Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12131
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2014, 03:18:08 PM »
Quote
If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?

Truth !!!

Sorry.  Every evolution thread in which you have participated is evidence to the contrary.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2014, 03:45:29 PM »

That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

If (hypothetically) you were to concede that ID is not scientific, what exactly about ID is not science? What specifically about it is not scientific?

I wish the word “science” was eliminated. It has become a ridiculously large and malleable concept with too much power and influence. We would all be better off if we stuck to the non-scientific definition of theory and ceased from using the word “fact” as a compliment to it. I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between what is observable and testable and what is unobservable and not testable. When the word “science” is connected to that which cannot be observed and tested , it is not science…..it is speculation. That is to say, when we start deducing that scientific evidence can lead to so-called "scientific" conclusions about what cannot be deemed a fact, we are creating blurry distortions of what may or may not be reality…… and since the word “science” carries as much weight and influence as it does, we should not be using it to explain such things.

Having given an abbreviated and brief description of what I believe science is really all about, I would say that any aspect of Intelligent Design Theory that attempts  to point exclusively to a ’designer’ is not scientific. Unless it were possible to observe and test the “intelligence,” there is nothing scientifically factual about concluding that a ‘designer’ is the cause. That is a philosophical and/or theological question, not a scientific one. Personally, I think ID has a difficult time keeping the ‘designer’ out of the picture which is why the critics have a field day with it.

Science should be about exploring what the reality of the world can tell us and not about what we would like science to be telling us. Anytime we start taking facts and creating un-facts from them, we have abandoned the concept of science.

That’s my answer based on my .02 about science. The world according to Biblestudent.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6582
  • Darwins +515/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2014, 03:48:05 PM »
1. I am not interested in seeing the whole of evolutionary biology fall apart. There is an enormous amount of valuable knowledge connected to it. My interest is simply to see it presented in a more honesty and forthright manner.
Then why are you peddling bullshit? Why are you trying to have children taught lies? What is so important to your god that you are willing to be immoral?

You and I know that ID is legally "not science". There is no real alternative to the vast canon of knowledge and evidence that confirms the Theory of Evolution.

You admit that evolution takes place on a lesser level, so you do not deny the principle.

Your ignorant, god-bothering friends are not the only ones with a "hypothesis" as to how the variety of species around us came about. Other religions have other ideas. What's wrong with their ideas?

In Europe, people like you are considered weird. We understand why Fundamentalist Muslims in the tribal areas of Afghanistan believe that "God made all the animals just like they are." - for the most part, they are dominated by uberignorant clerics and live in the 13th century. But why you? I mean, what is so important that you have to spew out this garbage and deceit?

You realise, don't you, that teaching this fairytale disadvantages all your followers. Darwin says they will become stupid and poor. The rest of us will continue living better lives as we understand how the world really is.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.



Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2014, 04:10:19 PM »
I'm sure there's going to be holes here, but try this, BS.

origins of Birds

Transitional Fossils[1]

Dinosaur to bird[15]
Allosaurus --A large therapod with a wishbone
Coelophysis
Compsognathus --A small coeleosaur with a wishbone
Eoraptor
Epidendrosaurus
Herrerasaurus
Ceratosaurus
Compsognathus
Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Velociraptor
Deinonychus
Oviraptor
Sinovenator
Beipiaosaurus
Lisboasaurus
Sinornithosaurus
Microraptor -- a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
Xiaotingia -- slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
Archaeopteryx -- the famous bird-with-teeth.
Rahonavis
Confuciusornis
Sinornis
Patagopteryx
Ambiortus
Hesperornis
Apsaravis
Ichthyornis
Columba One of many typical modern birds
 1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2014, 04:25:25 PM »
I wish the word “science” god was eliminated. It has become a ridiculously large and malleable concept with too much power and influence.

FIFY
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2014, 06:22:59 PM »
I'm sure there's going to be holes here, but try this, BS.

origins of Birds

Transitional Fossils[1]

Dinosaur to bird[15]
Allosaurus --A large therapod with a wishbone
Coelophysis
Compsognathus --A small coeleosaur with a wishbone
Eoraptor
Epidendrosaurus
Herrerasaurus
Ceratosaurus
Compsognathus
Sinosauropteryx
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Velociraptor
Deinonychus
Oviraptor
Sinovenator
Beipiaosaurus
Lisboasaurus
Sinornithosaurus
Microraptor -- a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.
Xiaotingia -- slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird
Archaeopteryx -- the famous bird-with-teeth.
Rahonavis
Confuciusornis
Sinornis
Patagopteryx
Ambiortus
Hesperornis
Apsaravis
Ichthyornis
Columba One of many typical modern birds
 1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

Did you do any research on this line of fossils? You should. You might be surprised at what you find.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2014, 06:53:39 PM »
Then why are you peddling bullshit? Why are you trying to have children taught lies? What is so important to your god that you are willing to be immoral?

You and I know that ID is legally "not science". There is no real alternative to the vast canon of knowledge and evidence that confirms the Theory of Evolution.

You admit that evolution takes place on a lesser level, so you do not deny the principle.

I honestly have no idea what led you to think that my comments were somehow part of a campaign to advocate for ID.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2014, 06:59:22 PM »
Did you do any research on this line of fossils? You should. You might be surprised at what you find.

Did you do any actual research on the line of fossils that wasn't from a creationist website?  You should, you might be surprised at what you find.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2014, 07:16:25 PM »
I wish the word “science” was eliminated. It has become a ridiculously large and malleable concept with too much power and influence. We would all be better off if we stuck to the non-scientific definition of theory and ceased from using the word “fact” as a compliment to it. I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between what is observable and testable and what is unobservable and not testable. When the word “science” is connected to that which cannot be observed and tested , it is not science…..it is speculation. That is to say, when we start deducing that scientific evidence can lead to so-called "scientific" conclusions about what cannot be deemed a fact, we are creating blurry distortions of what may or may not be reality…… and since the word “science” carries as much weight and influence as it does, we should not be using it to explain such things.

Having given an abbreviated and brief description of what I believe science is really all about, I would say that any aspect of Intelligent Design Theory that attempts  to point exclusively to a ’designer’ is not scientific. Unless it were possible to observe and test the “intelligence,” there is nothing scientifically factual about concluding that a ‘designer’ is the cause. That is a philosophical and/or theological question, not a scientific one. Personally, I think ID has a difficult time keeping the ‘designer’ out of the picture which is why the critics have a field day with it.

Science should be about exploring what the reality of the world can tell us and not about what we would like science to be telling us. Anytime we start taking facts and creating un-facts from them, we have abandoned the concept of science.

That’s my answer based on my .02 about science. The world according to Biblestudent.

This is an example of what indoctrination can do to harm an intelligent person. There is a clear distinction between the observable and the unobservable. Science never observes the unobservable.

BS look at what you have written. Can you not see that indoctrination is interfering with your mind? Let's deal with your real problem in a thread about your most convincing reason to believe in a god.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2014, 07:23:50 PM »
I wish the word “science” was eliminated. It has become a ridiculously large and malleable concept with too much power and influence. We would all be better off if we stuck to the non-scientific definition of theory and ceased from using the word “fact” as a compliment to it. I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between what is observable and testable and what is unobservable and not testable. When the word “science” is connected to that which cannot be observed and tested , it is not science…..it is speculation. That is to say, when we start deducing that scientific evidence can lead to so-called "scientific" conclusions about what cannot be deemed a fact, we are creating blurry distortions of what may or may not be reality…… and since the word “science” carries as much weight and influence as it does, we should not be using it to explain such things.

Having given an abbreviated and brief description of what I believe science is really all about, I would say that any aspect of Intelligent Design Theory that attempts  to point exclusively to a ’designer’ is not scientific. Unless it were possible to observe and test the “intelligence,” there is nothing scientifically factual about concluding that a ‘designer’ is the cause. That is a philosophical and/or theological question, not a scientific one. Personally, I think ID has a difficult time keeping the ‘designer’ out of the picture which is why the critics have a field day with it.

Science should be about exploring what the reality of the world can tell us and not about what we would like science to be telling us. Anytime we start taking facts and creating un-facts from them, we have abandoned the concept of science.

That’s my answer based on my .02 about science. The world according to Biblestudent.

This is an example of what indoctrination can do to harm an intelligent person. There is a clear distinction between the observable and the unobservable. Science never observes the unobservable.

BS look at what you have written. Can you not see that indoctrination is interfering with your mind? Let's deal with your real problem in a thread about your most convincing reason to believe in a god.

That's not what I said...at all. What I am saying is that science observes the observable and then takes the facts from the observable and extrapolates them into non-factual stories and then calls that science.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2014, 07:27:16 PM »
Did you do any research on this line of fossils? You should. You might be surprised at what you find.

Did you do any actual research on the line of fossils that wasn't from a creationist website?  You should, you might be surprised at what you find.

Seriously, if you never have, you should read through some of the gobs of information from both sides and see what you come up with. There are many debateable aspects to this fossil line.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2014, 07:29:28 PM »

Quote
Look deep within your own self. Do you find yourself search, looking, digging to find articles that just refute these claims or are you actually truly looking to understand the science?

That may have been the case at one time. In fact, I’m sure it was. When I realized, though, that making an honest assessment of the opposing views required an unbiased examination of the evidence, I started doing what was fair for myself.

Quote
If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?

Truth !!!
 

What experiment would you suggest to test if your examination of the evidence is unbiased? Do you care enough about the truth to think about such an experiment?

I do not know of an experiment to test for bias. Is there such a thing?....or you just suggesting that the influence of bias cannot be factually known.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2014, 07:33:10 PM »
Did you do any research on this line of fossils? You should. You might be surprised at what you find.

BibleStudent

When you respond like this, you need to give us your sources, because you know that if we go to ours, we'll find what we expect.

And it would really help if you could tell us why you trust your sources over our own. What real science are they doing that impresses you.

Added: An by the way, yes, there are some debates going on in the bird lineage department, even within the evolutionary field. I don't know the present situation, but for awhile it was a hotly debated topic. But nobody was debating the fact that birds evolved, only from where.

That is not something that people merely trying to pull wool over your eyes would bother doing, by the way. If they were nefarious pseudo-researchers, they would all be agreeing for the purpose of deceiving we innocents. But as actual researchers, the fact that they disagree on something, even this major, is indicative of serious research and serious differences, not deception.

Just so you know that such disputes are not limited to evolution, there is a similar battle going on in archaeology these days. Old school archaeologists have said for decades that people came to the America's from Asia no more than 12,000 years ago. But evidence is being found for even older human habitation. The old school folks are arguing that it is impossible. So science is not full of perfect people making perfect judgment calls about perfect research. In any field. Humans are involved. But science isn't making stuff up.

If ID'ers truly think that they have it right, they should be able to show their work, at a scientifically sound level of research, and if they are right, the whole battle ought to be over by mid-year. A new take on why animals are here, via a whole new mechanism, would create an entirely new school of science, and this new truth would destroy not only the science of evolution, but also of geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology and numerous sub-divisions, and would turn the entire world of science upside down. Which would be pretty interesting.

Imagine the tweets.

By the way, you might be better off carrying on this campaign in a more prestigious environment than this one. If you are right, this is merely a forum full of malformed lightweights. You and your brethren need to take on the big guns. If your side is right, we're talking multiple Nobel prizes. None of us minuscule atheists are on that committee.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 07:46:45 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2014, 07:54:22 PM »
Seriously, if you never have, you should read through some of the gobs of information from both sides and see what you come up with. There are many debateable aspects to this fossil line.

I have, I've concluded that creationism websites tell lies.  Perhaps you would like to link to one of them, I'll demonstrate how they are lying.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 07:58:55 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2014, 08:05:22 PM »
I do not know of an experiment to test for bias. Is there such a thing?....or you just suggesting that the influence of bias cannot be factually known.

You know so little about science that you don't know how it handles bias being introduced into experiments, nor do you know what scientists do to keep that from happening.

They don't always succeed, but it doesn't do any good to do experiments or research if one does not plan to avoid being biased in the first place. Researchers go through a number of specific steps to keep that from happening.

Much of the science that is rejected is science where biases were not properly handled.

Of course, if you're right and evolution is a bunch of bull, said processes never worked anyway. But like I said earlier, you are busy trying to destroy just about every branch of science there is, so there is no need to mollycoddle anything. Go for it. Take us back to 1600, when we knew nothing, because apparently everything we've learned since then has been faulty. Especially since Darwin.

It makes me embarrassed to have been an A student in science. All that study for nothing. Bummer dude.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2014, 08:43:47 PM »
I do not know of an experiment to test for bias. Is there such a thing?....or you just suggesting that the influence of bias cannot be factually known.

The simplest test is. Did you get the answer you wanted or thought of before you started?

What I am saying is that science observes the observable and then takes the facts from the observable and extrapolates them into non-factual stories and then calls that science.

That is how science works. People make guesses based on what is known. The guesses then lead onto another observation which will confirm or refute the guess. It often happens that people delude themselves that their guess is confirmed when it isn't. Others then tear it apart in public.

The lesson from both these paragraphs is that others can see your mistakes more clearly than you can. I can see that you could be very intelligent, if indoctrination was not holding you back. You should be intelligent enough to think your way out of indoctrination. Some don't have that luxury.



« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 08:58:01 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2014, 09:38:16 PM »
Seriously, if you never have, you should read through some of the gobs of information from both sides and see what you come up with. There are many debateable aspects to this fossil line.

I have, I've concluded that creationism websites tell lies.  Perhaps you would like to link to one of them, I'll demonstrate how they are lying.

Please, then, by all means, tell us if birds evolved before or after theropods. And, also, please present the fossil evidence demonstrating the gradual evolution of wings and the gradual evolution of the bird lung system.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2014, 09:39:33 PM »
I do not know of an experiment to test for bias. Is there such a thing?....or you just suggesting that the influence of bias cannot be factually known.

You know so little about science that you don't know how it handles bias being introduced into experiments, nor do you know what scientists do to keep that from happening.


I don't think this is what she meant.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2014, 09:49:57 PM »
I do not know of an experiment to test for bias. Is there such a thing?....or you just suggesting that the influence of bias cannot be factually known.

The simplest test is. Did you get the answer you wanted or thought of before you started?

What I am saying is that science observes the observable and then takes the facts from the observable and extrapolates them into non-factual stories and then calls that science.

That is how science works. People make guesses based on what is known. The guesses then lead onto another observation which will confirm or refute the guess. It often happens that people delude themselves that their guess is confirmed when it isn't. Others then tear it apart in public.

The lesson from both these paragraphs is that others can see your mistakes more clearly than you can. I can see that you could be very intelligent, if indoctrination was not holding you back. You should be intelligent enough to think your way out of indoctrination. Some don't have that luxury.

I am glad that you can see my alleged mistakes because they're not really mistakes. They are simply a confirmation that myself (and many others) do not buy into the dogmatic version of science that you embrace. Can't you see that much of what you believe to be science has been created to wrap around a materialistic worldview. The version of science you are embracing takes factual evidence and fabricates non-factual conclusions and calls it science. That isn't science....it is science fiction.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #77 on: March 03, 2014, 10:11:48 PM »
Added: An by the way, yes, there are some debates going on in the bird lineage department, even within the evolutionary field. I don't know the present situation, but for awhile it was a hotly debated topic. But nobody was debating the fact that birds evolved, only from where.

That is not something that people merely trying to pull wool over your eyes would bother doing, by the way. If they were nefarious pseudo-researchers, they would all be agreeing for the purpose of deceiving we innocents. But as actual researchers, the fact that they disagree on something, even this major, is indicative of serious research and serious differences, not deception.

I would hope that no reasonable person believes that debates are indicative of deceit or that they are being carried on for the purposes of fine tuning a conspiracy. I certainly don't. Personally, I would be more concerned if debates were not occuring. But, that's not the point. Once again, there is nowhere near enough evidence to make these claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are significant and substantial questions to be answered before such a claim can be made. Enormous obstacles that involve explaining such things as  the evolution of the respiratory system and wings must be overcome before claiming that this is both theory and fact. Can't you see what is wrong with this? There are young children in schools around the world being taught this non-science as science and theory and fact. And to think there are grown people that actually embrace these stories as "science" is disturbing, to say the least.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.
Storrs Olson - Bird Curator- National Museum of Natural History

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #78 on: March 03, 2014, 10:40:43 PM »
I am glad that you can see my alleged mistakes because they're not really mistakes. They are simply a confirmation that myself (and many others) do not buy into the dogmatic version of science that you embrace. Can't you see that much of what you believe to be science has been created to wrap around a materialistic worldview. The version of science you are embracing takes factual evidence and fabricates non-factual conclusions and calls it science. That isn't science....it is science fiction.

