|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 12:21:26 GMT
... The fact that he isn't a YEC changes very little...
That just means he has to accept the fossil record and the fact that it chronicles evolution...
The only way someone in Mut's position can justify creationism is if he says he believes God created life and then Guided evolution. Like Matt was suggesting.
It's actually EASIER to argue against evolution if you ARE YEC, because you just claim that everything you don't like is lies. Stubbornness beats logic every time.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 7, 2011 16:07:47 GMT
No, we weren't around to witness most of evolution. Were you around to witness Genesis? No. Because you're equivocating between observable change and the full version. The fact that species change is provable isn't in dispute; what's in dispute is the logical extrapolations that your lot make to explain the evidence; i.e. the full theory. And what you lot also don't seem to be getting is that I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want you to overstep your boundaries by claiming that the full theory is scientific. This isn't really science vs anti-science; it's simply an epistemological battle. The sooner everyone realises this, the better off we'll all be. I'd just accept the standard date of around 4.5 billion years. It's not a big deal to me. AHM SORREH. Um, no. I was alternating between laughing and facepalming when I read his post and was amused when I replied. C'mon, don't get into pyschoanalysis like this. You're better than that. It might if I were agitated. I'm only able to deal with YECs. Not a monstrosity like this. You win, Sir. Yawn. Monstrosity, moi? Seriously, please elaborate. I know a person that can shoot him down in less than 3 posts, but it would be messy and bloody. Please, send him over. After your grandiose proclamations I doubt he'll live up to the hype. The only way someone in Mut's position can justify creationism is if he says he believes God created life and then Guided evolution. I just say He created life but that He probably didn't do it in the way you lot describe, since I'm just too sceptical to believe evolution, particularly given that it changes every week. >.< ...as demonstrated excellently by evolutionists too, ironically. Kuhn only gets half a point this time though.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 16:33:47 GMT
... Well, do you deny that the fossil record holds significant (scientific) evidence for evolution? Fair enough if you haven't looked into the issue in depth... Matty and I can chronicle it for you... Like a baws.
Like a singular baws.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 16:36:04 GMT
By the way, don't say that evolution as a theory changes every week. It's not like the interpretation of religious doctrine doesn't change significantly over time... See, for instance, the Church's acceptance of the heliocentric model of the universe. And the now-metaphorical interpretation of, for instance, the whole HALLO I WAS SWALLOWED BY A GIANT FISH thing. Jonah, yeah?
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 7, 2011 17:16:14 GMT
... Well, do you deny that the fossil record holds significant (scientific) evidence for evolution? Fair enough if you haven't looked into the issue in depth... Matty and I can chronicle it for you... Like a baws. Like a singular baws. Dunno, since I've not looked into it at all. Fossils are boring, unless they're of a dinosaur I love*. Then they're brilliant again. But sure, hit me with some examples. LIKE A BAWSE. (this is clearly the correct spelling btw; BAWS is so 2009) *platonically, of course. Don't quote-mine me on this either, you hurpalicious prawnfoot. Perspicuity's a bitch and Kuhn just smiled. Welcome to the land of worldviews, son. You're almost there. Now, questions. Are the changes in the two comparable? If so, why, and in what way?
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 8, 2011 3:16:32 GMT
Mut, my love, condescension will get you nowhere... Except that's not quite true, is it, since it's worked pretty well for you so far ^.^. Okay, how about an obvious example-- one that proves that radical changes can occur to species over time? I am, of course, referring to the whole dinosaur -> avian transition. We have fossils of small, troodon-esque dinosaurs. These are, of course, regular enough. Then, after a while, we began to discover small dinosaurs... With feathers. Examine, for instance, sinosauropteryx-- there's an incredible fossil floating around that clearly demonstrates very primitive feathers, not unlike what you might find on an ostrich: We have also discovered dinosaurs with more conventional feathering, like archaeopteryx-- the fossil that really started it all-- which actually has proper feathered wings, though it probably lacked the flight muscles to be anything more than a glider, like today's draco. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there's very clear evidence that dinosaurs evolved feathers, and that some literally evolved into birds. Certainly, there are no bird fossils from before the cretaceous period, when the dinosaurs were all dying out-- or taking to the skies. As pterosaur control of the air dwindled, they left an evolutionary niche for the little troodon-esque raptors to fill. It's actually accepted by most scientists today-- the similarities between birds and dinosaurs are too numerous, and the fossil record too explicit in it's implications, to reasonably doubt-- evolution has taken place. I could also take you through the evolution of the very first lifeforms, though the fossil record in that case is more fragmented due to the extreme age. Basically, just about every genre of animal alive today can be traced back to its roots through the fossil record. The only way around accepting that is to stubbornly claim that the world is 4000 years old... But you're cleverer than that. Which is almost a shame...
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 8, 2011 3:16:59 GMT
... FML. Imagefail. Google "Berlin Archaeopteryx".
