Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#81 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 15 June 2010 - 02:21 PM

My sincere apologies for wasting your time.

View Post


No problem

#82 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 15 June 2010 - 03:44 PM

So you are saying evolution is brought about via necessity, monkeys needed thumbs to climb into trees...

View Post

That’s not at all what I’m saying. If an animal can grasp a tree branch better than the others, it will be at an advantage. A thumb isn’t required to grasp tree branches; it would be the product after several generations of selection favouring the best grasping hands.

Where did the monkeys live BEFORE they had thumbs? Why did they feel the need to "evolve"? If it was to climb trees to get away from predators then during the millions of years it would have taken then wouldn't they have died out from the predators... (this line of thought can be extended to almost all "adaptations")...

View Post

If we’re talking about monkeys that don’t have thumbs, then we’re not talking about monkeys. We’re talking about their ancestor. Escaping predators and finding food are two good reasons why an animal would venture into the trees, although I’m sure the switch to an arboreal lifestyle would have been gradual. For example, an animal might climb onto low branches to stay safe at night while still spending its days on the ground. For a population of animals with a ground-dwelling predator, the animals which spend the most time in the trees will be more likely to survive. The physical features and behavioural instincts that promote arboreal life would therefore be selected for.

Why wouldn’t they all die out from a predator? Because predator/prey relationships usually follow a cyclic pattern, and rarely result in total extinctions. There are plenty of animals today that we would consider easy prey, yet despite their lack of defensive mechanisms they’re still around (in many cases, this is accomplished by high reproductive rates).

My favourite is, why would a fish bother to "evolve" to get out of the ocean?? (not to mention how lungs can form whilst underwater  )... There are still fish in the seas today so there mustn't have been a massively urgent need to leave the ocean... I ask why, what was the necessity of that "evolution"?

View Post

There are two major hypotheses as to why fish would venture onto the land.

For freshwater fish in tropical climates, water has the tendency to become anoxic. Fish are unable to extract oxygen using their gills, so any mechanism which allows fish to breathe air would be an advantage. In an extreme case, the fish may give up aquatic life entirely in favour of the oxygen-rich surface. An Amazon freshwater fish called the arapaima is an example of a fish that has switched to breathing air for this reason. It uses something called a labyrinth organ, which essentially serves the same purpose as a lung.

For marine fish, venturing onto the beach provides an escape from aquatic predators, a safe place to lay eggs, and an abundance of new food sources.
Now to tackle your second question: how would lungs form underwater? There are plenty of ways to breathe air without a lung (as I illustrated with the arapaima). The first lungs wouldn’t look anything like mammalian lungs... they would just be highly vascularized areas connected to the mouth (or the mouth itself). A fish can switch between using lungs and gills by having valves in its circulatory system to direct blood flow. This is exactly what the lungfish does.

And why are there still fish in the seas? Well, they were evolving too. While some fish may have found a better life on the shore, others developed new ways to attract prey, camouflage with their surroundings, and defend themselves... without leaving the ocean. Not every animal faces the exact same evolutionary pressures, and not every animal deals with those pressures in the same way.

#83 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2010 - 10:12 PM

That’s not at all what I’m saying. If an animal can grasp a tree branch better than the others, it will be at an advantage. A thumb isn’t required to grasp tree branches; it would be the product after several generations of selection favouring the best grasping hands.

If we’re talking about monkeys that don’t have thumbs, then we’re not talking about monkeys. We’re talking about their ancestor. Escaping predators and finding food are two good reasons why an animal would venture into the trees, although I’m sure the switch to an arboreal lifestyle would have been gradual. For example, an animal might climb onto low branches to stay safe at night while still spending its days on the ground. For a population of animals with a ground-dwelling predator, the animals which spend the most time in the trees will be more likely to survive. The physical features and behavioural instincts that promote arboreal life would therefore be selected for.

Why wouldn’t they all die out from a predator? Because predator/prey relationships usually follow a cyclic pattern, and rarely result in total extinctions. There are plenty of animals today that we would consider easy prey, yet despite their lack of defensive mechanisms they’re still around (in many cases, this is accomplished by high reproductive rates).

There are two major hypotheses as to why fish would venture onto the land.

For freshwater fish in tropical climates, water has the tendency to become anoxic. Fish are unable to extract oxygen using their gills, so any mechanism which allows fish to breathe air would be an advantage. In an extreme case, the fish may give up aquatic life entirely in favour of the oxygen-rich surface. An Amazon freshwater fish called the arapaima is an example of a fish that has switched to breathing air for this reason. It uses something called a labyrinth organ, which essentially serves the same purpose as a lung.

For marine fish, venturing onto the beach provides an escape from aquatic predators, a safe place to lay eggs, and an abundance of new food sources. 
Now to tackle your second question: how would lungs form underwater? There are plenty of ways to breathe air without a lung (as I illustrated with the arapaima). The first lungs wouldn’t look anything like mammalian lungs... they would just be highly vascularized areas connected to the mouth (or the mouth itself). A fish can switch between using lungs and gills by having valves in its circulatory system to direct blood flow. This is exactly what the lungfish does.

And why are there still fish in the seas? Well, they were evolving too. While some fish may have found a better life on the shore, others developed new ways to attract prey, camouflage with their surroundings, and defend themselves... without leaving the ocean. Not every animal faces the exact same evolutionary pressures, and not every animal deals with those pressures in the same way.

View Post


Firstly I forgot to mention I never said that animals don't have souls, that was a strawman before..

So when did todays monkey BEGIN being a monkey...lol.. This was asked before and I don't think it was answered. Where is the dividing line?

Why do you say that monkeys have thumbs due to their tree dwelling habits? How has this been observed? (or was this just your opinion)

"For example, an animal might climb onto low branches to stay safe at night while still spending its days on the ground. For a population of animals with a ground-dwelling predator, the animals which spend the most time in the trees will be more likely to survive. The physical features and behavioural instincts that promote arboreal life would therefore be selected for."

Perhaps, however within an eco system wouldn't there be predators in the trees too :P

"Why wouldn’t they all die out from a predator? Because predator/prey relationships usually follow a cyclic pattern, and rarely result in total extinctions. There are plenty of animals today that we would consider easy prey, yet despite their lack of defensive mechanisms they’re still around (in many cases, this is accomplished by high reproductive rates)."

Again I ask where is the NECESSITY... Is what you are supposing is that the "ancestor organisms" of these species were hapless and had no way of surviving unless they "evolved", there must be a need.. Or if the ancestors had their own coping mechanisms, (like a high birth rate), then why evolve at all if they are coping fine.

Yet how do we know that specific need will be met at all, due to evolution being random :)

"For marine fish, venturing onto the beach provides an escape from aquatic predators, a safe place to lay eggs, and an abundance of new food sources."

Hypothetical 1- Freddy the fish is swimming away from a predator. He heads closer to the beach and just as the predator takes, what should have been the final snap, Freddy leaps out of the water and onto the beach......... Then what?... Freddy dies :D

Hypothetical 2- Freddy the fish is swimming around looking for food, Freddy "thinks" to himself gee I wonder if there are more food on land than in the sea... Freddy leaps out of the water and onto the beach......... Then what?... Freddy dies :(

In both simulations Freddy the fish dies, may I ask, how many times have You seen fish beach themselves for the sake of evolution... Not to mention how can these fish "adapt and evolve" when they are Dead???

Yes I know about the lungfish, However I asked How can a lung develop within water? The fish aren't exposed to air so how can they adapt to something they aren't exposed to??

It would be like me developing an organ to feed on gamma radiation even though I haven't been exposed to gamma radiation lol ;)


IF fish are still evolving, (which if evolution is a natural process then this should be the case, then why haven't we seen any of these "first lungs" of yours??? Millions of fish are eaten around the world, why haven't they seen a developing lung within a fish.... (This is assuming that the DNA coded for it in the first place but that is another thread..lol)

#84 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 01:51 PM

So when did todays monkey BEGIN being a monkey...lol.. This was asked before and I don't think it was answered. Where is the dividing line?


There is a page on this website about the fact that no evolutionist can agree with the definition of a species. If we had a complete fossil record Fred and the rest of the people that run this website would not stop laughing. It would be impossible to point to the dividing line. There would be a continuum from not monkey->almost-monkey->partly monkey->monkey.

One classic example of this is early hominids. Homo habilis, which is rght on the border between Homo and Australopithecine. One particular fossil, coloquially known as Twiggy, is cinsidered Homo but has Australopithecine features.

Habilis is still thought of as Australopithecine by some scientists.

One website concludes: "Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species. "

http://www.archaeolo...homohabilis.htm

Personally, I do not have an opinion and am happy for it to be classed as either.

Why do you say that monkeys have thumbs due to their tree dwelling habits? How has this been observed? (or was this just your opinion)


It isn't opinion it is a logical consequence of accepting the theory of evolution. We have the fossils of monkey ancestors and we can see how they act today, plus there are lemurs, bush babies etc which show what would have been intermediate steps (though these all have the opposable thumb).

Going into the trees obviously worked for the primate ancestors. Remember that may have been a small sub-population of mammals where the rest may have stayed on the floor. Yes there may have been predators in the trees, but we can be 100% sure that the ones that went into the trees made a good "choice"

Again I ask where is the NECESSITY... Is what you are supposing is that the "ancestor organisms" of these species were hapless and had no way of surviving unless they "evolved", there must be a need.. Or if the ancestors had their own coping mechanisms, (like a high birth rate), then why evolve at all if they are coping fine.


Don't think of NECESSITY, think of selection pressure. In a population of ground living mamals (the actual details are more likely to be that primates evolved from mammals that were already in tree's, but that isn't relevant to this argument. Some animals went into the trees) there would be variation of how much time the species spent in the trees, from 0% to let's say 5% of the time. If a new ground predator did appear then the ones that were in the tree's 5% would survive and pass on "stay in the tree" genes.

The population would then be more likely to be 2% - 7% of time in the trees, and if the predator remained the amount of time spent in the tree's would increase. Any other adaptions which helped (such as a better thumb) would also be selected for, or there would be Selection Pressure for it.

Yes I know about the lungfish, However I asked How can a lung develop within water? The fish aren't exposed to air so how can they adapt to something they aren't exposed to??


One of my favourite subjects. I could wax lyrical about this for hours, but for now the fossils of the lungfish such as Eusthenopteron (excuse my spelling) are always found in shallow swamp environments.

The lung evolved from the swim bladder, which all bony fish have, a balloon of air in the fishes body for bouyancy.

The legs of these fish (yes, they had legs) would have been used to push through the vegetation in the swamp, and being shallow the ability to deal with being stranded at times would be selected for (selection pressure again).

Air breathing lungs and legs all evolved in fish! There are fossils that show this.

Fish will evolve if there is selection pressure. We can imagine that smaller fish will evolve if fish nets take out all the large ones. There is a study been done over decades showing this in the size of elephant tusks shrinking since the increase in poaching, and there are alligators in Australia which are already evolving smaller throats to prevent swallowing of the poisonous cane toads.

#85 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:05 PM

So when did todays monkey BEGIN being a monkey...lol.. This was asked before and I don't think it was answered. Where is the dividing line?

View Post


The dividing line in the mind of whoever is doing the classifying.

#86 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 June 2010 - 03:38 PM

The dividing line in the mind of whoever is doing the classifying.

View Post


Exactly. There is much imagination involved, and little fact (in fact). Extraordinarily large amounts of stroke is given to the "artists interpretations" as the poster children of evolution. But, when you get down to the facts, very few facts are involved in those interpretations.

Especially when you see examples of going from this:
Posted Image

To This:
Posted Image

Posted Image

Nice humanistic "artistic interpretation" for a smile too (by the way).


