The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match! by Causal

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
and i understand that. but they use these same methods in geology, yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations. you take a single method, and apply it.. and whatever your results are, you disregard any unpredictable variables, and state your claims as fact

No, that's not true either. Extreme snowfall, for example, would show up as an extra-tall layer of ice, just as a big mudslide would show up as a tall layer of sediment. But if the ice were to melt away, or if several layers of sediment were to be washed away, the error would be to LOSE years not to add them, so the error in visible stratigraphy would be towards underestimating the age of an ice core, not overestimating the age.

You would have to start speculating that the earth had many summers and winters in one year, or that the orbit of the earth around the sun was once many times faster than it is today, in order to claim that the earth is significantly YOUNGER than indicated by ice cores.

So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
and im perfectly aware of this.. but ive seen the inconsistencies in carbon and radioactive dating methods, and i am inclined to believe that these types of marking and paintings could easily have been done by native, indigenous peoples from any period of time.

So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?

Quote:
So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?-Signy

anything acquired through speculative methods-Anti

What is a "speculative" method?

Quote:
your claim is that every single living organism began from nothing, and designed its own functions, thereby finding its own niche and particular function. this is your claim about the entire universe, all the order and complexity. how fortunate we are then that the earth settled where it did, by 'chance'.. or no life would be possible.

How do you know that? Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible. In deep rocks. In superheated, poison-laden undersea vents. In a hard vacuum, under intense solar radiation. (The space station has a significant mold problem.) In jet fuel. I'm not so sure that "life" is as limited or a fragile as you think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 12:02 PM

Quote:
Signym-
So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.

unless some other piece of data contradicts this. whats important is why 200,000 yrs? if that is all the strata our ice cores are capable of retaining(identifiably), then its possible we're quite a bit older yes... but we need to know that to be true first. otherwise i can argue that we may be no older based on that same data

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 1:25 PM

Quote:
Signym-

So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?

mostly historical and archeological evidence. i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily.

on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account, and try to take into account generations even prior to the BC era, the Adamic generations(ie 'Atlantis'). i believe these kinds of legends just lend credence to my (albeit misinterpreted)'historical' timeline of human history

Quote:
What is a "speculative" method?

carbon 14 is a good example. something not consistently verified, or not able to account for all variables(my method falls under that as well- but i admit this)

Quote:
Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible.

i would'nt argue otherwise.. but i think our view of 'life' might differ. IMO life doesn't create itself, it exists because it was created

Quote:
I'm not so sure that "life" is as limited or a fragile as you think.

i don't happen to think it is, and that isn't my problem. i'm just curious how life originates(under your view), and where it derives the foresight to assume its role and function in the universe

heres an interesting link on the Flood stories
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/flood.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 1:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.-Signy

unless some other piece of data contradicts this. whats important is why 200,000 yrs? if that is all the strata our ice cores are capable of retaining(identifiably), then its possible we're quite a bit older yes... but we need to know that to be true first. otherwise i can argue that we may be no older based on that same data

Hence the term "at least". The earth MAY be older but that has not yet been demonstrated. So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, the earth is at least 200,000 years old?

Quote:
So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?-Signy

mostly historical and archeological evidence-Anti.

SUCH AS? Archeological evidence by itself doesn't have a "date" attached to it. So how are archeological finds dated? Also, what kind of "historical" evidence?

Quote:
Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible-signy

i would'nt argue otherwise.. but i think our view of 'life' might differ. IMO life doesn't create itself, it exists because it was created-anti

Anti, you missed the point. YOU'RE the one who said that conditions would need to fall into a very very narrow range in order for "life" to come about. I countered by saying that "life" is more durable than we previously thought, and is capable of thriving in a much lagre ste of conditions that you might think. I gave specific examples, not of where life might exist but where life actually does exist. Little shrimp at volcanic vents. Bacteria in solid rock. Archaebacteria requiring poisons like cyanide and hydrogen sulfide as food. What does my "view" of life have to do with the point under discussion?

Quote:
i'm just curious how life originates(under your view),

that's one question

Quote:
and where it derives the foresight to assume its role and function in the universe

What "role" does "life" have? Can you describe it?

------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Signym-

So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?

did you read my previous comments? you seem to want to sidetrack me from the design aspect, when i conceded before that the bible doesn't even specify the earths age(therefore, it is not relevant to my hypothesis). my point is that a Creator chose earth for us, a planet perfectly suitable for life, along side a solar system of other planets incapable of supporting us otherwise. is that something you would ever consider? if our being here isnt chance or randomness, what would you call it(odds.. surely not 'luck')?

Quote:
So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?

you're putting words in my mouth, i didn't once state my 'speculation' as fact. the Sumerians date to 4000bc, thats 6 thousand years.. i 'estimate' a few additional thousand years after that. the masonic calendar begins at 4000bc, that might be significant.. but notice this is just historical insight. why do you correlate the age of the earth with the age of man? it's not 'impossible' that we were a recent creation...the bible even says that we came along on the final 'day'

Quote:
SUCH AS? Archeological evidence by itself doesn't have a "date" attached to it. So how are archeological finds dated? Also, what kind of "historical" evidence?

thats the realm of historians, don't you agree? if you want to dispute the accuracy of history, lets start a new thread. like i said, carbon dating may be accurate, but only to a point... and so we agree, and am encouraged to see your skepticism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, you missed the point. YOU'RE the one who said that conditions would need to fall into a very very narrow range in order for "life" to come about. I countered by saying that "life" is more durable than we previously thought, and is capable of thriving in a much lagre ste of conditions that you might think. I gave specific examples, not of where life might exist but where life actually does exist. Little shrimp at volcanic vents. Bacteria in solid rock. Archaebacteria requiring poisons like cyanide and hydrogen sulfide as food. What does my "view" of life have to do with the point under discussion?

what elements are a human being made of? explain to me how they 'intelligently' took on their unique functions? the entire universe is this way.. you seem to believe that protons or amoebas or microbes or whatever always existed. if thats what you believe, state that.. because that is actually pantheistic to assume the universe is self existing

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 4, 2007 8:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, you pulled 10,000 years out of thin air?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 2:45 AM

Hi Folks;
I promptly left for an all day hike after my last post, so missed the above discussions in 'real time'.
I'd like to say some very interesting discussions; and while I do feel a certain 'tension' in the air (which is understandable as this is a very contentious topic); the discussion has been fairly civil. I'm very glad to see that, and I'll ask folks to try to continue down this path.
I'm working up a reply, should be along in a bit.

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you pulled 10,000 years out of thin air?

I believe he pulled 10,000 years out of analysis of the Bible and other historical data. There's not a lot of 'directly readable' material that is older than 10,000. I believe Anti's point is that his Creationist perspective is -satisfied- by an age of earth of 10,000 years; and thus if you wish to support any age older than that, it becomes your responsibility to support. On the other hand, if you wished to argue the world was only 1,000 years old (and I can see why some people would argue this (I think they'd be wrong; but that's a different matter)), then he'd counter that the world is at least 4,000 years old (or perhaps 6,000; whatever the bare minimum number is to support his position) This is a legitimate position to take from a philosophic discussion perspective.

Anyone:
Off hand anyone know what the oldest written language (and I'd be content with hieroglyphics) is? (Context: mainstream scientific position.)
Edit: 10:33 ET; I subsquently found that oldest is likely dating 5,450 years back. Not sure that helps the discussion much.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 3:36 AM

Hi Folks;
Having missed the 'real time' discussion above due to a hike to the top of Hunter Mountain in the Catskills (beautiful view from the fire tower at the top; but I'm digressing ;-) ).... I'm not going to attempt to comment on every element of interest to me in the above; too much material; but I am going to hit a few points here and again...

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Saturday, August 04, 2007 09:29
Quote:
LeadB
Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.(...)

its not that i 'ignore' them.. i just dont pretend i know the absolute truth about everything. why do we even discuss this subject, if your side cannot possibly be wrong?

I don't pretend to know absolute truth either, if that helps.
I'm not clear on if you are stating that I think my side cannot possibly be wrong (a), or if you are using a common english contruction to state you feel your own side cannot possibly be wrong (b).
In the case of (a), I wouldn't say my side cannot possibly be wrong; but if it is, in the interest of my understanding of the natural world (which I too believe was created), I'd like to see where my understanding is flawed, and correct the flaw.
In the case of (b), that's up to you to find the reason; however, it would be helpful in the future if you don't wish to discuss it to so state. Possible reasons you might wish to discuss:
1) You tend to make claims in ongoing discussions where you seem to wish to advocate positions which others dispute; if you do not discuss these sorts of things, it may weaken your position. For me, I feel I see items you present which, if logically followed back to their source, would end up countering some basic science.
2) You may help other folks in their own internal balance of 'faith' and 'science'
or whatever motivates you. In any event, I see a fair bit of 'good faith' discussion above, so I will presume you have found your reasons to discuss it; and I've already stated mine.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason Friday, August 03, 2007 - 21:53:
Quote:
LeadB
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct

or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.

Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective

Well, I'm going to assume by your use of the word 'science' above, you mean 'basic science', and I will assume further that you do not consider 'evolution' (a scientific theory) to be part of 'basic science'.
First, let's be clear; I don't know of any main stream scientist advocating evolution as needing to take trillions of years; any who did would be promptly dismissed by the general scientific community (and myself personally) unless said scientist -also- came along with a legitimate theory placing the age of the universe above 13 billion years. I believe it is communities outside of the scientific community who content 'it would take trillions of years for this to happen.' Thus the scientific theory of evolution as presented by 'main stream scientists' will always be some amount of time less than 13 billion years.
I understand neither can be produced in the lab at this time, and certainly will likely not be in our lifetimes and perhaps not even in our grand children's lifetimes (and possibly never).
I agree this must provide considerable lattitude in the fitting of facts to hypothesis. Having said this, at times, positions you have taken, which if followed to their logical conclusion, counter indicate scientific principles as I understand them. This isn't necessarily a 'win or lose' proposition for either side; it may be that where this is the case, Creationism is still 'ok' with the science and it could simply have been a case you presented an unnecessarily bounded position; or it could even turn out I had a flawed 'link' in the chain of scientific understand that caused me to think this.

I'm going to heavily cut this next post down to a few key points, then comment:

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason Saturday, August 04, 2007 09:22:
Quote:
LeadB-
first, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago

im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old... im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is. (...)
Quote:
is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.

personally, the indeterminate age of the universe is less important to me than whether there was a natural or supernatural cause to everything(or not). i am willing to concede that the bible doesn't give an age to creation (except that man was created on the final day). my dispute is that people begin with an a priori assumption, that the causes are strictly material and chaotic, and from there deduce that an incomprehendable amount of time and chance was necessary for the universe to form(then conform the data to fit the hypothesis).(...)
Quote:
The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things.
(...)

the crux of my argument centers around design. i am not a scientist, or an expert in the fields of cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics like many of you are apparently.. so i am not the best person to argue the ID side. but its also not an easy task, given that no one will concede that you have fixed the debate to include only what fits within your naturalist paradigm. i will certainly try to lay out our side(as best i can), but only if we can agree to start from a clean slate. otherwise, you all can safely settle back into your comfort zones where no one questions the naturalistic theories of our origins

I can see where we (and in this case, I mean personally you and I) fall into conflict is -not- whether the universe was designed and created, but at what point; and what the implications of that are. We agree that the universe is 'designed'. I maintain that the design point is prior to, let's call it, the 'big bang'; and that the Creator permitted the universe to 'roll out' from that design to become his intended creation; whereas your presentation requires at least an 'on going' active hand to modify that creation as it 'rolls out', or that the universe was create 'in situ' which tends to set up certain problems / challenges in our understanding of the natural world (science) that was created (Creationism).

Yeh, and I will concede that while I have a strong 'science background', and good intuition about how the scientific explanation of how the natural world works, I am -not- an expert either, so I appreciate that this is not a trivial undertaking for either of us.

'agree to start from a clean slate.' Clean slates are tough; because they require a huge amount of work to simply establish basic discussion; however, if you are willing, I'd be willing. My only regret is that the way the FF board works, it will be hard to have a strongly moderated discussion; if you wish to undertake this approach I'd recommend the following.
1) We open a forum to discuss the 'ground rules' for the discussions. For example, if we wish to establish any broad assumptions. Only -after- we settle the ground rules, would we attempt to hit the many points above.
2) Once we settle ground rules, we will probably want to open a second thread; where the ground rules are stated at the beginning, and we respectfully request that all contributers to the thread respect the rules or post elsewhere. We will need a gentleman's agreement to disregard posts which are being posted in a manner where it is clear that whoever is posting is willfully ignoring the ground rules.
3) I'd recommend we try to stick to a single point at a time; if there's a concurrence that a point needs to be tabled until a subpoint is resolved; that we attempt to do so (this might be a better thing to include in the groundrule section; so feel free to consider this just a suggestion for 'ground rule' discussion of the first thread)
... and I probably better stop here, or I will wander into pre-establishing ground rules, which is not my intent.

What think you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.

I've been thinking about this lately. One of the complaints that comes out of the Creation\ID camp occasionally and from anti in this thread, is the idea that science treats creationism unfairly. In the interest of fairness we should pile on to anti everything we have. Why? because that's what scientists do, when a theory is proposed they don't try to be nice to the proposer and make sure his feeling aren't hurt, they mercilessly point out every flaw and explain how and why the idea is wrong. To do otherwise would be to treat anti unfairly.

Hmmm... I see your point; but there's a few realities here.
First, Anti has (or will if you read ahead) concede this is not an area of expertise for him; as a consequence, at the very least, countering various arguments may require substantive research or other effort on Anti's part, and at some point, he's going to he's simply going to say 'uncle'; so while I would not discourage full exploration of the topic; keep in mind that if you dump 20 things on him at once, there's just no way he's going to be able to keep up; and should he miss a point in the 'deluge', you will need to keep in mind, he's only human. So... at least be respectful of this fact and try to keep the 'points on the table' to a managable number.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTI

Quote:
So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?-Signy

did you read my previous comments? you seem to want to sidetrack me from the design aspect, when i conceded before that the bible doesn't even specify the earths age(therefore, it is not relevant to my hypothesis).

The reason why I keep asking about this is because people (myself included, no fingerpointing here) have been tossing out discussion points like confetti. I'm trying to tackle these points in a systematic manner. AFAIK there is only one way to take points OFF the discussion table: either you agree to agree on a point, or you agree to disagree. Can we agree to agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old and then move on to something else so we can weed-whack the discussion down to its central issues? Yes or no?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:29 AM

< original content of this post deleted; replaced with the following:>
After reading Sig's post just above (which was posted while I was composing), I've decided I'm just adding fuel to the fire; and retract this post for the time being.

< Edited to clarify that material of original post that was in this spot was removed; leaving only a statement of retraction. >

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Leadb- No need to retract. Your point is correct. We can't get thru a discussion by peppering Anti from all sides.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 5, 2007 6:38 AM

Sig; :-) Glad you concur; but >that< wasn't the post I was retracting. I've deleted the post in question; it will for the moment suffice that you didn't see what I retracted ;-)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 5:49 AM

As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"

Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?

I fleetingly got this insane desire to try and fill that gap, to find references for some of the many independent lines of research that support the age of earth and the evolution of life, but I don't have time to be a teacher to a closed mind. Maybe, someday...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?

That is exactly what many creationists give the impression of believing, check out the feedback page at talkorigins and you will see dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!". The problem is quite simple, many people like anti get all their information from creationist sources, the creationist sources use arguments that sound good and cast scientists in a bad light as they should be obvious and damning. The problem is that the arguments are wrong so it looks like scientists are stupidly ignoring the Second Law, probability, evidence for a young earth etc when they aren't, the arguments are actually incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I'm kinda waiting for Anti's response to concept that the earth that might be at least 200,000 years old. I know it sounds annoyingly perservative (Ever deal with a kid who repeats the same thing over, and over, and over, and...? That's perservative behavior.

) but it's the only way I know who to get thru this thicket of topics: one by one.

Anti: After we get this topic off the table, how about if you suggest ONE topic, we hash it out, and then I suggest ONE topic, and we hash it out?

My next topic would be one that has already been introduced: How are archaeological finds dated?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution.

alright.. what about primates? what were they prior to their current form?

I don't know and as I fail to see the importance I will decline to do the research for you. If you actually want to know you can ask the talk.origins newsgroup, someone there probably knows. Note that the talk.origins newsgroup and the talkorigins website are related but separate, the website is completely pro-evolution but the newsgroup is neutral ground where both sides post.

Quote:
you have a variety of human skeletons, and ape skeletons, that you artificially try to link.. but what about the rest?

We know that evolution happens, not even you can deny that (though you deny the extent of it), we have a set of fossils that, when placed in chronological order, show a clear progression from an ape-like form to modern humans. What is the more reasonable conclusion, that the fossils show an evolutionary progression or that a designer sequentially created a species, killed them off, replaced them with another slightly more developed fully formed species, kill them off, repeat ad infinitum?

Quote:
you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago?

Refined, not replaced, the three underlying ideas of Evolution, Natural Selection and Common Descent have not been significantly challenged, but the explanations of how they work have been advanced greatly from Darwins time.

Quote:
.. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word

Almost certainly not. But evolution, while it almost certainly will be refined, is absurdly unlikely to be overturned at this point.

Quote:
you cannot point to one species right now which is in the process of changing its archetype

You are right I can't, partially because of issues with archetypes, and partially because we shouldn't expect to see that.

First you would have to give a usable definition of "archetype" which you most likely can't do, by usable I mean a definition whereby I can tell clearly where the delineation is instead of having to continuously come back and ask "are these different archetypes?". Without a clear, usable definition of "archetype" it is entirely subjective and you will simply always say "that's not an archetype shift" regardless of the amount of change involved. That being said from your stated examples of "archetype" a new problem emerges.

Your stated examples are so broad that we will not see shifts happening outside of the examples in the fossil record (which you refuse to consider) for millions of years, evolution does not work on demand it must be coaxed along slowly or left to it's own devices. Also there's a problem with the idea of an "archetype" shift in the first place.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief of Gradualism which was the idea that evolution proceeds at a steady pace all the time, this is simply not true. As Gradualism didn't fit with the evidence it was abandoned in favor of Punctuated Equilibrium (henceforth, Punk Eek), Punk Eek shows evolution progressing quickly for short periods and then slowing to a near stop when the species in question has reached equilibrium with it's environment. So what we expect to see is most species not changing much, the only species we expect to see undergoing significant changes are ones that have changing environments or that received novel mutations that break the equilibirum. If we took desert foxes and dropped them in the arctic we could expect to see rapid evolution (provided they lived long enough), but as long as they are in the desert they have little evolutionary pressure and thus are not expected to undergo significant changes. However even if a species was undergoing the enormous shift you want to see, we likely wouldn't see it until afterwards.

You probably want to see something like cats turning into dogs, I've covered this before in a previous post but I'll do so again, albeit with less detail. Cats (referring to the group known as Felidae, not housecats), and dogs (referring to Canidae, not just domesticated dogs) have very different methods of survival therefore a dog population that moves more towards cat-like structure (a body more adapted for solitary ambush hunting then endurance pack hunting) would be outcompeted as dogs by other dogs and as cats by cats, therefore this hypothetical dog population would fail and die off. We do not see nor should we expect to see populations shifting between established forms as they would not only run across the adaptation problem above but would also have to get roughly the same set of mutations to end up at the same place. Instead what we would expect to see if evolutionary pressure was great enough would be the development of new "archetypes". This however would not only take an enormous amount of time, but would also appear for most of that time to be nothing more than evolution inside the "archetype", if it became clear that a new "archetype" was forming it would only be in the later stages.

Quote:
Quote:
Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between

my view is distorted?

Your view of evolution is unquestionably distorted as you frequently make claims about evolution that are simply not true. I don't really know how else to characterize that. If I claimed that Christians went to church to engage in sodomy and self-flagellation you could (and should) claim that I held a distorted view of Christianity.

Quote:
if you couldnt rely on speculative amounts of time

There are multiple independent lines of evidence pointing to an ancient Earth and multiple different methods of radiometric dating that all agree on 4.55 Billion years as the actual age, it's hardly speculative that the Earth is ancient.

Quote:
you would have no observable evidence to support your claims.

Not true, even if the evidence for an ancient earth was weak or non-existant it would matter little to evolution. Evolution can move very quickly when given the proper stimulus, there was a study done (I don't have any links handy) that showed that all the evolution we've been through in the last few billion years could conceivably be squeezed into a couple hundred thousand years. If the young earth arguments were correct and the evidence pointed to an earth only 7000 or so years old that would certainly be a problem for common descent but not natural selection or evolution. It's a moot point though as none of the arguments for a 7000 year old planet succeed.

Quote:
you are simply interjecting your hypothesis as fact

Not mine, the theory (not hypothesis as it's been tested extensively and shown to be correct repeatedly) of people whose job is to understand the way things work. The theory of people who are quite likely much smarter then you or me. These people would be hailed as equal to Darwin himself if they could disprove evolution, but who have never found a way to successfully do so.

