Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[nPeace]

It is likely that *some* that is believed to be known is wrong. It is highly unlikely that the age of the current expansion phase for the universe is significantly wrong.

part of the way science works is by acknowledging that we can be wrong and that new evidence might overturn some of our ideas. But that doesn't mean we should find it *likely* this will happen. For example, for us to be wrong about the Earth orbiting the sun would require a spectacular conjunction of coincidences. The same is true for no evolution to have happened or for the universe to be significantly less than 13 billion years old.

But we can certainly be wrong about things like the distribution of dark matter, or on the details of galaxy formation, or on the nature of quantum gravity, or on any number of more specific topics. We also have to allow that any place where we are wrong will still have our current views as a good first approximation where they have been tested. So, the error bars may shrink and show we are wrong in details, but they won't grow to the place that the Earth is only thousands of years old or to where biological evolution doesn't occur.

Thanks.
If however, the expansion was not constant, how is it that the age could not be wrong - highly likely?

 

[nPeace]

It is a direct quotation from Chapter VI of The Origin of Species; it is the first paragraph of the section entitled 'Modes of transition'.

Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

What is your definition of a missing link?

I can't give you my definition, since I don't have one, but I can give you the definition. I'll also give the one that I think you more specifically want.
Missing Link:
a hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms - aka transitional fossil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You posted the video here.
My response is here.
I added a bit more here, but I am guessing you read none of it, and probably won't, so I will repeat.

I have even been accused of trying to insult people, by speaking the truth.
A man speculates - since he could do nothing more - throughout an entire video, and I have committed a grave sin - actually to quote "react in some very non-Christian fashions" by comment on it.
Ha Ha Ha I really would like to know if the man wasn't speculating, what he was doing.

You are admitting either lying or being incredibly ignorant. Those were not speculations but tested and confirmed concepts. At the very least you bore false witness against Dawkins since you proclaims about him that were not true.

I could be wrong, but I believe you may have missed my point.
I said...
Even if one doesn't find something, it can always be demonstrated to be possible - no need for worries.

Which means that even if there is no evidence that something happened, and scientists demonstrate it is possible. As long as that is done, regardless of whether it is known to have happened or not, it is possible.
For example...


The living cell is complex.
A cell assembling itself on its own is not known to have happened, but if it can be demonstrated how the cell is built, automatically it is assumed to have happened - the impossible becomes possible.

Stop right there. First off by moving the goalposts to abiogenesis you admit to losing the evolution debate. This is a dishonest tactic. A supposed Christian should not use it. Second, abiogenesis was never proven to be impossible and your argument is a huge strawman besides. Another dishonest tactic.

Darwin often makes statements like this:

Oh my, another dishonest tactic. Quote mining. Did you know that at least twelve times the Bible says "there is no God"? Quoting out of context is worthless in a debate. It is a!most always done to lie.

The Theory of Evolution is the god of might and magic.
With evolution, nothing is impossible, and any impossibility is possible.

If I argued that it should be possible for a V-8 engine to assemble itself, they'd put me in a mental institute. Why? "It's not organic."

To say the atoms assembled themelves to form a living cell... "Genius. Noble prize winner."

However, I do agree with him in part - we must own that we are far too ignorant to argue that no transition of any kind is possible being raised to life from the dead is impossible.

And more dishonesty. Don't try to put words in the mouths of others. You might try to claim I did that when you moved the goalposts, but you were warned several times what that act means.

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe Darwin was very, let me say, smart, and I believe there is a reason for this. Which I prefer to keep to myself.

Here is an example of how smart he was though.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and
in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

Even if one doesn't find something, it can always be demonstrated to be possible - no need for worries.
He was a smart man. You can't beat "his" genius. Again, there is a reason, and the time has not arrived as yet to break up this work.
I believe it will though. I'm waiting.

What is it you want to keep for yourself? We have amazing records more than we could expect for the difficulty to preserve such information. There is more we will learn and there is no better explanation. What evidence do you have in which evolution is not the best explanation. You don't need all of the transitional points to see the pattern sufficiently to show that evolution is how we came upon this earth. We already have enough unless you are determined to not accept what we know. Science is cautious and has been very careful in making its conclusions. The alternative ideas have no evidence. You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Thor is the cause for all lightning in our world that is fine. If you want to understand how species developed into the forms we have today the theory of evolution has proven with every new finding that is discovered. We do not need to go back to the Scopes Monkey Trial again. Lets go forward and accept evolution is the way humans developed and appreciate the amazing world we live in.

 

[nPeace]

What is it you want to keep for yourself? We have amazing records more than we could expect for the difficulty to preserve such information. There is more we will learn and there is no better explanation. What evidence do you have in which evolution is not the best explanation. You don't need all of the transitional points to see the pattern sufficiently to show that evolution is how we came upon this earth. We already have enough unless you are determined to not accept what we know. Science is cautious and has been very careful in making its conclusions. The alternative ideas have no evidence. You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Thor is the cause for all lightning in our world that is fine. If you want to understand how species developed into the forms we have today the theory of evolution has proven with every new finding that is discovered. We do not need to go back to the Scopes Monkey Trial again. Lets go forward and accept evolution is the way humans developed and appreciate the amazing world we live in.

You can keep that for yourself.
We have an amazing and accurate record of history, and information that is both reliable and trustworthy.
There is a lot we are learning, and much of what we learn has long been documented.
The ideas of men are just that - ideas.
People can believe what they want.
If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals.
It explains the reasons for man's qualities, and his ability to use intelligent communication, both physical and spiritual.
There is a long list of things it explains, that are beyond the theory of evolution to explain - Some of these things are only now being realized, in all fields of study.
Those who see this evidence, go forward with it.
Others go with what they feel must be accepted.
To each his own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can keep that for yourself.
We have an amazing and accurate record of history, and information that is both reliable and trustworthy.
There is a lot we are learning, and much of what we learn has long been documented.
The ideas of men are just that - ideas.
People can believe what they want.
If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals.
It explains the reasons for man's qualities, and his ability to use intelligent communication, both physical and spiritual.
There is a long list of things it explains, that are beyond the theory of evolution to explain - Some of these things are only now being realized, in all fields of study.
Those who see this evidence, go forward with it.
Others go with what they feel must be accepted.
To each his own.

The problem for you is that Genesis is mythical. We knew that the Noah's Ark story was a myth long before the theory of evolution came along a blew away the beliefs of literalists. The Bible is a mixture of history and myth. A wise person can see that. There are many Christians that can accept reality and still be Christians.


And no, the Bible is very lacking in logic. Who taught you this nonsense? Why regurgitate it?

 

[Bear Wild]

You can keep that for yourself.
We have an amazing and accurate record of history, and information that is both reliable and trustworthy.
There is a lot we are learning, and much of what we learn has long been documented.
The ideas of men are just that - ideas.
People can believe what they want.
If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals.
It explains the reasons for man's qualities, and his ability to use intelligent communication, both physical and spiritual.
There is a long list of things it explains, that are beyond the theory of evolution to explain - Some of these things are only now being realized, in all fields of study.
Those who see this evidence, go forward with it.
Others go with what they feel must be accepted.
To each his own.

The Bible does not give anything but a myth of explanation which can be interpreted in many ways but does not give provable explanations. I understand it gives comfort to people but it has a dangerous effect of humans feeling above the other members of the natural world. Evolution explains just how connected we are. Man's intelligence and qualities are explained by evolution. You do now need anything more to explain our existence. The bible is a wonderful collection of the beliefs of the people who wrote it and has great wisdom but it does not give a clear logical answer. It is no better or worse than sky woman coming to turtle island. Both myths have important meaning from different perspectives. They both carry the traditions for those who told and wrote the stories. Neither give the clear explanation of the diversity of live and the generation of new species that the theory of evolution does.

 

[nPeace]

The Bible does not give anything but a myth of explanation which can be interpreted in many ways but does not give provable explanations. I understand it gives comfort to people but it has a dangerous effect of humans feeling above the other members of the natural world. Evolution explains just how connected we are. Man's intelligence and qualities are explained by evolution. You do now need anything more to explain our existence. The bible is a wonderful collection of the beliefs of the people who wrote it and has great wisdom but it does not give a clear logical answer. It is no better or worse than sky woman coming to turtle island. Both myths have important meaning from different perspectives. They both carry the traditions for those who told and wrote the stories. Neither give the clear explanation of the diversity of live and the generation of new species that the theory of evolution does.

The theory of evolution does give various ideas of explanation, but does not give provable explanations. I understand people are comfortable with the thought that it supports their ideas for living, but many people believe it has a dangerous effect on humans feeling as it relates to other members of the natural world.
The Bible does explains just how connected we are. The Bible does give clear logical answers, and does give a clear explanation of the diversity of life which harmonizes with what we see in nature today.
The Bible is not a book of myth as some people claim, but rather a well kept record which has been preserved down to our day. No other book compares with the Bible, in worldwide scope, and the information within it has worldwide benefits.
It has inspired aids in the furtherance of its influence.
The 5 Most Translated Literary Texts In The World
The 20 Most Translated Texts in History

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same is said about the theory of evolution.

Only by the extremely ignorant.

Would you like to go over the basics of the scientific method and scientific evidence? You will be a better debater if you understand those concepts.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks.
If however, the expansion was not constant, how is it that the age could not be wrong - highly likely?

Two reasons:
1. It is only fairly recently (in the last billion years or so) that the effect of the cosmological constant has become dominant.
2. We can measure the degree of acceleration by looking at distant galaxies.

So, the model needs to be adjusted a bit to accommodate the cosmological constant (dark energy), but the net effect on the estimate of the age isn't very large.

Once again, we might be off the actual age by a half a billion years. But we are certainly NOT off by over 10 billion and NOT off by a factor of a million.

 

[Polymath257]

I can't give you my definition, since I don't have one, but I can give you the definition. I'll also give the one that I think you more specifically want.
Missing Link:
a hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms - aka transitional fossil.

And why would you expect a link between two *living* forms? The common ancestor would not necessarily be 'intermediate' between any two living forms. It's just that the living forms both evolved from that common ancestor.

You are looking for a straw man.

 

[nPeace]

And why would you expect a link between two *living* forms? The common ancestor would not necessarily be 'intermediate' between any two living forms. It's just that the living forms both evolved from that common ancestor.

You are looking for a straw man.

Pardon me? I was asked for a definition. I wasn't commenting on anything.
Is there something else you wanted to know?

 

[Polymath257]

Pardon me? I was asked for a definition. I wasn't commenting on anything.
Is there something else you wanted to know?

Well, then your definition is of something *nobody* expects to find. Sort of pointless, isn't it?

And in no way relevant to evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't give you my definition, since I don't have one, but I can give you the definition. I'll also give the one that I think you more specifically want.
Missing Link:
a hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms - aka transitional fossil.

I'm trying to ask you which definition you're using in this discussion, so we can actually get somewhere.
If it's the one you've provided here, it doesn't really make sense.

How about this one?

"A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles."
What Is A Transitional Fossil?

Or this one?

"In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring."
(A few) transitional fossils

Or this one?

"As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians"
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory



There are many known transitional fossils in existence.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
(A few) transitional fossils
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

 

[nPeace]

Well, then your definition is of something *nobody* expects to find. Sort of pointless, isn't it?

And in no way relevant to evolution.

It is in no way my definition, so this is meaningless to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can keep that for yourself.
We have an amazing and accurate record of history, and information that is both reliable and trustworthy.
There is a lot we are learning, and much of what we learn has long been documented.
The ideas of men are just that - ideas.
People can believe what they want.
If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals.
It explains the reasons for man's qualities, and his ability to use intelligent communication, both physical and spiritual.
There is a long list of things it explains, that are beyond the theory of evolution to explain - Some of these things are only now being realized, in all fields of study.
Those who see this evidence, go forward with it.
Others go with what they feel must be accepted.
To each his own.

Well, apparently it's not all that clear, logical and explanatory in regards to understanding how life came to be on earth given that is has contributed just about nothing to the science on the subject.

All the science has been crammed into the vague descriptions in the Bible long after it was written and you run around declaring that science has finally caught up to the Bible?! That's hilariously bizarre to me.

 

[nPeace]

I'm trying to ask you which definition you're using in this discussion, so we can actually get somewhere.
If it's the one you've provided here, it doesn't really make sense.

How about this one?

"A transitional fossil is any fossil which gives us information about a transition from one species to another. (Or, about a transition from one group of species to another group of species.) A transition simply means that, down through time, there was some sort of change. The change must be big enough so that each non-transitional fossil can be easily be sorted into either a "before the transition" pile, or a "after the transition" pile. A transitional fossil is one that falls between the two piles."
What Is A Transitional Fossil?

Or this one?

"In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring."
(A few) transitional fossils

Or this one?

"As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians"
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory


There are many known transitional fossils in existence.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
(A few) transitional fossils
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

Which one I am using? I don't understand. Are they different ones. Or do you mean, man does not know what a transitional fossil is. Or they get to pick from different kinds? What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is in no way my definition, so this is meaningless to me.

Then why on earth did you provide it?!

 

[nPeace]

Then why on earth did you provide it?!