RE: New Transitional for Human Eye

RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

ianz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/26/2008 10:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: ianz No I'm more or less atheist. (I've openly stated this a number of times.) I guess that explains a lot (ie: why you seem to have extreme difficulty understanding very basic concepts. We have swapped only a few posts, so I think your response is a little strong here. quote: Sometimes I wonder if atheists misunderstand basic concepts on purpose to try and waste the time of those who disagree with them or if they are really more likely to have reading comprehension problems or something. It's a shame you choose not to place more faith in humanity. I am sorry that you have this view of atheists. I have no interest in wasting your time. It is your choice whether or not to waste your time, not mine. quote: How does "ID accepts common ancestry" not contradict YEC? Those are your words, not theirs or mine.I don't understand how 'doesn't have a problem with common ancestry' does not lead one to conclude that ID accepts common ancestry. Anyway, it is what ID accepts: quote: http://www.discovery.org/v/22 About 2min through Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute states: (quoted from one of my earlier posts): "We're not against evolution per se, because evolution can mean change over time, or even common ancestry, which are not meanings of the term [evolution] that we dispute" ID, as the linked video portrays it, is essentially evolution with some designer assistance. So old earth, common ancestry, incremental change, etc (with occasional guidance from a designer to make the jumps which incremental changes could not make). quote: ID does not "accept" common ancestry but it has no problems with common ancestry. There is a difference and it should be very easy to understand the difference. You'll have to forgive me but I am struggling to understand the difference. Please fill me in. quote: It doesn't have a problem with it but it doesn't have a problem with creationism either. Well the linked video above is labelled "ID IS DIFFERENT FROM CREATIONISM". quote: If you're doing this on purpose, stop. It's not going to help others take you seriously. I'm not doing this on purpose. Life is too short to waste time playing those games. (It's also too short to spend paranoid.) Regards, Ian

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/27/2008 12:01:21 AM)
quote: Anyway, it is what ID accepts: Accepting and being compatible with are two different things. quote: Well the linked video above is labelled "ID IS DIFFERENT FROM CREATIONISM". ID is compatible with creationism but it does not mandate creationism. It says nothing on the subject, just like the Big bang says nothing about biological evolution. The big bang is different from biological evolution but it's also compatible with biological evolution. Being silent on something is different from accepting it. quote: I am sorry that you have this view of atheists. ... (It's also too short to spend paranoid.) I don't think all naturalists are dishonest, but I think that some are. For example, it's dishonest to want students brainwashed with naturalistic philosophies (ie: UCD) at taxpayer expense while having all criticisms and opposing views (ie: ID and creationism) censored. I've been debating this issue on forums for years now (heck, I've even debated this on forums.Christianity.com for many years but for some reason my nick got deleted and I had to re - recreate the same nick. I wasn't banned or anything, it was a glitch). Before debating this on forums.Christianity.com I used to debate this on other, less regulated, forums. I know, many naturalists on those forums would cuss at those that disagree with them (including myself), calling them dishonest (when it was the naturalists that were being dishonest), call them all sorts of names, I've had a naturalist on another forum cuss about my mother because he couldn't refute what I was saying, and many are completely intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them (despite the fact that the creationists, including myself, were totally respectful to them). This was basically the norm among many many of them (which is why many creationists and ID advocates move here, where such things usually get regulated). I'm pretty sure that many on these forums really want to do the same (Despite the fact that what I was saying was true and what method was saying was false, method, for example, dishonestly started calling me a liar and calling what I said lies, even on these forums, and he even said that he doesn't care if he gets banned). I don't think that all atheists are dishonest, I've known some very honest ones in my lifetime. But it seems like some are and it's the few that ruin it for the rest. So when I say that some do "troll," I'm not being paranoid, I say so with good reason. If you are sincere in your inquiry, then I apologize if I insulted you. I've even gotten into a debate with one atheist on AIM (he's actually the one that started it) and after refuting everything he said, he eventually admit something to the extent of, "I don't care. I'm an atheist because I want to be, not because of science or the evidence." I think this is true of most atheists. They know their religion is nonsense and that their naturalistic philosophies (ie: UCD) are nonsense, but they try to disguise their naturalistic philosophies as science in order to justify their beliefs. The very fact that the secular community dishonestly censors anything that may threaten their naturalistic religion while funding their naturalistic philosophies with tax dollars suggests to me that there is a lot more dishonesty that goes on in the secular community and it makes it very difficult for me to trust anything they say.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/27/2008 12:04:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Just curious. Can you give an example of a strong non-strawman criticism of science which is currently being censored in public classrooms? It's not science that I have a problem with (after all, ID is more scientific than UCD. ID is falsifiable and UCD is not), it's the notion that UCD is science just because evolutionists label it so (which is what you're doing). Just because you label UCD (and other naturalistic philosophies) scientific does not make them so.

gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/27/2008 2:32:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Just curious. Can you give an example of a strong non-strawman criticism of science which is currently being censored in public classrooms? It's not science that I have a problem with Didn't say you did. But you spoke of "the strongest non - strawman criticisms" being censored. I am asking "what are these strong non-strawman criticisms?" Can you name some specifically?

ianz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/27/2008 6:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Accepting and being compatible with are two different things. Indeed but the acceptance is implicit: quote: "We're not against evolution per se, because evolution can mean change over time, or even common ancestry, which are not meanings of the term [evolution] that we dispute" 1 Evolution can mean common ancestry. 2 This is not a meaning we dispute 3 We're not against evolution theory per se. Sounds like acceptance to me! How can ID be compatible with a theory requiring one ancestor (evolution-lite) AND compatible with one requiring multiple common ancestors (YEC), not to mention the variance from 4.5 billion down to 6,000 years for the variations to occur? quote: ... ... I've had a naturalist on another forum cuss about my mother because he couldn't refute what I was saying, and many are completely intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them (despite the fact that the creationists, including myself, were totally respectful to them). It's a shame you were treated this way but it is by no means limited to atheists. It's the internet, people have a tendency to get carried away. quote: This was basically the norm among many many of them (which is why many creationists and ID advocates move here, where such things usually get regulated). I'm pretty sure that many on these forums really want to do the same (Despite the fact that what I was saying was true and what method was saying was false This would be a matter of opinion--you both disagreed. quote: , method, for example, dishonestly started calling me a liar and calling what I said lies Method called you a liar and now you call Method a liar - sounds even to me. quote: If you are sincere in your inquiry, then I apologize if I insulted you. Thanks. Regards, Ian

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (6/27/2008 10:41:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method See the quote above. It has a mixture of characteristics which makes it's intermediate status a fact, a fact that the theory of evolution predicted we should discover. Not really. No, really. This placoderm has a mixture of characteristics from jawless fish and cartilagenous fish. Placoderms sit right between these two groups in the accepted phylogeny. How is this not an example of an intermediate feature? If this eye is not intermediate then what would a real intermediate eye look like?

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/2/2008 11:48:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography at ANU, a scanning technique that creates a three-dimensional image of complex organic structures. �What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates,� Dr Young says. �This means that we�re able to add one more piece to the puzzle of how the human eye came to be.� http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm Another bit of evidence for the creationists to ignore. where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates.

ianz -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 1:11:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: Method The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography at ANU, a scanning technique that creates a three-dimensional image of complex organic structures. �What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates,� Dr Young says. �This means that we�re able to add one more piece to the puzzle of how the human eye came to be.� http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm Another bit of evidence for the creationists to ignore. where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates. That's a really stupid comment. You are in no position to judge. Regards, Ian

gluadys -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 1:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates. Here is a Christian answer http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/wiens2002.pdf

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 12:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method quote: Not really. No, really. This placoderm has a mixture of characteristics from jawless fish and cartilagenous fish. Placoderms sit right between these two groups in the accepted phylogeny. How is this not an example of an intermediate feature? If this eye is not intermediate then what would a real intermediate eye look like? I mean, evolution does not predict anything in terms of what we should discover (for reasons already given). Darwin was happy with a lack of intermediates. Then again, you seem smart enough to know what I meant. I guess you just needed something to post. I don't know why you do this. Do you really expect non - committed naturalists and non - committed evolutionists to take evolution seriously when many (if not most) evolutionists resort to these types of tactics? It doesn't help your cause (even if you get the last word, you won't persuade anyone using these types of tactics. You just exhaust those that refute you, but you won't persuade anyone. People know what I meant, they're not stupid, and just because you refuse to acknowledge what I meant does not mean that others won't know what I meant).

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 12:06:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ianz Indeed but the acceptance is implicit: Now you're just making things up. quote: 1 Evolution can mean common ancestry. 2 This is not a meaning we dispute 3 We're not against evolution theory per se. Sounds like acceptance to me! Again, being compatible with and accepting are two different things. quote: How can ID be compatible with a theory requiring one ancestor (evolution-lite) AND compatible with one requiring multiple common ancestors (YEC), not to mention the variance from 4.5 billion down to 6,000 years for the variations to occur? because ID says nothing about either. Again, being compatible with and accepting are not the same thing. For example, theism (and atheism) is compatible with the notion that the sun goes around the Earth but it's also compatible with the notion that the Earth goes around the Sun. It says nothing about what goes around what. ID says nothing about the age of the earth. Again, I don't see why you're having problems with such a simple concept.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 12:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: Method The placoderm fossils were analysed using computer X-ray tomography at ANU, a scanning technique that creates a three-dimensional image of complex organic structures. �What this research shows is that 400 million years ago there was already a complex eye, and one that was an intermediate form between jawless and jawed vertebrates,� Dr Young says. �This means that we�re able to add one more piece to the puzzle of how the human eye came to be.� http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080101193317.htm Another bit of evidence for the creationists to ignore. where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates. That's a really stupid comment. You are in no position to judge. Regards, Ian Thanks that really answered my question. My post may have been out of line, but yours was just pointless. So thanks again.

essentialsaltes -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 1:07:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates. That's a really stupid comment. You are in no position to judge. Regards, Ian Thanks that really answered my question. My post may have been out of line, but yours was just pointless. So thanks again. The answer to your original question is radiometric dating, or a geological method that ultimately relies on radiometric dating. As far as I know, none of the scientists involved in developing these techniques was a Satanist.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 1:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD where do these satanists, oops i meant scientists, come up with these dates. That's a really stupid comment. You are in no position to judge. Regards, Ian Thanks that really answered my question. My post may have been out of line, but yours was just pointless. So thanks again. The answer to your original question is radiometric dating, or a geological method that ultimately relies on radiometric dating. As far as I know, none of the scientists involved in developing these techniques was a Satanist. Thanks for a precise answer to my question, and yes the satanist comment was just a joke. Good to see everyone has a sense of humor. The question to me is still open, how do we know radiometric dating is accurate to the extent that we could positively say that something is 400 mil years old. Isn't that extreme in the least.

essentialsaltes -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 1:49:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD The question to me is still open, how do we know radiometric dating is accurate to the extent that we could positively say that something is 400 mil years old. Isn't that extreme in the least. There are several different methods of radiometric dating that use different isotopes. Those that are used for geologic dating give consistent results. In this way, they provide checks on each other. If the assumptions that go into radiometric dating were unjustified, then the dating methods should yield conflicting results. Instead, we get a coherent picture. Other methods of dating from astrophysics and geology also demonstrate a universe/earth that is billions of years old.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 3:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Not really. Punctuated equilibrium would be happy without such alleged intermediates, so evolution does not predict any such thing. PE states that intermediates between species do and have existed. PE proposes that such transitions are relatively rapid which makes fossil representatives rare, not non-existent. PE does not state that morphological intermediates are rare, and in fact they aren't rare. You really need to study up on the theory of evolution before you start criticizing it. It seems that you do not even understand what you are criticizing.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 3:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Darwin was content with a lack in intermediaries. He was content because he knew they would be found. And guess what? They are being found on an almost monthly basis.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:02:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD The question to me is still open, how do we know radiometric dating is accurate to the extent that we could positively say that something is 400 mil years old. Isn't that extreme in the least. Why is it extreme? That is just 10% of the actual age of the earth and about 3% of the age of the Universe. That isn't extreme at all. We also know that radiometric dating is accurate because it can be correlated to non-radiometric dating methods, it cross-correlates between different isotope pairs, and the assumptions upon which radiometric dating rests have been tested every which way. If the assumptions are wrong then nuclear power plants will either blow up or become inert at a drop of a hat. If the assumptions are good enough to build nuclear power plants near populations then why aren't they good enough to date things with?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method He was content because he knew they would be found. Now you're just making things up again. You know this is wrong, so why do you say it? To what avail? People aren't stupid, I quoted many quotes from Darwin showing this is not the case. Just because you choose to ignore that doesn't mean others will do the same. You know this is wrong, I showed you several times already, why do you say it?

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:31:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys How do hypotheses about why fossil remains of intermediate species are rare translate into being "content" with a lack of intermediates. Both Darwin and Gould welcomed every discovery of an intermediate. Neither would accept the idea that there were no intermediates. Only that they could be difficult to find in the fossil record. This difficulty was, if anything, a source of discontent, not contentment. You're missing the point. Neither of them predict that we should find intermediates and were perfectly content if we didn't find them. If there are intermediates, that's cool with them, but if there aren't, that's also cool with them. Darwin admit that there was a lack of intermediates and he was content with it (and he even said that it would be no problem for evolution if there continues to be a lack of intermediates). Evolution does not predict anything in this regard either, if this alleged intermediary weren't found, that's cool with evolution.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: Method He was content because he knew they would be found. Now you're just making things up again. You know this is wrong, so why do you say it? To what avail? People aren't stupid, I quoted many quotes from Darwin showing this is not the case. Then show me these quotes. Show me where Darwin stated that no transitional fossil would ever be found. Evidence or retract.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Then show me these quotes. Show me where Darwin stated that no transitional fossil would ever be found. Evidence or retract. (As you know) I never said that Darwin said that no transitional fossil would be found (that would be making a prediction, something evolution doesn't do), I said that he would be content if these intermediaries weren't found. Evolution doesn't predict intermediaries, it doesn't predict a lack of them, it predicts nothing.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:42:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize You're missing the point. Neither of them predict that we should find intermediates and were perfectly content if we didn't find them. Oh please. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.--SJ Gould http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html Are you done lying yet? Evolution predicts that there were intermediates. Whether or not they were fossilized in enough numbers for us to find them is a different question altogether, but evolution (which includes PE btw) does predict that they existed. Now they are being found on an almost monthly basis. There is no excuse for those who claim that there are no transitional fossils.

Method -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:44:22 PM)
quote: (As you know) I never said that Darwin said that no transitional fossil would be found (that would be making a prediction, something evolution doesn't do), I said that he would be content if these intermediaries weren't found. But no one was content, hence the effort that paleontologists put forth in finding them, and with success. They also use the theory of evolution to inform their searches, again with success. Your world must be a very scary place with scientists showing you to be wrong each and every day.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: New Transitional for Human Eye (7/3/2008 4:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method Evolution predicts that there were intermediates. Whether or not they were fossilized in enough numbers for us to find them is a different question altogether, but evolution (which includes PE btw) does predict that they existed. Now they are being found on an almost monthly basis. There is no excuse for those who claim that there are no transitional fossils. Evolution does not predict that they should be found and is perfectly content if they are not. The key word here is "were."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI