Jump to content


The Curious Case Of The Toothed Chicken


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#81 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 February 2010 - 05:11 AM

I don't, I make pragmatical conclusions based on the empirical evidence of reality.

View Post

So you are pragmatically in favor of accepting something you have never empirically witnessed? Or are you saying you’ve empirically observed an apelike creature evolve into a man?


God as an explanation does not work for me, evolution does. 

View Post

So you then follow the “evolutiondidit” dictum?

#82 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 20 February 2010 - 02:44 PM

So you are pragmatically in favor of accepting something you have never empirically witnessed?

Yes, I accept evolution in the same way I accept that I will die. I have no empirical evidence of the instance my death. To think that I would not die is to think that I am in some sense different than other humans or animals in this aspect. Even if I have never even seen anyone die there I think different records of other people claiming that people have died is empirically verified. So I believe that death exist, I have seen animals die and I have seen a few dead people. These could be fake though but I believe they are not.

So, now to the power of this metaphore. How can I know that I will die but not knowing how? I don't, I make pragmatical conclusions based on the empirical evidence of reality.

Or are you saying you’ve empirically observed an apelike creature evolve into a man?

Do you realize that this is a strawman? Evolution does not deal with individuals. Evolution requires change through reproduction over several generations. So the fact that I have not seen an apelike creature evolve into a man is irrelevant. As a matter of fact I find that type of change being more like a metaphysical miracle. That would be something that a god would do. Have you any empirical evidence of miracles Ron.

So you then follow the “evolutiondidit” dictum?

No, I make pragmatical conclusions based on the empirical evidence of reality.
If someone comes up with a theory that fits reality better than the theory I use at a given point I will change my view. There is noone dictating what I should think, Is there someone dictating your thoughts? Who told you to trust the bible? Did you figure that out by yourself?

#83 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 20 February 2010 - 04:21 PM

Do you realize that this is a strawman [seeing ape changing to man]? Evolution does not deal with individuals. Evolution requires change through reproduction over several generations.

View Post

Sorry to interrupt guys, but we already know this. Did you really think we believed in shape shifting? Not to be smart, but why would you waste time explaining this?


So the fact that I have not seen an apelike creature evolve into a man is irrelevant.

View Post

But you have seen it a textbook written by PhDs who never saw it either. They had it taught to them by other PhDs who never saw it. And finally we get to the original idea presented by LaMarck and Darwin. Which idea was accepted by the more part of academia, who in turn educated our entire modern world.

So not only is your non-empirical belief in the ape to man transition a fact TO YOU, it is a result of hearing the idea, and the fitting the present state of things into that worldview. This varies little from faith, and is really the antithesis of it.

That would be something that a god would do. Have you any empirical evidence of miracles Ron.

View Post

Actually I have. But as I have shared this before to unbelievers, only to have it explained away--it would do no good to elaborate. As well, it is a highly personal and holy thing that I care not to commercialize.

Who told you to trust the bible? Did you figure that out by yourself?

View Post

It would make no sense to believe in words on paper. The Word of God itself has innate power. Jesus said "My words are spirit and they are life." Proverbs says "My words are life and health to all that FIND them." You are never going to know the power by a nonchalant gaze at the Bible pages, or seeking to find some fault with it--or it's Author. It will be hidden from you. But a good, honest, humble and open heart will find the treasure.

#84 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 February 2010 - 07:27 PM

Do you realize that this is a strawman? Evolution does not deal with individuals. Evolution requires change through reproduction over several generations.

View Post


So Lucy is a strawman?

#85 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 February 2010 - 06:04 AM

The question is are the definition of kinds by any means useful or practical in describing reality? I.e. is is consistent with the empirical evidence?


Only if your interested in rejecting reality to accommodate your paradigm.

The science of taxonomy was founded by the classification of "kinds",which in latin is translated as "species". Do you still deny that reality and do you believe the term "species" had a different meaning when Carl Linnaeus coined it to classify different kinds?




Enjoy.

#86 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:10 AM

Who told you to trust the bible? Did you figure that out by yourself?

View Post

No one did Sisyfos. After doing my own searching of all the evidence, the conclusion was obvious. Our very existence demands that something cannot come from nothing, we are a product of design, design cannot come from non design. There is no evidence that birds were anything but birds, lizards were anything but lizards, fish were anything but fish, and man was anything but man.

#87 M T RIVERS

M T RIVERS

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mineral Wells, WV

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:35 AM

kinds by any means useful or practical in describing reality? I.e. is is consistent with the empirical evidence? If you answer yes, I would like to know first, the full definition of a "KIND" and second, how this is consistent with the empirical evidence found in reality.

The term kind equals species but in order to be a bit more empirical I would say those that can reproduce them selves. You said

Evolution requires change through reproduction over several generations.

this reproduction has tons of empirical evidence. Literally millions and millions of living things have been witnessed reproducing themselves without anyone ever witnessing the missing, assumed, changes necessary for evolution. So how is evolution a pragmatic conclusion based on the empirical evidence of reality. The empirical evidence is things reproducing after their kinds.

#88 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 February 2010 - 12:33 AM

Sorry to interrupt guys, but we already know this.  Did you really think we believed in shape shifting?  Not to be smart, but why would you waste time explaining this? 

This:Or are you saying you’ve empirically observed an apelike creature evolve into a man?
This argument implies that the only empirical evidence valid for the conclusion of evolution is to observe an apelike creature evolve into a man. This is a strawman argument and as you said you know it. So I guess the qustion is this: Why do you then INTENTIONALLY use strawman arguments?

But you have seen it a textbook written by PhDs who never saw it either.  They had it taught to them by other PhDs who never saw it. And finally we get to the original idea presented by LaMarck and Darwin.  Which idea was accepted by the more part of academia, who in turn educated our entire modern world. 

More of the same strawman.
I can agree that taken one by one each piece of empirical evidence for my pragmatical view may seem circumstantial, but this is how all science works. Circumstantial evidence or weird lab results give ideas for new theories all the time. New and different theories are NOT rejected until they are EMPIRICALLY PROVEN WRONG.

So not only is your non-empirical belief in the ape to man transition a fact TO YOU, it is a result of hearing the idea, and the fitting the present state of things into that worldview.  This varies little from faith, and is really the antithesis of it.
 

Umm, could you parse that last sentence? To me the antithesis means something that is directly opposite in the aspect(s) that is important to the discussion. I agree that it is in some aspects similar to faith in that it requires belief, but the antithesis is regarding the nature of those beliefs. The scientific belief regards only what is good or bad science, which empirical evidences are reliable, and what they say about the physical world. The religious belief regards the meaning of it all, a dive into spiritual evidence and what it says about how people want the world to be. I'd say where it matters is varies vastly.

Actually I have.  But as I have shared this before to unbelievers, only to have it explained away--it would do no good to elaborate.  As well, it is a highly personal and holy thing that I care not to commercialize.
It would make no sense to believe in words on paper.  The Word of God itself has innate power.  Jesus said "My words are spirit and they are life."  Proverbs says "My words are life and health to all that FIND them."  You are never going to know the power by a nonchalant gaze at the Bible pages, or seeking to find some fault with it--or it's Author. It will be hidden from you.  But a good, honest, humble and open heart will find the treasure.

View Post

You first say that it makes no sense to believe in words on paper, but then you immediately start to refer to words on paper! Everything Christians believe Jesus said IS words on paper. Lets make a thought experiment: We both know that the record in the gospels of the life of Jesus is not covering all the things Jesus said. If I suggest that Jesus did say that : "I do not wish that you do these things because you believe in me but because that you believe in yourselves. Truly holy is the man that loves mankind higher than god and he who celebrates life in its glory."
How do you know that Jesus did not say this?

