|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Can you describe the step-by-step process involved in the (alleged) evolution of a whale's blowhole or tail? I don't know the step-by-step process involved in climbing Mt. Everest (or any specific, individual mountain, really...)But I know how people climb mountains. I don't know the step-by-step process involved in getting a 747 jet to take-off.But I know how airplanes fly. I don't know the step-by-step process involved in most of my colleagues' drive to work.But I know how people drive from point A to point B. Your argument is... let's say... immature.It's meaningless and useless to pursue or attempt to correct. If you can't see how silly your own argument is... you aren't going to understand why you're so wrong. You're lost in your own panic.Like an adult desperately flailing their arms in 2 feet of water crying out that you can't swim... everyone around you is just so confused and thinking... why don't you just stand up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Gunter Bechly came up with a similar challenge. And several biologists answered it. But, of course, Bechly rejected all of their answers, because what he was really asking was a matter of his subjective opinion. And he was not about to accept any responses to his challenge. So then Dredge is engaging in the typical brainless bottom-feeder creationist activity of using some stupid creationist claim or stunt without understanding any of it nor even giving it any thought at all. We see that all the time as creationists copy-and-paste the same old stupid PRATTs on forums or in emails, etc. Or in creationist videos showing their favorite archetype, the single Christian who stands up to the bullying science teacher and decimates him with a set of "unanswerable" questions (eg, in both versions of Chick Pubs' Big Daddy?) at the end of which all the other students start to convert (has anyone ever pointed out that such cartoons (and now videos too) are a primary form of training?). Then a decade or so again there was a "grass roots" campaign, Question Evolution, with urged schoolchildren to confront their teachers with a list of nearly 30 "unanswerable questions." My favorite questions was "There are so many chemical compounds, but where did they come from?", which was never coupled with the teacher's response: "Well, Suzie, if you had ever managed to stay awake in chemistry class then you would know the answer to that question." I was in a long correspondence with a YEC. He never ever answered a direct question, but rather kept throwing "unanswerable questions" at me. I would answer his damned questions, but then we refused to ever discuss any of them.Instead, he would claim that I hadn't answered his question (and then ignored my own question of "why do you think that I hadn't answered it?"), tried to change the subject with different "unanswerable questions", or simply run away (in one case of running away, he even went so far as to cancel his email account and go into hiding for nearly two years -- see my page on that question, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?). He projects a Hovind-esque image of being an expert, but I finally figured out that he is no different from any other creationist: he has no clue what he is talking about and just repeats stupid creationist claims without any comprehension. In typical encounters with creationists (see my Encounters with Creationists) any attempt to engage in discussion with a creationist about his how claim causes that creationist to be increasingly hostile. Not only would discussion be counter-productive for his agenda, but he's not even capable of engaging in discussion. Saying that there's no there there would be a gross understatement. Stupid is as creationists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
He says that wants to know how an organ evolved. But of course he doesn't, he wants to troll, in one sentence posts.
If he wanted to see the evidence for how an organ evolved he's do what a reasonable person would do, he'd search creditable science sites and read them. And then maybe ask questions about what he didn't understand. But he won't do that because that's not why he's here. There are many organs that have been researched for their evolutionary development, the mammalian ear is an obvious one. If he was actually interested he could have found this like I did in 30 seconds. But he's not interested - he just wants to troll. AbstractHaving three ossicles in the middle ear is one of the defining features of mammals. All reptiles and birds have only one middle ear ossicle, the stapes or columella. How these two additional ossicles came to reside and function in the middle ear of mammals has been studied for the last 200 years and represents one of the classic example of how structures can change during evolution to function in new and novel ways. From fossil data, comparative anatomy and developmental biology it is now clear that the two new bones in the mammalian middle ear, the malleus and incus, are homologous to the quadrate and articular, which form the articulation for the upper and lower jaws in non-mammalian jawed vertebrates. The incorporation of the primary jaw joint into the mammalian middle ear was only possible due to the evolution of a new way to articulate the upper and lower jaws, with the formation of the dentary-squamosal joint, or TMJ in humans. The evolution of the three-ossicle ear in mammals is thus intricately connected with the evolution of a novel jaw joint, the two structures evolving together to create the distinctive mammalian skull. Evolution of the mammalian middle ear and jaw: adaptations and novel structuresJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
but until someone actually produces a eukaryote from a prokaryote, they can't claim to know how that evolution happened.
Stile writes:
Bcoz the (alleged) evolution of eurkaryotes from prokaryotes is
Why not?
unobservable and unrepeatable. Therefore the only way to know how eurkaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is to literally produce eurkaryotes from prokaryotes.
I know how climbing mountains happens.
These are really poor analogies. All the examples you offer are readily observable and repeatable ... unlike the (alleged) evolution of eurkaryotes from prokaryotes.But I've never been atop Everest. I know how lawn mowers work.But I've never built a small engine. I know how heavier-than-air flight happens.But I've never designed an airplane. Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If somebody DID propose a plausible mechanism and they DID test it observably and repeatably in the lab, would you accept that? Or would you say we don't know whether the method was what DID happen historically? All the examples you offer are readily observable and repeatable ... unlike the (alleged) evolution of eurkaryotes from prokaryotes. Your profile calls you a Darwinism skeptic but I don't think you know what skepticism actually means."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Bcoz the (alleged) evolution of eurkaryotes from prokaryotes isunobservable and unrepeatable. Therefore the only way to know how eurkaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is to literally produce eurkaryotes from prokaryotes. Why do you think this true?It's absurd. I had a friend who died. Before he died he would get up in the morning and drive to work. He's dead now - unavailable to us.His morning routine and drive to work is unobservable and unrepeatable. There are no recordings of it occurring. But I know he did it.And I know how he did it. And I know how to drive from point A to point B. When you have a lot of personal knowledge about driving form point A to point B - you can then see how someone else would drive between another point C to another point D, without having all the knowledge about it. I drive from home to work all the time.I've never observed anyone driving from Canada to Mexico before. But I know it's happened. And I know how it happened - even if I can't describe every turn and every blade of grass that's visible out the side window. We've studied a lot about evolution, and we know how it happens for many, many things.We may never observe a prokaryote evolving into a eukaryote. But we know it happened. And we know how it happened - even if we can't describe every minute detail. All the examples you offer are readily observable and repeatable ... unlike the (alleged) evolution of eurkaryotes from prokaryotes. They are not readily observable and repeatable.Sometimes the person involved is dead. Sometimes roads have construction and are changed. Regardless... it doesn't matter if someone could.I'm talking from the stance of someone who hasn't and won't even if they could - effectively the same thing as can't. I will never, ever bother to look up how someone will actually drive all the way from Canada to Mexico.I will never look up every turn. I will never look up every blade of grass that's visible out the side window. Because, with my knowledge of driving, it's irrelevant. And, it's still perfectly reasonable and valid for me to confidently say that I know how to drive from Canada to Mexico. We may never be able to look up how a prokaryote evolved into a eukaryote.We may never be able to look up every detailed step. We may never be able to look up each specific option and each specific pathway chosen along the way. We also don't need to, because with our knowledge of evolution, it's irrelevant. It's still perfectly reasonable and valid for us to look at the knowledge we have and apply that to the gaps in our knowledge and see if it still makes sense - this allows us to devise multiple possible pathways for a prokaryote evolving into a eukaryote and how it may have happened. Each and every one backed by evidence... not wishful thinking. As the information and evidence grows, we might develop new pathways, or alter the ones we already have, or accept ones already existing as "more confident answers." And all along... it's still perfectly reasonable and valid for us to confidently say that we know how evolution works. You're just making yourself look silly. If you don't think so - explain why it's unreasonable or unscientific for me to say I know how to drive from Canada to Mexico even though I'm never, ever going to willingly observe a route.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
What a poor argument. I can see that computers have evolved over the years, yet I know nothing at all about how computers work and how to improve them. You believe life on earth evolved because you know what evolution looks like in the fossil record, and you know what evolution looks like because you know how it works. The late, great French zoologist, Paul-Pierre Grasse, concluded from the fossil record that evolution had occurred, but believed that it is impossible to know how it happened.
Evolution works by selection and mutation resulting in descent with modification. Do we know the details of how the whale's blowhole migrated to the top of its head in terms of mutations, matings and morphological changes? No, of course not. But we still know how evolution works.
You don't KNOW how the macro-evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record happened bcoz they're unobservable and unrepeatable, therefore you can't claim to KNOW how evolution works. All you can do is formulate a theory. Do you understand the difference between a THEORY and KNOWLEDGE?
Science doesn't work by proving things.
If you can't PROVE how the macro-evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record happened, you can't claim to KNOW how they happened.
What science does do is gather or produce evidence in support of various hypotheses, and if one hypothesis reaches the point where it is widely accepted within the relevant scientific community then it becomes a theory.
You forgot to mention the next step that you and your fellow Darwinists take in the name of science - the theory (of evolution) then becomes a fact ... based on faith ... hence your claim that you "know" how the evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record happened.
You understand how houses are built, right? Men measuring and sawing boards, pounding nails, installing windows, adding insulation and shingles, and so forth? But can you provide the exact details of how any particular house was built? Could even an experienced builder reconstruct the precise construction details of any house, even one he built himself a number of years ago? No. Does that mean we don't understand how houses are built?
A very poor analogy. How houses are built is readily observable and repeatable ... unlike the macro-evolutionary transitions evident in the fossil record.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
I not denying that there is evidence for evolution.
We can learn a great deal today through genetic analysis that tells us some events of our evolutionary past. For example, chimps have 24 chromosome pairs and humans 23. There are two of the chimp chromosomes that if combined would be pretty much the same as one of the human chromosomes. Therefore we know that at some time in our evolutionary past after the chimp/human common ancestor diverged into a line that led to chimps and another that led to humans, that that chromosome in the chimp line spilt, or those chromosomes in the human line combined.
But which of these two possibilities is what really happened? We don't know. When did it happen? We don't know. Was the change gradual or sudden? We don't know. What caused the chromosomes to combine or to split? We don't know.
... and yet, despite the mountain of "don't know" regarding the ancient past, you still claim to know how evolution works. Fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
"If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32). Bertrand Russell is quoted as saying that if a Catholic becomes a freethinker then he will most likely become an atheist, whereas if a Protestant becomes a freethinker then he'll just form a new church. According to this passage, Catholics are the true freethinkers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Seriously ? If you abide by my word, you will be free ?
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
No it doesn't - and nobody claims it does. The theory is an explanation of the fact.
You forgot to mention the next step that you and your fellow Darwinists take in the name of science - the theory (of evolution) then becomes a fact.... Dredge writes:
No it isn't. If there was any faith involved, there wouldn't be people from all faiths who accept the science. ... based on faith ... "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 179 days) Posts: 673 Joined:
|
The problem with arguing with creationists like dredge is their limited attention span. The first half page of the Bible details the creation of the earth, the heavens, all animals and mankind not just once but twice. Answers to all of dredge's, and all creationists', questions in a quarter page. Compare that to Stephen Jay Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", which takes 1430 pages. When Suzie asks "There are so many chemical compounds, but where did they come from?", will she read a half page of the Bible or a 1000 page text on cosmology or astrochemistry! This is why public debates between creationists and scientists are so fruitless and the creationists are always able to declare 'victory': one line answers versus attempting to pack a dozen years of university classes into a one hour debate. This is why dredge (and candle2 and marc9000 et al) just keep repeating their simplistic questions and assertions over and over.
I personally couldn't care less what dredge (and candle2 and marc9000 et al) think or believe. The loss is theirs. In fact, I think it would be a fun experiment to take one state, Louisiana for example, and have all the public schools teach only biblical creationism with no mention of evolution. And also take another state, I vote for Tennessee, and teach only geocentric cosmology. I suspect that the result will be, as those students become exposed to scientific and real world evidence, that the majority will not only reject those teachings, but will also reject the religions that underlay them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Drudge writes: Do you understand the difference between a THEORY and KNOWLEDGE? You really don't get it, do you?
Drudge writes: the theory (of evolution) then becomes a fact ... based on faith Funny, the only people who have this fantasy are creationists, because all you have is faith in fictional stories. The Theory of Evolution has something far more powerful than faith...it has supporting evidence in libraries and museums around the world.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
According to this passage, Catholics are the true freethinkers. According to human history catholics are evil incarnate in the human species.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
and yet, despite the mountain of "don't know" regarding the ancient past, you still claim to know how evolution works. That’s because scientists are not as stupid as you are and have studied the mountain of evidence of past events. We don't need to know everything in order to know a whole lot about how evolution worked now and in the past. You can't figure it out because you are the stupid one. This study is something you cannot do for your own cult because your catechism is bogus and have no evidence, not one shred, of your catholic fantasy. Science in general, and evolution is particular, win again.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024