Jump to content


Photo

Not All Science Is The Same


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2017 - 05:22 AM

Some people argue that all science is of the same value because it is treated with the same rigour. For example, to test a car brakes there may be an objective test, however this won't mean that all brakes are of the same performance.

 

In the same way people commit a sweeping generalisation when they argue that;

 

Science is treated with rigour through a method.

Evolution is science.

Therefore evolution is the same value as other theories because it is put through that rigor/method.

 

The true nature I would argue of science I shall call, "strong science", is that it has repeatably reproduced, identical results, as an induction (tally).

 

That is to say, if we put a rat in a sealed dome it will lose consciousness, so we deduce exotic air exists, and that the lungs can't just operate on any type of air. So then we deduce the result but then by induction, we can say that, 

 

"of 500 tests rats lost consciousness, out of all of the rats in the universe given the same conditions."

 

But we know that under such conditions, even though the term "proof" can be argued pedantically, instead let us just say that our conclusion is strong, so as to avoid that semantics debate. So then we all know that it wouldn't matter if you performed the same test 10 trillion times, the result will always be the same.

 

This is always the same with strong science. They are pretty much 'proven' because you can deduce the result then repeatably test and create a huge tally showing the same result. 

 

It can be shown with certain things, this is always the same type of science. We can deduce for example, that linear momentum will take over if we travel round a corner at a certain speed in a car, where the force of momentum will exceed the force of the traction and centre of gravity meaning the vehicle will spin out of flip out every time. We would immediately know something was funny if we saw a bus coming down the road at 100mph and then it took a tight corner at 100mph and took the corner nicely like a formula one car.

 

CONCLUSION: Basically we can't argue with strong science.

 

ARE SOME TYPES OF SCIENCE INHERENTLY WEAKER?

 

By their nature yes - historical science was introduced for Darwinism and long ages. By their nature they are usually some type of forensic reconstruction or argued inference which have been proven in the past to potentially be non-sequiturs rather than correct conclusions.

 

For example it was concluded Rhodocetus had a tail fluke and was ancestral to whales, but the finder of the organism later admitted it probably was a land animal for various anatomical reasons, proving that the type of forensic reconstruction for evolution, can be weak, especially with argued transitions.

 

There are types of forensic reconstruction which are strong, so again you can't conflate that type with the weak type, or that is unsophisticated thinking, because a strong reconstruction isn't the same as a weak one.

 

For example if we have many 100% complete skeletons for a species, and we reconstruct a skeleton that is 85% species X, that is a strong reconstruction. We can examine the anatomy and the conclusion is strong. But with transitionals of evolution, nobody can even know if they really were transitional and there are good reasons to believe they weren't, given the 99.9999999% conspicuously absent transitionals.

 

CONCLUSION; It's not as simplistic as evolutionists want to make out. They like to appeal to, "science" as though every theory and claim within science, because evaluated by scientists, is equally strong, equally proven. No, some things are so strong they basically are proven (angular momentum/ downforce, etc..) but some things are merely stories about the past which are basically propped up by circumstantial evidence, and they are argued as propositional inferences.

 

To put it in a more meaningful context, the chances of downforce existing have to be 99.999999%, and the chance of linear momentum existing must be 99.9999999% but really we all know they do exist, we have a reasonable knowledge they do so I only refrain from saying 100% because of technical pedantics, but to say the chances of evolving from slime, after an abiogenesis from mud, is an equal chance, because they are both science, is incredibly naive, and exceedingly poor reasoning based on generalisation fallacy. The chances for that, by any reasonable standard, would be closer to 0.0000000001%


  • Blitzking likes this

#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 July 2017 - 12:17 AM

Isn't this just a re-iteration of the historical science vs observational science that creationists propose?



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 05:04 AM

I would say the common creationist argument is more of "two categories". 

 

I would say my argument is basically saying; "take each theory and examine it's nature individually."

 

I am also saying that what makes certain science pretty much proven, (if we avoid the semantics of "what is ever proof?") is the double-whammy of deduction and induction.

 

To deduce something is true, and then to constantly repeat the results, and be able to repeat them at any moment, and to be able to repeat the same result even millions of time if we wanted to, is what makes these types of sciences, incredibly strong.

 

By example, imagine if I said to you, "1,000 F1 cars went around 1,000 laps each day, then we done the same thing for a thousand days" what would you say if I said to you, "one of the cars did not hold a tight turn, and skidded off the road."