Evolutionists want to take great leaps of faith, and pretend they have the evidence to explain this:
Posted Image


I'm still waiting for the evidence.

#87 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:30 PM

Exactly. There is much imagination involved, and little fact (in fact).  Extraordinarily large amounts of stroke is given to the "artists interpretations"  as the poster children of evolution. But, when you get down to the facts, very few facts are involved in those interpretations.


Comment in post 85 referred to human classification and discrimination being projected on to an evolutionary continuum. From our viewpoint a fly will birth a fly, a fish will birth a fish but only because our classifications are so general. If our classification were so precise as to say "fish is marine vertebrate with fins and gills but not x trait" then if x trait crops up you would have evidence of movement from one kind/species/baramin/thing to another. Such a definition would be inappropriate as it would render any mutant as outside its population. This is why evolution is considered in terms of incremental changes to a population.

Especially when you see examples of going from this:
Posted Image

To This:
Posted Image

Posted Image

Nice humanistic "artistic interpretation" for a smile too (by the way).
Evolutionists want to take great leaps of faith, and pretend they have the evidence to explain this:
Posted Image
I'm still waiting for the evidence.

View Post


The bones in your link are very informative. The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle). The bones on each side are broken humeruses. The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia. From these aggregate proportions one can deduce 1) this a primate/hominid, 2) a likely layout of the skeleton based on orthodox anatomical principles, 3) from details on the bones likely muscle coverage. When compared with known skeleton-specimin correspondances the artist's impression is hardly improbable.

#88 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:35 PM

Exactly. There is much imagination involved, and little fact (in fact).  Extraordinarily large amounts of stroke is given to the "artists interpretations"  as the poster children of evolution. But, when you get down to the facts, very few facts are involved in those interpretations.

Especially when you see examples of going from this:


Reminds me of Neanderthal man.

Below, first Neanderthal illustration in 1909:

Posted Image

Second photo below, Neanderthal drawing, 1960:

Posted Image

Third photo below, Neanderthal drawing, 1981:

Posted Image

Fourth photo below, Neanderthal reconstruction, 2001:

Posted Image

#89 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:52 PM

Comment in post 85 referred to human classification and discrimination being projected on to an evolutionary continuum.  From our viewpoint a fly will birth a fly, a fish will birth a fish but only because our classifications are so general.  If our classification were so precise as to say "fish is marine vertebrate with fins and gills but not x trait" then if x trait crops up you would have evidence of movement from one kind/species/baramin/thing to another.  Such a definition would be inappropriate as  it would render any mutant as outside its population.  This is why evolution is considered in terms of incremental changes to a population.
The bones in your link are very informative.  The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle).  The bones on each side are broken humeruses.  The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia.  From these aggregate proportions one can deduce 1) this a primate/hominid, 2) a likely layout of the skeleton based on orthodox anatomical principles, 3) from details on the bones likely muscle coverage.  When compared with known skeleton-specimin correspondances the artist's impression is hardly improbable.

View Post


As I said, massive amounts of faith. I'm sure you can build a case for Nebraska Man too.

#90 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 01:01 AM

I'm still waiting for the evidence.


I will discuss the evidence if we both drop our theoretical ideas. There is objective evidence that is there and it can be explained by using a theory, you have yours and I have mine, but before the theory there is the actual evidence.

I have started a thread on the geological evidence calles "what can we agree on". Let us discuss the evidence, rather than the theories.

#91 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 June 2010 - 02:05 AM

...but before the theory there is the actual evidence.

View Post

...because all we use is the fake stuff. You've got the actual evidence. :lol:

It seems to me that Ron is trying hard to discuss the actual evidence and you insist on painting everything with your evossumptions, no matter what.

#92 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 02:19 AM

Adam,


...because all we use is the fake stuff

:D

Don't be facetious :lol:. I have always said both sides look at the same evidence just explain it differently.

