Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Thread for Christopher Gieschen

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:34    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:05) John W Then why did he say assumes if we know what the dates are automatically?  What is meant by assumes? This seems to come up a lot in discussions with creationists - they use the "bible-study" mode of enquiry, where a quote (not the evidence itself) is removed from its context and closely examined, and the precise meaning of each word of the quote is considered.  It's not the way science works. Regarding this specific example: I can't speak for Erwin.  If it's that important to you to pin down the precise reason why he used the word "assumes" in this passages, you'll have to ask him.  As far as I am concerned, and given that I haven't seen the passage in its original context, I have no problem with interpreting this as "given that we've established the age of the components of the stratigraphic sequence, we can assume, if we find Triassic fossils, that they were formed in the Triassic period, unless there are indications to the contrary."  Just like I "assumed" the 48 bus would be running this morning. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:51    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:13) To improvius Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order." Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils? I assume the sun will rise tomorrow.  By YOUR definition of assume we will never prove whether my assumption is right or not. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:53    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27) Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell? I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics? Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:04    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) Jim, I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to : 1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time. Did you read Barthalt's work?  What particle size distributions are obtained?  Are these particle size distributions seen in "layers" in nature? Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) 3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct. The polystrate argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of geology - that geologists assume that since many strata take millions of years to form, then geologists assume that all thick strata took millions of years to form. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:10    Tracy, But then without a polystrate fossil, how do we know when a layer did or did not take millions of yers to form?

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:15    To oldman, Please state an example of something that is stated in the positive which we now know to be untrue.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:32    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:15) To oldman, Please state an example of something that is stated in the positive which we now know to be untrue.   Quote The oracle concludes with the pronouncement that Tyre will "never again be built" and the formula, "For I Yahweh have spoken, says Adonai Yahweh" From Ezekiel 26:1-14. Tyre Harbour So, I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, somehow it won't be as clear cut as I've made it out to be. Fine. Let's not go there, but instead I ask you, do you believe the bible to be 100% innerant and should it be understood 100% literally? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:41    Okay gang, let's try this one. The problem we appear to be having is now centered on the word assume.  My physics colleague and I have read the posts and agree that we have two different definitions of the word assumption. John W is using the word to mean hypothesis.  His going to the fridge to "test" that there is milk in it makes it a hypothesis (or an hypothesis for you upper crust types). By definition, an assumption is not testable in any sense.  It is the foundation for our reality.  It is where we start, like the assumption that the physical reality is all there is ala Sagan. For blipey : He and I could not figure out what you are trying to say.  The lawn mower is a functional machine that is designed to run a certain way.  If I know nothing about its orgin, I can still study it, run it, and see how it works now...using sound engineering principals (which are not the same as biological ones as stated by someone else earlier.) To all : please tell me why I have to accept evolution to understand mitosis!  Better yet, find me sources which prove that mitosis evolved from scratch.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:51    Christopher: The situation is:  the world has suffered a terrible disaster.  Much of what we have now is no longer operational, or even in existence. Based solely on your having once seen a lawnmower, or eaten a loaf of bread, or used a wrench, could you recreate these things? Or, would you need to have some understanding of the principles which allowed these things to be created? You have stated that you need not know how things came into being to understand the things themselves.  I want to know how far you take this concept?  You seem to have a contempt for history and prior knowledge. I want to know if you truly believe that just having known about a thing, you can recreate it. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:08    The "assumption" quibble would easily be resolved if we could see the full context of your Geotimes article. Of course, this is a long way to go when we already know that the premise of your argument is demonstrably false. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:11    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,12:41) Okay gang, let's try this one. The problem we appear to be having is now centered on the word assume.  My physics colleague and I have read the posts and agree that we have two different definitions of the word assumption. John W is using the word to mean hypothesis.  His going to the fridge to "test" that there is milk in it makes it a hypothesis (or an hypothesis for you upper crust types). By definition, an assumption is not testable in any sense.  It is the foundation for our reality.  It is where we start, like the assumption that the physical reality is all there is ala Sagan. I can't speak for the upper crust types on the board.  Perhaps Louis will chime in when he takes a break from oppressing the workers. Please see my previous comments regarding the productiveness of quibbling over word-meanings in text.  Science does not progress through exegesis of sacred scriptures. Bearing all that in mind, back to "assume".  You've defined it in a way which the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't accept.  (Hell's teeth!  Of course assumptions are testable!)  Here's the definition of "assume" from Merriam Webster.  The relevant part for this discussion: 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE <I assume he'll be there> Nothing there about assumptions being "not testable in any sense."  I think if Erwin had meant "untestable philosophical underpinning of what we do," he might have said "axiom", rather than "assumption".  In any case, as I said earlier, if your argument hinges on what "is" is, why not contact Erwin and ask him? I assume the Rovers are going to hand out a stuffing to Walsall tonight.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to test this assumption by checking the football scores in an hour or so. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:18    oldman, I do want to point out that I have an answer to the "enTyre" issue. (I can't resist that one  :D ) Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc.  2. It is not on the exact same spot.  2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted? Ooo!  making predictions...science anyone? Okay, I'll let it go as you say.  I believe and trust with all my core being that the Bible is what it claims to be...the very Word of God (see I Thess. 2:13) - the Supreme Being who alone is God and there is no other. I also trust, believe, etc. that it is 100% true in the big picture of things.  For example : when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments.  [prediction again..] Now I am also aware that I will be an easy straw man to knock apart if I say that it is 100% literal.  I am beginning to trust you enough that you are not attempting to insult my intelligence nor trap me into saying something that I do not mean.  Obviously the Bible has various idioms and poetic language like we do.  Think about how many of you science types still say Sunrise!  instead of Earth Rotatated! In order to separate the two one needs to understand the verb forms used in Hebrew, and there are more than a few antiChristian Hebrew scholars who confirm that the original meaning of Genesis days where meant to be understood as 24 hour days.   Therefore, where the Scriptures declare things in historical narrative format, these things are 100% true, Like when Jesus said that "No one comes to the Father but through Me."  (John 14 :6b) He meant that there is no other way to be saved. not buddah, allah, space aliens, that there is no god(god) so it doesn't matter, etc. oldman, does this help you see where I am and why I am the way I am and that I can still do an incredible amount of science teaching, without the need of evolution to explain anything?  I use genetics, biochem, and all the processes we can see today and test today.  No one was there in the distant past save God alone.  So you rest on your authority and I rest on mine. I wish I could have condensed this, but my passion and desire to be properly understood won out. Thanks for listening, oldman.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:39    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,15:18) In order to separate the two one needs to understand the verb forms used in Hebrew, and there are more than a few antiChristian Hebrew scholars who confirm that the original meaning of Genesis days where meant to be understood as 24 hour days. Ah, you see this is the extra layer of interpretation that is only required with religion. Arguments can rage back and forth, but nobody can prove anything one way or the other. Yet somehow all the different people working in a scientific field can usually agree on common ground and can progress and generate new knowledge.   Arguments setteled by evidence? Not something religion allows. I mean, are you working under the assumption that if left unchecked science will disprove your god? And your answer Quote Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc.  2. It is not on the exact same spot.  2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted? Why do I get 3 options? And anyway 1: What is not all it once was? Tyre you say? Therefore Tyre exists. 2: Same as one - Tyre exists. It has not been destroyed. 3: It may do for you, but failed predictions can be found in yesterdays racing papers. And, as in 1 and 2 it did not come to pass! And if the bible is not 100% literal there is then scope for arguments over interpretation on top of the arguments, as you noted, about translation. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:47    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,16:18) oldman, I do want to point out that I have an answer to the "enTyre" issue. (I can't resist that one  :D ) Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc. Irelevant.  That's not what was predicted. Quote 2. It is not on the exact same spot. Sorry, it's on the exact same spot.  Hasn't moved an inch.  It's smaller that it was. Quote 2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted? How many point twos do you have? Since what was predicted did not come to pass, no, it doesn't count for anything.

mitschlag Posts: 236 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:35    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:24) To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work.  One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how today's light bulbs work.  Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right.  I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation.  You choose to believe that a cell put itself together.  I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today. Chris, you're missing out on a lot of good science. Regarding cell division, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere, especially the table at the end of the article. Since God's creative intentions are inscrutable, there is no reason why anyone would expect telomere sequences in all those "lower" forms to bear any resemblance to those of "higher" forms, including humans.  Nor would there be much point to studying telomere biology in any organism except humans. Nor does it help the theist's case to say at this point in time, "Of course God did it that way," since (as far as you know) your inscrutable God could have done it any way she wanted. -------------- "You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:48    I never really understand Biblical literalists.  Let me ask you, you say: Quote I believe and trust with all my core being that the Bible is what it claims to be...the very Word of God (see I Thess. 2:13) - the Supreme Being who alone is God and there is no other. I also trust, believe, etc. that it is 100% true in the big picture of things. And more to the point: Quote Therefore, where the Scriptures declare things in historical narrative format, these things are 100% true, Like when Jesus said that "No one comes to the Father but through Me."  (John 14 :6b) He meant that there is no other way to be saved. not buddah, allah, space aliens, that there is no god(god) so it doesn't matter, etc. Therefore, since Genesis 1 is written in historical narrative form, you believe that it is 100% true that the world was created in 7 days, right? Then do you believe that the medical advice contained in Leviticus 13 is 100% true?  Or is this a not-literally true strawman?  If so, then how do you distinguish?

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:28    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:10) Tracy, But then without a polystrate fossil, how do we know when a layer did or did not take millions of yers to form? Without making assumptions, but actually looking at the strata involved - what the deposition mechanism is.  For example, the Joggins "polystrate" fossil was figured out 150 years ago by J. W. Dawson. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,20:04    Quote when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments. Including Helacyton? Whenever people say in effect that they believe the Bible is true because it says it is (Christopher, I think, does not say exactly this but he comes pretty close) I wonder if they believe in 'The Water Babies' because, after all, at the start of the book it says it is all true. George says Quote Or is this a not-literally true strawman?  If so, then how do you distinguish? This has always puzzled me about these literally-true-except-when-it-isn't people. And they all seem so absolutely certain that they can reliably distinguish between what was meant to be taken literally and what wasn't. BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date? How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,21:40    Quote when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments.  [prediction again..]   Not really sure that counts as a prediction when any and all animals were reproducing at the time that genesis was written. Thats what living creatures do, they reproduce. Any observed reproduction at the time that Genesis was put to paper (bark, papyrus, skin, stone whatever) would appear to only be 1:1 creature to creature.

celdd Posts: 18 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,22:11    Quote Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order." Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils? To me, all this is saying is noting the trivial fact that the stratigraphic sequence is built up from the bottom up.  For example, when you bake a cake and assemble it for presentation, the bottom layer has to go down first, then you put subsequent layers on top of the first layer.   Thus, fossil assemblages in the bottom layer must be older than those in the higher layers.  Turns out, we observe a sequence of fossil types through time.  And correlating bits of these sequences throughout the world, we can get a pretty good idea of how life changed through time.  This isn't just a trivial amount of observations (evidence), it's hundreds of years of observations throughout the world. Sometimes, tectonic forces my overturn a stratigraphic sequence.  In addition to the sequence of fossils observed, other evidence in the rocks such as texture or sedimentary structures can provide evidence on which way was up. I don't agree that "assume" means  you don't know.  All it is doing is stating a basis for the observations.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,07:56    Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04) BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date? Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or: {quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04} with the curly braces replaced by square brackets. Quote How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em: Quote Quote Quote Hi there! {QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,08:56    Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2007,15:56) Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04) BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date? Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or: {quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04} with the curly braces replaced by square brackets.   Quote How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em:   Quote   Quote   Quote Hi there! {QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE} FRicken smarty nested quotes man. DON'T YOU SEE WHATS GOING ON? Tire was rebuilt while g** was not looking DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? NO? WELL THAT MEANS 95% OF AMORICANS DON'T BELIEVE IN E. SO OIL-CABAL THAT! -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:13    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2007,12:53) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)   Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33) If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell? I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics? Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics. I've now taken a little time to look over McDowell's website, and all I can find is things for sale.  It appears that McDowell is willing to help us in our walk with jebus, for a price. After looking at the site, I had a quick peek at the New Testament, just to make sure that there hadn't been any significant changes since the last time I looked.  I was relieved to find that  the relevant text remains intact. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:20    To mitschlag, I read the entire article and fail to see how this shows the evolution of mitosis, more specifically how did this process orginate after the first cell put itself together. To oldman, I still see nothing on how my religious beliefs affect my doing or teaching science.  Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work.  Everyone has been going over board about evidence.  Were I to produce any, you'd all point me to talk origins or some other site which has the "answer" which amounts to the correct spin on evidence so it will say what you want it to say. Remember Gould's quote I used? For example I could talk about the fact that radiometric dating is based upon three assumptions (there's that word again) as found in a previous edition of a text put out by the American Geological Institute.  One of them is that the amount of parent material is assumed as there is no way to know what it was at the start. Science can never disprove God, so that is not something I ever have to fear.  But I can find evidence of design as everything I see in nature says that specified complexity, like this sentence, always has an intelligence behind it.  I have always wondered, How does knowing or believing that you are created instead of evolved harm anything in science except the concept of evolution - defined as protozoans become people. I found Dawkin's failure to answer a simple request for a mechanism or an example of a process  which increases the information of a genome very revealing.  His response was nowhere near answering the question.  And the origins of mitosis, likewise the origin of information still remain.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:25    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20) I found Dawkin's failure to answer a simple request for a mechanism or an example of a process  which increases the information of a genome very revealing.  His response was nowhere near answering the question.  And the origins of mitosis, likewise the origin of information still remain. I'll address some of your other points shortly, but for now I'll presume you are talking about this Dawkins Answer to the information issue Could you tell me what part of his answer you disagree with? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:26    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20) I still see nothing on how my religious beliefs affect my doing or teaching science.  Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work. If a pupil in your class asked you "Why are there so many beetle species?" What would you say? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:48    Christopher, Where is the proof/evidence/science that the appearance of design proves design?  Isn’t that nothing more than a leap of faith? With regard to IC, examples presented for IC (blood clotting, the eye…blah, blah, blah...) have been shown to not meet the definition of IC.  So, at what point does IC just become another pseudo-science concept like Alchemy? -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:21    Steverino, It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:23    Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21) Steverino, It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate? Oh good, more not stamp collecting. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

C Gieschen Posts: 48 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:29    oldman, Good question and a science one to boot!  When I explain beetles, spiders, or any life form for that matter I discuss speciation and adaptations like the desert fox and his Arctic cousin  But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.  It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.  That belongs to philiosophy or religion in my book. One item that I had trouble with, and I'll ignore his tirade about deceptive methods and how he wanted to throw the person out, etc., was the use of modern animals are the models and a present day amphibian would not change into a reptile.  At least this is how I read it. Question : Weren't the trilobites, dinosaurs, jawless fishes, etc. already the model types of their times?  And if evolution is supposed to be going on even today, then how can the model types change into something else? I hope you can understand my point.

Pages: (10) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard