Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Uh, no, it’s true. Facts are indisputable. But interpretations of those facts, are faith-based.
Otherwise, all paleontologists would agree on the aforementioned pathway of bird evolution.

And why do you bring up *my* view of God? *I* have no problem with you implying that I have faith in my beliefs.

Thank you.

The facts do not allow for the interpretation that you want. And differences over details do not destroy the over-arching theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Beyond a few responses to specific nonsense, I find little reason to respond to some posters. What I have noted seems little different than trolling to me. However, recognition that science is not religion is what I noted in some of those posts too. Got to love a self-refuting poster that has no clue.

It's the same old modus operandi of people who actually know deep down that their beliefs system is irrational drivel...

And that modus operandi is very simply: drag science down to their own level of make-belief so that they can pretend to be on equal footing. It's a pathetic attempt at making themselves look not completely ignorant and stupid.

Another blatant example of this, is @Deeje 's thread where she likes to pretend as if evolution and creationism are both just "mere opinions" and that one of them thus isn't batsh!t crazy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You and the other CD evolution supporters....what is your argument based on?

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found. Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”....but the evidence shows otherwise.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

@TagliatelliMonster is correct. The arguments of science are based on evidence. My arguments are based on the evidence.

You have claimed that the evidence reveals the existence of God and I have asked you to present that evidence. Would you mind?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

YOU are moving the goalpost.
Your initial request was about de novo functions. Not anatomical features.

Although I could argue that a combination of multiple mutations opening up an entirely new metabolic pathway, is an entirely new anatomical feature concerning metabolism.

In any case, I'm guess that by "de novo anatomical feature", you mean something akin to a forelimb evolving into a wing suited for flight or something. Which would be a process that necessarily would take millions of years and thus by definition not possible to observe in real time, as the entire process takes even longer then humans in general have existed.

So perhaps this is a good time for you to narrow it down and define properly and in detail, what it is that you would want to see as evidence in support of evolution exactly.

I predict that you can't do that for any of the following two reasons:
- you can't, because you deliberatly keep it vague so that you can simply dismiss any example presented with the excuse that it isn't what you asked for, without ever actually being clear about what you are asking for.
- you can't, because the model of evolution you have in your head, is actually a strawman. Being detailed about what you wish to see, would expose that as chances are rather big that the example that you would wish to see, would actually end up disproving evolution rather then support it.

But hey.... you can easily prove my prediction wrong by:
- actually give a detailed and clear description of the example you wish to see
- being sure that this example indeed fits withing the evolutionary narrative and not some strawman.

I actually hope that you give this an honest attempt that proves my prediction wrong.

I missed that or my determination of which logical fallacy was in play was incorrect. There are so many in use by the opposition to science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What exact evolutionary pathway dino's took to evolve into birds, are NOT "interpretations" of the facts.
All paleontologists do agree on the actual interpretation of the facts. And that interpretation is that birds are dino's that share a common ancestor which was a dino but not a bird.

Perhaps I have noted it before, but I do not recall. What I notice now is that hypothesizing is being rounded up and included as interpretation when it is not. I wonder if this is a mistake based on ignorance or if it is a fallacy based on intention.

 

[gnostic]

Agreed. But it does indicate that there are classifications of animals.

That was my point. Why did you miss it?

Kinds don’t classify as anything because in Genesis it is rather vague generalizations.

For instances, in Genesis 1-20-22, these are all it say about the creation of birds:

20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

All Genesis does is describe is that birds have wings, and they fly.

Even uneducated homeless person would know that much, and it doesn’t EXPLAIN one kind of bird from another kind. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SCIENTIFIC VALUES in Genesis’ vague and generalized description.

Science required explanations, not a couple of half-a-sentence description in verses 20 & 21.

Even a child know birds have wings. Does god or the Genesis authors have education of 3-year-old or are they simply stupid?

Why would creationists think this creation story wondrously scientific insightful or enlightening, is just staggeringly absurd.

There is no explanation that could tell anyone in this day and age, the difference between eagles and pigeons, sparrows and pelicans, between crows and ravens, and so on.

And what about different species of the same genus. How are saker falcons different from peregrine falcons?

And not every birds that have wings can fly. There are chicken, ostrich, emu, kiwi and penguin. Why is that?

Both ostriches and emus have wings, but strength are in their legs , giving them abilities to run fast. And penguins have wings, and they too cannot fly, but they can swim. Does that mean penguins are kind of fishes?

Then there are bats that have wings and can fly. And yet birds are not classified as birds, but as mammals.

And what about flies, mosquitoes, moths and butterflies. They have wings, but they are kind of birds. Are they?

Does Genesis explain any of that?

And Genesis say that birds can fly, because they have wings, but there are no explanations to wings’ anatomy or physiology, the biomechanics of the wings. There are also no mention of birds’ feathers, their function. No explanations to birds’ body weights, the weight distribution, the density of their skeletal structures, the capacity of their lungs, and so on, that are all parts of the bird’s ability to fly.

Genesis isn’t a taxonomic book, it isn’t a book of anatomy and physiology, and it most certainly not a biology textbook.

And yet have creationists like you, dad and Deeje trying to convince us how advanced and educated this book (Genesis) of myths, that really have no idea about the animals the authors write about.

Only science-illiterate authors could write something so simplistically stupid about nature. There is nothing scientific in Genesis 1 and 2.

But if you (or other creationists) think god wrote Genesis, then god would be dumber than the human authors.

 

[dad]

Pretending that the absences of evidence means magic is faith and not science. It is existence in a gap.

The mistake is to view the fossil record as some continuous record of the broad spectrum of what lived in various ages and layers. The fossil record is not a record of life on earth, it is a hopelessly partial record of some life on earth.

 

[dad]

What exact evolutionary pathway dino's took to evolve into birds, are NOT "interpretations" of the facts..

Hilarious.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Kinds don’t classify as anything because in Genesis it is rather vague generalizations.

For instances, in Genesis 1-20-22, these are all it say about the creation of birds:



All Genesis does is describe is that birds have wings, and they fly.

Even uneducated homeless person would know that much, and it doesn’t EXPLAIN one kind of bird from another kind. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SCIENTIFIC VALUES in Genesis’ vague and generalized description.

Science required explanations, not a couple of half-a-sentence description in verses 20 & 21.

Even a child know birds have wings. Does god or the Genesis authors have education of 3-year-old or are they simply stupid?

Why would creationists think this creation story wondrously scientific insightful or enlightening, is just staggeringly absurd.

There is no explanation that could tell anyone in this day and age, the difference between eagles and pigeons, sparrows and pelicans, between crows and ravens, and so on.

And what about different species of the same genus. How are saker falcons different from peregrine falcons?

And not every birds that have wings can fly. There are chicken, ostrich, emu, kiwi and penguin. Why is that?

Both ostriches and emus have wings, but strength are in their legs , giving them abilities to run fast. And penguins have wings, and they too cannot fly, but they can swim. Does that mean penguins are kind of fishes?

Then there are bats that have wings and can fly. And yet birds are not classified as birds, but as mammals.

And what about flies, mosquitoes, moths and butterflies. They have wings, but they are kind of birds. Are they?

Does Genesis explain any of that?

And Genesis say that birds can fly, because they have wings, but there are no explanations to wings’ anatomy or physiology, the biomechanics of the wings. There are also no mention of birds’ feathers, their function. No explanations to birds’ body weights, the weight distribution, the density of their skeletal structures, the capacity of their lungs, and so on, that are all parts of the bird’s ability to fly.

Genesis isn’t a taxonomic book, it isn’t a book of anatomy and physiology, and it most certainly not a biology textbook.

And yet have creationists like you, dad and Deeje trying to convince us how advanced and educated this book (Genesis) of myths, that really have no idea about the animals the authors write about.

Only science-illiterate authors could write something so simplistically stupid about nature. There is nothing scientific in Genesis 1 and 2.

But if you (or other creationists) think god wrote Genesis, then god would be dumber than the human authors.

You missed the entire point behind my post! Wow!
(whoosh!)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The arguments of science are based on evidence. My arguments are based on the evidence.

They are actually based on an interpretation of the evidence.

Furthermore, it always fits a presupposed interpretation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

interesting article:

Gerd Müller’s “The Explanatory Deficits of the Modern Synthesis.”

To hear some of you guys talk, there are no deficits.

Then there’s this (RE: the extended synthesis):

“Most of the contributors to Evolution, the Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism.”

(From Evolution, the Extended Synthesis )

So the ToE, as currently understood, makes “assumptions”. (I keep hearing they’re facts.)

Apparently, some of these assumptions, i.e., beliefs*, need to be discarded.

*An “Assumption” is where you believe something to be true, but it is yet unproven while a “belief” is something you are certain is true. However, our beliefs may, in fact, be assumptions that are in the end false.

(Above Excerpt from
Assumption vs. Belief - Why You Need To Know The Difference | How to Advice for your Side-Hustle or Small Business)

(Author of the above blog, further discusses mindset behaviors.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The mistake is to view the fossil record as some continuous record of the broad spectrum of what lived in various ages and layers. The fossil record is not a record of life on earth, it is a hopelessly partial record of some life on earth.

There's nothing "mistaken" about following the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hilarious.

Glad you find it amusing.
Regardless of your laughing, the point remains.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are actually based on an interpretation of the evidence.

A testable interpretation.
And when tested: it is validated.

Furthermore, it always fits a presupposed interpretation.

Because the presupposed theory (which became a presupposed idea after it was concluded from the evidence in testable ways, like the rest of science) keeps getting validated and confirmed by new evidence and data.

There's no dogma in science.
The day that date is uncovered that doesn't fit the evolutionary model, is the day that the evolutionary model will either be modified or simply discarded.

There's no reason to do that when all data fits the narrative in testable ways.

 

[metis]

Uh, no, it’s true. Facts are indisputable. But interpretations of those facts, are faith-based.

Which is why we use the "scientific method" in science, which is not used in the vast majority of cases in religion. If there's any doubt about this, try to used objectively-derived evidence for one deity versus more?

Secondly, interpretations are not necessarily faith based as they may be derived by connecting the dots. This is, for example, heavily used to solve crimes, such as the use of fingerprint and d.n.a. evidence. "Hearsay evidence" is usually considered less reliable than actual physical evidence, and all scriptures are based on subjective hearsay evidence that usually can't be collaborated.

 

[cladking]

There's nothing "mistaken" about following the evidence.

Follow it then, don't lead it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Follow it then, don't lead it.

Leading the evidence, is what people with a priori convictions who wish to hold on to those convictions no matter what, have to do.

So it's what creationists do.

I have no such a priori convictions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are actually based on an interpretation of the evidence.

Furthermore, it always fits a presupposed interpretation.

They are based on evidence and they do not follow a presupposed interpretation. That is what you are doing. Your doctrine demands that science is false and you are doing all you can to create a narrative that fits the demand.

 

[dad]

There's nothing "mistaken" about following the evidence.

The evidence is a series of dead animals that left remains in rock. If Adam returned to dust then he would not be in those rock remains. Neither would most creatures or plants on earth if they could not leave remains. The only place you follow the remains in the rocks that we do have to is your religion and belief set.

 

[dad]

Glad you find it amusing.
Regardless of your laughing, the point remains.

No problem, provide a source for your claim with some details and we'll look at it.

Ha