#89 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 February 2010 - 12:42 AM

Our very existence demands that something cannot come from nothing, we are a product of design, design cannot come from non design.

View Post

And there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this at all.

And are you really telling me that while checking ALL THE EVIDENCE, It was only the bible that stuck?

In my early teens I was a die hard Christian, from studying what certain people put in my hands, then I studied some other evidence, etc....

#90 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 February 2010 - 12:58 AM

So Lucy is a strawman?

View Post

No.

In this case you cannot have your cookie and eat it too.

Either you accept that Lucy IS observed empirical evidence of evolution or you don't.

The strawman is the "unless there are no black boxes in the theories the theories are wrong"-argument.

It is futher interesting to note that evolutionists do not care from what type of creature we evolved, so why do we insist that we have a common ancestry with the chimps and gorillas?

Lets say that all ape-like creatures where extinct some time ago so there was no historical record of them except the in the fossil record. Lets then say we find the exact same fossils, including Lucy. How would that change the scientific representation of the evidence? How would that chenge the religious representation? How would it change the popular representation (I refer to your line of pictures)?

#91 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 February 2010 - 05:58 AM

And there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this at all.

View Post


Actually ALL the empirical evidence we have points to these facts. Whether you choose to accept those facts is on you.

And are you really telling me that while checking ALL THE EVIDENCE, It was only the bible that stuck?

View Post


Absolutely!

In my early teens I was a die hard Christian, from studying what certain people put in my hands, then I studied some other evidence, etc....

View Post


That’s fine Sisyfos, until I was twenty-three I was an hedonistic atheist. And my conversion came from studying Logic, reason, science, history and the Bible. And atheism fell hard that day because it has no basis in reality.

I NEVER take what other people put into my hands. I put that away twenty-seven years ago. And, while I am still searching, I still find that I don’t have the faith it takes to be an atheist.

#92 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 February 2010 - 06:03 AM

No.

In this case you cannot have your cookie and eat it too.

View Post


Absolutely. Given the lack of evidence for the theistic-like promulgation of Lucy’s lineage, the cookie is pretty good tasting too.


Either you accept that Lucy IS observed empirical evidence of evolution or you don't.

View Post

Nope… That is nothing more then faith talking! There is absolutely no empirical observation of anything about Lucy save some bones scattered about a large area. Everything else is pure speculation and fabrication.

Yep… Nothing more then “faith”

#93 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 22 February 2010 - 11:50 PM

Absolutely. Given the lack of evidence for the theistic-like promulgation of Lucy’s lineage, the cookie is pretty good tasting too.
Nope… That is nothing more then faith talking! There is absolutely no empirical observation of anything about Lucy save some bones scattered about a large area. Everything else is pure speculation and fabrication.

Yep… Nothing more then “faith”

View Post

Ok I 'll rephrase:
"Either you accept that some bones scattered about a large area IS observed empirical evidence of evolution or you don't."

If you don't there are three options:
1. Some bones scattered about a large area IS NOT observed empirical evidence.
2. The discussed evidence is not supporting evolution.
3. Both.

Which is it?

#94 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 23 February 2010 - 12:01 AM

The question is are the definition of kinds by any means useful or practical in describing reality? I.e. is is consistent with the empirical evidence?


Only if your interested in rejecting reality to accommodate your paradigm.

The science of taxonomy was founded by the classification of "kinds",which in latin is translated as "species". Do you still deny that reality and do you believe the term "species" had a different meaning when Carl Linnaeus coined it to classify different kinds?
Enjoy.

View Post

You imply that I am rejecting reality, and as I am at least trying to be open minded I would greatly appreciate if you could point me to what parts of reality that I am rejecting so that I can review my position. I certainly do not want to reject any evidence without proper examination.

#95 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 February 2010 - 06:11 AM

Ok I 'll rephrase:
"Either you accept that some bones scattered about a large area IS observed empirical evidence of evolution or you don't."

