Jump to content


Photo

Evolution...and Then... "something" Happened!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#21 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 02 December 2012 - 11:15 AM

That was the original hypothesis. The fossils have been rigorously examined for many years now, and found to be real, by skeptics as well as those who wanted them to be real. [

Scientists love it when "established scientific facts" are overturned. Proving such a thing wrong is a surefire way to build one's reputation, and likely to win a Nobel prize. I apologize if the phrase "established scientific fact" confused you, I'm used to talking to people with some background in science who know what is meant by the phrase. I'll try to be clearer in the future.


Like Piltdown man, Nebraska man and friends.... Yeah great crediability to the fossil evolutionists, we don't have to worry about them do we?


That is a load of #### when soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones, which overturned many "established scientific facts", (though there are no proofs thus no facts in science?) ALOT of effort went into attempting to call these findings false. Ultimately the soft tissue was demonstrated to be actual soft tissue... (yet many evolutionists still doubt it)... I don't see the Nobel prize being given here? All I saw was stubborn people not wanting to see new data that debunked their old ideas.... (This is a reoccuring theme in the history of science, if you studied it you'd realise this and not claim such silly things)

#22 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:43 AM

Like Piltdown man, Nebraska man and friends.... Yeah great crediability to the fossil evolutionists, we don't have to worry about them do we?

How were these frauds discovered to be frauds? How did the scientific community react when they discovered they had been duped?

Answer: SCIENCE proved they were frauds, and the scientific community became more rigorous about examining fossils as a result. Like many creationists, you appear to treat the fact that science makes mistakes and corrects them as if it were a weakness, rather than a strength. The true weakness is the creationist's inability to admit that they might be wrong, or to correct mistakes.


hat is a load of #### when soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones, which overturned many "established scientific facts", (though there are no proofs thus no facts in science?) ALOT of effort went into attempting to call these findings false. Ultimately the soft tissue was demonstrated to be actual soft tissue.

You're a few years behind on your facts again.

It is true that whenever new discoveries are made, there is a struggle within the scientific community between the staunch supporters of the dominant paradigm and the upstarts who are proposing dramatic change. This is human nature. Eventually, however, the truth wins out over the stubborn rejections of those who have skin in the game. Science is far from perfect, but it's all about admitting that you might be wrong, and working to discover truth. The natural human tendency to cling to comfortable theories is difficult to overcome, but the entirety of science is geared towards eventually overcoming it.

It is also geared towards not immediately accepting what appear to be impossible findings. That you treat this as something negative does not bode well for your future, assuming you wish to go into research.

#23 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 02 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

How were these frauds discovered to be frauds? How did the scientific community react when they discovered they had been duped? Answer: SCIENCE proved they were frauds, and the scientific community became more rigorous about examining fossils as a result. Like many creationists, you appear to treat the fact that science makes mistakes and corrects them as if it were a weakness, rather than a strength. The true weakness is the creationist's inability to admit that they might be wrong, or to correct mistakes.

You're a few years behind on your facts again.

It is true that whenever new discoveries are made, there is a struggle within the scientific community between the staunch supporters of the dominant paradigm and the upstarts who are proposing dramatic change. This is human nature. Eventually, however, the truth wins out over the stubborn rejections of those who have skin in the game.

Science is far from perfect, but it's all about admitting that you might be wrong, and working to discover truth. The natural human tendency to cling to comfortable theories is difficult to overcome, but the entirety of science is geared towards eventually overcoming it. It is also geared towards not immediately accepting what appear to be impossible findings. That you treat this as something negative does not bode well for your future, assuming you wish to go into research.


Doesn't discount that they were frauds.... When you look at the skull of piltdown man its an obvious fraud (bits are different colours for a start), yet it was touted as evidence of evolution for like 50 years....

Why would someone want to base their worldview in something that is constantly being proven wrong and has to change its story, rather than in something that hasn't needed to change at all since its first inception.... Seems like a no-brainer to me...

Care to demonstrate how I'm a "few years behind" in my facts? I've already had this out with another evolutionist who used outdated data to claim that the tissues were not actually tissues. Its been verified in many different fossils from many different species of dinosaur (plus archeopteryx I believe), not all of these could be coincidence.

That is what I hope to see with evolution, we already see the beginnings of it with the information within DNA, the discovery of micro RNA and the complexity of cellular systems, none of these have an evolutionary explanation of note, which is a glaring hole.

That is also what I see with evolutionists, they like to cling to evolution I guess it gives many a justification for their belief in atheism. I predict that once evolution is discovered to be lacking the numbers atheists will steadily decrease, as they realise that there is more to the world than matter and energy.

#24 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2012 - 01:18 PM

It's not an "excuse," it's an important distinction.


Fair enough. Let me rephrase: It is an important distinction that we have heard a million times.

And each time we hear this "important distinction" it is used as a lame excuse, because although evolution is being passed off as a fact, as soon as you question what it is that gives evolution its fact-status, we are told that proof only exists in maths.

The same method used by paleontologists to determine what any remains are. The bones are studied and classified.

The skeleton of any animal contains a wealth of information about that animal. The age of the animal when it died, the gender of the animal, how the animal moved, and so on. Just as you can tell the skeleton of a cat from that of a dog, so those who work daily with fossil remains can tell the skeleton of a bird from that of a dinosaur. They look at things like the size and shape of the skull, pelvic bones, and so on.

As I said, when these feathered dinosaur fossils were first discovered, paleontologists thought they must be a hoax. Only upon stringent examination of multiple fossils were these accepted for what they are.


Well, that sounds all fine and dandy, but what evidence do you have that the fossils in question have not simply been "studied and classified" in the light of the theory of evolution? Can you provide anything that shows that this fossil should be classified as a dinosaur, and not a bird, and that in no way involves bias towards evolution?

Where did you read that there are birds in the belly of a microraptor skeleton?


http://news.discover...ird-111123.html

That was the original hypothesis. The fossils have been rigorously examined for many years now, and found to be real, by skeptics as well as those who wanted them to be real.


That doesn't answer the question, it merely demonstrates your belief that the experts, (who you admit can be wrong) are not wrong, or that they don't have biases simply because they were originally skeptical.

First feathered dinosaur fossils found in North America


These kinds of articles simply report what scientists believe, based on what they are taught to believe. And if the evidence of fossilized feathers is so compelling then why do you suppose they felt the need to use an illustration, rather than show us the fossils themselves?

Most feathered dinos could not fly.


We don't know that any dinosaurs, feathered or not, could fly.

The truth is that, as of this writing, over 30 species of dinosaur have been found which had feathers, and they have been found in an ever-increasing range.


No. The truth is over 30 species of dinosaur have been found that evolutionary scientists believe had feathers. Huge difference.

#25 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 December 2012 - 01:48 PM

Answer: SCIENCE proved they were frauds, and the scientific community became more rigorous about examining fossils as a result. Like many creationists, you appear to treat the fact that science makes mistakes and corrects them as if it were a weakness, rather than a strength. The true weakness is the creationist's inability to admit that they might be wrong, or to correct mistakes.


Nobody is arguing that self-correction is a bad thing, and your sweeping comments about the abilities or lack of abilities of creationists add nothing to this discussion.

Self-correction has a value, but it can actually be deceptive if that value is exaggerated, taken out of its context, or if something that repeatedly appears to be "correct" turns out to be incorrect. You understand this (or so it seems by your comments), but most people today seem to think that simply because science is self-correcting then it is always improving and always moving towards the truth. But there is absolutely no guarantee that this is the case when there are hidden factors involved. It definitely works small-scale, and it is the best tool we have within science, but it is not fool-proof.

#26 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 01:55 PM

Doesn't discount that they were frauds.... When you look at the skull of piltdown man its an obvious fraud (bits are different colours for a start), yet it was touted as evidence of evolution for like 50 years....


So any field in which there has been fraud must be discounted, eh?

Why would someone want to base their worldview in something that is constantly being proven wrong and has to change its story, rather than in something that hasn't needed to change at all since its first inception.... Seems like a no-brainer to me...

Obviously, any area of study which is constantly scrapping old ideas and methods as inefficient, obsolote, or just plain wrong and replacing them with newer versions - which themselves are destined for challenge and possibly elimination - anything like that is clearly useless and can produce nothing of value, right?

Like medicine, for example. Medical ideas are constantly being proven wrong and the story is changed, from "humors" and "vapors" and blood-letting to crazy ideas about invisible animals attacking us that can be fought with extract of orange-peel mold! Medicine is such an obviously useless field.

Yep, definitely a n-brainer.


Care to demonstrate how I'm a "few years behind" in my facts?

You appear to believe that there are still serious challenges being made to the discovery of collagen in dinosaur fossils. In reality, research has been focused on how exactly those bits of collagen might have survived fossilization. That's been the direction of the research for at least a few years - I remember reading a Scientific American article on the subject a couple years back.

Google "dinosaur collagen 2012" if you want to read some more recent articles on the subject.



I've already had this out with another evolutionist who used outdated data to claim that the tissues were not actually tissues. Its been verified in many different fossils from many different species of dinosaur (plus archeopteryx I believe), not all of these could be coincidence. That is what I hope to see with evolution, we already see the beginnings of it with the information within DNA, the discovery of micro RNA and the complexity of cellular systems, none of these have an evolutionary explanation of note, which is a glaring hole. That is also what I see with evolutionists, they like to cling to evolution I guess it gives many a justification for their belief in atheism. I predict that once evolution is discovered to be lacking the numbers atheists will steadily decrease, as they realise that there is more to the world than matter and energy.

I would be overjoyed to see evolution completely discredited, because it would mean that the Universe is even weirder and more complicated than we already believed.

The problem with creationism is that it has yet to propose a single falsifiable theory. For creationists to challenge evolution based only on what they say is wrong with it is a losing strategy. You cannot demonstrate that your position is correct merely by picking holes in the opposing position - at best, you might demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence for either position.

#27 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:01 PM

Nobody is arguing that self-correction is a bad thing, and your sweeping comments about the abilities or lack of abilities of creationists add nothing to this discussion. Self-correction has a value, but it can actually be deceptive if that value is exaggerated, taken out of its context, or if something that repeatedly appears to be "correct" turns out to be incorrect. You understand this (or so it seems by your comments), but most people today seem to think that simply because science is self-correcting then it is always improving and always moving towards the truth. But there is absolutely no guarantee that this is the case when there are hidden factors involved. It definitely works small-scale, and it is the best tool we have within science, but it is not fool-proof.

Long-term, science is always improving and moving towards the truth. But that doesn't mean that there are no detours based on politics, egos, or just plain bad information. I guess the most prudent approach towards science would be to accept as relatively solid only those theories which have survived for at least a generation, and even then to always remind yourself "this is what we believe to be true so far."

It's true that a lot of people blindly accept scientific discoveries because they view science as almost magical or infallible. But the same goes for a lot of people who accept religious claims; they believe what they are told and what they read, and don't bother to check things out for themselves. As a result, we have lots of pointless arguments between entrenched ideologues and very little productive conversation.

#28 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 02 December 2012 - 02:24 PM

Nobody is arguing that self-correction is a bad thing, and your sweeping comments about the abilities or lack of abilities of creationists add nothing to this discussion. Self-correction has a value, but it can actually be deceptive if that value is exaggerated, taken out of its context, or if something that repeatedly appears to be "correct" turns out to be incorrect. You understand this (or so it seems by your comments), but most people today seem to think that simply because science is self-correcting then it is always improving and always moving towards the truth. But there is absolutely no guarantee that this is the case when there are hidden factors involved. It definitely works small-scale, and it is the best tool we have within science, but it is not fool-proof.


Exactly. Additionally the self-correction claim is used to justify the ad hoc hypothesises used by evolutionists with data that doesn't fit the original theory... Things like convergent evolution, punctuated equilibrium etc were created solely due to conflicting evidence that went against the original view of evolution.

#29 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 02 December 2012 - 02:36 PM

1. So any field in which there has been fraud must be discounted, eh?

2. Obviously, any area of study which is constantly scrapping old ideas and methods as inefficient, obsolote, or just plain wrong and replacing them with newer versions - which themselves are destined for challenge and possibly elimination - anything like that is clearly useless and can produce nothing of value, right? Like medicine, for example. Medical ideas are constantly being proven wrong and the story is changed, from "humors" and "vapors" and blood-letting to crazy ideas about invisible animals attacking us that can be fought with extract of orange-peel mold! Medicine is such an obviously useless field. Yep, definitely a n-brainer.

3. You appear to believe that there are still serious challenges being made to the discovery of collagen in dinosaur fossils.

4. In reality, research has been focused on how exactly those bits of collagen might have survived fossilization. That's been the direction of the research for at least a few years - I remember reading a Scientific American article on the subject a couple years back. Google "dinosaur collagen 2012" if you want to read some more recent articles on the subject. I would be overjoyed to see evolution completely discredited, because it would mean that the Universe is even weirder and more complicated than we already believed. The problem with creationism is that it has yet to propose a single falsifiable theory.

5. For creationists to challenge evolution based only on what they say is wrong with it is a losing strategy. You cannot demonstrate that your position is correct merely by picking holes in the opposing position - at best, you might demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence for either position.


1. Did I say that? I'm only saying it puts doubt into the next (supposedly "true") claim.

2. Um no. I am merely pointing out that the crediability of using something that keeps shifting as the foundation for ones worldview... (Of which medicine has no relevance...).

3. I never said that there were challenges, I was saying the opposite..... How could you mix that up? I was saying that the discovery of tissue in dinosaur bones rocked the evolutionist community, (since in implies that the bones are not as old as they claim since before hand tissues and such were demonstrated to not last millions of years). The initial reaction, rather than as you said giving the person the Nobel prize, was one of skeptism and total rudeness. I remember when it first came out, there was an uproar of abuse from the evolutionist communities, (from what I saw anyway).... This proves your claim before was total ####, no evolutionist wants to hear of discoveries that defy their pet "theory".

4. Therefore how am I "behind in my facts" when I was the one proposing that there is tissue in fossils and you agree?...

5. Umm no, you don't need a replacement before you can claim something as wrong. Scientists are allowed to step back and say, "actually we're not that sure anymore", I'd much rather my future children learn that there is plausable doubt behind the 'theory" rather than have the teachers and such push on forward with something which they know has the potential to be false... In fact its actually demonstrating denial in that they do not do this and admit that its not as rock solid as they previously thought.

#30 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

Exactly. Additionally the self-correction claim is used to justify the ad hoc hypothesises used by evolutionists with data that doesn't fit the original theory... Things like convergent evolution, punctuated equilibrium etc were created solely due to conflicting evidence that went against the original view of evolution.

Nonsense. They were used to refine the theory as new information came to light. The core of the original theory - the idea that species come about through gradual change in populations over time - has never changed. Only details as to how and why have had to be adjusted, just as medical theory has had to adjust as new information comes to light.

There is nothing ad-hoc about the way the theory of evolution has evolved. It's been done the same way any scientific theory changes over time.

#31 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

1. Did I say that? I'm only saying it puts doubt into the next (supposedly "true") claim.

It's the logical conclusion of the ad-hom argument you're making against evolution. If there were frauds involved, goes the argument, that indicates that the entire branch of science cannot be trusted. Ergo, any branch of human endeavor which has suffered from fraud must be equally suspect.

It's a poor argument.

2. Um no. I am merely pointing out that the crediability of using something that keeps shifting as the foundation for ones worldview... (Of which medicine has no relevance...).

Medicine has complete relevance. Science is the basis of my worldview. Medical science is every bit as relevant to that as geology or biology or any other branch. If any part of what we currently believe in any branch of science is disproved tomorrow (including evolution), it will not shake my worldview one bit.

Of course, if evolution is disproved, that will necessitate a re-thinking of nearly every other branch of science, but it won't change the foundation of my worldview.

3. I never said that there were challenges, I was saying the opposite..... How could you mix that up?

I didn't. I understood what you were saying. It's simply that you seem to be thinking of the issue as it was 4 or more years ago, not as it sits today.

I was saying that the discovery of tissue in dinosaur bones rocked the evolutionist community, (since in implies that the bones are not as old as they claim since before hand tissues and such were demonstrated to not last millions of years).

No wonder you're confused. It's been pretty well figured out how and why collagen can last millions of years. It hasn't turned evolution on its head, it's merely given us more information to work with.

The initial reaction, rather than as you said giving the person the Nobel prize, was one of skeptism and total rudeness. I remember when it first came out, there was an uproar of abuse from the evolutionist communities, (from what I saw anyway).... This proves your claim before was total ####, no evolutionist wants to hear of discoveries that defy their pet "theory".

no published scientist wants to deal with young upstarts who are publishing findings that disprove the older publications. This is hardly unique to evolutionary biology or paleontology. But when sufficient evidence comes to light, the old guard is silenced and research on the new findings is embraced, just as has happened with dinosaur collagen.

4. Therefore how am I "behind in my facts" when I was the one proposing that there is tissue in fossils and you agree?...

See above. You're behind in the reaction of the scientific community. The screaming is over, the science has resumed. and the new findings have replaced the old misconceptions. Isn't science wonderful?

5. Umm no, you don't need a replacement before you can claim something as wrong.

But you need evidence for your position to demonstrate that it is true. You can bring evidence against the opposing team from now until eternity, and it still won't say a thing in favor of your position.

IOW, trying to prove God by disproving evolution is like trying to prove Christianity by disproving Islam. Even if you succeed, at the end all we have is a discredited Islam. We don't have a justified Christianity.

Scientists are allowed to step back and say, "actually we're not that sure anymore",

Science has always said this. But when confronted with anti-science and cries of 'goddidit,' patience wears a little thin.

I'd much rather my future children learn that there is plausable doubt behind the 'theory" rather than have the teachers and such push on forward with something which they know has the potential to be false... In fact its actually demonstrating denial in that they do not do this and admit that its not as rock solid as they previously thought.

No, it's merely an unfortunate reaction against a community of scientifically ignorant ideologues who do not appreciate that reasonable doubt is not a bad thing. Every time a scientist speaks of doubt with regard to evolution, someone in the creationist community leaps up and hollers "see? See? They're not infallible, therefore God!"

After a while, there is a tendency to simply refuse these people the satisfaction of their ignorance.

#32 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:32 AM

Nonsense. They were used to refine the theory as new information came to light. The core of the original theory - the idea that species come about through gradual change in populations over time - has never changed. Only details as to how and why have had to be adjusted, just as medical theory has had to adjust as new information comes to light. There is nothing ad-hoc about the way the theory of evolution has evolved. It's been done the same way any scientific theory changes over time.

Careful not to equivocate. "Change over time" is a very general statement. But Evolutionists mean something rather specific when they talk about Evolution. It is the theory that more complex life forms descend from primitive ones (over long periods of time) And that's something that has never been observed. And it isn't really falsifiable neither, which indicates that Theory of Evolution is something outside the realm of science, but simply a philosophical origins model.

What is however is observed is any of the following:
- Mutation or rather the degeneration of genetic information in organisms.
- Fossils of extinct species or dead organisms in general
- Differences and commonalities between different species or groups of organism types.

Those observable facts are then fit into and reconciled with the existing paradigm of the ToE. And that's what we see academics doing. No matter what they find or detect it always is reconciled with the paradigm and fit into the overall model. This only allows for slight changes to configuration, but the concept remains the same and is by no means "self correcting".
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#33 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 03 December 2012 - 05:47 AM

1. It's the logical conclusion of the ad-hom argument you're making against evolution.

2. If there were frauds involved, goes the argument, that indicates that the entire branch of science cannot be trusted. Ergo, any branch of human endeavor which has suffered from fraud must be equally suspect. It's a poor argument.

3. Medicine has complete relevance. Science is the basis of my worldview. Medical science is every bit as relevant to that as geology or biology or any other branch.

4. If any part of what we currently believe in any branch of science is disproved tomorrow (including evolution), it will not shake my worldview one bit.

5. Of course, if evolution is disproved, that will necessitate a re-thinking of nearly every other branch of science, but it won't change the foundation of my worldview.


6. I didn't. I understood what you were saying. It's simply that you seem to be thinking of the issue as it was 4 or more years ago, not as it sits today.

7. No wonder you're confused. It's been pretty well figured out how and why collagen can last millions of years.

8. It hasn't turned evolution on its head, it's merely given us more information to work with. no published scientist wants to deal with young upstarts who are publishing findings that disprove the older publications.

9. This is hardly unique to evolutionary biology or paleontology. But when sufficient evidence comes to light, the old guard is silenced and research on the new findings is embraced, just as has happened with dinosaur collagen. See above. You're behind in the reaction of the scientific community. The screaming is over, the science has resumed. and the new findings have replaced the old misconceptions.

10. Science has always said this.

11. But when confronted with anti-science and cries of 'goddidit,' patience wears a little thin.

12. No, it's merely an unfortunate reaction against a community of scientifically ignorant ideologues

13. who do not appreciate that reasonable doubt is not a bad thing. Every time a scientist speaks of doubt with regard to evolution, someone in the creationist community leaps up and hollers "see? See? They're not infallible, therefore God!" After a while, there is a tendency to simply refuse these people the satisfaction of their ignorance.



1. Huh? There can be "ad hominem" arguments against evolution? Additionally how does pointing out the failures of the past equate to an ad hominem? I ask you to support your accusation.

2. Umm, no I already explained myself before you are now attempting to put YOUR words in my mouth. Bad form.

3. Considering that science is limited, its a pretty useless basis if used for a worldview. Medicine has nothing to do with evolution, ergo it has no relevance.

4. Curious, then why do many evolutionists fight so zealously to protect their pet "theory" from scruitiny?

5. Um no it won't... Genetics will stay the same, ecology will stay the same, medicine will stay the same, virology will stay the same microbiology will stay the same, biochemistry will stay the same etc... The ONLY thing which wll change is the a priori assumption of evolution permeating the mind of the scientist, oh and the word evolve would be used less.

6. How so? Tissue was found, evolutionists claimed it wasn't true, found to be true, causes confusion as per the age of fossils since previous endeavours cited that such tissues would only exist around 10,000 years. You stated that I was saying the opposite? Again I ask, how can you mix that up, (if not deliberately)?

7. Really so what is the reason?

8. Ah more ad hoc claims to come and save the day! This is classic. Amazing critical thinking from the Darwininans right here.

9. The screaming only stopped once they could fit it into evolution, I am 100% sure that if it still stood contrary to evolution the screaming would still continue, (as it does for complexity within cells)

10. Then why is it automatically claimed that since evolution cannot be replaced then it should be accepted regardless.

11. Who has stated that here on this thead? I prefer to use science to demonstrate how evolution cannot have created x, y and z which therefore implies a designer. Such is not a "God did it" argument since it stems from what we know about the world. Ask me for an example.

12. And this is not an ad hominem?

13. If there is doubt then how can it be claimed as a fact?..... Oops

#34 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:26 PM

Long-term, science is always improving and moving towards the truth.


No, you have no absolute guarantee that it is. Science does not have that power.

Let me give you an example. Suppose, for argument's sake, that God creates a dog and lets it wander into your back yard. In this example, God creating the dog is the truth, OK?

Everything you use in science to determine where the dog came from will cause you to make faulty "corrections", just as everything you use in science will lead you to further away from the truth.

#35 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:21 AM

[quote] name='MarkForbes' timestamp='1354523545' post='87580'] Careful not to equivocate. "Change over time" is a very general statement.[/quote]
That's not what Xanifred said. His statement was more specific. He said "the idea that species come about through gradual change in populations over time ..."

[quote]But Evolutionists mean something rather specific when they talk about Evolution. It is the theory that more complex life forms descend from primitive ones (over long periods of time) [/quote]
That's not exactly true. The ToE does not make the prediction that more complex forms descend from primitive. It says that organisms that leave more offspring will become more prevalent. A general trend is that more "complex" organisms have better adaptations to allow them to survive and leave offspring. But the ToE does not predict a specific direction of organismal "complexity."

[quote]And it isn't really falsifiable neither, which indicates that Theory of Evolution is something outside the realm of science, [/quote]
It is falsifiable. Human skeletons found in "pre-flood" sediment would falsify it. There were plenty of humans that lived and died before the flood, so their fossils should turn up n pre-flood sedimenti. Evolutionary theory could not ad hoc that observation.

HBD

#36 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 04 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

That's not exactly true. The ToE does not make the prediction that more complex forms descend from primitive. It says that organisms that leave more offspring will become more prevalent. A general trend is that more "complex" organisms have better adaptations to allow them to survive and leave offspring. But the ToE does not predict a specific direction of organismal "complexity."

It is falsifiable. Human skeletons found in "pre-flood" sediment would falsify it. There were plenty of humans that lived and died before the flood, so their fossils should turn up n pre-flood sedimenti. Evolutionary theory could not ad hoc that observation. HBD


That claim goes against everything we were told at uni....

When the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks there is no way that any kind of modern fossils can ever be found in old rocks since because its a fossil of a modern organism then it would automatically be claimed that the rock around it is of a younger age.

#37 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

Careful not to equivocate. "Change over time" is a very general statement. But Evolutionists mean something rather specific when they talk about Evolution. It is the theory that more complex life forms descend from primitive ones (over long periods of time) And that's something that has never been observed. And it isn't really falsifiable neither, which indicates that Theory of Evolution is something outside the realm of science, but simply a philosophical origins model. What is however is observed is any of the following: - Mutation or rather the degeneration of genetic information in organisms. - Fossils of extinct species or dead organisms in general - Differences and commonalities between different species or groups of organism types. Those observable facts are then fit into and reconciled with the existing paradigm of the ToE. And that's what we see academics doing. No matter what they find or detect it always is reconciled with the paradigm and fit into the overall model. This only allows for slight changes to configuration, but the concept remains the same and is by no means "self correcting".

Actually, even the shift from a more complex life form to a less complex one would be considered evolution. The most accurate definition would be that separate species evolve from common ancestors, and that all living species share either a common ancestor (most likely and most generally accepted) or a handful of common ancestors who were capable of exchanging genetic information. Included in the theory are concepts such as biological niches and environmental pressures.

This theory produces a number of predictions concerning what we should find in the real world if, in fact, it were true. These include predictions about the fossil record (which have been correct), predictions about genetic information (which have been correct), predictions about the shift in a biosphere when a new species is introduced (which have been correct), and so on. There is no process of "retrofitting" the facts into the theory, as you suggest.

#38 Xanifred

Xanifred

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Middle Tennessee

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:24 PM

1. Huh? There can be "ad hominem" arguments against evolution? Additionally how does pointing out the failures of the past equate to an ad hominem? I ask you to support your accusation.

2. Umm, no I already explained myself before you are now attempting to put YOUR words in my mouth. Bad form.

3. Considering that science is limited, its a pretty useless basis if used for a worldview. Medicine has nothing to do with evolution, ergo it has no relevance.

4. Curious, then why do many evolutionists fight so zealously to protect their pet "theory" from scruitiny?

5. Um no it won't... Genetics will stay the same, ecology will stay the same, medicine will stay the same, virology will stay the same microbiology will stay the same, biochemistry will stay the same etc... The ONLY thing which wll change is the a priori assumption of evolution permeating the mind of the scientist, oh and the word evolve would be used less.

6. How so? Tissue was found, evolutionists claimed it wasn't true, found to be true, causes confusion as per the age of fossils since previous endeavours cited that such tissues would only exist around 10,000 years. You stated that I was saying the opposite? Again I ask, how can you mix that up, (if not deliberately)?

7. Really so what is the reason?

8. Ah more ad hoc claims to come and save the day! This is classic. Amazing critical thinking from the Darwininans right here.

9. The screaming only stopped once they could fit it into evolution, I am 100% sure that if it still stood contrary to evolution the screaming would still continue, (as it does for complexity within cells)

10. Then why is it automatically claimed that since evolution cannot be replaced then it should be accepted regardless.

11. Who has stated that here on this thead? I prefer to use science to demonstrate how evolution cannot have created x, y and z which therefore implies a designer. Such is not a "God did it" argument since it stems from what we know about the world. Ask me for an example.

12. And this is not an ad hominem?

13. If there is doubt then how can it be claimed as a fact?..... Oops

1. Of course. Stating 'there has been fraud in evolutionary science' requires that there are fraudsters (or willing dupes, or both) among evolutionary scientists. By claiming fraud, and by unmistakeable implication fraudsters and/or willing dupes, you are making an ad-hom argument which boils down to "anyone who agrees with that group of people cannot be trusted because those people are fraudsters, willing dupes, or both."

2. I am merely following your poor arguments to their logical conclusion, so as to illustrate why they are poor arguments. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm demonstrating where your words necessarily lead.

3. Careful not to equivocate. You asked what relevance medicine has to do with the basis of my worldview. You wrongly assumed that my worldview is based on evolution. I corrected your error, and explained why medicine has as much to do with the basis of my worldview (which is science, not evolution).

That you feel science is too limited to serve as a valid basis is opinion, nothing more.

4. Probably for the same reason that many YECs fight so fiercely to protect their pet theory from scrutiny. People mistake wall decorations for weight-bearing pillars all the time.

5. None of those branches of science would remain the same, since all of them use predictive models based on the assumption that evolution is occurring all around us. Those predictive models would have to be scrapped, and new ones found.