In this thread I have my evolutionist hat on. You are welcome to dismiss anything I say here without thought. ;)

Elsewhere I am discussing removing assumptions from both sides and after years of attempting this one creationist has finally taken me up on the offer. Look at the 'what can we agree on' thread.

#93 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 17 June 2010 - 03:51 AM

I will discuss the evidence if we both drop our theoretical ideas.  There is objective evidence that is there and it can be explained by using a theory, you have yours and I have mine, but before the theory there is the actual evidence.

I have started a thread on the geological evidence calles "what can we agree on".  Let us discuss the evidence, rather than the theories.

View Post


Links please...

#94 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 17 June 2010 - 04:50 AM

Try this:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3437

:lol:

#95 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 05:33 AM

The bones in your link are very informative.  The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle).  The bones on each side are broken humeruses.  The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia.  From these aggregate proportions one can deduce 1) this a primate/hominid, 2) a likely layout of the skeleton based on orthodox anatomical principles, 3) from details on the bones likely muscle coverage.  When compared with known skeleton-specimin correspondances the artist's impression is hardly improbable.



As I said, massive amounts of faith. I'm sure you can build a case for Nebraska Man too.



Okay, let's break this down (find where the evidence ends and the faith starts):

The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle).  The bones on each side are broken humeruses.  The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia.


Is this part right? Or is it faith to identify a left femur?

#96 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 18 June 2010 - 04:02 PM

So when did todays monkey BEGIN being a monkey...lol.. This was asked before and I don't think it was answered. Where is the dividing line?

View Post

That depends. What features must be present in order for an animal to be considered a monkey? I think Richard Dawkins provided a really good description this concept. To paraphrase his idea, imagine that you could make a line of monkeys, one from each generation, starting at present day. At any point along the line, each monkey would look virtually identical to the monkey behind it, aside from some slight variations. You would never see a point at which a generation of monkeys is preceded by something that is clearly not a monkey. Yet if you compared the first and last monkey in the line, they would be obviously different and the last would not be what we could consider a monkey by our modern definition.

Why do you say that monkeys have thumbs due to their tree dwelling habits? How has this been observed? (or was this just your opinion)

View Post

Well from an evolutionary perspective, why else would an animal need grasping hands with thumbs? An arboreal lifestyle and a diet which requires use of the hands are the two most obvious reasons I can think of. This is my opinion, but it is also the opinion of many other scientists and can be found in textbooks on primate evolution. I’m not saying we’re all right, but it does make a lot of sense.

Perhaps, however within an eco system wouldn't there be predators in the trees too

View Post

Perhaps, but trees are generally safer than the ground. There are a lot of animals today with adaptations that maximize the time they spend in the trees while minimizing their time on the ground. For example, the flying squirrel.

Again I ask where is the NECESSITY... Is what you are supposing is that the "ancestor organisms" of these species were hapless and had no way of surviving unless they "evolved", there must be a need.. Or if the ancestors had their own coping mechanisms, (like a high birth rate), then why evolve at all if they are coping fine.

View Post

As Phil already explained, it’s a matter of probability, not necessity. Let’s say the odds of being killed by a predator are 1 in 2, talking into account any pre-existing defence mechanisms. That means each year, 50% of the population is killed by predation before reaching reproductive maturity. Now imagine that some individuals adopt a lifestyle (in this case, living in trees) that lowers their chance of being eaten to only 1 in 4. While the majority of the population has a 50% chance of passing on their genes, the tree dwelling animals have a 75% chance.

Hypothetical 1- Freddy the fish is swimming away from a predator. He heads closer to the beach and just as the predator takes, what should have been the final snap, Freddy leaps out of the water and onto the beach......... Then what?... Freddy dies 

Hypothetical 2- Freddy the fish is swimming around looking for food, Freddy "thinks" to himself gee I wonder if there are more food on land than in the sea... Freddy leaps out of the water and onto the beach......... Then what?... Freddy dies

View Post

But what if a whole population of Freddies gradually moves into shallower water in a tidal region? And what if the Freddies that venture out to eat a few flies on the sand end up getting a better diet, while unintentionally avoiding aquatic predators at the same time? Evolution acts on populations, not on individuals.

Yes I know about the lungfish, However I asked How can a lung develop within water? The fish aren't exposed to air so how can they adapt to something they aren't exposed to??

View Post

For freshwater fish in anoxic water, surface skimming exposes them to air. They skim their gills over the water closest to the oxygen-rich surface. For marine fish, tidal zones expose them to air. So they are exposed, it’s just a matter of making the most of this exposure by developing the necessary organs. And like I said, a “lung” doesn’t have to be complex. Some fish can even use the roof of their mouth to breathe air (ex. the electric eel).

IF fish are still evolving, (which if evolution is a natural process then this should be the case, then why haven't we seen any of these "first lungs" of yours??? Millions of fish are eaten around the world, why haven't they seen a developing lung within a fish.... (This is assuming that the DNA coded for it in the first place but that is another thread..lol)

View Post

We do see fish with adaptations to breathe air some of the time, while using gills the rest of the time. Will these fish eventually adopt a terrestrial lifestyle? No idea. We’d have to wait several thousand years to find out.

#97 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:13 PM

As I said, massive amounts of faith. I'm sure you can build a case for Nebraska Man too.

View Post


Faith implies I'm not basing my outlook on evidence. Apart from an a priori acceptance of the uniformitarian principle I cannot see that my viewpoint is any more faith-based than the next person's.

#98 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 June 2010 - 03:01 PM

Faith implies I'm not basing my outlook on evidence. 

View Post

That is incorrect. The vast majority of all faith is based on experiential evidences.

Apart from an a priori acceptance of the uniformitarian principle I cannot see that my viewpoint is any more faith-based than the next person's.

View Post


Absolutely! Everyone here is speaking from a "faith-based" viewpoint. That includes "the next person". You are accepting "a priori" that all of these fossils belong to the same body. You are assuming "a priori" that, although there were very few scull fragments, the model outcome is correct. ( I could go on and on, but I think you get the general gist).

I reiterate, massive amounts of faith is basically what you are proceeding on.

#99 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2010 - 05:25 PM

That is incorrect. The vast majority of all faith is based on experiential evidences.


Then it is not faith. Were a first century document to emerge detailing the life of Jesus of Nazareth after AD33 would you believe it? - no, faith transcends evidence.

Absolutely! Everyone here is speaking from a "faith-based" viewpoint. That includes "the next person". You are accepting "a priori" that all of these fossils belong to the same body. You are assuming "a priori" that, although there were very few scull fragments, the model outcome is correct. ( I could  go on and on, but I think you get the general gist).

I reiterate,  massive amounts of faith is basically what you are proceeding on.

View Post


The skull is not a single bone which is why we are fortunate when we find entire skulls. Fossilization is rare so it is not unreasonable to assume that the bones came from the same creature.

#100 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 19 June 2010 - 06:41 PM

Then it is not faith. 

View Post

Once again, you are incorrect. It seems you are attempting to confuse “Blind” faith, and faith. They are two very different things.

Were a first century document to emerge detailing the life of Jesus of Nazareth after AD33 would you believe it? - no, faith transcends evidence.

View Post


Are you referring to the historical accounts and evidences of the eye witnesses of one Jesus of Nazareth, and the acts of His apostles? Once again, you would be incorrect. But, if you want to argue that, you’ll need to go to:
http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

The skull is not a single bone which is why we are fortunate when we find entire skulls.  Fossilization is rare so it is not unreasonable to assume that the bones came from the same creature.

View Post


The skull formation of a “fully formed” skull was never in question Tommy, so you may not wish to side step the scant skeletal evidence for Lucy (especially the skull) with this type of misdirection. This is what’s known as the Argumentum Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy (which is a type of non sequitur), and your irrelevant subject (a red herring) being interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue has been exposed.

"Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not the cause, are clearly shown to be cases of ignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.." Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users