|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2009 : 07:29:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Before i come back, when i have time, how about you guys show some substance for your beliefs instead of opinion and conjecture.
...
The bible has never been proven wrong. Not from a geological, historical, scientific or any other medium. |
Right.... Those two sentences in the same paragraph are quite funny.
Why don't you tell us what kind of evidence you think would be in favour of evolution and what would count against bible. Don't be embarrassing... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2009 : 09:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Wow, touchy subject hey? Well ive been riding my dirt bike and watching tv and this page was left on my PC. I refreshed it and all your posts turned up. Its 12:22 am here so im off to bed but ill be back to explain and reply. None of you documented any proof of evolution and all of you ignored my exact science disproving your theory. Before i come back, when i have time, how about you guys show some substance for your beliefs instead of opinion and conjecture. Scientific proof of the "EXACT" kind is what will determine the outcome of this debate. Any takers? Good, get your facts followed by scientific "EXACT, REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE" science. Not mumbo jumbo pseudo science that make claims without scientific support. Be warned, not all science is science, some is portrayed as science under the guise of scientists appearing as science. Unless your science is provable, repeatable, known, observable then it is not science nor fact nor proven and ill show you up as a believer in such. Do not let me embarrass you. Think before you write. Oh, and as skeptics, thats a bit of a joke isnt it. What are you actually skeptical about? God yes. Science, no! Science has been proven wrong many times. The bible has never been proven wrong. Not from a geological, historical, scientific or any other medium. Time to be skeptical of the most unreliable. Tomorrow ill be riding my 450r all day long in the mountains so ill get back to you guys as soon as i can. Sorry for this. I do relish your discussions and points of view. Ps. Can someone tell me how to post with your comments on the square box as some of you have. Im not sure on how to do this and it would be beneficial.Regards, Matt36
|
I really must protest; as skeptics, we are highly skeptical of science. Honest scientists sometimes get it wrong and the dishonest ones, like Jonathon Wells the Moonie, must be watched.
Ok, to do a quote, simply go to the tool bar at the top of the page, where you will find a set of bolded quotation marks. Click on that and in your text, you will get this: [quote][/quote] All you have to do then is write between the quotes. Or, you can seclect some text and hit the "quote" feature and get the same thing.
Looking forward to your input...
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to 'fix' the quote tags.  |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/29/2009 06:34:23 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 10:28:39 [Permalink]
|
Matt36:
Do not let me embarrass you. |
Oh. Please do. Good luck with that. I'll wager that you will leave us when the fur really starts to fly, because you will not be able to support, with known science, any of your assertions.
Matt36:
Unless your science is provable, repeatable, known, observable then it is not science nor fact nor proven and ill show you up as a believer in such. |
Proofs are a thing of math. All conclusions in science are held tentatively which allows for the introduction of new evidence. That's how science avoids the dogma associated with such things as religion, which puts the cart before the horse and then attempts to force science to support unsupportable ideas. (The misuse of the laws of thermodynamics as it applies to evolution is an example of that.) Repeatable experiments are done all the time and include predictions. For example, we pretty much know what we will find in every level of the geological record. We like to say "show us a Devonian bunny" because there are none, as predicted. If you were to do that, evolution by natural selection would have to be dumped for a better theory. That no organism has ever been found out of place in the record is both predictable and observable.
As for transitionals above the species level, we have many. My guess is that you will wave away feathered dinosaurs , or whales with legs, or animals like Homo erectus, because you must. Once you agree that those animals were transitional, and are, in fact, a smoking gun, your whole thesis will tumble. And you can't go there. So you will simply deny the significance of those fossils. Oh, and yes, those fossils are not isolated examples. Also it might be worth noting that over 97% of all animals that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct.
There has been plenty of direct observation in the lab. That which you call micro evolution. But to deny that evolution happens because we weren't there, you will also have to demonstrate that forensic science is of no value. That geologists have it all wrong. That cosmologists have it all wrong. That molecular biologists have it all wrong. And really, every area of science that supports the ToE have it all wrong. I guess you will keep using your computer, because at least the scientists who made that technology possible had it right. Your focus will be on particulars of science, as though, unlike the scientists who made computing possible, whole areas of scientific inquiry and the consensus of scientists working in several scientific disciplines are engaged in a conspiracy. You have way more than biology to contend with.
By the way, "origins of life" is abiogeneses, which is a study separate from the ToE. It's being looked at. But because we don't know how it happened yet says nothing about evolution (which simply means change over time) and its use by creationists amounts to a straw man argument against evolution. It's a creationist trick that really has no bearing on what happened after life came to be.
Welcome to SFN Matt36. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 10:50:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Im not sure on how to do this and it would be beneficial.Regards, Matt36 |
Hit that last button above, matt36, and you will be able to "reply with quote."
Matt, don't expect to come on here armed with nothing more than the standard, boneheaded, dishonest Creo talking points and walk away without either getting your ass handed to you, or having learned something. And that really was the discredited, standard list. Read all the material at the site that Filthy linked to, and then argue, will you please?
And welcome to Skeptic Friends Network!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 10:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Wow, touchy subject hey? |
Ah, a common Internet creationist troll. Spew out a bunch of inflammatory statements, and then express surprise that people get offended. You guys are a dime a dozen. You're here to abuse us, and to receive abuse in return, nothing more, and definitely not reasoned discussion of the issues you bring up. You'll serve for entertainment, though, and to show others yet another example of how the typical creationist operates (largely by ignoring the simple requests made of you, like you'll ignore the request for the math of thermodynamics which invalidates evolution, even though to make such a claim you must already know the math).| Well ive been riding my dirt bike and watching tv and this page was left on my PC. I refreshed it and all your posts turned up. Its 12:22 am here so im off to bed... |
Who cares about any of that?| ...but ill be back to explain and reply. |
I'll believe it when I see it.| None of you documented any proof of evolution and all of you ignored my exact science disproving your theory. |
A bold lie in two parts. One, you never presented any "exact science" against evolution, but instead a bunch of vague claims. Two, I didn't ignore them, but asked you to show your work.| Before i come back, when i have time... |
Ah, a typical set-up for never coming back.| ...how about you guys show some substance for your beliefs instead of opinion and conjecture. Scientific proof of the "EXACT" kind is what will determine the outcome of this debate. Any takers? Good, get your facts followed by scientific "EXACT, REPEATABLE, OBSERVABLE" science. Not mumbo jumbo pseudo science that make claims without scientific support. |
If you will do the same regarding your claims about creationism. Fair is fair.| Be warned, not all science is science, some is portrayed as science under the guise of scientists appearing as science. |
And here we have the set-up for you hand-waving away any/all evidence presented to you as being not "real science."| Unless your science is provable, repeatable, known, observable then it is not science nor fact nor proven and ill show you up as a believer in such. |
Where is the real science showing the Bible to be correct, then?| Do not let me embarrass you. |
That's quite unlikely.You should do the same.| Oh, and as skeptics, thats a bit of a joke isnt it. What are you actually skeptical about? God yes. Science, no! Science has been proven wrong many times. |
By scientists. Not by the Bible.| The bible has never been proven wrong. Not from a geological, historical, scientific or any other medium. |
Okay, then where are all the fossils of the four-legged grasshoppers?| Time to be skeptical of the most unreliable. |
We are.| Tomorrow ill be riding my 450r all day long in the mountains so ill get back to you guys as soon as i can. Sorry for this. |
I doubt that.| I do relish your discussions and points of view. |
No, as is obvious from your posts so far, you relish the abuse. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 11:23:15 [Permalink]
|
Welcome matt.
Perhaps you could clarify one thing for me:
How does "micro" evolution NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet "macro" evolution does?
I eagerly await your answer. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:21:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Welcome matt.
Perhaps you could clarify one thing for me:
How does "micro" evolution NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet "macro" evolution does?
I eagerly await your answer.
|
Ha! I haven't heard that argument! Good one! |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 13:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Matt, you need to let go of this requirement that science can only refer to things directly observed. No one has ever seen an atom. Do you deny they exist, too? I also suggest taking a Philosophy of Science course along with basic biology. Follow that up with Physical Anthropology. Imagine the fun you could have telling your teacher each and every day that everything you're learning is utter crap.
Do you even know what the laws of thermodynamics mean? I don't mean pasting the definitions in here. I mean do you know what they mean? Wouldn't you have to agree that Creation would be a huge violation of the first law? I'd have to throw a yellow flag on that!
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 15:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Let's dispense with the silly Creationist version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and get it over with. That'll likely save us all a lot of ennui.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."
