Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:01 PM
35 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,786 Year: 11,822/19,786 Month: 1,603/2,641 Week: 112/708 Day: 46/66 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 305 (227236)
07-29-2005 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 12:43 AM


more talkorigins
They also address the probability question

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

ABB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 12:43 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 257 of 305 (227237)
07-29-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 12:43 AM


Carl Baugh's PhD...
...is in Christian education, not paleontology or any science.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199803/0117.html

ABB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 12:43 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 258 of 305 (227244)
07-29-2005 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 12:43 AM


Mr C,

Also, if evolution happend, why are there not trans forms that are alive today? As far as I know, there are no incomplete species in the fossil record, or alive today. How does evolutionary theory explain this?

They really got to you, didn't they?

Evolutionary theory doesn't predict "incomplete" species, it predicts species that are intermediate between two taxa. They are "complete" in every way, however.

The number of intermediate species are legion, Archaeopteryx lithographica posess' a character mix between modern birds & therapod dinosaurs, for for example.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 12:43 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

  
Mr. Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 305 (227256)
07-29-2005 7:44 AM


I'm sorry for my bad posts, I just didn't want to go searching through lots of other posts. I take back those big numbers that I brought up, and if I find where I read them, then I will tell you.

I'm done talking for now, cause I don't have time to do my research before I post, sorry.

This message has been edited by Mr. Creationist, 07-29-2005 07:45 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by CK, posted 07-29-2005 7:49 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 261 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:57 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 265 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 1:41 PM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 260 of 305 (227259)
07-29-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:44 AM


That's no problem but are you starting to see that your position is one built upon limited, incomplete or just plain wrong information?

If you have questions I'm sure people will be happy to point you in the right direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:44 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Mr. Creationist
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 305 (227262)
07-29-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:44 AM


No, I don't think we evolved, and I still think that creation has much better evidence for it than evolution. I'm appearantly not a good debater at the moment, you guys need a PhD that really knows his stuff(Kent Hovind, Carl baugh, Ken Ham, ect.), one of those guys will give you a run for your money. I am just unprepared for serious debates, and so am not likley to be back for a while(I'll be back however!).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:44 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2005 8:02 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 263 by mark24, posted 07-29-2005 9:46 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 10:48 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15200
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 262 of 305 (227263)
07-29-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:57 AM


Baugh and Hovind have diploma-mill "doctorates", not worth the paper they are printed on. They probably know less than many of the people here. Even other creationists aren't that impressed (there was a little spat between Answers in Genesis and Hovind, because even AiG recognise how poor some of Hovind's arguments are). Ham's reputation isn't a lot better.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:57 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3387 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 263 of 305 (227286)
07-29-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:57 AM


Mr Creationist,

Kent Hovind, Carl baugh, Ken Ham, ect.), one of those guys will give you a run for your money.

I, & almost anyone else here could dispatch any argument any of those guys makes in seconds. They are the worst of their creed.

You seem like a decent bloke, & if you come here with an open mind & the time to assimilate information, then you are in for a treat. Many here are working scientists or very knowledgable amateurs.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:57 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 264 of 305 (227305)
07-29-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:57 AM


Hello, Mr. Creationist.

Since people have given you some links, allow me to give you a link to my favorite website on evolution, Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences for Evolution. It will give you a good understanding of what we expect to see if evolution were true (the only way to test a scientific theory), and the confirmatory evidence. It lists evidence for evolution in several different fields that rely on a variety of different methodologies.

It also has a link to a site at TrueOrigins that tries to debunk Theobald's evidence, as well as a refutation of the TrueOrigins claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:57 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 265 of 305 (227405)
07-29-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:44 AM


you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Don't let the term "transitional forms" used by evolutionists fool you. The truth is everything is, by definition, transitional according to the ToE.

The so-called transitional forms between taxa are pretty much bogus, but a more powerful argument is realizing that the fossil record does not show the transitions at all.

Evolutionists want to categorize types of species in a manner to fit them into an evolutionary chain, but what they are tacitly admitting to is that the chain itself is not shown.

When we see a species in the fossil record, we don't see the immediate predecessors, all the small changes going back.

Evolutionists counter that is just arguing the God of the gaps, but that's a bogus argument since the onus is on them to prove the theory, not to demand others disprove it.

The fact is these are not "gaps." The differences between species are called "gaps" by evolutionists because a priori they assume the species all evolved via naturalistic means.

But if we were to look at the numbers of mutations necessary, and adaptive changes to create one chain along just one of these so-called "gaps", the sheer numbers are astonishing.

The idea is very small changes, things we can observe, can add up to these macro-level changes, but we just don't see all those small changes in the fossil record.

Perhaps the correct reason as to why we don't see all those thousands of changes needed to fill the gaps is because they did not occur?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:44 AM Mr. Creationist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:00 PM randman has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 266 of 305 (227419)
07-29-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by randman
07-29-2005 1:41 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Actually, the existence of transitional fossils have become incredible support in favor of evolution. Check out the link; look especially at the transition between reptile and mammal, since it describes the jaw joint evolving into the mammalian inner ear, which is related to embryonic evidence that you also insist doesn't exist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 1:41 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:07 PM Chiroptera has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 267 of 305 (227423)
07-29-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:00 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
I've checked it out. I suggest you check out what critics say about this, and think for yourself about how data is used.

The fact that reptiles and mammals have jaws, and thus a similar pattern, is not the strong evidence for evolution you guys claim.

Plus, it is based on a faulty assumption, namely that similarities are the product of common descent passing those traits down.

Even with evolutionary theory, we see exact same similarities, or as exact as what you are pointing to here, arise convergently, such as the mammalian ear-bones. Evolutionists now posit that the same 3 ear bones arose convergently in at least 2 different evolutionary paths in mammals, and was not passed on.

Now, it could be that they did not evolve from earlier forms, but just were created that way. For sake of argument though, let's assume they evolved convergently. if such similarities can occur without being passed on from a mutual ancestor, then it becomes quite clear stitching together a bunch of pics showing jaws between reptiles and mammals, and insisting that because reptiles had jaws with similar traits to mammals, that this indicates reptiles evolved into mammals, well, that is quite absurd on the face of it.

You can claim you think this happened, but in no way does the data indicate that unless you assume first it had to happen that way. The similarities in jaws means absolutely nothing provable in context since such similarities don't mean they had to be the result of common ancestry passing the similarities on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:00 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM randman has responded
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 3:18 PM randman has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 268 of 305 (227431)
07-29-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by randman
07-29-2005 2:07 PM


Oh, this is going to be fun.
quote:
The fact that reptiles and mammals have jaws, and thus a similar pattern, is not the strong evidence for evolution you guys claim.

This is interesting. I'm trying to figure out whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what is written (which would make you a liar) or whether you have a serious problem with reading comprehension (which would make you illiterate). Perhaps you are simply too delusional to really understand anything that goes against your faith.

Let me try to explain this to you. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. Trace out the words with your finger if it helps you.

It is known that the jaw bone of a reptile consists of four bones, while that of the mammal is a single bone. The inner ear of the reptile has but a single bone, while the inner ear of the mammal has three. It was known that three of the bones in a mammal embryo that correspond to three bones that in a reptile embryo develop into the jaw instead migrate into the ear and (after two of the bones fuse) develop into inner ear bones.

I know that you don't like developmental biology, and that you don't like how developmental biologists see correspondences, but nonetheless biologists claim to see these correspondences. How do we check whether they are correct? Well, base on this claim, and base on common descent, these biologists make a prediction:

Two of the inner ear bones in mammal ears evolved from jaw bones in reptiles.

There. That is the prediction. If developmental biologists are simply making up the claim that they see obvious correspondences, or if common descent were not true, then there would be no reason whatsoever for this prediction to be fullfilled. So, do we see any other evidence that these two bones in the inner ear of mammals evolved from the jaws of reptiles?

A remarkable fossil sequence is found showing the transitions that you claim cannot be seen. We have pre-mammals with ears and jaws like reptiles. We have primitive mammals that have ears and jaws like mammals. And we have fossils that show the bones in intermediate states. What is more, these fossil occur in the right stratigraphic order: lower down, the bones are more jaw-like and less ear-like; higher up the bones are less jaw-like and more ear-like.

These in-between fossils did not have to exist. God did not have to create creatures that have bones that are in between looking like pre-mammal jaws and mammal ears. The flood did not have to deposit them so that more jaw-like boned animals are found lower than more ear-like boned animals. Yet your god has quite the sense of humor.

Now, in all of this, where am I saying that reptile and mammals have jaws, and this is evidence of evolution? Where in the web page does it say that the evidence for evolution is that reptiles and mammals have jaws? Are you really so illiterate that you cannot understand what is written, or are you merely dishonest that you are going to misrepresent what I have written?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:07 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:45 PM Chiroptera has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 269 of 305 (227436)
07-29-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 2:32 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
Uh huh? Sorry, but all that is just one big rant with no substance.

The issue is how the data is interpreted.

You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?

If that is correct, one falsification would be to find even more detailed similarities that arose without being passed on by common ancestry.

I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones. Since they arose independently, the idea that lesser similarities indicate a developmental pathway is highly dubious.

Deal with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 2:56 PM randman has responded
 Message 271 by mark24, posted 07-29-2005 2:58 PM randman has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6688
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 270 of 305 (227439)
07-29-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by randman
07-29-2005 2:45 PM


Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.
quote:
Uh huh? Sorry, but all that is just one big rant with no substance.

In other words you cannot really explain this, huh?

-

quote:
The issue is how the data is interpreted.

Yes, and I even suggested another way to interpret it: "But...but... but that's how god decided to make those animals!". It would be interesting to see another interpretation.

-

quote:
You are making claims that similarities discovered are the result of common ancestry, no?

No.

-

quote:
If that is correct, one falsification would be to find even more detailed similarities that arose without being passed on by common ancestry.

Wrong.

-

quote:
I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones.

If you are referring to what I think you are, that paper is fairly recent, and the conclusions still need to be scrutinized.

-

quote:
Since they arose independently, the idea that lesser similarities indicate a developmental pathway is highly dubious.

If this is so damaging to evolution, and if there is such a conspiracy to silence embarrassing facts, how did this get through peer review?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:45 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:04 PM Chiroptera has responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019