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 8, 2011 5:49:23 GMT
that first pic looks like a cave painting.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 8, 2011 6:19:43 GMT
We're actually missing the point by debating this, as it's avoiding the distinction between the possible and the actual. We can spend all day debating whether or not your historical reconstruction actually makes sense, but that forces the debate away from the pertinent question of whether this actually happened. As I said before, welcome to the land of worldviews. May Kuhn smile on you and bless you as you realise it's not really about the facts at all. I'd ask you to enjoy your stay, but I have a feeling you won't. Having said that, I have time aplenty to waste, so let's get started. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there's very clear evidence that dinosaurs evolved feathers, and that some literally evolved into birds. Certainly, there are no bird fossils from before the cretaceous period, when the dinosaurs were all dying out-- or taking to the skies. As pterosaur control of the air dwindled, they left an evolutionary niche for the little troodon-esque raptors to fill. Firstly, given that paleontologists are hardly the most reliable people in the world, what evidence do you have that the currently existing evidence isn't going to change? Now, some specific questions about the transition: 1) What is held to be the exact progression of changes between dinosaurs and birds? 2) What fossils support these changes? 3) What are the currently accepted dates for these various fossils? What similarities? You chide me for my usage of Those Lovely Lobsters™ and that's the only alternative you can think of? I could shamelessly quote you back at yourself now, but that'd just be cruel. Now, I can't believe I didn't kill this with fire the instant I saw it. I must be getting sloppy: There's absolutely no scientific evidence in the fossil record and there never will be. The most you can say is that there's evidence in the fossil record, but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Oh, and you forgot or ignored this:
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 8, 2011 6:50:40 GMT
The changes in the two... I'll address that first.
Okay. I think I'll talk about the reasons behind the changes in the two, as that's the bit that fits my argument best.
The reasons for change to religious doctrine are ever interesting. The Church has a habit of sticking to it's guns until the very last minute-- until it literally cannot stand up against the overwhelming wave of scientific opinion. The acceptance of the heliocentric model, the revision of the age of the universe, and perhaps in the near future, they'll compromise for evolution too. My point is, the Church does not reasonably review ideas and then change its mind-- it waits until people start calling it ancient, outdated and foolish, and then switches opinions to regain a little credibility.
Paleontologists, on the other hand, accept that their science is not perfect, and may not ever be. They are open to other solutions, though they may argue hotly over which solution is correct. It's true that paleontology as a science has changed more rapidly and more noticeably than Christianity, but what can you expect from a science that's still, to be honest, in it's infancy? The new concept that one third of all dinosaur species might be infant specimens of previes species is a fascinating example of this.
My point is, paleontology is flexible. It adapts to new discoveries and is willing to question everything it previously constructed. The Church is not. It is rigid and unyielding until the last minute-- which of these two alternatives is most likely to be correct in it's opinions? Sure, paleontology is in more of a flux than religion-- but that's not a negative. That's a positive.
Absolutely no scientific evidence in the fossil record? Mind qualifying that? Especially when it's Scientists Themselves that claim otherwise?
And even if you're right about that, and the evidence is not scientific... It's still evidence. What have You got, other than 2000-year old reports? And don't try to tell me that those are reliable. We've already been over Jonah.
Similarities between birds and dinosuars? The skeleton structures are almost identical. Some dinosaurs even show the kind of honey-combed bone structure that allows birds the lightness they require to fly. We have fossils of dinosaurs with developed feathers, identical to those on birds, with even the same proteins (beta-keratin for instance). Are you suggesting that dinosaurs developed feathers and then died out, and Then God created birds? That just happened to be pretty much dinosaurs? Bear in mind we haven't found any bird fossils from before a certain date.
And how did dinosaurs get the feathers in the first place, if not evolution? Especially considering that we find no feathered raptors before a certain date.
Does this mean that God just creates a slightly-feathered species that survives for a few million years, then obliterates it and replaces it with a slightly-MORE-feathered species (which is still a dinosaur) and then eventually obliterates all the feathered raptors entirely... To make way for birds?
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 8, 2011 6:52:26 GMT
puglin dont generalise ever
also old testament was mythology.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 8, 2011 7:03:18 GMT
It was all mythology.
Teehee.
By the way, I'll add that dinosaurs and birds both lay shelled eggs, birds have scales (though mostly on their legs) like dinosaur scales, have identical feet to raptors, and when in the embryo they have fingers. Like dinosaurs. Hoatzin birds actually retain the fingers throughout their childhood. The only significant differences between raptors and birds is the shortened tail and the beak.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 8, 2011 7:10:42 GMT
reptiles lay shelled eggs and have scales
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 8, 2011 7:26:34 GMT
Aye, they do, but reptiles [and I assume by reptiles you mean lizards and crocodiles] have that particular hip-structure. Let's not forget good ol' Euparkeria and the massive evolutionary leap it signified.
Basically dinosaurs tick all the boxes. Similar reproduction, similar anatomy... Feathers. Saying that reptiles lay eggs and have scales doesn't do anything to damage my case because that wasn't my only argument.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 8, 2011 7:58:04 GMT
I think I'll talk about the reasons behind the changes in the two, as that's the bit that fits my argument best. None of this answers what I asked, as you're not comparing the changes themselves. I don't care about the reasons for the change; I care about the differences between the two. Your argument is historically inaccurate and amusingly undermines your case. Since you accept that the facts of paleontology as pertaining to evolution are open to reinterpretation on the large scale at any point in time, and it's quite obvious that paleontology is one of the fundamental pillars of evolution, you're admitting that evolution is not really based on solid, unshakeable ground at all, which is in stark contrast to how it is usually portrayed (indeed, even by yourself). This is the problem of basing a worldview on scientific theories; it's intrinsically unstable, which is no way to live. I'll have to find the quote about tribolites and rabbits in the fossil record. It demonstrates my point about unfalsifiability better than I ever could. That was a partial mis-statement due to the aforementioned 7 a.m. situation, so obviously I retract all but the first third of that claim. I am not aware, however, of any specific predictions by evolutionary theory that led to the discovery of fossils. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like a link to the place where a specific prediction was made. Please note that disingenuous predictions and ex-post facto media spin does not count. Aside from the fact that this is largely irrelevant to my case, yes, I do believe that the Bible is reliable, but let's save that discussion for another day before we get completely sidetracked. Okay. No. I assume you'll get round to this later: hurp word filters make me sound retarded lol @ puggywug's new name though
|
|