If you don't there are three options:
1. Some bones scattered about a large area IS NOT observed empirical evidence.
2. The discussed evidence is not supporting evolution.
3. Both.

Which is it?

View Post


None of the above Sisyfos, your limits are too narrow. There are way too many conclusions that can be drawn from fossils (that evolutionists want to posit as empirical fact). And Lucy is a prime example. Way too many speculative conclusions are promulgated as fact based on the scant evidence of bones scattered across a broad area.

They go from this:
Posted Image

Through this:
Posted Image

To this:
Posted Image

And this:
Posted Image

With absolutely NO empiricism to back it up! And the comical thing is the forced human-like attributes to assist the evolution indoctrination in ALL cases like this.

Also, fossils aren’t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. The other variables that evolutionists attempt to populate their stories with are nothing more than a priori speculation and are not the "observed empirical" evidences they (the evolutionists) pretend they are.

#96 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 24 February 2010 - 12:51 AM

None of the above Sisyfos, your limits are too narrow. There are way too many conclusions that can be drawn from fossils (that evolutionists want to posit as empirical fact). And Lucy is a prime example. Way too many speculative conclusions are promulgated as fact based on the scant evidence of bones scattered across a broad area.

They go from this:
Posted Image

Through this:
Posted Image

To this:
Posted Image

And this:
Posted Image

With absolutely NO empiricism to back it up! And the comical thing is the forced human-like attributes to assist the evolution indoctrination in ALL cases like this.

Also, fossils aren’t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. The other variables that evolutionists attempt to populate their stories with are nothing more than a priori speculation and are not the "observed empirical" evidences they (the evolutionists) pretend they are.

View Post

At last a sentence from you I can agree with... "fossils aren’t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. " Exactly.
And I agree with you that the representation going from image 2 to image 3 is sketchy and I am certain that at the display or such it is labeled "artists impression of 'lucy'" or the like. Image 2 on the other hand represents a fact, namely that "If the fossilized bones found are combined according to what we know about human and primate composition we end up with this.
This is the way science works: A lot of if's. However, when the web of observed points of facts (empirical evidence as stated above) becomes tight enough some of these assumptions CAN BE treated as facts. This is the basis for paradigms, and yes paradigms shift. Newtonian physics was replaced by Quantum physics, since when using the newtonian ifs the predictions did not match the empirical facts. when that happens the paradigm shifts, not the empirical facts.

The difference the scientific paradigms and the religious you hold is that you are unwilling to change your paradigm. One of your basic if's is that the earth is 6000 years old. That is, if you find that the predictions made from this is countered by empirical facts you rather attack the empirical facts rather than your paradigm.

Example from wikipedia: "To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching a section against another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).[2][3] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[4] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[5] In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments."

The empirical steps in dendrochronology is straightforward:
1. measure a lot of tree ring widths (empirical evidence)
2. match tree ring widths (empirical evidence)
3. count all the matched rings (empirical evidence)

Now the only assumptions involved:
1. The rings are due to the season variations of a year. One ring one year. (empirically proven)

2. Different trees in the same area will show the same pattern since they have experienced the same seasonal changes. (empirically proven)

3. The rings found in old wood will still represent the seasonal changes of the area where it lived (paradigm theory, consistent with carbon dating, etc.)

Dendrochronology gives that the earth age is at least 10000 years.

If we now start with the religious paradigm theory that the earth is 6000 years old this paradigm stands against the scientific paradigm theory in 3 above.
In order to remain the paradigm YEC people now have to change 3 into something else. What is your explanation?

#97 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 05:37 AM

At last a sentence from you I can agree with...  "fossils aren’t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. " Exactly.

View Post

Yes…

And I agree with you that the representation going from image 2 to image 3 is sketchy and I am certain that at the display or such it is labeled "artists impression of 'lucy'" or the like.