 

Would you conclude the following; "This means that centripetal force does not exist, a body travelling in a circular path will not move around the centre point, science is disproven."

 

No, you would never say that because you are intelligent and you would immediately say; "Absurd, there is a fault with the car."

 

We would examine the car and perhaps see it had a bald tyre and lost traction, no doubt, or whatever.

 

Conclusion; WHY are we so sure? Because we know that if we done 100 billion identical tests we would get the same result, centripetal force exists and is only overcome by linear momentum when the speed a body is travelling in a straight line, overcomes the centripetal force. That is when the car or the bus, flips over. We sometimes refer to this by the term, "centrifugal force".

 

Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force. It doesn't exist. Linear momentum is what make something fly outward in a linear trajaectory when centripetal force is overcome. There is no "centrifugal force" in operation, there is only the velocity created by linear momentum, and when that velocity exceeds the centripetal force, that is when the bus flies off the road. A formula one case has down-force generated by aerodynamics, meaning the downforce acts against linear momentum meaning the race cars can corner at tremendous speeds, enough to create high G-force.

 

(I hope I have remembered these things accurately, I believe I have.)

 

Conclusion; I have never found this type of science with macro evolution. That would not mean macro evolution is false or that it isn't science, it would just mean that certain science is strong I would argue, because it is predicated on deduction and induction, results discovered then repeatably tested at any time, and we will indefinitely it seems, get the same result.



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 July 2017 - 03:16 PM

Conclusion; I have never found this type of science with macro evolution. That would not mean macro evolution is false or that it isn't science, it would just mean that certain science is strong I would argue, because it is predicated on deduction and induction, results discovered then repeatably tested at any time, and we will indefinitely it seems, get the same result.[/font]


We indefinitely get the same results when fossiliferous geological strata are examined. Never an angiosperm in the Carboniferous, a modern mammal until the Tertiary etc, etc. you know the score...

You have no reasonable explanation for this.



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 July 2017 - 04:07 PM

 

 

Wibble: We indefinitely get the same results when fossiliferous geological strata are examined. Never an angiosperm in the Carboniferous, a modern mammal until the Tertiary etc, etc. you know the score...

You have no reasonable explanation for this.

 

I think evolution isn't a reasonable explanation of it. I wouldn't expect if evolution was true to find angiosperms or mammals but rather the things that were evolving into them. In hindsight it's easy to say "we would expect this pattern from evolution" but not one evolutionist on the planet, had they not known the pattern, would predict that pattern, for they would have actually predicted the fossils would show a history of the evolution of life on earth, not either extinct species which aren't transitionals, which leads to even more missing ones, or extant species which have remained forever unchanged.

 

:)



#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 July 2017 - 07:05 PM

Science is treated with rigour through a method.

this is usually the case, yes.

Evolution is science.

yes, i'll agree.

Therefore evolution is the same value as other theories because it is put through that rigor/method.

yes, i'll agree to this too.

the question is, what is evolution.
evolution is:
life arrived here, then diversified into the life we see today.
next question, do we have all the facts, what do we really know.
science has no idea how life got here, it doesn't even have a plausible scenario.
animal phyla arrived here radially from this first life leaving no history to it's predecessors.
transitional fossils between animal phyla apparently do not exist.
next question, is it possible to explain the above.
not yet, but i belief science is standing on the cusp of some exciting stuff.

as for abiogenesis, science might some day get the job done, but that day is far from today.
in my opinion, it will never happen.
as for a god, science doesn't know, and neither does anyone else.
humanity has been trying to prove god since time began.
but yet they all have their "religions".

draw your own conclusions.

#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:34 AM

 

 

What If: life arrived here, then diversified into the life we see today.
next question, do we have all the facts, what do we really know.
science has no idea how life got here, it doesn't even have a plausible scenario.

 

Then why believe science has the answer or that the answer is scientific? Macro evolution isn't a strong science, as I have explained, as it isn't repeatable in the same way I described those forces.

 

You say science, "has no idea" and yet it proclaims macro evolution from the rooftops as though abiogenesis is as easy as pie.

 

I say the whole thing together, the full abioevolutionary MoY mud to man myth is just that, a myth. Whereas we have a completely provable deductive argument that we are miraculously designed because life not only has all the features of design but we have things so hyper-spefically designed in their overt and indeed REQUIRED teleology that the conclusion is obvious; God created the world like He said He did.



#8 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 04 July 2017 - 06:25 AM

Then why believe science has the answer or that the answer is scientific? Macro evolution isn't a strong science, as I have explained, as it isn't repeatable in the same way I described those forces.

science doesn't say it has the answer for abiogenesis.
 

You say science, "has no idea" and yet it proclaims macro evolution from the rooftops as though abiogenesis is as easy as pie.


you might not be aware of this, but there is more than one interpretation to common descent data.
 

I say the whole thing together, the full abioevolutionary MoY mud to man myth is just that, a myth. Whereas we have a completely provable deductive argument that we are miraculously designed because life not only has all the features of design but we have things so hyper-spefically designed in their overt and indeed REQUIRED teleology that the conclusion is obvious; God created the world like He said He did.


it's certainly a mystery, but i wouldn't call it a myth.

as of right now, the question remains wide open in my opinion.

i have found no reason to rule god out of the equation.

#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:54 PM

Wibble: We indefinitely get the same results when fossiliferous geological strata are examined. Never an angiosperm in the Carboniferous, a modern mammal until the Tertiary etc, etc. you know the score...

You have no reasonable explanation for this.


I think evolution isn't a reasonable explanation of it. I wouldn't expect if evolution was true to find angiosperms or mammals but rather the things that were evolving into them. In hindsight it's easy to say "we would expect this pattern from evolution" but not one evolutionist on the planet, had they not known the pattern, would predict that pattern, for they would have actually predicted the fossils would show a history of the evolution of life on earth, not either extinct species which aren't transitionals, which leads to even more missing ones, or extant species which have remained forever unchanged.

:)

It makes a whole lot more sense than creation that’s for sure. There’s no reasonable explanation under your belief as to why not even a pollen grain from an angiosperm let alone a macrofossil ever turns up in the Carboniferous, that time of swampy tropical forests that produced so much coal. We have plenty of other plant fossils from this period - clubmosses, horsetails, ferns – why no flowers ? The sensible conclusion is that they did not exist at that time. I understand that you think that the Carboniferous does not represent a different time to the Cretaceous, when angiosperms rapidly diversified, but you have no dating method to back up this assertion. Anyway, there are Carboniferous and Cretaceous formations in close proximity (both are exposed in Yorkshire for example) so there is no reason to expect such a clear separation in respective floras.

Your mantra about lack of transitional fossils continues to both deny the many we do have and to ignore the explanation of stasis in the fossil record, where individual species tend to remain unchanged for maybe 10 million years and then apparently suddenly replaced by a different species. Do you know anything about Punctuated Equilibrium ?

#10 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 July 2017 - 12:37 AM

Conclusion; I have never found this type of science with macro evolution. That would not mean macro evolution is false or that it isn't science, it would just mean that certain science is strong I would argue, because it is predicated on deduction and induction, results discovered then repeatably tested at any time, and we will indefinitely it seems, get the same result.[/font]

We indefinitely get the same results when fossiliferous geological strata are examined. Never an angiosperm in the Carboniferous, a modern mammal until the Tertiary etc, etc. you know the score...
You have no reasonable explanation for this.
Yes, but the REASON FOR finding different creatures who happen to live in different neighborhoods is what is the problem.. For example simply claiming that different strata is represented by millions of years of different ages is a GIANT ASSUMPTION and GIANT ASSUMPTIONS are not part of Empirical Science... Especially when a BETTER Explanation for all of the strata with fossilized creatures hydrologically sorted throughout is a worldwide flood (Like Noah's for example)

Also.. One should be highly suspicious of a hypothesis that has to pretend that over the course of "400 Million Years" while SOME fish were evolving into a Man, OTHERS were evolving ZERO..

That should he a huge red flag for ANY Thinking person (Along with Carbon 14, red blood cells, soft tissue etc. Found in Dinosaur remnants that are supposedly "100 MYO Old"..

Too many problems that have been band aided together..

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

"The success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."

(Dr. W.R. Thompson, world renowned Entomologist)

#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 July 2017 - 12:52 AM

Wibble: We indefinitely get the same results when fossiliferous geological strata are examined. Never an angiosperm in the Carboniferous, a modern mammal until the Tertiary etc, etc. you know the score...You have no reasonable explanation for this.

I think evolution isn't a reasonable explanation of it. I wouldn't expect if evolution was true to find angiosperms or mammals but rather the things that were evolving into them. In hindsight it's easy to say "we would expect this pattern from evolution" but not one evolutionist on the planet, had they not known the pattern, would predict that pattern, for they would have actually predicted the fossils would show a history of the evolution of life on earth, not either extinct species which aren't transitionals, which leads to even more missing ones, or extant species which have remained forever unchanged. :)
It makes a whole lot more sense than creation that’s for sure. There’s no reasonable explanation under your belief as to why not even a pollen grain from an angiosperm let alone a macrofossil ever turns up in the Carboniferous, that time of swampy tropical forests that produced so much coal. We have plenty of other plant fossils from this period - clubmosses, horsetails, ferns – why no flowers ? The sensible conclusion is that they did not exist at that time. I understand that you think that the Carboniferous does not represent a different time to the Cretaceous, when angiosperms rapidly diversified, but you have no dating method to back up this assertion. Anyway, there are Carboniferous and Cretaceous formations in close proximity (both are exposed in Yorkshire for example) so there is no reason to expect such a clear separation in respective floras.
Your mantra about lack of transitional fossils continues to both deny the many we do have and to ignore the explanation of stasis in the fossil record, where individual species tend to remain unchanged for maybe 10 million years and then apparently suddenly replaced by a different species. Do you know anything about Punctuated Equilibrium ?
..

Punctuated Equilibrium was cooked up out of desperation to prop up the dog's carcass of "Evolution" so "Atheists could remain "Intellectually Fulfilled" as R Dawkins put it..

The explosion of nearly every imaginable Phyla of creatures followed by Stasis.. YES Stasis!! is Death to the Darwinian slow methodogical plodding minute "beneficial" mutations that would require MASSIVE amounts of Deep Time... Trillions of years in fact..

Even Pre Eminent Evolutionary Paleontologists like Patterson and Gould have admitted as such and you seem to keep on forgetting that as that broken recording from the indoctrination that brainwashed us into believing that the "Fossil Record" proved "Evolution" keeps on getting replayed inside your head.. when IT IS THE OPPOSITE!!


"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

(Dr. David Berlinsky)

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

(Time Magazine)

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

(Dr. Ronald R. West)

#12 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 July 2017 - 01:55 AM

Yes, but the REASON FOR finding different creatures who happen to live in different neighborhoods is what is the problem.. For example simply claiming that different strata is represented by millions of years of different ages is a GIANT ASSUMPTION and GIANT ASSUMPTIONS are not part of Empirical Science...


Only if you completely deny radiometric dating of interbedded igneous layers and ignore all the features of the sedimentary record that throw out a global one year flood (angular unconformities, chalk, glacial deposits etc etc)
 

Especially when a BETTER Explanation for all of the strata with fossilized creatures hydrologically sorted throughout is a worldwide flood (Like Noah's for example)


How on earth is it a better explanation ? Did icthyosurs hydrologically sort below cetaceans ? Why didn't bloated carcasses of dinosaurs settle at the top of sedimentary layers with mammals ? Ferns and lycopods in the Carboniferous were never buried with flowering plants ? There is so much obviously wrong with that hypothesis I don't know where to start.
 

Also.. One should be highly suspicious of a hypothesis that has to pretend that over the course of "400 Million Years" while SOME fish were evolving into a Man, OTHERS were evolving ZERO..


Ok name me some fish that have evolved zero in 400 million years. Coelocanth (not even same species as the extant two) first appears about 360 mya, anything else ? We should be able to find all today's fish in the Cambrian according to you.
 

That should he a huge red flag for ANY Thinking person (Along with Carbon 14, red blood cells, soft tissue etc. Found in Dinosaur remnants that are supposedly "100 MYO Old"..


Its so disingenuous to continue with the C14 canard. If it isn't background noise/contamination that explains the tiny percentage of C14 signalled in SOME > 50 tya fossils why don't all dino bones come out at the same radiocarbon date ?



 

Punctuated Equilibrium was cooked up out of desperation to prop up the dog's carcass of "Evolution" so "Atheists could remain "Intellectually Fulfilled" as R Dawkins put it..

The explosion of nearly every imaginable Phyla of creatures followed by Stasis.. YES Stasis!! is Death to the Darwinian slow methodogical plodding minute "beneficial" mutations that would require MASSIVE amounts of Deep Time... Trillions of years in fact..


Darwin considered phylogenetic gradualism far more likely than allopatric speciation as the main driver for biodiversity. This was before anyone knew anything about continental drift, glaciation, climate change etc.). Gould and Eldridge took the alternative route. The true picture is probably some mixture of both.

So you think the fossil record shows no change in life on earth since the phyla appeared in the Cambrian, huh ? You sure about that ?



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 July 2017 - 05:27 AM

Wibble, to be honest I'm not quite sure that this topic really concerns the rock record and you're trying to make the topic about that because it's your fave subject.

 

One point your comments do highlight is the fact that we can't go back in time and see which one it was, deposition or slow accumulation.

 

Can you see a difference? We can argue the rocks for a reason but there is a clear reason why we would both agree oxygen and germs exist, and downforce and angular/linear momentum, and centripetal force, and G-force, etc...

 

CONCLUSION: The on-topic conclusion is that it is very clear these latter sciences can be tested but that the rocks can't. Ultimately we can't repeat the event that laid them down or ever know if there are magically absent transitionals that somehow existed and evaded all detection.

 

(The amount of transitionals we have argued elsewhere. Mathematically it's provable that 99.999% of them MUST be missing, which even evolutionary scientists would be forced to agree with and acknowledge. You yourself contradict yourself by arguing stasis and asking me what P.E means. You can't have both. If you claim P.E that is a tacit admission the transitionals aren't there because P.E. is argued based on a lack of them by Gould and Eldridge, and if you argue transitionals are there why then are you arguing P.E.?

 

:gotcha:

 

P.E. admits to the lack of transitional intermediates. Can you for example, show the intermediate transitional lineages for these please; (of course this doesn't include extinct species which have no transitionals either, such as the ichthyosaur, pterosaurs, pterodactls, trilobites, various insects that seem to appear from nowhere with no history, and all of the dinosaur kinds which also have no transitionals for them.)

 

I have also highlighted one of them because it pertains to a challenge you made in your post.

 

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 

Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/...octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsofth...ymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Eophis underwoodi (snakes) - (167 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Sulfur bacteria - 1.8 billion years.
Pollen - (Roraima) an indisputable case of pre-Cambrian 550 million years or so.
Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae) 150 million years
Mayfly -  97–110 million years.

Moss - 330 million years.



#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 July 2017 - 03:25 PM

Wibble, to be honest I'm not quite sure that this topic really concerns the rock record and you're trying to make the topic about that because it's your fave subject.


You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer. I pointed out that that is exactly what happens when we search for fossils in the sedimentary layers and don't find things that shouldn't be there according to evolution. The alternative reasons posited by creationists such as the hydrological sorting that Blitzking seems to think explains it are intellectually bankrupt.
 

One point your comments do highlight is the fact that we can't go back in time and see which one it was, deposition or slow accumulation.


We can't, and that is what creationists hide behind. However, we can look at sedimentary features and rule out things like a global flood. For instance, you are forced to believe that hundreds of metres depth of chalk rock, which is composed almost entirely of tiny plates from algal cells (coccoliths), was deposited in a few weeks or months, which is physically and biologically impossible. You can't claim it was scooped up by water currents from a larger area and dumped because you wouldn't have benthic (sea bed dwelling) organisms like sea urchins present throughout the record (and also showing an evolutionary sequence) because macrofossils would settle quickly with the chalk sediment settling gradually on top.
 
 

CONCLUSION: The on-topic conclusion is that it is very clear these latter sciences can be tested but that the rocks can't. Ultimately we can't repeat the event that laid them down


Sticking with chalk, you could set up experimental tanks with coccolithophores and manipulate temperature and nutrients etc. and you will never achieve the metres of deposition per day your model demands.
 

The amount of transitionals we have argued elsewhere. Mathematically it's provable that 99.999% of them MUST be missing, which even evolutionary scientists would be forced to agree with and acknowledge. You yourself contradict yourself by arguing stasis and asking me what P.E means. You can't have both. If you claim P.E that is a tacit admission the transitionals aren't there because P.E. is argued based on a lack of them by Gould and Eldridge, and if you argue transitionals are there why then are you arguing P.E.?


:rolleyes:  Looks like I need to quote Gould again:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups
 
 


:gotcha:


As usual, far too premature on the "gotcha". Is there an egg on face emoji ?
 

P.E. admits to the lack of transitional intermediates. Can you for example, show the intermediate transitional lineages for these please; (of course this doesn't include extinct species which have no transitionals either, such as the ichthyosaur, pterosaurs, pterodactls, trilobites, various insects that seem to appear from nowhere with no history, and all of the dinosaur kinds which also have no transitionals for them.


I have also highlighted one of them because it pertains to a challenge you made in your post.


You expect me to trawl through that lot ?