There. Now, just for the hell of it, lets do a transitional, an ancient one that was predicted by the ToE long before it was actually found:
"Description
Skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's "fins" have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion.[4] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4][5]
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.[2] The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.[5]
In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land;
Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as:
Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits,
Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:
Fish
fish gills
fish scales
"Fishapod"
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck
tetrapod lungs
Limb shoulder to find Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The rear fins and tail have not yet been found. It had rows[6] of sharp teeth of a predator fish, and its neck was able to move independently of its body, which is not possible in other fish. The animal also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's; eyes on top of its head, suggesting it spent a lot of time looking up; a neck and ribs similar to those of tetrapods, with the latter being used to support its body and aid in breathing via lungs; well developed jaws suitable for catching prey; and a small gill slit called a spiracle that, in more derived animals, became an ear.[7]
Life restoration of Tiktaalik roseae made for the National Science FoundationThe fossils were found in the "Fram Formation", deposits of meandering stream systems near the Devonian equator, suggesting a benthic animal that lived on the bottom of shallow waters and perhaps even out of the water for short periods, with a skeleton indicating that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land. At that period, for the first time, deciduous plants were flourishing and annually shedding leaves into the water, attracting small prey into warm oxygen-poor shallows that were difficult for larger fish to swim in.[2] The discoverers said that in all likelihood, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself onto the shore for brief periods.[9] Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler, the leaders of the team, have been searching Ellesmere Island for fossils since 1999.[4][10]
“ We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow animals to exploit land."
—Ted Daeschler,"
I dislike the "missing link" terminology. There are none, only information yet to come to light, and virtually all of it predicted by the Theory of Evolution. The discovery of Tiktaalik, after a lot of hard work, was a very pleasant surprise but not an astounding one.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 11/28/2009 15:52:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 16:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Let's dispense with the silly Creationist version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and get it over with. That'll likely save us all a lot of ennui. |
Hey, give the guy a chance, filthy! Maybe he's got some actual math which shows that the 2nd Law really does prohibit evolution. As I said earlier, he'd be the first, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 17:38:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by filthy
Let's dispense with the silly Creationist version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and get it over with. That'll likely save us all a lot of ennui. |
Hey, give the guy a chance, filthy! Maybe he's got some actual math which shows that the 2nd Law really does prohibit evolution. As I said earlier, he'd be the first, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
I confess I hadn't thought of that. It's just that we've been down that road so many times, I hate the idea of going again. 
Well, ok, if such math exists, I'm ready and all for it. I'd love to see someone successfully debunk the ToE. Just think of the changes it would make to science. And it would increase academic employment as museums, universities and even corporate labs scramble to correct previous misunderstandings and mistakes.
Anyone who does that is worthy of a Nobel, however I must remind: religion is not necessarily the default option.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 03:04:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
I just stumbled upon this page and as a skeptics site i find it weird that nobody is sceptical of evolution. |
Says who? I demand evidence from evolutionary biologists just like I demand evolution from creationists. The difference is that the biologists can supply evidence, while the creationists point to the Bible, mistakes in logic and/or really bad "science" for support of their conclusions. |
No, creationists do point to the bible but not as a sole reason,(important). There is no difference from this and an evolutionist subscribing to "DARWINISM" or "DAWKINISM". Really,same difference really.
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to fix formatting. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/29/2009 06:57:21 |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 05:43:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Test
|
Test??? Ohmygods, a pop quiz? Why, oh why did I go to the bestiality brothel instead of studying? 
I, for one, am quite skeptical of evolution, but only up to a point and only in certain instances. There are certain frauds, touted endlessly by Creationists, that we have watch for. But beyond that the empirical evidence in it's favor is all but overwhelming and cannot be written off nor ignored -- although it is by the bone-ignorant; those unwilling or incapable of learning.
When a paper on a new find comes out, I like to wait and see if the science has it right. Scientists get it wrong every now & again, as stated earlier. And I remind: extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.
Here's one of my favorites; almost as good a joke as Piltdown:
Hello. My name is Stefan. My last name is not important, but my story it is. I have a incredible story to tell, which is being hushed up by scientists and goverments all over the world.
Darwin's theory of the evolution of species has been disproved. But everyone is covering it up. I kept some photographs of this event, and now I am telling the world. An American friend is helping me post this story to the internet. It is the only way I could think of to get these amazing facts out before it is too late. I don't know how long I can keep this web cite up. I use my own words so it is my story. Sorry about not perfect english.
It begin when I became visiting grad student to America, from where I was studying at University of Heidelberg. I came to work with my paleontology professor, Dr. Heinschvagel, who is a expert of dinosaur studies. We came to New Mexico in the South West, and worked in the Morrison Formation, over 140 million years old. Every day we would leave the student quarters in Albuquerque, and travel about 70 km north west to the cite.
It was hardly winter there at all. They said this year was dry. And so we worked early in the year, and in late February of 1999, we made a discovery that shakes the world.
We found a fossil of a hominid, being eaten by an allosaurus dinosaur. Look at the picture.
|
This was swallowed hook, line, sinker and the fisherman's arm clear to the ear. I loved it!
But the lesson to be learned from it is not to jump to conclusions too quickly lest you end up with allosaurus egg on your face.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
