Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 268 (140540)
09-06-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by MangyTiger
09-06-2004 10:00 PM


Re: coelacanth
what the coelcanth is an exellent example of, is the fact that missing links of even major proportions obviously exist without challenging the concept of continuity of the biological spectrum.
fossils of the coelecanth have been "missing links" for 65 million years, a span of time much greater than many literalists complain about in other fossil records.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by MangyTiger, posted 09-06-2004 10:00 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by MangyTiger, posted 09-06-2004 11:24 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 2:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 268 (140556)
09-06-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by MangyTiger
09-06-2004 11:24 PM


Re: coelacanth is a missing link
it was pointed out to me, so don't fret.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by MangyTiger, posted 09-06-2004 11:24 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 268 (140705)
09-07-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
09-07-2004 3:04 PM


Re: coelacanth
Fallacy of Exclusion (evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration) and Accident (a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception) and Denying the Antecedent (any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B).
Forbidden
That's a "three-fer"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 09-07-2004 3:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 268 (140707)
09-07-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
09-07-2004 2:23 PM


Re: coelacanth
No, Robert. Try again to read for comprehension: for 65 million years there were no fossils of the coelecanth, the "links" are missing ... they are still missing. What is missing are all the species and all the changes in those species from the pre-historic to the present.
What this demonstrates is that missing links happen on a much larger scale than is shown in the fossil records where creationists keep begging for (while hoping against hope they won't get) more intermediate links.
and btw -- I have no "gang"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 2:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 5:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 268 (140753)
09-07-2004 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Robert Byers
09-07-2004 5:26 PM


Re: coelacanth
Pure denial and more logical fallacies (nothing like consistency):
Forbidden
- Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
- Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Are you feeling imperial? "we are not amused"
we don't prove our point but our idea is more reasonable and will appear so to the public.
Really? what idea is that? That all knowledge can be denied if you just keep repeating it? I have yet to see an idea from you.
Sorry, but the universe will not be changed by your denial.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 5:26 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024