I knew you would bring up the Roraima pollen again. It actually shows how weak your case is that you have to keep going back to this single example. You call it a watertight case, I disagree. The pollen grains could have entered via microfissures in the rock or introduced at the time of sampling. The fact that the rock is metamorphic but despite this the pollen grains were fresh looking and typical of plants in the local area would support a modern origin. An in situ fossil of an actual plant would be far more impressive evidence.



#15 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 July 2017 - 08:10 PM

Your mantra about lack of transitional fossils continues to both deny the many we do have and to ignore the explanation of stasis in the fossil record, where individual species tend to remain unchanged for maybe 10 million years and then apparently suddenly replaced by a different species. Do you know anything about Punctuated Equilibrium ?

transitionals between what and what?
koonin specifically mentions that there are none between animal phyla.
the reviewers of this paper makes no comment on what koonin says.

#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 July 2017 - 02:48 AM

 

 

Wibble: You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer. I pointed out that that is exactly what happens when we search for fossils in the sedimentary layers and don't find things that shouldn't be there according to evolution

 

That's not the same thing at all though. To deduce something means it is provably tested to get a result. So if we mix certain chemicals and always get the same reaction. This isn't even in the same ball park, this example, what has been deduced, and what result are you repeating? What is a search for fossils? How does that repeatably test how they got there?

 

 

 

Wibble: Sticking with chalk, you could set up experimental tanks with coccolithophores and manipulate temperature and nutrients etc. and you will never achieve the metres of deposition per day your model demands.

 

Obviously. You are correct - we can't repeat a flood scenario so we can't know if it is feasible. So it proves ZILCH.

 

 

 

Wibble quoting Gould: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups

 

Well, first of all I listed the organism, a very great many of them, and asked for examples of species of transitional forms. Wibble, your answer is to quote a scientist that SAID they exist. I don't want someone to SAY they exist, I want to be shown them. If they are, "abundant" between larger groups then what are those, "larger groups" and where is the abundance?

 

You can't just SAY they are abundant, you have to show it. You can't, because they don't exist. Gould formulated his P.E. theory because he does admit that arrival + stasis is the general theme in the record. But even he can't avoid the fact that to go from being a land-walking mammal to a bat, you have to go through transitional stages. Same for an Ichthyosaur, a sea reptile, same for pterosaurs, pterodactyls, butterflies, these aren't changes as a species-level, they are changes between walking and flying. There are no bat species which can't fly. There are no Ichthyosaur species which can walk. So Gould's comment is wrong, because he isn't as clever because it's not at a species level the transitions are missing, but at the larger level. Or can you show transitionals for creatures between, for these organisms? Can you show transitions between quadruped and arboreal (apes)? Van you show transitions of insects that were evolving wings, or evolving eyes? 

 

Finally, Gould argues a false dichotomy by arguing creationists do it by design or stupidity, showing he was stupider for not realising he committed a limited choice fallacy. For a grouping fallacy of limited choices to be sound, such as a true trichotomy, the percentage must add up to 100%. So then a true trichotomy, is this; "you either are 50 years of age, under 50 or over 50 if you are living." For each of the three groups there would be a percentage, and those three percentages would come to 100%. If any people fell outside of the three groups it would be a false trichotomy.  So my answer to Gould is that I'm, "laughing at the superior intellect."

 

 

 

Wibble: I knew you would bring up the Roraima pollen again. It actually shows how weak your case is that you have to keep going back to this single example. You call it a watertight case, I disagree. The pollen grains could have entered via microfissures in the rock or introduced at the time of sampling

 

And I knew you would bring up contamination again, because that's all you've got. But the scientists thought of that too Wibble. Believe it or not, scientists are aware of these things without relying on what occurs to you decades later when a lightbulb goes off  in your head. The article explains how contamination wasn't possible or realistic, and that the scientists accepted that it wasn't explainable.

 

Repeating the same complaints which aren't valid rebuttals is argumentum ad nauseam fallacy. Certainly it is your favourite fallacy, such as your repeated claim the transitionals are multitudinous by appealing to scientists and ignoring mathematics. (Don't you even know it's mathematically provable that the percentage of transitionals missing must be over 99% simply because if everything evolved, everything had to transition?)

 

 

 

Wibble: You expect me to trawl through that lot ?

 

I don't no, because we both know there aren't any transitionals for any of them. 

 

But you and Gould claim "multitudes" for you and, "abundance" for him.

 

So then if there are multitudes, your examples must be multitudinous

 

You fail to see it's the percentage that counts. So even if you could show lots, it would only represent such a tiny percentage of what would have had to exist in the past. There aren't any transitionals for the Cambrian explosion, so that means for every type of organism even if you shown five transitionals, what percentage of the Cambrian would that count as?