Quote:
.. nevermind that we have yet to witness any of these changes personally

We have seen speciation and have unambiguous evidence of Common Descent observed in the modern day (in living memory even).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I'm kinda waiting for Anti's response to concept that the earth that might be at least 200,000 years old.

Debating with Anti is oddly like arguing with my mom. If I manage to wade through the emotional reaction enough to address the actual issue, she runs away. And then there's this unwritten law that if enough time expires, the issue must never be brought up again...

OMG... do you think Antimason is really my mom??

Quote:
My next topic would be one that has already been introduced: How are archaeological finds dated?

This is a fabulous topic. Of course, my approach would be to dig into the science behind C-14 dating. I would also look for corroboration - actual examples where independent evidence agrees with C-14 dates. A case study even.

Fred: ...dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!"

And then you ask if they've ever actually *studied* thermodynamics, and I bet they disappear from the thread. Or claim that they don't need to study. They just know... intuitively... it comes to them on a ray of light...

No wonder ID-ers think science is a belief system, that's how they treat it LOL!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily.

Actually no you don't, surprisingly enough scientists are aware that the rates of carbon-14 generation vary and take that into account.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
And while there is certainly margin of error in carbon-dating (we can't expect to know what day a 40 thousand year-old tree died via carbon dating but we can tell what century it dies) it works quite well out to far beyond what YEC's will accept regarding the age of the earth.

Quote:
on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account

Which one is accurate?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Theres a couple hundred (guesstimating) wildly different stories, they can't all be accurate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Fred: ...dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!"

And then you ask if they've ever actually *studied* thermodynamics, and I bet they disappear from the thread.

That appears to be the typical response, I don't actually participate in the talk.origins newsgroup but as I understand it they get a fairly continual influx of creationists who post a great deal of long-debunked arguments, get chewed out for it and are never heard from again.

Quote:
Or claim that they don't need to study. They just know... intuitively... it comes to them on a ray of light...

No, from what I understand they never try to defend their position (it's truly indefensible and all but the most fanatical and deluded wouldn't try). What I hope they do when that happens is they actually investigate, find out that the creationist sources they use almost never have the slightest idea what they're talking about and abandon those sources. More likely what they do is retreat to creationist forums where they can ignore reality to their hearts content.

Quote:
No wonder ID-ers think science is a belief system, that's how they treat it LOL!

Indeed, this can be seen in many different ways, they frequently imply or outright state that scientists are hiding information that contradicts evolution. A religion would hide information that went against it's teachings, scientists gain fame by replacing old theories with new ones so if there was scientific evidence that went against evolution it would be trumpeted by it's finders not hidden away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 9:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Debating with Anti is oddly like arguing with my mom. If I manage to wade through the emotional reaction enough to address the actual issue, she runs away. And then there's this unwritten law that if enough time expires, the issue must never be brought up again...

OMG... do you think Antimason is really my mom??

OMG Mal4Prez- Do you think YOUR mom is MY mom?????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
More likely what they do is retreat to creationist forums where they can ignore reality to their hearts content.

Oh - does Fox news have creationist forums?

Quote:
A religion would hide information that went against it's teachings, scientists gain fame by replacing old theories with new ones so if there was scientific evidence that went against evolution it would be trumpeted by it's finders not hidden away.

Yeah, this kills me. Creationists don't understand that every scientist would love to be able to strike down something as huge as evolution. Anyone who could do that would have all the fame and fortune they could possibly want. Folks have been working ferverishly for decades, and yet the theory only looks stronger all the time.

Scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. Like this: http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm
The guy who first suggested plate tectonics was resisted, mocked, shunned. But evidence kept turning up to support him. That's how science works Anti - we fight each other up one side and down the other until the evidence is too overwhelming to be denied. And then the one proven wrong sits around gossiping about the other person's bad smell or something.

BTW, great link Fred. I just got through:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1

It covers C14 dating, references and all. Good stuff!

signym - LOL! It's like there's a universal mom-logic!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
BTW, great link Fred...It covers C14 dating, references and all. Good stuff!

Yeah, talkorigins is great, they cover nearly everything that the creationists throw out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 11:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. Like this: http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm
The guy who first suggested plate tectonics was resisted, mocked, shunned. But evidence kept turning up to support him. That's how science works

Yeh, and that's the reason I tend to have a fairly high confidence level in main stream science; there's -always- someone ready to rip the guy down off the top of the hill.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 11:22 AM

I am loving this website Fred! (And getting no work done today LOL!) That guy Gish seems to use a similar approach as some in RWED...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"

huh ?

Quote:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists?

i would ask you the same question? at least i admit that i dont know the truth.. apparently you are the omniscient one(although, you dont posses the truth yourself, you rely on indoctrinated 'scientists'). if i were omniscent, i would know whether God exists or not.. but then id be God, because i would know everything everywhere, and God would then exist

Quote:
Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?

yes

Quote:
I fleetingly got this insane desire to try and fill that gap, to find references for some of the many independent lines of research that support the age of earth and the evolution of life, but I don't have time to be a teacher to a closed mind. Maybe, someday...

sure, the sources on evolution are innumerable.. and hypothetical and theoretical, and unsubstantiated. it takes a lot of gall, and more then a little ego, to state that you know we were once 'a fish'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 6, 2007 8:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, Anti... Now that Sunday is over, can we agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, and possibly older, as evidenced by the visible annual layers found in ice cores? It's not a terribly important point, but I would like to get thru it so we can move on to other things.

I suggest that you ask me the next question, and I will do my best to answer it w/o introducing irrelevant topics, until we reach a conclusion.

The I will ask the next question, and so on, and if we cant' come to resolution maybe we can at least come to some sort of delineation on where we agree, where we disagree, and what we each think the vital questions are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"
huh ?

Translation: Science is a language. It takes years to learn the "basic grammar" of math and chemistry and physics, and to build on to the more complex theories from there. If you are interested in contending the theories of science, you need to learn the language.

You've said that you are not a scientist, but then you smugly deny the accuracy of ice core and radioactive dating methods, and refuse to engage in conversation which would "teach you the language." The arguments you bring up against these methods show that you clearly don't understand the principles behind them, and when we try to explain you disappear or ignore the posts.

Example: discussing ice cores, you said: "yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations" If you had done any research into this method, you would know that scientists DO facter these things in. Signym explained that, though - go figure - you never acknowledged his post.

Example #2: "i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily."

*sigh* Yes, the method takes the variation into account. Necessarily. Also, carbon 14 dating has been verified countless times. Please, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1 and compare the factual, observation based arguments they offer to your statements, which go as:

"on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account, and try to take into account generations even prior to the BC era, the Adamic generations(ie 'Atlantis'). i believe these kinds of legends just lend credence to my (albeit misinterpreted)'historical' timeline of human history "

Why do you believe this? What actual proof is there? As in - proof written in the structure of nature?

One more example: "you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago? well.. society sure fooled me .. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word"

How many times do we have to explain that science is a gradual process? Of course he wasn't completely 100% right. Of course the theory isn't complete yet. In fact, the theory has been fought by scientists, and was only accepted after many many many observations of nature showed that evolution is overwhelmingly the best explanation.

Quote:
Quote:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists?

i would ask you the same question? at least i admit that i dont know the truth..

ROTFLMAO!! You do? Whoa - I missed that. What I see is you dismissing all kinds of scientific research out of hand, without offering one shred of evidence as to why, other then you *believe* it to be so.

BTW, I started looking at the science behind creationism almost 20 years ago. I took the time to learn about scientific methods - to speak the language and understand the arguments - before I made up my mind. And I still listen to the arguments of ID looking for something solid. I've yet to see anything.

Quote:
apparently you are the omniscient one(although, you dont posses the truth yourself, you rely on indoctrinated 'scientists').

No, I don't. I went to college. I studied. I questioned. I learned.

And that "indoctrinared" truth is all stated for you to argue with as well. You can go learn the language and fight it all you want. But you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."

Quote:
if i were omniscent, i would know whether God exists or not..

Um... it's pretty clear that you do know about that. Or have all your posts quoting the Bible as more factual than any observations of nature been an accident?

Quote:
Quote:
Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
yes

Yeah. See the examples I quoted above for proof that you didn't try real hard.

Quote:
sure, the sources on evolution are innumerable.. and hypothetical and theoretical, and unsubstantiated. it takes a lot of gall, and more then a little ego, to state that you know we were once 'a fish'

*sigh* again. It IS substantiated. Quite strongly.

Does it hurt your pride to think you had something fishy as an ancestor? Are you so dependent on being superior to every other being?

And... are you going to answer signym?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 8:05 AM

Quote:
Mal4prez-
you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."

and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Anti... Now that Sunday is over, can we agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, and possibly older, as evidenced by the visible annual layers found in ice cores? It's not a terribly important point, but I would like to get thru it so we can move on to other things.

sure.. it may be. im not going to state that as a fact, but its probable

Quote:
I suggest that you ask me the next question, and I will do my best to answer it w/o introducing irrelevant topics, until we reach a conclusion.

we can engage later.. ive got to get back to work

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so where are all these missing links

They're being found all the time.

Quote:
(and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)?

All these years? Do you mean since the beginning of recorded history or something much farther back? If you mean recorded history because there hasn't been enough time for a massive change to occur, if you mean for the the last hundred million or so they haven't, there's probably a dozen or more species in the human progression alone that are no longer around and if you researched the evolution of the other primate species you'd probably find dozens more extinct species.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Mal4prez-
you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."
and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis

This is not providing proof, antimason. This is changing the subject by making an ill-conceived attack. Note that you haven't followed up on the matter of the ice cores and the C14 dating. Did you bother to consider my rebuttals? Are you going to bring up these arguments again at some point in the future without ever finishing the discussion here? That gets the debate nowhere!

Re the primates: you are again making a basic mistake. Evolution does not say that we are descended from primates. Primates and humans are decended from a common ancestor which was neither primate nor human. Today's primates didn't exist millions of years ago.

As for the evidence - there is a reason why it takes ~10 years of schooling to make a scientist. It truly is a different language that has to be learned, from the alphabet up. I can't possibly present it all here, especially when you seem so unwilling to learn. But the evidence supporting evolution includes the following:

the fossil record: I'll post an example in a separate post. It's ugly, but you asked for it!

spatial distribution of fossils/plate tectonics I'm sure you've heard the story behind this... I'll get into it if you want. I have figures.

Evidence in DNA This is a cool new field of research, but so complicated and over my head that I'll just give you this: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML

homologies: meaning similarities between currently living species. This is from a large scale - bone structure - down to the structure of a single cell. The degree of similarity agrees with what is seen in the fossil record; the longer in the past two types of creatures split, the less they have in common.

I stress: the tree structure that links different families through time (simple example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_03) is also seen in spatial distribution of fossils and in DNA studies. This is what I mean by several different independent lines of investigation confirming each other.

This list is not detailed and not complete, but it's more observation based than anything you've ever presented, antimason. And if you question me about any part of it, I can provide more details. Unlike you, I am able respond to rebuttals with facts, not short denials and subject changes.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:41 AM

And here is an example from the fossil record.

FYI - evolution does not deal with the first emergence of life. That is something evolution cannot explain - note *again* that science is very clear about not being able to explain everything, because we cannot observe everything. Hopefully, in time, we'll have more observations and more complete theories.

In any case, evolution, by definition, deals with the path of life from the earliest observable forms through what we have today. And note - it is NOT a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not. The environment of our world has directed the process. The climate gets colder, furry creatures survive. The sun gets hotter, dark skinned primates survive. That is very clear, non random direction.

OK, so I cannot possibly list the entire fossil record. What I will do is copy one step, taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html It is the best documented transition between vertebrate classes: reptiles to mammals.

I've left off the descriptions of the fossils and the gradual changes they underwent as they evolved from reptiles to mammals. I don't expect any of us would understand it all anyway, not without a big ass dictionary of paleontology on hand. But Kermack (1984), Kemp (1982), and Szalay (1993) go into more detail, including where the fossils were found and descriptions of changes in the body structures.

I assume that you know same basic terminology - like the difference between "species" and "family." (if not, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) "Ma" means million years ago. A table of the ages (Pennsylvanian, Permian, etc) are shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale

Antimason: I stress - if you want to discuss and dismiss the findings of science, the onus is on you to make an effort to learn the language. (ie If you want to tell an Italian what prego means, best read an Italian dictionary first...) So before you dismiss this, get those books, check the sources, and look at the fossils. Find something solid to actually argue about.

Transition from reptiles to mammals

So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning.

* Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian)
* Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian)
* Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian)
* Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian)
* Varanops (early Permian)
* Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian)
* Biarmosuchia (late Permian)
* Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -
* Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian)
* Thrinaxodon (early Triassic)
* Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier)
* Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus)
* Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America)
* Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina)
* Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America)

GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals.

* Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
* Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma)
* Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas)
* Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
* Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma)
* Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma)
* Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma)
* Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
* Kielantherium and Aegialodon (early Cretaceous)
* Steropodon galmani (early Cretaceous)
* Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma)
* Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma)
* Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia)
* Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops (very late Cretaceous)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

They're being found all the time. there's probably a dozen or more species in the human progression alone that are no longer around and if you researched the evolution of the other primate species you'd probably find dozens more extinct species.

this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype). within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see. the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"(

) or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc. i dont dispute that kind of variation.. but how do you explain how each 'kind' established its 'archetype'? it appears to me that this happened by design, otherwise there are a lot of assumptions you have to make(in those unknown years)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype). within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see. the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"() or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc.

Just curious, you have a list...
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:59 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis

Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied? The "missing link" claim is nice hook to hang your creationist hat on because there will always be missing links.

What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not. Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?

Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance. I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype).

More or less, they're all pretty closely related.

Quote:
within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see.

Evidence? You are claiming that all the DNA needed for every species is contained in each species, this is pretty out there and I'm pretty sure impossible, particularly when you consider that many species have very small genomes.

Quote:
the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"() or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc. i dont dispute that kind of variation.. but how do you explain how each 'kind' established its 'archetype'?

Common ancestor, each group that you would refer to as a "kind" came from a relatively small population that speciated off of a parent group, the new group would develop it's own adaptations and then begin speciating off more groups that retain most of those traits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 8, 2007 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied?

An infinite amount, as long as there is not a perfectly smooth continuum from the first self-replicator to modern man they will continue to complain about "missing links"

Quote:
What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not. Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?

Last time I asked him this he kept insisting that I needed to prove that there was no such barrier, then when after a couple repetitions of me telling him that it's his to prove and not mine he stopped responding.

Quote:
Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance.

I can answer that, the answer is both. Ignorance from not investigating the information they are given from their creationist sources (after all why would a Christian lie?), and deliberate distortions from said creationist sources.

Quote:
I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.

Head over to talkorigins and all doubt will be removed. Particularly the quote mine project: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
You could argue that much of the mistakes made by the creationist leaders are born out of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and an inability to admit error, but in the quote mine project there is many things that must have been knowingly taken out of context to mislead. The only possible way to think those people meant what the creationists say they meant is if you somehow only read that single sentence out of the entire page.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
LeadB-
Just curious, you have a list...
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?

i dont believe so.. but this is where i differ from these other guys. its my opinion that the variety of 'races' make up the human 'archetypical' range, different tones or features etc.. but still 'man'. i do not believe we were ever part of the primate family, which is IMO a completely separate species. for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied?

im not sure thats as proven as you believe. how do we know that our alleged missing links werent just highly 'speciated' primates or abnormal human beings? aside from that, what about the missing links between primates and their predecessors?

Quote:
The "missing link" claim is nice hook to hang your creationist hat on because there will always be missing links.

thats because we dont know how (for example)primates acquired or 'evolved' their distinct archetypical characteristics. they clearly share a distinct design.. but the people on your side always assume strictly natural causes, because the alternative(ID) is out of the question. i see how you attempt to link us with them due to our similar bipedal stature.. but then you have to wonder what primates were before their current form; you have to wonder that about every species! to me, they clearly fit into their 'kinds'

Quote:
What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not.

are their differences between cats and dogs? or did they share a common ancestor? the extinction of dinosaurs allowed for the dominance of mammals, right.. so what preceded the bear, or the gazelle, or the lion? the cat species share all the same characteristics that they always have, as do primates as do most reptiles. this is something the fossil record actually does confirm

Quote:
Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?

show me what the cat species was before they were cats? the burden of proof is in fact on you

Quote:
Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance.

look.. you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont. i take the data, and i see intelligence and purpose.. you relegate everything to a natural order(which exhibits intelligence). its as simple as that.. and im not ignorant because i choose otherwise

Quote:
I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.

what is the difference between Earth and Venus(or Pluto or Mars)? we either exist here, by design, or by mathematical chance

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

An infinite amount, as long as there is not a perfectly smooth continuum from the first self-replicator to modern man they will continue to complain about "missing links"

thats ridiculous.. so one day, an ape was born hairless and upright, with newfound mental abilities? maybe this only happened over a few generations.. but what caused it? this view becomes more absurd the more you try to rationalize it

Quote:
i can answer that, the answer is both. Ignorance from not investigating the information they are given from their creationist sources (after all why would a Christian lie?), and deliberate distortions from said creationist sources.

what.. is lying immoral? says who

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 2:36 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely

Uh, bonobos.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 2:41 PM

i should have clarified(i meant as a fixed genetic trait), but then again...your image is sufficient

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 3:09 PM

HKCAVALIER

This primate stuff you're bringing to the table is so odd to me. Where did you get it? Who's telling you that speciation among primates is so distinctive?

From my own study of the subject, speciation among primates is more fluid than a lot of mammalian orders (I still have a tough time seeing the elephant in the hyrax). First ya got your tree shrews, with their weird little "hands" and their rat faces; then lemurs with fingernails and canine faces; marmosets with monkey-like faces and squirrel-like behavior; monkeys; macaques; apes; humans.

Sure, humans have a number of morphological distinctions from other primates, but the distinctions are all explicable if we posit the semi-aquatic adaptation of protohominids--our "upright" stance having developed in the ocean as an adaptation for swimming, f'rinstance. This also conveniently accounts for the spotty fossil record, since our semi-aquatic ancestors would have lived along tidal flats, a notoriously fossil-free environment.

I was wondering: what about Australia and the marsupials? You got all your "archetypes" down under, but they're all based on a separate design from the rest of the world. How do you account for parallel evolution if you discount the legitimacy of evolution?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 3:17 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what about the missing links between primates and their predecessors?

Since every single generation represents subtle changes from the previous, I suppose we'll never find enough 'missing links' to satisfy you. I don't care so much, as long as you don't try to shovel the ID nonsense to my kids in school.

Quote:
..thats because we dont know how (for example) primates acquired or 'evolved' their distinct archetypical characteristics.

Actually we've got a pretty good idea. That's what evolution explains. There's plenty of evidence for it, but you don't want to accept it because you're convinced it conflicts with your religious faith. That doesn't seem a necessary implication, but it's up to you what you believe.

Quote:
... they clearly share a distinct design.

They clearly do not.

Quote:
but the people on your side always assume strictly natural causes, because the alternative(ID) is out of the question.

It's out of the questions because there's no evidence for it. Come up with that, or even a plausible argument, and I'll consider it.

Quote:
the burden of proof is in fact on you

Well, the way I see it lots of evidence exists for evolution. Didn't you actually acknowledge it as a process at some point? Everything we know about genetics and biology points to evolution as the mechanism for species diversifying over time. You may not accept the evidence, but I ask you, where's the evidence for imagined 'archetype' barrier'? You ignored the question, so I can only assume you don't know of any.

Quote:
look.. you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont.

This is my favorite bit of nonsense that comes out of the fundi sales pitch. When you claim that 'faith' in scientific principles is a religion, you water down the concept of faith to the point that it's meaningless. By that reckoning every single assumption a person makes is a religious statement. If I wear a raincoat because the weatherman is calling for a storm, then that's a religious act of faith?

In fact it isn't. My 'faith' in scientific understanding lasts as long as it keeps working. Prove any of these 'beliefs' false, and I'll thankfully change my mind. That's the difference. You won't. This is just more of the sophistry that IDers resort to because they can't come up with real arguments.

Quote:
... and im not ignorant because i choose otherwise

I'm not saying that you are. But I appreciate you bringing up the issue because it seems to be just below the surface of most of the discussions I have with fundamentalists. Why all the insecurity? I have good friends who are devout Christians. They're very intelligent people and I respect them a great deal. They aren't fundies and they don't base their faith on the notion that the bible is the literal final word on human knowledge, but they are sincere in their beliefs.

That's the trap IDers have fell into. When you insist on taking a particular translation of the bible (or the koran, or the torah, or whatever) as literal fact in every regard, you're destined to always be at odds with reality. I'd even say (if it doesn't seem to be too presumptious) that you're missing the point of religious faith in the first place. My understanding of religion is that it's concerns are spiritual, not physical. You're wrapped up in trying to defend your faith in rational, naturalistic terms and it's pointless. Spiritual faith is by definition supernatural and irrational (or at least not bound by rationality).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 9, 2007 4:15 PM