View Post

Nine times out of ten, the “artists impression” warning is a side note, tucked away so-as not to be so readily noticed (like the quickly flashing fine print on a TV commercial). What is up front are the prominent “human-like” infused qualities that are intended to sway the minds of the onlookers to think “Oh, she looks so human-like… She MUST be an ancestor!”.
http://creationwiki.org/Lucy#Lucy
http://creation.com/...atomy-professor
http://creation.com/...cy-walk-upright
http://creation.com/...ring-in-circles

Further, to posit phony and speculative “human-like” qualities sucked all the honest science out of the Lucy argument. This is no better than the huckster quality when the pigs tooth was used as proof for evolution in the Scopes monkey trial.
http://creationwiki.org/Nebraska_Man

Dishonesty is dishonesty…
http://creationwiki.org/Piltdown_Man
http://creationwiki.org/Java_Man

Image 2 on the other hand represents a fact, namely that "If the fossilized bones found are combined according to what we know about human and primate composition we end up with this.

View Post


Image two is not “a fact”, it IS speculation as well. There is not enough information in the scant skeletal remains (found over a large area) to come to the “empirical” conclusion the image represents. There is way too much assumptive vision built into the up-rightness of the image two model. As if this is what they “wanted” to happen in the first place.

This is the way science works: A lot of if's.

View Post


This is not how science works. In science, we say if something is a hypothesis, and something is a fact. We apply practical and physical experimentation on the subjects. And if something is speculation, we a forced to admit such.

#98 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 24 February 2010 - 12:10 PM

This is not how science works. In science, we say if something is a hypothesis, and something is a fact. We apply practical and physical experimentation on the subjects. And if something is speculation, we a forced to admit such.

View Post

That is no different than what I wrote, The thing is that all of science is speculation. It is based on philosophy, namely the theory of knowing.

Do you have anything at all regarding dendrochronology other than that you think that despite my Ph D in nuclear chemistry my view of science is totally wrong?

#99 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 February 2010 - 01:12 PM

That is no different than what I wrote,

View Post


It is vastly different if your conclusion is really the following:

The thing is that all of science is speculation. It is based on philosophy, namely the theory of knowing.

View Post

All of science isn’t speculation; the practical applications of inductive experimentation (i.e. the empirical scientific method) doesn’t follow that hypothesis. And, although ALL of science is based on logic and reasoning (as logic and reasoning are the foundation of ALL science) the theory of knowing is not the equivalent of practical application. There is the “Knowing” of knowing that is “Theory” put into “Practice”.

Do you have anything at all regarding dendrochronology other than that you think that despite my Ph D in nuclear chemistry my view of science is totally wrong?

View Post


If your view of science “is that all of science is speculation”, then it doesn’t matter how many earned doctorates you possess (whether they be in Dendrochronology, Paleoclimatology, Paleotempestology or Historical climatology etcetera… etcetera… ad nauseam and ad infinitum)

#100 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 February 2010 - 01:31 AM

It is vastly different if your conclusion is really the following:

All of science isn’t speculation; the practical applications of inductive experimentation (i.e. the empirical scientific method) doesn’t follow that hypothesis. And, although ALL of science is based on logic and reasoning (as logic and reasoning are the foundation of ALL science) the theory of knowing is not the equivalent of practical application. There is the “Knowing” of knowing that is “Theory” put into “Practice”.   
If your view of science “is that all of science is speculation”, then it doesn’t matter how many earned doctorates you possess (whether they be in Dendrochronology, Paleoclimatology, Paleotempestology or Historical climatology etcetera… etcetera… ad nauseam and ad infinitum)

View Post

As I thought, nothing but hot air. Nice tactics. The gist of of each post is avoided.

As for the scientific method you don't seem to have a clue.

Math is based on logic and reasoning but math in itself does not say anything about the world.

When math is used to describe reality it INVARIABLY comes with assumptions and speculations.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users