Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:15 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  So the question is how can you scientifically test your argument. You cannot, no more that I can prove the Tiktaalik is a unique specie. You can only look at the fossil of the Tiktaalik and make assumptions based upon your paradigm.

So I'm trying to stay out of MZ's way but this business of "unique species" vs "transitional fossil" is a complete red herring. It demonstrates that the OP has absolutely NO understanding of what he's talking about. Tiktaalik WAS a "unique species" AND it is an example of transition in the fossil record. EVERY fossil is the remains of something that belonged to a specific species and, as evolution is ongoing, every species is transitioning from what it was to what it will become.

The OP seems to have the Comfort/Cameron view of transitional fossils and is expecting scientists to produce a crocoduck. I'm waiting for the banana claim.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
30-12-2014, 07:58 AM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2014 11:43 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(30-12-2014 07:28 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 08:15 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  So the question is how can you scientifically test your argument. You cannot, no more that I can prove the Tiktaalik is a unique specie. You can only look at the fossil of the Tiktaalik and make assumptions based upon your paradigm.

So I'm trying to stay out of MZ's way but this business of "unique species" vs "transitional fossil" is a complete red herring. It demonstrates that the OP has absolutely NO understanding of what he's talking about. Tiktaalik WAS a "unique species" AND it is an example of transition in the fossil record. EVERY fossil is the remains of something that belonged to a specific species and, as evolution is ongoing, every species is transitioning from what it was to what it will become.

The OP seems to have the Comfort/Cameron view of transitional fossils and is expecting scientists to produce a crocoduck. I'm waiting for the banana claim.

Evolution is a ongoing process, changes compounding over time. Speciation doesn't occur to individuals, but rather to populations. Fossils and the species they represent are mere snapshots, pixel wide slivers of a much larger gradient image.

[Image: stock_gradient_red_blue_by_einstud-d37scl4.jpg]

Where exactly in the image do the pixels cease being blue and start being violet, before thy cease being violet and become red? This is the rough visualization of a key concept of evolutionary theory, meant to demonstrate how when our desire for organization (putting ideas into boxes with labels to differentiate them) is overlayed upon nature to help us make sense of it, it does not perfectly align. Where does one species end on it way to becoming another? It doesn't, because every child is the same species as it's parents, yet given enough generations a species can drift enough to become another (insofar as we think it warrants another label and being placed into it's own box).

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-12-2014, 08:27 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(29-12-2014 08:30 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(29-12-2014 08:27 PM)Harry79 Wrote:  There are atheists who do not believe in evolution? How can this be?

Because atheist are more than just skeptics. All one has to do to be an atheist is that they must not accept god, thats it. They can not accept gravity,evolution, and believe the sun revolves around the earth, and still be an atheist.

Too weird. I think it is rational to assume that any atheist will have an opinion on how life began. If you take God (and by default intelligent design) out of the equation, what's left?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(30-12-2014 08:27 AM)Harry79 Wrote:  Too weird.

Welcome to Earth, population 7 billion. Wear a helmet.

(30-12-2014 08:27 AM)Harry79 Wrote:  I think it is rational to assume

That people will frequently behave irrationally. Wear a BIG helmet.

(30-12-2014 08:27 AM)Harry79 Wrote:  that any atheist will have an opinion on how life began.

Yes, and to give credit where credit is due, that opinion is most commonly evolution. Not always though. I never did ask that flat-Earther what he believed. In his book we may have all been descendants of A Square.

(30-12-2014 08:27 AM)Harry79 Wrote:  If you take God (and by default intelligent design) out of the equation, what's left?

Aliens, pixies, bigfoot, something I was told by my dog... Just about anything. Just because a person doesn't believe in god doesn't mean that they don't believe in the mystic, the arcane or a whole encyclopedia of other stuff.

On the flip side I did my doctoral work with two other students who were devout Catholics. One was working on the composition of the Earth's early atmosphere. The other was into the pre-solar nebula from which the Earth formed. As you might guess, neither had any truck with creationism.

Creationists are almost always religious, though not always Christian. Christians are sometimes creationists but many are evolutionists.

Atheists are frequently evolutionists, the exceptions are rare, but many evolutionists are not atheists.

They are two separate topics.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
30-12-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(30-12-2014 08:27 AM)Harry79 Wrote:  Too weird. I think it is rational to assume that any atheist will have an opinion on how life began.

Why? Atheism is only the rejection of the claim that god exists. Until theists can show actual evidence for that claim it is rational to withhold belief. Atheism itself has nothing to do with abiogenesis (how life started) or evolution (how it got to where it is now).

Quote:If you take God (and by default intelligent design) out of the equation, what's left?

What is left is admitting "I don't know". There are a number of hypotheses on how abiogenesis could have happened but it hasn't been as solidly demonstrated as evolution yet. In the meantime, I'm not a scientist so I leave it at "I don't know" because my opinion on the subject is essentially worthless. Making up a god to fill the gap doesn't actually answer the question, it just gives you permission to stop looking.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
30-12-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(30-12-2014 07:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-12-2014 07:28 AM)unfogged Wrote:  So I'm trying to stay out of MZ's way but this business of "unique species" vs "transitional fossil" is a complete red herring. It demonstrates that the OP has absolutely NO understanding of what he's talking about. Tiktaalik WAS a "unique species" AND it is an example of transition in the fossil record. EVERY fossil is the remains of something that belonged to a specific species and, as evolution is ongoing, every species is transitioning from what it was to what it will become.

The OP seems to have the Comfort/Cameron view of transitional fossils and is expecting scientists to produce a crocoduck. I'm waiting for the banana claim.

Evolution is a ongoing process, changes compounding over time. Speciation doesn't occur to individuals, but rather to populations. Fossils and the species they represent are mere snapshots, pixel wide slivers of a much larger gradient image.

[Image: stock_gradient_red_blue_by_einstud-d37scl4.jpg]

Where exactly in the image do the pixels cease being blue and start being violet, before thy cease being violet and become red? This is the rough visualization of a key concept of evolutionary theory, meant to demonstrate how when our desire for organization (putting ideas into boxes with labels to differentiate them) is overlayed upon nature to help us make sense of it, it does not perfectly align.

Here is how the creationist mind works:
Somewhere in that color blend you can simply place a line, the top of that line is "microevolution" (which is natural), the bottom of that line is "macroevolution" (which is gawd). That dividing line can be arbitrarily chosen by the individual believer at their arbitrary discretion. If the evidence for natural evolution becomes too uncomfortable, that line is arbitrarily redrawn somewhere else and god can still be plugged into any gaps.

Convenient that. Dodgy

At some point, you need to stop being dishonest and realize a god doesn't fit anywhere into the picture and you are unnecessarily plugging god into any uncomfortable gaps.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
30-12-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(30-12-2014 07:28 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm waiting for the banana claim.

I love the banana claim. It is evidence of Intelligent Design! Sadly for Comfort the Intelligent Designer turned out to be generations of banana plantation owners selecting for bananas that weren't two inches long.

[Image: wild_banana.jpg]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: