|
2 registered members (Akow, 1 invisible),
1,423
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78150
07/03/06 23:28
07/03/06 23:28
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
You expect me to believe its true just because it fits with your pre-conceieved notion of how life develops?
Not at all. I expect you to make a rational choice based on evidence. Sicentists dont make such claims without good reason. Could they be wrong? Sure, but you havent shown in any way that they are wrong; you've just proven that you don't understand the science involved, that's all.
Quote:
Putting scientific terms on idiocy doesn't make it any smarter.
That's abot the most idiotic comment you've made here. You completely ignore the explanation and just dismiss without even attempting to understand it? Do you have any idea what "derived" means? It means that the trait must have come form a specifc earlier form, and is not a convergence. This can be determined using a variety of means. Either way, you cant just dismiss the whole concept with your ignorant glibness and expect it carry any weight. You are only proving how foolish creationists are.
Quote:
Coming up with imaginary stories is great. But I'm not attacking the science itself, I'm attacking the whale tree. And you still have yet to address why the DNA evidence doesn't back it up. It seems your lineage is worthless.
Again you just dismiss the evidence and the methods...You can't get usable DNA material from most fossils, so what is your comment related to?
Quote:
those cartoons are strawmen
Since microevolution is good evidence in favor of macroevolution, I think its relevant.
However, I dont think there is much need to post cartoons in this forum...
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78152
07/04/06 01:43
07/04/06 01:43
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
First off all, I'm getting a bit tired of this, so please excuse me for being a tiny little bit agitated. First it's, "it's based upon assumptions", then "it's pseudoscience", then it's "your going off topic", now it's "you're not understanding the bible on purpose", what's next? (no, I don't take all this personal, but these are the arguments that irritate me a bit, because they make no sense whatsoever, but maybe I asked for them somehow, I don't know.  ) Quote:
Wow, Phemox, its amazing to see how you absolutely refuse to even understand a single word in the bible. Regardless of whether or not the bible is true, even the smallest of understanding would tell you that much of Jesus' actions and words were.....metaphorical. He didn't always speak directly, and when he was referring to blindness, it wasn't physical blindness. But I doubt you've read the bible beyond the skeptic's annotated version.
It's obvious you don't even fully read my posts ... I already made clear I was talking about spiritual blindness as well. Metaphorical or not, that doesn't correct the error made in the reasoning.
Quote:
Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...
AAah, I see why there was confusion. Let me clarify a bit. I made a little error, I meant to say 'none-blind people can have sins too ... etc.' The second line was more of a joke about the phychology of this line. Because who decides who's infact 'spiritually blind'? We all would say the others who supposedly do not understand are blind to the truth. Again; everyone can make these kind of comments and seem right in the eyes of the 'believers'.
It's a phychological effect; "(person)A: What? They do not understand us? They do not believe in the bible!? How is this possible? B: Off course they don't believe, my son, that's because they are blind. They can't see the truth. A: Aaah, okey, that explains it. Stupid people  ..". It makes sense in the eyes of the believer, but it's not necessarily true. In my opinion it's just one of many phychological traps in the bible. I know 'traps' sounds negative, but they really are trap-like constructions, psychological and phylosophical in nature.
Quote:
Most of the major scientists who formed the foundation of modern science were christians or some other major faith. If we were having this discussion at that point, could I use that as proof that religion is superior to atheism?
The argument would fail anyway, since we are not living in the past, and religious scientists in the way you like to see them are a very very small minority and decreasing further and further. Infact, 'religious scientist' doesn't necessarily make them 'creationists' at all, but you'd ignore that fact obviously. What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...
Quote:
Quote:
There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.
No, just things like biogenesis and evolution.
Where's your evidence for A: the existence of your God then and B: the proof that scientists are 'guessing with no proof at all'. You can't give either, so obviously this is nonsense, like most of what you state.
If there's one thing that keeps amazing me when it comes to your faith and belief that you're so right, then it's the inconsistency of logic and argument. Even IF science makes certain assumptions, this doesn't mean you can state your bible is truth purely based upon what other do or do not. That's no evidence, it's not even circumstantial evidence in favor of your belief.
Let's think outside the box for a moment, let's dump science and it's explanations for a second. I don't think you'd mind doing that. Okey, and now look at your theory. Now think about what you consider mandatory for a theory to be valid and true.
Now, tell me why you believe in God WITHOUT any evidence...
Where's the common sense in that if I may ask?
Your faith is based upon faith, isn't it? In other words you accept it no matter what... Why?
Oww about me and reading the bible. I've voluntary read practically the whole bible purely out of interest and also because I went to a Christian school and we talked about it quite a lot. (every morning at least 10 minutes, I've been on that school 6 years, and no I don't have any traumas  )
There hasn't been a time at which I actually believed in the bible, but that doesn't mean I thus didn't or don't read it. I don't need a 'skeptic's annotated version', I can make up my own mind quite well. That's something that's relatively easy considering the facts.
Your evidence is none-existent, so why don't you focus on that, instead of trying to come up with 'things evolution can't explain'? Evolution can't explain everything, nobody claimed this.  The evolution theory isn't just one line of text, and yes parts of it might turn out to not be 100% correct, but maybe 97%. Does this make your belief without proof or logic, but only one big assumption more true? Lol, no, not at all. Where's the logic, eey?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78153
07/04/06 06:39
07/04/06 06:39
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Not at all. I expect you to make a rational choice based on evidence. Sicentists dont make such claims without good reason. Could they be wrong? Sure, but you havent shown in any way that they are wrong; you've just proven that you don't understand the science involved, that's all.
I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing. Except looking at the nice neat line that the BBC presents, between two of the fossils there's a jump in size. The whale like creature is 7x bigger than ambulocetus. Furthermore, ambulocetus still has fully formed legs. You may as well put a puppy in front of my face and compare it to a dolphin and then ask me, "Why can't you just see the obvious truth." The obvious truth is that maybe they have a few things in common, but this entire fossil looks like a joke upon closer examination.
I may not be a scientist, but when an animal loses legs, reduces other legs, grows fins, becomes exponentially larger without leaving a trace, I have to ask why you're so convinced.
But more to the point, if your best argument against what I'm saying here is basically a drawn out version of, "Well, don't you believe the scientists? I mean, c'mon! Scientists!" then its kind of hard to have an actual discussion.
Quote:
Do you have any idea what "derived" means?
Yes, it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence. Oh yeah, some of them don't fit together very well, so let's resize them. And then....let's hope no one notices the huge morphological change between two of those fossils. Because their skulls have similar shapes, so that's what matters.
Quote:
You can't get usable DNA material from most fossils, so what is your comment related to?
But if you knew animals along the lines of hippos and camels had to be in the lineage (probably as a seperate branch), you would expect this would be reflected in the fossil evidence. There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.
Quote:
Since microevolution is good evidence in favor of macroevolution, I think its relevant.
Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist. In fact, the unwillingness of any amateur evolutionist to let go of microbial resistance is rather telling of their complete lack of understanding of genetics, and the fact that they really have nothing.
Quote:
Yeah, cartoons aren't at all relevant here, since we are talking about a goofy fictional past where men and dinosaurs were living together. WilLLlllMmmmAAA!!
I've asked the question about three times now and have yet to receive an answer. Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist, and can you give me a reason why without making some kind of pop-culture reference?
Quote:
First it's, "it's based upon assumptions", then "it's pseudoscience", then it's "your going off topic", now it's "you're not understanding the bible on purpose", what's next?
Well, most of these aren't universal arguments. If you said, "Antibiotic resistance proves evolution," and I responded with, "You just don't understand the bible," it would hardly apply.
Quote:
It's obvious you don't even fully read my posts ... I already made clear I was talking about spiritual blindness as well. Metaphorical or not, that doesn't correct the error made in the reasoning.
Fair enough, it just didn't sound that way.
Quote:
What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...
And...so when your evolutionists friends do this, its ok?
Quote:
Where's your evidence for A: the existence of your God then and
What does God have to do with evolution or abiogenesis? Well, I guess I can see what that has to do with abiogenesis. But abiogenesis doesn't magically become possible just because I can't prove God exists.
Quote:
B: the proof that scientists are 'guessing with no proof at all'.
It was just a stab. I think they're using 'evidence', I just think the evidence can be interpreted differently. I critique the evidence and the only answer I get is that I'm wrong because scientists are always right.
Quote:
Now, tell me why you believe in God WITHOUT any evidence...
That assumes I believe there is no evidence. I'm not a fideist or however you spell it.
Quote:
Your faith is based upon faith, isn't it? In other words you accept it no matter what... Why?
I accept God no matter what (even if I had conclusive evidence that the bible got creation all wrong) for the same reason you reject God no matter what.
You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. No proof that there is no God. So why should I even think your position is more valid than mine?
Quote:
Your evidence is none-existent, so why don't you focus on that, instead of trying to come up with 'things evolution can't explain'?
"Your critique of evolution is making me uncomfortable, let's talk about what you believe." That's why.
And because I see no reason to. Is there anything I can say to you to make you accept Jesus as your savior? Ok, then. I don't feel the need to talk about it.
Quote:
Evolution can't explain everything, nobody claimed this.
If your defense of evolution is that it can't explain everything, that's pretty weak. I should use that for God from now on. I don't think I would get very far with that one.
Quote:
Does this make your belief without proof or logic, but only one big assumption more true? Lol, no, not at all. Where's the logic, eey?
I never said evolution being false proves God exists. This sounds suspiciously like projection. But maybe I'm projecting my own projection. 
But seriously. If evolution is true, I'll know God exists. If evolution is false, I'll know God exists, and that He's not cruel, wasteful, and weak. Either way, my faith remains untested.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/04/06 06:40.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78155
07/04/06 07:11
07/04/06 07:11
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
I have noticed that the quality of your objections and arguments have dropped off, until now they seem so obviously poorly thought out and blatantly false its almost cruel to go on. But I could say: Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quote:
I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing......it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence
I dont think you do understand; its not just something "in common", its a set of traits that appear first in the ealiest fossil, and then appear only in the specific line shown subsequently. The traits are specific, and are observed by measuring and comparing shapes and so on. The comparisons arent just made between single features; there are likely sets of specific points of interest that are always common.
Your objection to the size of the total animal is weak, becasue size is very rarely dependent on bone structure, and can vary dramatically even within a closely related family. For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.
Quote:
There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.
I'm not not sure where you get your evidence, and how you can make such a claim. This is is muddled thinking.
First, hippos are the closest known living ancestors to the whales--this doesnt mean they are in a direct lineage to whales. I'm not sure what your objection really is, because as said before, we can't get genetic materials from fossils.
Quote:
Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist.
Again, your point is made wihtout any attempt to show why this is wrong. Whether or not you "worry" about it, its certainly showns that natural selection can operate on organism, in the way Darwin predicted.
This seems like strong evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection. It's odd that you argue that evidence in favor of evolution is *not* evidence in favor of evolution....without even showing why.
Quote:
Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist
There is no real reason that I know of that would prevent such a coexistence as such. But since all the evidence points to the conclusion that they didn't coexist, so why should be we beleive otherwise? No higher mammals seems to have come into existence until after the dinosaurs died out. There is no reason to suppose that hominins existed more than a few million years ago.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78157
07/04/06 15:32
07/04/06 15:32
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
What does God have to do with evolution or abiogenesis? Well, I guess I can see what that has to do with abiogenesis.
Why did you ask that question? It has enough to do with it, but you feel to uncomfortable about the subject "i can't proof God exists" i guess. It's a freaking miracle a large amount of people still believe in God, as if he's fact, eventhough there's absolutely NO evidence.
Quote:
But abiogenesis doesn't magically become possible just because I can't prove God exists.
Pfff my comment is ripped out of it's context anyways. You claimed before that scientists just 'guessed around a bit with no proofs', I said, take a look at yourself first .. Where's the proof for God ("guessing withouth proof" ) and where's your proof for 'scientists guessing without any proof to back it up'? That's what I said, you started about abiogenesis and evolution in your very first reply on this comment, I wasn't even talking about that.
Quote:
Well, most of these aren't universal arguments. If you said, "Antibiotic resistance proves evolution," and I responded with, "You just don't understand the bible," it would hardly apply.
Yes, indeed, however as Frank just pointed out, that's often what you're doing (not just lately).
Quote:
Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist, and can you give me a reason why without making some kind of pop-culture reference?
If you would understand basic geology and would understand the fossils that have been found, then this would be clear already. Even when you don't 'trust' the absolute dating methods, relative dating also points out that it's clearly impossible. There hasn't been a single human fossil found in the same fossil strata as any random dinosaur.
Quote:
I accept God no matter what (even if I had conclusive evidence that the bible got creation all wrong) for the same reason you reject God no matter what.
You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. No proof that there is no God. So why should I even think your position is more valid than mine?
My position is more valid, because I do not believe in things as if they are facts when there's no evidence.
It's simply stupid to believe in a flying spagetti monster from mars, when there's nothing at all, not even something slightly pointing in that direction.
Apart from that a God wouldn't make much sense either when there's zero evidence of it's supposed devine interference, how could we even know he exists? A book is a rather unreliable source, just take a look at the crap in scientology books.
Quote:
Yes, it [derived] means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence. Oh yeah, some of them don't fit together very well, so let's resize them. And then....let's hope no one notices the huge morphological change between two of those fossils. Because their skulls have similar shapes, so that's what matters.
Obviously you have no clue.
Quote:
What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...
Quote:
And...so when your evolutionists friends do this, its ok?
Again, just empty words, no backing up with facts. Put your money where your mouth is and show us that they even act like this please. 
Quote:
If your defense of evolution is that it can't explain everything, that's pretty weak. I should use that for God from now on. I don't think I would get very far with that one.
It's not even needed as a defensive argument, but it is a fact nonetheless. Yes, I know, according to your belief God can do anything and isn't bound to any rules bla bla bla. Where are the facts about that though?
Quote:
And because I see no reason to. Is there anything I can say to you to make you accept Jesus as your savior? Ok, then. I don't feel the need to talk about it.
No, you don't start talking about it because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I hardly believe you would want to convince me, but even then if you really COULD, then what in the world would have stopped you from comming with the overwhelming evidence and crush all of our arguments in favor of evolution? 
Quote:
That assumes I believe there is no evidence. I'm not a fideist or however you spell it.
I expected the evidence right about here as a reply, so you are infact a fideist believing no matter what the proof and ignoring reason as if it's irrelevant for having a religious faith.
Quote:
I never said evolution being false proves God exists.
In the context of my comment on which you've replied this I meant God's existence and his (in)ability to create life (e.g. creationism). If creationism is false, would it prove that God doesn't exist? If everything around the concept God is questionable, without evidence and false, man, come on, I mean you could go on forever like this and still claim what you like, since God's personal existance can't be proven.
It doesn't make that kind of reasoning valid.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78158
07/04/06 18:41
07/04/06 18:41
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Typical response. You answer to a question with another question and you say very much while saying nothing at the same time. I am so tired to read those long texts that say nothing at the end. I have no idea where you get your energy to daily post so much stuff while saying nothing.
This is a topic about evolution. When you guys run out of answers, I'm not going to let you change the subject or use an appeal to authority in place of a debate. If you guys don't have an answer, or you don't feel like continuing the line of discussion, the only way its going to end is if you stop talking, or come up with a response, or admit you don't have an answer.
Quote:
At the end I would be happy when you dismiss Matt_AufderHeide so that he can go back to design the Sphere2 plugin. This would really change the world of so much users here. But responding to Irish_Farmer seems to be like running into a big stone wall.
I'm not making Matt do anything he doesn't want to do.
Quote:
Just my own way of thinking since I admire the Sphere plugin way more than this discussion here
If you didn't post anything in this thread, no one would know the difference.
Quote:
I dont think you do understand; its not just something "in common", its a set of traits that appear first in the ealiest fossil, and then appear only in the specific line shown subsequently. The traits are specific, and are observed by measuring and comparing shapes and so on. The comparisons arent just made between single features; there are likely sets of specific points of interest that are always common.
Ok, you seem pretty sure of this. What are these convincing traits found in common between the terrestrial animals and the whale-like animals? Just simple examples, you don't need to go in depth. (I'll give you a hint, shape of the middle ear, and also teeth, scientists admit everything else between whales and land mammals are so different its hard to tell).
Quote:
Your objection to the size of the total animal is weak, becasue size is very rarely dependent on bone structure, and can vary dramatically even within a closely related family. For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.
Ok, the ambulocetus fossil is about 7 feet or 2 meters. Basilosaurus, that whale like creature, is about 70 feet or 21 meters.
Quote:
For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.
So there's no transition in size and bone structure that explains the difference between a four legged animal and giant swimming mammal, and that's ok because dolphins and whales are closely related but are different in size? That's a pretty weak explanation.
Ambulocetus presumably was built to walk on land. Its hard to say since we're missing what looks like 90% (at least) of its spine and all of its hip. Then basilosaurus is completely built for aquatic motion. Where's the transition?
Quote:
I'm not not sure where you get your evidence, and how you can make such a claim. This is is muddled thinking.
Quote:
Recent cetaceans [modern whales and dolphins] are very different to other mammals, so another question that has dogged this field is that of which group of mammals contains their closest relatives--which is their "sister group"? The cranial and skeletal anatomy of cetaceans is highly modified compared with that of land mammals, and fossils of early cetaceans are so rare and generally incomplete, that the affinities of the group are difficult to establish. On the basis of tooth and ear morphology, palaeontologists contend that cetaceans are most closely related to the mesonychians--a group of extinct ungulates from the early Tertiary. But molecular biologists favour hippos--which form one of the families of modern even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls)--as the sister group.
Muizon, Nature, Vol. 413, 20 September 2001, “Walking with whales”, page 260
In other words, the skulls and skeletons are so different from land mammals that there its difficult to draw a clear line. They assume its because evolution changed whales too much to be able to figure it out. I assume its because whales didn't evolve.
You'll also notice the problem here. Based on teeth and ears, they must have evolved from the wolfish mesonychians (which lead to pakicetus etc). However, DNA evidence suggests they evolved from the same ancestors as modern hippos and cows and camels and so on (artiodactyl). It seems the fossils and the DNA are having a hard time figuring out what happened.
Quote:
Thewissen and colleagues' discovery allows us to address both of these problems. The newly found fossils include several skulls and postcranial bones from two early pakicetid species--which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region) and the body of an artiodactyl. All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl [goat-like animal or even toed ungulate] if they had been found without their skulls. Many of the fossils' features--including the length of the cervical vertebrae, the relatively rigid articulations of the lumbar vertebrae, and the long, slender limb bones--indicate that the animals were runners, moving with only their digits touching the ground.
Same source.
In other words, we determined their relationship based on the middle ear. But if you chose other 'basal' traits you could draw other radically different lines if you wanted to.
Quote:
I'm not sure what your objection really is, because as said before, we can't get genetic materials from fossils.
Of course, but if you combine the fossil record with DNA relationships of modern animals, the lineage becomes blurred, as in this case where you either have to ignore the DNA evidence, or the fossil evidence. Let me know if you still don't catch that, because I may not be giving all the details.
Quote:
Again, your point is made wihtout any attempt to show why this is wrong. Whether or not you "worry" about it, its certainly showns that natural selection can operate on organism, in the way Darwin predicted.
I can't even count the number of times I've explained by bacterial 'evolution' isn't evolution at all. I'll give a quick recap, since you seem to have forgotten. Bacteria can exchange genetic information via plasmids, etc. Virii can carry genetic data back and forth. Mutations can switch off control (for instance, losing control of enzyme production, which would normally make you less fit because you're wasting resources) etc. Otherwise, resistance is already programmed into the population, and those who don't have resistance are just killed off. That's selection, which has the effect of loss.
This doesn't involve new information, and certainly doesn't conclude that evolution is possibly in the slightest.
