded up for instance, is just as much an omphalist argument as the "created in transit" one. It means that God must have set up the universe in such a way that it should look older than it really is - omphalism.

You're apparently not very familiar with the current creationist hypothesis then. I'll discuss it with you in another thread at another time if you'd like.

quote:
Right, You are not an expert on identifying fossils. Your opinion is not worth much here. Also, you chided me for making what you thought was an argument from popularity a moment ago; now you are content to make an argument from incredulity? Come now. That is not a scientific argument either

Which is why I added a disclaimer to my statement.

quote:
The fact of the matter is that dinosaur feathers have the same structure as modern bird down. They have two lines of filaments extending from a central rachis, just like bird feathers. They closely resemble the feathers of some modern birds, such as the kiwi. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation? There is no assumption here. There is only a hypothesis which provides a reasonable explanation for the facts.

You haven't shown that there is any 'fact' to the matter. But even if there is I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic of this thread.

quote:
So, to recap, you believe that God put structures identical to bird melanosomes into a dinosaur, in fact, into the same type of dinosaur that is suspected to be an evolutionary link between avians and non-avian dinosaurs. But this does not in any way resemble the appearance of evolution. Hmm...

To recap - I demonstrated that assumptions were made. If the statements in your rebuttal are correct then it's possible they were reasonable assumptions. To get back where this started, if the assumptions are reasonable then Dr. Wile should have mentioned so in his post (even if he didn't believe the fossils to show feathered dinosaurs).

quote:
I have told you, I am not going to address bare links. Please stop it. Doing it at all is bad enough; doing it when you have been asked dozens of times to stop is simply childish. It makes you look dishonest and thus tarnishes your argument

I didn't consider it a bare link - it was supporting evidence for the position I was defending. It appears you and others adhere to a different unwritten standard for links. If this is the case perhaps the published forum rules should be changed to match this standard.

quote:
Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.

I'm guessing you typed that without thinking. How exactly did evolutionists determine two organisms were closely related when constructing the phylogenetic tree? Oh yeah, morphological similarity. Yes, the convergence thread did show me that some cases of convergence (organisms in different parts of the tree that share a similar feature) don't have genetic similarity - but of course organisms that are close on the tree and share many features and genes - or are you disagreeing with the sacred scientific consensus?

quote:
So when you say that the Bible can help us with defining our baramins, you were only talking about a tiny handful of examples. There are millions of species out there; the Bible mentions... what? A score? Maybe two score? I think you are going to need some other objective way of identifying a baramin, because the Bible sounds useless in over 99% of cases.

Agree. Dr. Borger's indicator gene method seems promising.

quote:
Fair enough. Although I must admit, if you are willing to acknowledge Biblical errors, I am at a loss as to why you would cling so stubbornly to something as false as creationism. The universe wasn't made in six days. that is an error. Admitting this would save you a lot of time and mental effort.

You misread me. I believe the Bible to be inerrant. But I'm not here to argue the inerracy of the Bible.

quote:
Please don''t pretend that it is not normal practise for creationists to hold up the Bible as an infallible authority. You may not believe it, but for many YECs the mantra "God said it, I believe it, That settles it." is their bottom line. It is used by AiG and they are the largest creationist presence online. You are by no means a typical YEC (if there can be such a thing) if you reject biblical infallibility.

Yes - I believe the Bible is accurate. Yes, I agree with AiG - sorry if I wasn't more clear. The scientific evidence I've seen thus far has confirmed my religious belief to be accurate. I admit I've seen a few trouble spots in YEC specifically which I intend to research further (I mentioned them in a different post) - but my religious beliefs may allow for other models as well should YEC not hold up (on this point I'm not in complete agreement with AiG).

quote:
No you haven't. You say that you've answered it, but you carry on making glaringly false statements, like "darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life". This is total bullshit. I just separated them, right in front of your eyes. The ToE is compatible with pretty much any origin story you like. Pretending otherwise just makes you look as though you are sticking your head in the sand - something that you intimated you would not do.

Yes, I have answered it - you just assumed I was saying something different. I'll explain it again for your sake -

darwinism can be separated from abiogenesis only via the use of an intelligent design argument. Unless you'd like to propose another naturalistic theory that doesn't involve some sort of designer?