 

We shouldn't be able to get to our laptops in the morning without tripping over transitionals. :gotcha:



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:48 AM

 

 

Wibble quoting Gould: Looks like I need to quote Gould again:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms

 

Oh and by the way, that wasn't my argument, (highlighted.) I actually said he formulated P.E. based on a lack of transitionals. So it, "looks like" you need to understand english before pretending I quote-mined Gould. Not only did I not quote him, but I did not say what he said creationists say about what he said.

 

If you need teaching what PE is Wibble as it seems to me you do, then you need to know that to even argue P.E there must be something lacking to begin with, with evolution theory, otherwise you don't yet understand what P.E. is.

 

P.E. argues that there is a lot of stasis punctuated by spurts of evolution where apparently the transitionals might not be expected to then be present.

 

So "If P.E is true, rapid changes of evolution followed by long periods of stability, then it would follow you wouldn't expect transitionals caused by gradualism (slow, gradual Darwinism).

If you do find transitionals, therefore NOT P.E." (modus tollens)

 

So why would Gould argue his own theory is wrong by arguing we would see transitionals of gradualism? He formulated it BECAUSE the transitionals of gradualism aren't present.

 

[attachment=1596:pe.jpg]

 

Conclusion; P.E attempts to describe a pattern of stasis without any fine gradations that would lead to transitionals in the record, as Darwin argued. Because Darwin argued fine gradations evolved incrementally.

 

Gould MUST have been arguing there are transitions missing in the record, or he would be arguing against his own theory. But I myself did not state that he said there are, "no transitionals" (highlighted)

 

Note that PE was only formulated as an ad-hoc rescue device for evolution, BECAUSE the fossil record didn't produce what Darwin predicted it would.

 

If it had produced what Darwin predicted then PE would never have existed. (reductio ad absurdum).

 

So Gould MUST logically, be arguing that at least something is missing from the record. Do you agree the transitions of gradualism are missing or not? Yes or no answer.



#18 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:26 PM

this example, what has been deduced, and what result are you repeating? What is a search for fossils? How does that repeatably test how they got there?


For example, the obvious conclusion from never finding modern mammals including humans in dinosaur layers is that they never coexisted. It doesn’t matter how many times we dig and uncover fresh material we just never find them together. Thousands of dino and mammal fossils have been uncovered but always in separate layers, with the mammals always stratigraphically higher in the record. This can be repeated with multiple other examples, this is what creates the clear pattern of the fossil record. You might say they never coexisted in space rather than time but then you would never find them in strata stacked above one another or within the same region which is patently not the case.

 

 

Wibble: Sticking with chalk, you could set up experimental tanks with coccolithophores and manipulate temperature and nutrients etc. and you will never achieve the metres of deposition per day your model demands.

 
Obviously. You are correct - we can't repeat a flood scenario so we can't know if it is feasible. So it proves ZILCH.

 


We know what is required to sustain coccolithophores, we don’t need to repeat a global flood in order to change the relevant variables to any extreme we want. If you disagree, which variable could we not manipulate in a tank of water ?
 

Well, first of all I listed the organism, a very great many of them, and asked for examples of species of transitional forms. Wibble, your answer is to quote a scientist that SAID they exist. I don't want someone to SAY they exist, I want to be shown them. If they are, "abundant" between larger groups then what are those, "larger groups" and where is the abundance?

 

No, my quote of Gould was not in response to your list, it was to the quote below: (excuse me for thinking that you were stating that there weren’t any transitionals and that is why PE was put forward  :rolleyes:    )

 

If you claim P.E that is a tacit admission the transitionals aren't there because P.E. is argued based on a lack of them by Gould and Eldridge, and if you argue transitionals are there why then are you arguing P.E.?

 

 

 

I have shown you a link to a very long list of transitionals before after you challenged me to show them, just as you are doing here again. As I remember it, you complained I was elephant hurling. :dono:

 

Finally, Gould argues a false dichotomy by arguing creationists do it by design or stupidity, showing he was stupider for not realising he committed a limited choice fallacy.

 

No he doesn’t and stupid he certainly was not. Creationists claimed that because punctuated equilibria was proposed then that meant that Gould and Eldredge admitted there were no transitionals. They never said or believed that. Therefore the creationists claiming so were either purposely misrepresenting them (design), or were making ignorant claims of their position (stupidity). What other alternatives are there ?
 



#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 July 2017 - 03:42 PM

So Gould MUST logically, be arguing that at least something is missing from the record. Do you agree the transitions of gradualism are missing or not? Yes or no answer.


I have already said in post#9 that punctuated equilibria was proposed due to long periods of stasis for species, followed by sudden change. Generally speaking, you cannot examine a layer that corresponds to millions of years and see a gradual transitioning between species, and I never said you could. (there are exceptions though, as I have mentioned in the Chalk thread with sea urchins and clams)

That's all I have time for for now.



#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 July 2017 - 01:57 AM

 

Wibble, to be honest I'm not quite sure that this topic really concerns the rock record and you're trying to make the topic about that because it's your fave subject.


You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer. I pointed out that that is exactly what happens when we search for fossils in the sedimentary layers and don't find things that shouldn't be there according to evolution. The alternative reasons posited by creationists such as the hydrological sorting that Blitzking seems to think explains it are intellectually bankrupt.
 

One point your comments do highlight is the fact that we can't go back in time and see which one it was, deposition or slow accumulation.


We can't, and that is what creationists hide behind. However, we can look at sedimentary features and rule out things like a global flood. For instance, you are forced to believe that hundreds of metres depth of chalk rock, which is composed almost entirely of tiny plates from algal cells (coccoliths), was deposited in a few weeks or months, which is physically and biologically impossible. You can't claim it was scooped up by water currents from a larger area and dumped because you wouldn't have benthic (sea bed dwelling) organisms like sea urchins present throughout the record (and also showing an evolutionary sequence) because macrofossils would settle quickly with the chalk sediment settling gradually on top.
 
 

CONCLUSION: The on-topic conclusion is that it is very clear these latter sciences can be tested but that the rocks can't. Ultimately we can't repeat the event that laid them down


Sticking with chalk, you could set up experimental tanks with coccolithophores and manipulate temperature and nutrients etc. and you will never achieve the metres of deposition per day your model demands.
 

The amount of transitionals we have argued elsewhere. Mathematically it's provable that 99.999% of them MUST be missing, which even evolutionary scientists would be forced to agree with and acknowledge. You yourself contradict yourself by arguing stasis and asking me what P.E means. You can't have both. If you claim P.E that is a tacit admission the transitionals aren't there because P.E. is argued based on a lack of them by Gould and Eldridge, and if you argue transitionals are there why then are you arguing P.E.?


:rolleyes:  Looks like I need to quote Gould again:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups
 
 


:gotcha:


As usual, far too premature on the "gotcha". Is there an egg on face emoji ?
 

P.E. admits to the lack of transitional intermediates. Can you for example, show the intermediate transitional lineages for these please; (of course this doesn't include extinct species which have no transitionals either, such as the ichthyosaur, pterosaurs, pterodactls, trilobites, various insects that seem to appear from nowhere with no history, and all of the dinosaur kinds which also have no transitionals for them.


I have also highlighted one of them because it pertains to a challenge you made in your post.


You expect me to trawl through that lot ?

I knew you would bring up the Roraima pollen again. It actually shows how weak your case is that you have to keep going back to this single example. You call it a watertight case, I disagree. The pollen grains could have entered via microfissures in the rock or introduced at the time of sampling. The fact that the rock is metamorphic but despite this the pollen grains were fresh looking and typical of plants in the local area would support a modern origin. An in situ fossil of an actual plant would be far more impressive evidence.

 

 

"You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer. I pointed out that that is exactly what happens when we search for fossils in the sedimentary layers and don't find things that shouldn't be there according to evolution."

 

 

""You said the nature of strong science is repeating the test thousands of times and getting the same answer."

 

Unless of course you DONT get the "Same Answer" that is.. LOL  But that is the beauty of the Science Fiction

Novel about "Long ago and Far away"! Any and all contingencies are easily explained away with an eraser and

some newly written lines...It has been done countless times over the last century... PE..  Convergent Evolution,

Oxygenless Early Earth, Living fossils, 100 MYO Red Blood Cells, Hopeful Monsters,  AND, they are ALL "To Be

Expected" To boot!! :burp:   

 

AND the best part is....WHO can ever prove you wrong unless they have a TIME MACHINE!!  Nice Science there!

 

 

 

"According to Evolution" :snapoutofit:

 

 

"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

 

 

Incidentally, the Bible predicted Darwin's Myth over 1800 years BEFORE it cursed us.. Amazing isn't it?

 

 

3For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,

they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They

will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 2 3-4






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users