Quote:
There is no real reason that I know of that would prevent such a coexistence as such. But since all the evidence points to the conclusion that they didn't coexist, so why should be we beleive otherwise? No higher mammals seems to have come into existence until after the dinosaurs died out. There is no reason to suppose that hominins existed more than a few million years ago.
Ok then, besides the accepted evolutionary timeline, there's no reason it isn't possible.
Quote:
Why did you ask that question?
Because when I made a joke about evolution and abiogenesis having no proof you asked what my proof of God is. Let's use an example dialogue to illustrate why this makes no sense, if you don't mind.
"UFOs abducted me and put a probe in my butt."
"What proof do you have of this?"
"What proof do you have that God exists?!"
Yeah....
Quote:
It has enough to do with it, but you feel to uncomfortable about the subject "i can't proof God exists" i guess.
I don't feel the need to distract from the topic at hand. I must be doing something right, because otherwise you might have an actual response.
Quote:
It's a freaking miracle a large amount of people still believe in God, as if he's fact, eventhough there's absolutely NO evidence.
Oh, I see. I was a fool not to believe whale evolution made sense, because there's no reason to believe in God. What was I thinking. 
Quote:
You claimed before that scientists just 'guessed around a bit with no proofs', I said, take a look at yourself first .. Where's the proof for God ("guessing withouth proof" ) and where's your proof for 'scientists guessing without any proof to back it up'?
Your defense of whale evolution or any other scientific nonsense can't be, "Well, what about your proof of God?" But I don't really need to keep restating the obvious over and over.
Quote:
That's what I said, you started about abiogenesis and evolution in your very first reply on this comment, I wasn't even talking about that.
You quoted me on abiogenesis and evolution.
Quote:
If you would understand basic geology and would understand the fossils that have been found, then this would be clear already. Even when you don't 'trust' the absolute dating methods, relative dating also points out that it's clearly impossible. There hasn't been a single human fossil found in the same fossil strata as any random dinosaur.
The question was hypothetical. Having nothing to do with fossil evidence and only to do with wondering what would stop it from happening.
Quote:
My position is more valid, because I do not believe in things as if they are facts when there's no evidence.
Another way of saying, "My position is automatically valid because you believe in God without proof."
You disbelieve God without proof.
Your position doesn't make any more sense than mine. You can't prove God doesn't exist, so its a possibility. There are many reasons to believe in God. My ancestors believed He exists, there's a book with prophecies that have come unquestionably true, there's a creation that's consistent with the God of the bible, there are consistent accounts of God written by different people over thousands of years, and out of all other religions christianity is the most scientifically consistent, excluding 'scientific' stories of long, long ago. Its been consistent with all reproducable, testable, and falsifiable sciences.
Quote:
It's simply stupid to believe in a flying spagetti monster from mars, when there's nothing at all, not even something slightly pointing in that direction.
Yeah, nothing at all, like say a perfectly ordered universe that almost seems completely suited for life, and even exists in the first place. But that's another topic.
Quote:
A book is a rather unreliable source,
And your own internal psychological workings are more reliable? Or did you read somewhere that there isn't any proof of God? What makes that more reliable.
Quote:
Again, just empty words, no backing up with facts. Put your money where your mouth is and show us that they even act like this please.
"All scientists agree with evolution."
Quote:
It's not even needed as a defensive argument, but it is a fact nonetheless.
So you don't have to defend whale evolution or anything else, because evolution doesn't have all the answers. It needs to have all the answers or its useless.
Quote:
I hardly believe you would want to convince me, but even then if you really COULD, then what in the world would have stopped you from comming with the overwhelming evidence and crush all of our arguments in favor of evolution?
I never claimed to have overwhelming evidence. Besides we're not arguing over evidence, we're arguing over suppositions.
Quote:
I expected the evidence right about here as a reply,
Well, then I'm happy to disappoint you. This isn't a topic of religion or faith. Its a topic on evolution. I expected an actual rebuttle to any of my objections about a page ago, but I have yet to see any.
Quote:
If creationism is false, would it prove that God doesn't exist?