I made this point to show that atheistic darwinists (a subset of darwinists for those in the "gotcha!" camp) box themselves into abiogenesis because they are unwilling to admit that life is designed.

quote:
So it's just a co-incidence that supernatural explanations have a millennia-long history of failure, whereas naturalistic ones have a much more successful history? In fact, naturalistic explanations for things like disease, weather, cosmology etc, have a history of over-throwing supernatural explanations. But that is just a co-incidence. Along with the fact that the advent of modern evidence-based medicine ushered in a new era of cures and treatments at about the same time that methodological naturalism took hold. That's co-incidence too is it?

Supernaturalism had millennia to make progress and it failed dismally. Bringing it back is going to get us nowhere.


Yes, the things you mention have naturalistic explanations. No that doesn't mean that science suddenly "got better" when it ruled out the supernatural as a possible explanation. You are arguing a different point than the one I stated.


quote:
I'm just making a point. If there is no objective means of identifying a baramin, how are we to know whether your version is correct, or someone else's - like the one I linked to - is correct? Without such objective measures, how can we even say that the baramin exists?

Agree. Objective measures must be found if baraminology is to advance as a science.

quote:
Yes, you have said that. What I think you fail to realise is just how strongly this removes baraminology from the realm of science. Supernatural ideas are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not science. In suggesting that we use baramins, you are essentially suggesting that we throw out the entire science of biology and replace it with vague, half-formed superstition.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis - the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory. I've posted on this previously.

Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts or potential thread diversions


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Granny Magda, posted 06-15-2010 12:52 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Granny Magda, posted 06-17-2010 10:59 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 356 by Dr Jack, posted 06-17-2010 11:20 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 358 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2010 5:57 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 359 by articulett, posted 06-17-2010 6:29 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 335 of 385 (565397)
06-16-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Coragyps
06-15-2010 1:10 PM


quote:
So can I take this to mean that gorillas, chimps, and humans are more sinful, or at least groan more under the weight of sin, than tarsiers or New World monkeys? And why take away our VNOs and AOBs in the same way in humans and in the other great apes?

That's a gross misrepresentation of my statement. Each baranome would decay independently based primarily on the selection caused by environmental factors. Thus the least used part of the baranome would be most likely to disappear first. Consider plants that can be seen to once have the capability for both C3 and C4 photosynthesis, but have long one or the other due to climate related factors. This also explains the VNO - as stated previously both apes and humans were likely created with similar baranomes. For them to both lose the same non-essential piece of the genome is not altogether unlikely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2010 1:10 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 336 of 385 (565399)
06-16-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Taq
06-15-2010 4:09 PM


quote:
Which came first, meteors or the craters on the moon? Obviously, retroviral activity came first since the ERV's carry the genes necessary for integration into the genome, reverse polymerase, and capsid proteins necessary for making a viron. ERV's are without a doubt the result of retroviral insertion SINCE THAT IS WHAT RETROVIRUSES DO.

If you want to claim that they were magically poofed into the genome by a supernatural deity then it is incumbent on you to supply the observations.


Taq said so, therefore it must be true!

Since ERVs have been known to turn into retroviruses and retroviruses have been known to turn into ERVs your claims are baseless. You have no clue which came first - and neither do I. Your hypothesis says retroviruses came first, mine says ERVs. Until there is some evidence to demonstrate one or the other than your claim that retroviruses "obviously" came first is nothing more than opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 4:09 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 337 of 385 (565402)
06-16-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Taq
06-15-2010 5:00 PM


Re: Insults?
quote:
It is proof that the only reason one would conclude that the Earth is young is if their religious beliefs require it. Why else would you suggest that the Earth is young? Your "semi-coherent interpretation" requires us to throw out every known fundamental law of the universe, from radioactive decay to the speed of light. How is that semi-coherent? If you were defense attorney would you claim that leprechauns planting your client's fingerprints at the scene of the crime is a "semi-coherent interpretation of the evidence"? If not, then why is the unevidenced magical manipulation of the forces of nature any more coherent when it comes to young earth creationism?