6. You still appear not to understand what I was saying. I never thought that you "mixed up" what has happened, merely that you were a few years behind. I also never said you were saying the opposite - merely that you were a few years behind. I'm guessing you haven't read anything new on the subject of collagen in dinosaur fossils for at least 3 years, am I right?

7. It has to do with the physical properties of collagen molecules. I'm speaking from memory here, as a layman, so if you want details you'll need to do some research, but iirc the fact that collagen forms long, twisted strands which themselves twist around similar strands (like a rope) creates a natural protective "shell" around the inner strands. Under the right circumstances, this shell can prevent the mineral displacement which occurs in fossilization.

If you want more details, check the university library for journal articles. I'm sure there are numerous sources available. My own limited understanding comes from articles aimed at lay-persons, not actual scientific publications.

8. You're studying to be a scientist and you haven't figured out how the political structure of academia works??? Come on!

If the status quo were immobile due to stubbornness among scientists, no change would ever take place. This is clearly not the case. Conversely, if every new discovery were immediately embraced, published scientists would be giving up a measure of prestige without any struggle. Human nature tells us this won't happen, either.

9. You're a grad student in Biology, and nobody has taught you about the likely origin of complexity within cells? Are you getting your degree online or something?

10. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What exactly is being "automatically claimed" according to you?

11. Nobody has said it on this thread, but it's a common claim. I'm sure there are innumerable examples of the claim made on this board.

"God did it" is the core of the creationist argument. God is the supposed creator, right? How can you claim creation without a creator?

12. Technically, it isn't. I am not making the claim that all creationist arguments must be dismissed because there are numerous communities of scientifically ignorant ideologues among creationists. I'm explaining the irrational, emotional reaction from many in the scientific community.

13. You claim to be a biology student. Go ask a prof what is meant by "scientifically established fact," and if this usage of the word "fact" is synonymous with "that which can never, under any circumstances, be disproved, let alone doubted."

#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

"You're studying to be a scientist and you haven't figured out how..."

"You're a grad student in Biology, and nobody has taught you about the likely origin of complexity within cells?"

"You claim to be a biology student." etc.etc.

Yeah, Gilbo.............you heard the man, excuse yourself for existing!Posted Image

#40 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 04 December 2012 - 03:48 PM

1. Of course. Stating 'there has been fraud in evolutionary science' requires that there are fraudsters (or willing dupes, or both) among evolutionary scientists. By claiming fraud, and by unmistakeable implication fraudsters and/or willing dupes, you are making an ad-hom argument which boils down to "anyone who agrees with that group of people cannot be trusted because those people are fraudsters, willing dupes, or both."

2. I am merely following your poor arguments to their logical conclusion, so as to illustrate why they are poor arguments. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm demonstrating where your words necessarily lead.

3. Careful not to equivocate. You asked what relevance medicine has to do with the basis of my worldview. You wrongly assumed that my worldview is based on evolution. I corrected your error, and explained why medicine has as much to do with the basis of my worldview (which is science, not evolution). That you feel science is too limited to serve as a valid basis is opinion, nothing more.

4. Probably for the same reason that many YECs fight so fiercely to protect their pet theory from scrutiny. People mistake wall decorations for weight-bearing pillars all the time.

5. None of those branches of science would remain the same, since all of them use predictive models based on the assumption that evolution is occurring all around us. Those predictive models would have to be scrapped, and new ones found.

6. You still appear not to understand what I was saying. I never thought that you "mixed up" what has happened, merely that you were a few years behind.

7. It has to do with the physical properties of collagen molecules. I'm speaking from memory here, as a layman, so if you want details you'll need to do some research, but iirc the fact that collagen forms long, twisted strands which themselves twist around similar strands (like a rope) creates a natural protective "shell" around the inner strands. Under the right circumstances, this shell can prevent the mineral displacement which occurs in fossilization. If you want more details, check the university library for journal articles. I'm sure there are numerous sources available. My own limited understanding comes from articles aimed at lay-persons, not actual scientific publications.

8. You're studying to be a scientist and you haven't figured out how the political structure of academia works??? Come on! If the status quo were immobile due to stubbornness among scientists, no change would ever take place. This is clearly not the case. Conversely, if every new discovery were immediately embraced, published scientists would be giving up a measure of prestige without any struggle. Human nature tells us this won't happen, either.

9. You're a grad student in Biology, and nobody has taught you about the likely origin of complexity within cells? Are you getting your degree online or something?

10. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What exactly is being "automatically claimed" according to you?

11. Nobody has said it on this thread, but it's a common claim. I'm sure there are innumerable examples of the claim made on this board. "God did it" is the core of the creationist argument. God is the supposed creator, right? How can you claim creation without a creator?

12. Technically, it isn't. I am not making the claim that all creationist arguments must be dismissed because there are numerous communities of scientifically ignorant ideologues among creationists. I'm explaining the irrational, emotional reaction from many in the scientific community.