That's the one problem with creationism. It isn't falsifiable, in the sense that there's so much evidence for it, all you can do is try and rationalize the evidence in favor of some other idea like say a superstitious belief in chance, or some other nonsense.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/04/06 18:58.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78159
07/04/06 23:27
07/04/06 23:27
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Thewissen and colleagues' discovery allows us to address both of these problems. The newly found fossils include several skulls and postcranial bones from two early pakicetid species--which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region) and the body of an artiodactyl. All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl [goat-like animal or even toed ungulate] if they had been found without their skulls. Many of the fossils' features--including the length of the cervical vertebrae, the relatively rigid articulations of the lumbar vertebrae, and the long, slender limb bones--indicate that the animals were runners, moving with only their digits touching the ground.Quote:
Same source.
In other words, we determined their relationship based on the middle ear. But if you chose other 'basal' traits you could draw other radically different lines if you wanted to.
It must be me, but that's not what I read in that text. Furthermore they only said it has features of both species families, doesn't this simply indicate a species in TRANSITION? I think you've ripped this out of it's context too.
Quote:
So there's no transition in size and bone structure that explains the difference between a four legged animal and giant swimming mammal, and that's ok because dolphins and whales are closely related but are different in size? That's a pretty weak explanation.
Look at present human species and compare their length, you will see that it can vary a lot, so in this case 'size doesn't really matter'. Off course I'll be happy to admit that the differences are big, but from the perspective of evolution it's not more than logical considering the animals there habitat at that time.
Quote:
Ambulocetus presumably was built to walk on land. Its hard to say since we're missing what looks like 90% (at least) of its spine and all of its hip. Then basilosaurus is completely built for aquatic motion. Where's the transition?
Yep, incomplete fossils do give scientists a hard time, but that's why they look at what IS available, not what's missing and start guessing around.
Quote:
Because when I made a joke about evolution and abiogenesis having no proof you asked what my proof of God is. Let's use an example dialogue to illustrate why this makes no sense, if you don't mind.
"UFOs abducted me and put a probe in my butt."
"What proof do you have of this?"
"What proof do you have that God exists?!"
Yeah....
Aaaah, so you were joking. Then you must joke a lot, considering all your odd and stubbornly strange posts, okey I will take that into consideration for any of my interpretations of your future posts then.
You're 'dialogue example' shows how odd your reaction is indeed. If e.g. I would infact have a probe implanted we could simply find out by searching, research and observations -> that's science. You don't except the evidence that this research would give and still wouldn't believe the 'probe story' so to speak, but on the other hand you do believe in your God for which you've got no evidence at all. That tastes to me like "big inconsistency" in your reasoning, I was out to make you see that.
But I guess your belief doesn't allow you to understand this somehow.
Quote:
Oh, I see. I was a fool not to believe whale evolution made sense, because there's no reason to believe in God. What was I thinking.
Okey, let me explain, I'll keep it simple this time...
Evolution theory -> evidence in favor of the evolution theory has been found.
God / creation -> no evidence for either has been found.
Evolution theory -> 1+. Creation/God -> 0. What's so hard to understand about what my little reasoning problem is with 'your theory'?
It's funny how you try to make fun of the argument, all you've succeeded in though is making yourself sound ridiculous. Just thought you'd like to know.
Again, my argument wasn't about who's right or wrong, since both can be wrong, however it was about why you don't believe in something when there is infact evidence in favor of it (that is more than 0 evidence, remember? ), but you do believe something when there 0 evidence for it. That's S T R A N G E. 
Quote:
(I'll give you a hint, shape of the middle ear, and also teeth, scientists admit everything else between whales and land mammals are so different its hard to tell).
When looking for similarities, it's the similarities you'll be looking for. What's inconsistent in this method? Scientists do not add the same conclusion you give here by the way. It's not different, and thus it's hard to tell wether or not they are related, it's different as in that's where the similarities can not be found and too much of the species has evolved/changed already. Off course the similarities have to be convincing enough, otherwise you would be like 'proving' that a patatoe is actually extremely closely related to a pineapple, which it's obviously not.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