So far you haven't demonstrated a single piece of evidence that I'd have to "throw out" to believe YEC. The closest you've come is in demonstrating the problem with accelerated decay - which I'll have to do considerable more research on before agreeing that it is conflicting evidence for YEC.

quote:
The problem is that YEC is not externally consistent. It is inconsistent with the evidence we find the external world.

This is all bluster. Show me an inconsistency with the evidence.

Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic parts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:00 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 338 of 385 (565406)
06-16-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Taq
06-15-2010 5:06 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
1. What evidence, if found, would falsify Borger's hypothesis.

1) Evidence of new genes creating significant new function not previously found either active or dormant within the genome.

2) Evidence that mobile genetic elements (VIGEs) are and always have been "selfish" and random.

There is likely more - those were just the first two things I could think of.

quote:
2. How did Borger determine what the original intention for these genes was.

3. How did Borger determine that "damage" started to accumulate in these genes just 6k years ago.


Borger didn't determine anything. He is postulating. This is a hypothesis. You examine the data and the propose a model that fits that data. Then you make predictions based on the model and test those predictions to see if they hold up. I assumed you were familiar with this process.

quote:
Examples?

Hall, B.G., Transposable elements as activators of cryptic genes in E. coli, Genetica 107:181187, 1999. I quoted from it earlier.

quote:
Evidence please.

None available. Note that this is still a discussion of the baranome HYPOTHESIS. I'm demonstrating that the hypothesis is internally consistent - which a good hypothesis should be.

quote:
Sounds to me that natural selection is keeping these genes around.

Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene?

quote:
The problem here is that you are rejecting explanations backed with tons of evidence in favor of your unevidenced postulations.

No, the problem here is that you are failing to understand that I am explaining a hypothesis. It is supposed to be postulation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 5:06 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 4:42 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 339 of 385 (565409)
06-16-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Coragyps
06-15-2010 10:01 PM


quote:
Huh? God isn't smart enough to use carbonyl sulfide to make polypeptides from the amino acids that He made in the solar nebula?

If you think a moment, you will likely come to the realization that once there was no life on this planet. Now there is. Abiogenesis is "life from no life," specifically, cellular/protocellular/viral life. So you theists are stuck with abiogenesis, unless your Creator was of one of those forms.


I was (of course) referring to the abiogenesis in the sense it is known scientifically: that of the spontaneous self-generation of life from inorganic material without the assistance or oversight of an intelligent being.

Edited by AdminModulous, : hidden off topic sections


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Coragyps, posted 06-15-2010 10:01 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 340 of 385 (565416)
06-16-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 4:07 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
1) Evidence of new genes creating significant new function not previously found either active or dormant within the genome.

A bit of a catch-22, isn't it? If a new gene does evolve through mutation you will claim that it was a dormant gene. You have already claimed such for EBG (evolved beta-galactosidase gene) in the Hall study.

2) Evidence that mobile genetic elements (VIGEs) are and always have been "selfish" and random.

Retroviruses and transposons do have preferences for certain kinds of sites in the genome, but these sites are very plentiful, made up of many bases, and the preference for these sites is not 100%. Therefore, these preferences do not interfere with the phylogenetic signal. Also, what is stopping evolution from making a solo LTR into a functional gene in the genome?

Borger didn't determine anything. He is postulating. This is a hypothesis.

So what experiments can you do to test these hypotheses? What experiments can you do to determine when these sequences started accumulating mutations? What experiments can you do to determine their original function and intent?

Please explain how there is positive selective pressure for an unexpressed gene?

The selective pressure was on the previously functional gene which is restored through mutation. You should read up on the SOS mechanism in E. coli. When the bacteria sense DNA damage (usually caused by starvation) the bacteria turn on genes that code for recombinases and error-prone polymerases. This results in a huge upswing in gene duplication and mutations. This is how these genes are kept around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 4:07 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 341 of 385 (565422)
06-16-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by cavediver
06-16-2010 3:57 AM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
But that is not common design! That is order based upon physics. The similarity between stars is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the Standard Model. The similarity between mountains is not common design - it is a necessity based upon geophysics. The similarity between snowflakes is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the structure of water and intermolecular forces.

Or were you refering to something else?


Where did geophysics come from? Astrophysics? I claim they came from the designer. Your argument makes no sense.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Hid sections that didn't advance the discussion towards understanding Biological classifications vs 'Kinds'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by cavediver, posted 06-16-2010 3:57 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 5:29 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 342 of 385 (565423)
06-16-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Coyote
06-16-2010 9:47 AM


Re: And in reverse???
quote:
If you are positing H. ergaster to be a racial variant of H. sapiens that developed after the flood, and most likely after Babel, do you realize the implications?
You are proposing the exact same type of evolutionary change that scientists propose except thousands of times faster and in reverse!

Great observation! Why do I get the impression that you believe you caught me on some inconsistency?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 9:47 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 343 of 385 (565424)
06-16-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:21 PM


Re: Getting down to details
Where did geophysics come from? Astrophysics? I claim they came from the designer.

And yet these sciences work just fine without reference to a designer. Even worse, you have no evidence for this designer. Once again all we are left with is your empty assertions.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic section hidden (or at least, its wandered so far it threatens to create drift)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:21 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 344 of 385 (565426)
06-16-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Coyote
06-16-2010 10:45 AM


Re: Off the deep end
quote:
If YEC is so evidence-based, why are the only adherents to this belief biblical literalists? Why is YEC not found in areas of the world where the bible is not read? The evidence should be the same.

As I said before - there are multiple semi-coherent explanations of the data.

quote:
The answer is that YEC stems from the bible and not the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the YEC belief.

Repeating your dogma doesn't make it true.

quote:
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, stems from the scientific evidence. How far do you think Darwin's hypothesis would have gone if the evidence contradicted it? It would have died a quiet death. Instead, as time passes, more and more evidence is found which supports the theory.

Darwin really was brilliant. His observations lot of conclusions that have since been shown to be accurate. Unfortunately, not all his conclusions were accurate. Instead of throwing out the bad and hanging on to the good mainstream science has 'adjusted' Darwin's theories to fit the data - nothing wrong with this, it's a scientific process (refine the hypotheses) but at some point you have to admit that you're stretching things a bit too far.

Edited by AdminModulous, : non advancing parts hidden - more tangents that need to be trimmed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2010 10:45 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 6:11 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 348 by AdminModulous, posted 06-16-2010 6:31 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 3078 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 345 of 385 (565429)
06-16-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Taq
06-16-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
quote:
And that is exactly what ERV's and shared pseudogenes demonstrate: common ancestry. You continue to ignore this evidence in favor of made up fantasies.

It is exactly what ERVs and shared pseudogenes demonstrate IF common ancestry is true. If however the baramin hypothesis is true ERVs and shared pseodogenes demonstrate something altogether different (similar creatures sharing similar design). There is more than one way if interpreting the evidence. My way IS logically consistent.

quote:
Island endemism, biogeography, the nested hierarchy, new variations produced by artificial selection, fossil sorting in the geologic record, and many more facts were used by Darwin to support his theory. It is much more than opinion, and you know it. Not only that, I have shown time after time how the theory of evolution makes specific and testable predictions, and those predictions bear out in experiments. With all of this how can you claim that it is just opinion?

A hypothesis is opinion. You examine the evidence and form an opinion about what that means. You then test it as you describe. The results of your tests then allow you to revise and improve your hypothesis - but it starts with an opinion (in this case Darwin's).

quote:
How many of them made advances in modern science using baraminology in their research? And how many are named Steve or derivations thereof (I will explain this later)?

I do not know the answer to either of these questions. Baraminology (as we've discussed) is not a well-developed science yet - so the answer to your first question may be none. You are certainly welcome to do the research to answer your second question, you haven't given me any reason to take the time out of my day and do it.

quote:
I asked first. Using the letters next to the fossils please tell us which species belong to which baramin, and please list the objective criteria that you used to determine this.

I don't wish to participate in this game. If you'd like to discuss so-called transitional fossils on a case by case basis then name one and we'll get started.

quote:
As I have already shown, the common ancestry model combined with evolutionary mechanisms is extremely useful and has born fruit. Creationists have been working on baraminology for 50 years and it has born exactly zero fruit. It would seem that the creationists are the ones wasting their time.

I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 11:24 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Taq, posted 06-16-2010 6:07 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded
 Message 349 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-17-2010 12:18 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
242526Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019