13. You claim to be a biology student. Go ask a prof what is meant by "scientifically established fact," and if this usage of the word "fact" is synonymous with "that which can never, under any circumstances, be disproved, let alone doubted."


1. Quote where I have called people fraudsters or retract your slanderous claim (which you have yet to do elsewhere). You are drawing a long bow as well as putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that in an area which is largely influenced by a person's own worldview, the history of having fraudulent "evidence" puts doubt in the objectivity of the people assessing the "evidence". This is merely a claim of doubt, certainly you've heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf.... Just change the word to evidence... What this means, and is my ultimate point is that people need to be rigorous in their justification of evidence and provide clear lines of falsification and multiple lines of independant evidence to support the claim. I rarely see this happen in evolution, (as far as I have seen via the textbooks and personal experience).

2. Um no you are putting words in my mouth just like point one. Again I ask you to quote where I stated that nothing can ever be trusted now that there has been one fraud... I beleive I did say that it increases doubt, however that should be expected. So essentially I am telling you how people would and should react to such things.

3. No it is YOU who is equivocating, we are discussing evolution. This entire forum is dedicated to evolution, if you wish to discuss medicine go to a forum about medicine.

4. Then you admit that both are as bad as each other :D That is simply what it is. Evolution is more about philosophy than science, since its simply a paradigm with which people view the world... The same as Religion.

5. I'll fix it for you... "predictive" models... Claiming "evolution did it" is not a predictive model, but that is what is claimed after every new discovery... Epigenetics, "evolution did it", microRNA, "evolution did it"... Yet again you fail to realise what an actual prediction is. Additionally it can be infered that your use of the word "predictive" was used to add additional (unfounded) authority, I've caught you out doing this a few times now. Please ensure that what you say stays truthful, elaborating for the sake of trying to make something look better is not very intellectually honest.

6. I didn't say that I mixed up, I said that YOU mixed it up, which you just did again. Yet again you display your intellectual honesty or lack thereof. The only reason I brought it up was to debunk your claim that anyone with evidence against evolution would be hailed as a hero and would get a Nobel prize, I showed you how this was not the case with the evidence of soft tissue found in bones, where the reasearcher was chastised for finding such evidence and a concerted effort was created to try and refute this evidence (which didn't work). Whether or not they accept it now is of no consequence, since it demonstrates that someone with evidence that ran counter to the current evolutionary claims was not treated as you said they would. Therefore this whole extra discussion has sidelined my point, which refuted what you claimed.

Now what this demonstrates is the evolutionist's community a priori commitment to evolution in that they will not allow anything to run counter to it, such is evidence of bias and uncritical thinking.

7. Its ironic that this only comes to light AFTER tissue has been found. No other tests before hand ever mentioned such a thing, (and the structure of collagen was known before). Therefore it will be interesting to see what lines of evidence they give and how it differs to the experiments done before... Perhaps now that they already the conclusion, as it "must" exist millions of years since evolution is true... Very curious.

8. This has got nothing to do with the "politics" of scientists... I called you out on ad hoc claims in that evidence that ran counter to evolution doesn't refute it ad hoc hypothesises are added so the evidence that was refuting it now fits in.. This is trademark of pseudoscience, where something can NEVER be claimed wrong since all opposing evidence is hand waved away with spurious hypothesis claims.

9. You complain about (supposed) ad hominem claims yet here you are making one of your own... Hypocrite much?

I have been taught the proposed claims of complexity... Too bad that there is no evidence of the mechanisms claimed, meaning its merely an idea.... therefore very far from "likely"... (what did I say about elaborating to try and make your claims seem good... here is yet another example).

10. Evolutionists claim that since Creationists don't have something to replace evolution then evolution should still stand by default. (I believe you made this claim in a different thread, or was it someone else?)

11. Considering that, as you said, nobody here has used that claim, I cannot see how you can claim its the core of our argument... If it was the core then wouldn't someone have said it by now? Ergo reality doesn't support your claims, only your confused interpretation of the Creationist's position. The actual core of Creationist claims is that what we do know about the world act as signposts which infer a designer. Much like how if you find an arrowhead in the sand you would infer an arrowhead maker, or cave drawings in a cave would infer a cave drawer.

12. You called people ignorant. That IS an ad hominem, and no amount of mental gymnastics can help you here. Otherwise you'd simply open the gateway for people to speak obscenities to you, (though most probably won't because unlike the atheist forums where that is deemed a "tactic", (a few years ago I read an atheist debate guide claiming that to win you need to get your opponent angry and you do that by calling him / her names), we try and not stoop to that level.

13. I am a Biology student, you're attempts to belittle me will not work. How about we check the actual arbiter of the definition of words...




http://dictionary.re...act?s=t&ld=1126


fact
/fækt/ Show Spelled [fakt] Show IPA

noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.


Unless of course you'd claim that a fact in science is not an actual fact, however one could ask why call it a fact then, why confuse terms? Why not call it something else? Unless there is a modicum of intellectual dishonesty here whereby one can claim fact in order to pose authority for a claim, but then is not obligated to demonstrate how it is an actual fact...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users