I don't think that science can be called dogmatic when the main goal of each scientist is to make a name for him or herself by proving the others wrong. The scientists are in many countries from many religions so it cannot be called a materialist agenda either. Most of the early scientists were Christians who wanted to find proof of their god in nature. I think the idea of a single designer with a unified design was useful for these early scientists because it helped them look for precise laws in nature which led to the idea of the clockwork universe. In more recent times as the universe has been investigated further we know the universe is chaotic and closer to the impression given by polytheism.

Have you thought that ID contradicts the law of thermodynamics which says that chaos increases? Each time a new species is supposed to be designed, the order in the universe would increase magically. Evolution does not have this problem.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #79 on: March 03, 2014, 11:03:28 PM »
Seriously, if you never have, you should read through some of the gobs of information from both sides and see what you come up with. There are many debateable aspects to this fossil line.

I have, I've concluded that creationism websites tell lies.  Perhaps you would like to link to one of them, I'll demonstrate how they are lying.

Please, then, by all means, tell us if birds evolved before or after theropods. And, also, please present the fossil evidence demonstrating the gradual evolution of wings and the gradual evolution of the bird lung system.

Neither before or after, current evidence indicates that birds evolved from theropods however theropods continued to exist and evolve until their extinction. 

http://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/wing_evolution.htm

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5404902276B0D5B0

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html


I suspect that your questions are based on creationist lies though as you specifically asked for fossil evidence of "gradual evolution" how ever this creationist idea of "gradual evolution" is not a realistic expectation as we do not have a fossil for every individual life form which has ever lived on Earth.  We have enough to reach reasonable conclusions though when considering all the other evidence we have plenty of (like living life forms and DNA).
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #80 on: March 03, 2014, 11:25:32 PM »
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.
Storrs Olson - Bird Curator- National Museum of Natural History

Oh look, a scientist taken out of context.  Yeah, creationists go nuts when a scientist needs to correct another scientist.

https://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/profiles/Storrs_Olson.html

Wikipedia indicates that bird evolution is still being debated so your implications that anything has been declared a fact is unwarranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 11:51:16 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6311
  • Darwins +732/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #81 on: March 03, 2014, 11:33:55 PM »
Added: An by the way, yes, there are some debates going on in the bird lineage department, even within the evolutionary field. I don't know the present situation, but for awhile it was a hotly debated topic. But nobody was debating the fact that birds evolved, only from where.

That is not something that people merely trying to pull wool over your eyes would bother doing, by the way. If they were nefarious pseudo-researchers, they would all be agreeing for the purpose of deceiving we innocents. But as actual researchers, the fact that they disagree on something, even this major, is indicative of serious research and serious differences, not deception.

I would hope that no reasonable person believes that debates are indicative of deceit or that they are being carried on for the purposes of fine tuning a conspiracy. I certainly don't. Personally, I would be more concerned if debates were not occuring. But, that's not the point. Once again, there is nowhere near enough evidence to make these claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are significant and substantial questions to be answered before such a claim can be made. Enormous obstacles that involve explaining such things as  the evolution of the respiratory system and wings must be overcome before claiming that this is both theory and fact. Can't you see what is wrong with this? There are young children in schools around the world being taught this non-science as science and theory and fact. And to think there are grown people that actually embrace these stories as "science" is disturbing, to say the least.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.
Storrs Olson - Bird Curator- National Museum of Natural History

Both sides in the debate agree that birds evolved. That they disagree on their ancestry does not take away from the process enough to warrant ditching the whole thing and starting from scratch.

You need to take a broader look at the issue. Nit-picking does not suit you. If evolution is false, you should have literally millions of reasons to doubt it, not one or two or three. You should be able to pick up any two fossils claimed as related and diss the crap out of them with nothing more than a third grade education and a working knowledge of PowerPoint. The errors should  be so obvious that neither the blind nor the dead would have any trouble with your explanations.

