OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,20:58) | Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ? If they were not, why do proponents of evolution not change their mind ? maybe, because their position is not scientific, but rather religious after all ? What evidence would you accept that the ToE is false ? A cambrian rabbit ?
|
Actually, they have been found. Quite a bit of them. But you won't find that in creationist literature.
Of course, one thing that evolution does do, is make predictions. For example, the location, time period, and type of fossils that might be found there. Which, not only has been done dozens of times, but there are some excellent stories written for the casual writer... for example, Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".
Name a time when ID or creationism was used to predict the location, time period, and type of fossil.
| Quote |
Michael Denton stated:
“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today
|
Oh good. Argument by authority. Sadly, I disagree with Denton. Just out of curiosity, do you refer to biochemists for all your paleontology research?
Anyway. This thinking is completely backward. All the major groups were invented by Linneaus and, as far as I'm concerned, is a terrible idea. It's like we have defined styles of cars now, but now we have to try and fit the Cugnot Steam Trolley into our modern classification system. Is it an F1, SUV, sedan?
| Quote |
anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:
“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so
|
What the hell does Darwin have to do with anything?
Here's a hint, there's been 150 years of progress, with tens of thousands of papers published every year on evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, molecular genetics, etc. All of which confirm evolution. None of which support any notion of ID. These papers are as far beyond Darwin could even imagine as my cell phone is to a Victorian detective.
| Quote |
One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
|
Seriously? Your going to use one of the world's most famous evolutionary biologists and paleontologists to attack evolution. The guy who literally wrote the book on it?
You aren't too bright are you?
Of course, you might continue with the rest of the quote. I hate quoteminers and you seem to be doing a smashing job so far.
The rest of the quote
| Quote | Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.] |
| Quote |
In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
|
Again, another quote mine. You might want to continue the quote...
| Quote |
But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures. |
| Quote |
| Quote |
Fossilization is extremely rare and gets even more rare the farther back in time you go. Why do you IDiots think we should have a complete fossil record for events and creatures that existed around a billion years ago? |
Does the ToE also predict that we should find non-permineralized fossils, and collagen, and proteins preserved in fossils ? And carbon through C14 dating methods ? And if we find such things, is it not obvious and indicative that the dating methods are all bollocks, and fossils are rather young ?? Does that evidence not add to all the other, and provide a BIG blow to deep time nonsense assertions ?
[URL=http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767-carbon-14-dated-dinosaur-bones-and-non-permineralized-soft-tissue-evidences-fossils-
are-young]http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1767-c....e-young[/URL]
|
Let me guess... "triceratops horns" that come from strata with bison horns and actually look a lot like bison horns. sigh
| Quote |
| Quote | | The usual argument from personal incredulity. "Gee, this is so complex I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it must be designed". Before you bore us even more do you have anything not based on your own ignorance or personal incredulity? Any positive evidence for ID at all? |
Argument from incredulity
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1724-a....ty#2738
Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far.
|
Wrong. Abiogenesis is an extremely well studied subject. One in which every single molecule and system needed for life has been observed to occur without an intelligent agent given the right conditions.
Of course, I'll just add, how hypocritical of you this particular thing is... since you demand life from scratch, yet have utterly failed to even begin to support the idea of ID.
Here's a hint. Even if you were to prove evolution 100% totally wrong, right now... it still doesn't make ID true. Only positive supporting evidence can do that and you don't have any. I know that because if you did, you would have published it and have gotten the Nobel prize.
BTW: Are you also GIBHOR, banned from the international skeptics forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him and that's not right either.
Are you also GodExists, banned from the thethinkingatheist forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him too.
| Quote |
So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life.
|
That's true. But that has nothing to do with before there was life on Earth does it? We know that there a period with no life. And we know there was a period with life. We know that a large variety of chemical reactions results in concentrations of chemicals that can self-assemble into complex long chain structures, that even have the ability to self-reproduce.
What's your explanation and what is the evidence for it.
Just because something is complex doesn't mean it needs a designer. That's an anthropomorphic assumption on your part and it's a false assumption that you are NOT THINKING CRITICALLY about.
| Quote |
What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer.
You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.
|
You are absolutely correct. SO, provide the evidence for your claims that ID is valid. We're all waiting.
So far, I've shown that your claims are very much not correct. Therefore, you claims about evolution are not valid. This is supported by evidence (ignoring the actual fossil record, purposefully misquoting people, etc).
| Quote |
It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.
|
You can reject naturalism all you want. Hypocrite.
But if you do, then you should be living in a cave, eating carrion and rotten fruit. But you aren't. You're enjoying the results of all that naturalistic thinking all the while complaining about it.
| Quote |
When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.
Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.
|
Great. Provide the evidence that god exists and I will accept him. But it'll take a lot of evidence.
SNIP
Here's the deal. No one here cares about your god. And, if you use god as a basis for your science, then it can never be taught in a school. Thanks for that own goal, BTW/
| Quote |
We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence.
|
So what?
| Quote |
We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems.
|
So what?
| Quote |
To quote Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."
|
But not ALL the time and that's where the entire argument fails.
| Quote |
Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity
|
Define this term. Use math.
Define this term. Use math.
| Quote |
are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence—intelligent design—played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer—based on our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships—that an intelligent cause operated in the past
to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.
|
And that's the leap that cause the entire argument to fail.
Just because intelligence CAN do so, doesn't mean that intelligence is REQUIRED to do so.
Further we need evidence that an intelligence CAN do so is required, because no known intelligence can do that.
| Quote |
For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. To establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Indeed, unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. |
And it's all so much bullshit.
But thanks for recycling an argument that has been defunct for over a century now.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