But you need to be able to explain other things besides specific evolutionary flaws. You need to be able to explain why scientists can look at a rock formation, determine its age, and then accurately tell you what kind of fossils will be in it. And more importantly, what kind of fossils will not be in it. And if you are getting rid of evolution carte blanche, you need to be able to explain the different life forms in different geologic periods. If ID was involved, why was it slowly changing the speciation of living creatures. Why did the reptiles start out able only to eat soft plants, and why did new reptiles with new mouth parts and stronger jaws and other changes slowly take over as plants themselves also changed slowly over time? In other words, why does the timeline of the fossil record, which most definitely is repeatable and verifiable, look exactly like the species were slowly changing, and why does it look to scientists today that it was evolution that changed these critters, not some ID force coincidentally modifying plants and animals and a snails pace. Well, a pre-snails pace for awhile, since there weren't any at first.

And while it is big-hearted of you to allow for "micro-evolution", what part in would it play in ID, where some unknown but genius force is making hundreds of millions of species at some slow but traceable rate? And what stops "micro-evolution" from becoming macro-evolution? Why do little changes not insult your intelligence, while larger ones very much do?

And why would an ID force bother making so many different life forms, 99% + of which are now extinct? What sort of ID force can't get it right the first few hundred million times?

Why is it that evolutionary history, false as it is, match geologic history, chemical history, plate tectonics and weather history. Why is our very new ability to disassemble and study individual genes not exposing the fraud that is evolution? Why does the genetic makeup of every living thing appear to be consistent with evolution? Why do human and yeast share so many genes? Why are half of human and banana genes identical to each other? A fact that is absolutely consistent with evolution, and quite possibly confusing to ID ideals?

And while you are clearly brilliant and above reproach in the knowledge department (I know this despite your unwillingness to share specifics), why are others who ride the ID bandwagon so unknowledgeable about science in general. Why do some insist that evolution disobeys the second law of thermodynamics, because they insist that an external power source would be required for it to work? Why do some that support ID persist in using examples that have been refuted by science without ever bothering to address the specifics as explained by evolution supporters. The ID crowd often never addresses critical responses to their claims. Why? With an airtight case, nothing should be a problem to explain away.

And why do ID supporters dwell on one thing or another, for a grand total of about two things, and ignore everything else about evolution? If it is false, every single claim of evolution should be easy to diss. You guys should be pulling yet another false evolutionary claim out of a hat every single frickin' day and right off the tops of your heads accurately describe why it is wrong in three sentences or less. Your onslaught of factoids should overwhelm puny scientists and their wild-assed claims.

Some still say the earth is flat, or that it doesn't orbit the sun. It is very easy to prove them wrong. Some claim we haven't been to the moon. Again, easy to dismiss. Some say that the climate isn't changing, regardless of cause, some say that fracking could never pollute drinking water, some say that airplanes disperse nano particles in their exhaust to introduce tiny control robots into our bloodstream, or something like that. I know a woman who claims that the government is digging a system of huge tunnels under the entire country. Each of their claimants is absolutely crazy, or at least absolutely wrong.

How is ID different? What claims does your side make that elevates it above the conspiracy level? And once you succeed and rewrite science, what are you going to claim next? That you have found proof that some dinosaurs were incredibly rich, proving that income inequality is natural?

Your low bar isn't high enough to change anything yet. You need to inject some quality into your claims, or they will remain silly at every level. Which, frankly, should be embarrassing.




Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12131
  • Darwins +646/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2014, 09:59:01 AM »
Please, then, by all means, tell us if birds evolved before or after theropods. And, also, please present the fossil evidence demonstrating the gradual evolution of wings and the gradual evolution of the bird lung system.

You need to explain why any of that is relevant if you wish to make these the terms of the discussion. They seems like arbitrary terms or designed to trap someone.  So, please do explain why anyone should accept these as the conditions which must be met. 

As far as fossil evidence, we already know that nothing we present will be good enough.  Every time we fill what you call a "gap", you will just claim that now there are two gaps.  Fuck that.  Go do your own research.  If you still come to the wrong conclusion, then go pound salt.

Here is what it looks like to me: you are just sitting back demanding 100% explanation for 100% of everything in the universe which is utterly unreasonable.  And the moment anyone finds there is no answer yet, you say, "AHA!  Mother fuckers can't answer that, can you?  Therefore evolution is wrong and there must have been a designer!  Bitches got pwned!"  Fuck that.  It does not work that way.  Of course there are gaps in knowledge.  That does not prove shit.  It certainly does not prove the theory of evolution wrong.  At least, not yet.  Nor does it prove your cockamamie ideas are right.  You have a long way to go to get there, Sunny Jim.

So quit with this line of argument.  It does not fly.



Also, you, and other YECs, like to quote scientists who seem to be saying things desparaging of science or evolution.  Yet, if you go back to the original quotes you find that 100% of the time they were taken out of context in order to be made to seem to say the exact opposite of what they really meant.  We call this "lying".  That ID proponents do this regularly (and evolution proponents do this never) should make you question who actually has the ill motives and methods.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2014, 12:04:14 PM »
You need to explain why any of that is relevant if you wish to make these the terms of the discussion. They seems like arbitrary terms or designed to trap someone.  So, please do explain why anyone should accept these as the conditions which must be met. 

Why is it relevant? Because the ToE is touted as being a theory and a fact. That is strong language in the world of science. That means I should have very little reason to doubt that birds evolved from dinosaurs….yet the evidence is so lacking that lumping such a claim into the ToE is disturbingly dishonest. I honestly don’t know how you or anyone else can’t see that.


Quote
As far as fossil evidence, we already know that nothing we present will be good enough.  Every time we fill what you call a "gap", you will just claim that now there are two gaps.  Fuck that.  Go do your own research.  If you still come to the wrong conclusion, then go pound salt.

You are trivializing a legitimate gripe. The gaps you refer to are not as miniscule as you would like us to believe. If that were the case, we would not be having this conversation. Be honest, the fossil evidence for a dinosaur-to-bird evolution is barely even suggestive that it occurred. It certainly doesn’t qualify as being complimentary to the theory and fact that it gets lumped into.

Quote
Here is what it looks like to me: you are just sitting back demanding 100% explanation for 100% of everything in the universe which is utterly unreasonable.  And the moment anyone finds there is no answer yet, you say, "AHA!  Mother fuckers can't answer that, can you?  Therefore evolution is wrong and there must have been a designer!  Bitches got pwned!" 

Not true….or, should I say….that’s not true for me. I have no desire to strategize my arguments in such a way that the end result will be demolishing the ToE. You can think what you’d like but I’m telling you that you are wrong.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with saying that the answers to such and such questions are unknown. It is certainly not indicative of defeat. It simply means that the assumptions being made have not been substantiated by enough evidence to qualify as a theory and a fact and that is what I am getting at.

Quote
Also, you, and other YECs, like to quote scientists who seem to be saying things desparaging of science or evolution.  Yet, if you go back to the original quotes you find that 100% of the time they were taken out of context in order to be made to seem to say the exact opposite of what they really meant.  We call this "lying".  That ID proponents do this regularly (and evolution proponents do this never) should make you question who actually has the ill motives and methods.

I assume you are referring to the quote I inserted earlier in the thread. If so, I am not sure why you are suggesting that it was taken out of context.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #84 on: March 04, 2014, 12:06:38 PM »
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.
Storrs Olson - Bird Curator- National Museum of Natural History

Oh look, a scientist taken out of context.  Yeah, creationists go nuts when a scientist needs to correct another scientist.

https://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/profiles/Storrs_Olson.html

I am not sure why you feel that this demonstrates the quote was taken out of context?

Quote
Wikipedia indicates that bird evolution is still being debated so your implications that anything has been declared a fact is unwarranted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Is the Toe a theory and a fact? If so, is birds-from-dinosaurs represented by the ToE?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2014, 12:45:22 PM »
Imagine we lived in a world where no one had yet thought of evolution. The scientists look at the geological layers with changing life forms going back millions of years, and they look at the genetics showing that life forms all fit the same paternity test back to the common ancestor. Could ID be the explanation? No. ID has already been refuted.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6582
  • Darwins +515/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2014, 12:51:35 PM »
Is the Toe a theory and a fact?
At the moment it is the best we've got - it seems to satisfy the observed evidence but we're open to well-substantiated suggestions, are you?

On the other hand, you have an invisible Middle-Eastern tribal god who is interested in where you put your penis and likes smelling burning goat. It was He who poofed things like hippopotamuses, sea-horses, AIDs viruses, rattlesnakes, and fire-ants into existence from nothing at all - He did it by magic and lives in another universe.

Or it could be a set of brilliant aliens who secretly arrived with a menagerie of animals and a variety of plants...

Now, which one seems reasonable?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”