Evolution Observed

[Kenny]

Our opinions obviously are not erroneous. If you can ask honest questions they will be answered. Here is an example of a dishonest question:

"Have you quite beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no." That question and demand for an answer has a false assumption built into it. If you can ask questions without false assumptions in them they will be answered. .

Your example of the question certainly doesn't apply to what I said since no questions were presented. Certainly,bat the same time, I could label it as a dishonest example since it doesn't apply to my circumstance.

The vast majority of creationists, whether YEC, OEC, or ID followers, tend to be incredibly dishonest when it comes to debating their beliefs. Surprise us.

That is a dishonest statement. It is also condensending and judgmental in as much as it suggests that if someone disagrees with your position, it is because they are incrediby dishonest. Imagine me saying that about evolutionists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your example of the question certainly doesn't apply to what I said since no questions were presented. Certainly,bat the same time, I could label it as a dishonest example since it doesn't apply to my circumstance.

Wrong. I was merely trying to help you by telling you what sort of questions would be answered. I never implied that you personally had asked such questions. It was far from dishonest.

Try again.

That is a dishonest statement. It is also condensending and judgmental in as much as it suggests that if someone disagrees with your position, it is because they are incrediby dishonest. Imagine me saying that about evolutionists.

Wrong again, and now you are not being honest. There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. That is a statement that I will stand by. You could try to find one, you will fail utterly. It may seem condescending but the sad fact is that one has to be a science denier at best to be a creationist.

If you want to learn why you are wrong in your beliefs I will be happy to help you. If all you can do is to make false charges to cover up your false beliefs you will not get too far.

And if you made that same claim about scientists that would be a lie. In the sciences one has to be honest. Scientists that are caught being dishonest lose their jobs. This does not happen with creationists.

 

[Kenny]

Wrong. I was merely trying to help you by telling you what sort of questions would be answered. I never implied that you personally had asked such questions. It was far from dishonest.

Try again.

Of COURSE I knew you weren't saying that. It was tongue in cheek as an example of what people do.

Wrong again, and now you are not being honest. There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist.

I guess we all have an opinion however wrong it may be, especially since many have degrees that exceed yours

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess we all have an opinon.

This is more than an opinion. You appear to be accusing others of your flaws. I noticed that you could not name one.

Here is a helpful suggestion, try to learn about the science that scares you so much. People here will gladly help you if you ask proper questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way Ken, my challenge was an easy one for you. If you think I am wrong you should be able to find an honest and informed creationist.

 

[Kenny]

By the way Ken, my challenge was an easy one for you. If you think I am wrong you should be able to find an honest and informed creationist.

Riiiight! And, of course, you are the prosecuter, jury and judge of every creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Riiiight! And, of course, you are the prosecuter, jury and judge of every creationist.

I can support my claims. I have yet to see you even try. But so far you have been demonstrating another creationist trait, that of cowardice. Creationist after creationist runs away when they know that they are wrong. You are in effect running away right now.

I see that you still can't find an informed and honest creationist.

 

[Kenny]

I can support my claims. I have yet to see you even try. But so far you have been demonstrating another creationist trait, that of cowardice. Creationist after creationist runs away when they know that they are wrong. You are in effect running away right now.

I see that you still can't find an informed and honest creationist.

Riiiight! And, of course, you are the prosecuter, jury and judge of every creationist.

I don't debate dishonest posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Riiiight! And, of course, you are the prosecuter, jury and judge of every creationist.

I don't debate dishonest posts.

I gave what should be a softball, if you are right. You know that you aren't. I am honest. Making false claims about others is probably against the TOS here. I offered to support my claim. So why are you running away?

By the way, there is no "debate". Your side lost over 100 years ago. You really should try to learn why. I am merely trying to explain to you why you are wrong.

 

[Zosimus]

Not atheism. Please note, it has a different name. It is merely a belief that events can be explained without relying on magic. Guess what? They can. This may help:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I read your link with interest, but the word "magic" didn't appear in it anywhere. Are you sure you've read the link you posted?

Methodological naturalism is not a belief that events can be explained without relying on magic. Methodological naturalism is not a belief but a method. It involves looking for natural causes for things. Now, you may not be aware of this, but the opposite of natural is not magic. The opposite of the word natural is unnatural/artificial. For example, we can compare natural (human) intelligence with artificial intelligence. There is nothing magical about programmers seeking to generate artificial intelligence.

Every event can be examined with an eye to natural causes. For example, if you find a man in a pool of blood in his house, you can look for natural causes. The man died from blood loss. The blood loss came from a wound in his chest. The wound came from a bullet that passed through him. The bullet passed through him because it was made of lead and was moving at high speed. The bullet was moving at high speed because of a gunpowder explosion that propelled it forward. From there we can go into why explosions cause things to move, why gunpowder is explosive, and find lots of other, wonderful, natural explanations for what happened to the man.

Most people, however, would like to know whether the man was murdered and, if so, by whom. Methodological naturalism does not and indeed cannot provide a meaningful answer to this question because whether an intelligent actor planned the murder is something outside the realm of natural causes. Nor can investigating whether anyone had a motive to murder the man be considered looking for magical explanations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read your link with interest, but the word "magic" didn't appear in it anywhere. Are you sure you've read the link you posted?

None needed. Why do you ask? The article I linked was on a term that was not understood. There is no magic when one uses that approach.

Methodological naturalism is not a belief that events can be explained without relying on magic. Methodological naturalism is not a belief but a method. It involves looking for natural causes for things. Now, you may not be aware of this, but the opposite of natural is not magic. The opposite of the word natural is unnatural/artificial. For example, we can compare natural (human) intelligence with artificial intelligence. There is nothing magical about programmers seeking to generate artificial intelligence.

Every event can be examined with an eye to natural causes. For example, if you find a man in a pool of blood in his house, you can look for natural causes. The man died from blood loss. The blood loss came from a wound in his chest. The wound came from a bullet that passed through him. The bullet passed through him because it was made of lead and was moving at high speed. The bullet was moving at high speed because of a gunpowder explosion that propelled it forward. From there we can go into why explosions cause things to move, why gunpowder is explosive, and find lots of other, wonderful, natural explanations for what happened to the man.

Most people, however, would like to know whether the man was murdered and, if so, by whom. Methodological naturalism does not and indeed cannot provide a meaningful answer to this question because whether an intelligent actor planned the murder is something outside the realm of natural causes. Nor can investigating whether anyone had a motive to murder the man be considered looking for magical explanations.

Nope, now you are merely off on some weird tangent. Methodological naturalism is simply a technique for finding out how something happened. It is not concerned with motive and just because it is not concerned with motive does not mean that magic ever need to be considered.

By the way, methodological naturalism can often determine if a death was by another agent or by suicide. Motive may be harder to determine. Further investigation would need to be done, but now we are far off topic from what was originally being discussed.

 

[Zosimus]

None needed. Why do you ask? The article I linked was on a term that was not understood. There is no magic when one uses that approach.

Well, the only person who is talking about magic is you. And you are doing so in order to set up a straw man that you can later knock down. It is fundamentally dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. Now drop and give me 20.

Nope, now you are merely off on some weird tangent. Methodological naturalism is simply a technique for finding out how something happened. It is not concerned with motive and just because it is not concerned with motive does not mean that magic ever need to be considered.

No, I'm not off on a weird tangent. You claimed that methodological naturalism is a belief that things can be explained without magic. This is false. Methodological naturalism is a method. Now you want to call it a technique because you know you're busted and you don't want to fess up that it's a method. The belief that everything can be explained through purely natural causes is called philosophical naturalism. So what we are dealing with in you is either a person who does not know what he believes or a person who lies about what he believes.

By the way, methodological naturalism can often determine if a death was by another agent or by suicide. Motive may be harder to determine. Further investigation would need to be done, but now we are far off topic from what was originally being discussed.

This is untrue. Methodological naturalism cannot do what you say. It can only tell you whether what is observed is consistent with a hypothesis. That does not demonstrate that the hypothesis is true. For example, in Galileo's time, the natural philosophers (forerunners of scientists) pointed out that if the Earth went around the sun, we should be able to observe parallax. Since we could not, the heliocentric theory of the universe was discarded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the only person who is talking about magic is you. And you are doing so in order to set up a straw man that you can later knock down. It is fundamentally dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so. Now drop and give me 20.

Nope, you were not following the discussion if you think that is the case.

No, I'm not off on a weird tangent. You claimed that methodological naturalism is a belief that things can be explained without magic. This is false. Methodological naturalism is a method. Now you want to call it a technique because you know you're busted and you don't want to fess up that it's a method. The belief that everything can be explained through purely natural causes is called philosophical naturalism. So what we are dealing with in you is either a person who does not know what he believes or a person who lies about what he believes.

Please, if all you can do is to nitpick I will ignore those arguments.

Try again.

This is untrue. Methodological naturalism cannot do what you say. It can only tell you whether what is observed is consistent with a hypothesis. That does not demonstrate that the hypothesis is true. For example, in Galileo's time, the natural philosophers (forerunners of scientists) pointed out that if the Earth went around the sun, we should be able to observe parallax. Since we could not, the heliocentric theory of the universe was discarded.

Citation needed. From what I have read the opposition was based upon religious beliefs only. I have never seen anyone from that time make the parallax argument, which obviously fails due to the limited ability to measure parallax in those days.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love it how the press comes up with this exciting headlines and when you read the content, it's not that exciting after all. So the finch evolved into... a finch. We already knew that. It's been observed before. When the finch evolves into a flying turtle, please let me know. I really want to see that.

I think it is exciting. Evolution in action. Creationists have demanded it, but now that more and more examples are arriving they move the bar. Not even to something rational either, but to outlandish creatures of mythology that wouldn't arise by evolution.

A crocoduck, a flying turtle and man arising from an amoeba in a single step would actually refute the theory of evolution as well as a some other scientific theories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would disprove evolution.

I see I'm late in pointing that out.

Those kinds of answers tell me that the people making them don't understand evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It’s still a finch. Evidence of MICRO evolution.
Heck, each and every one of us, with all of our differences, is evidence of that.

Again, another that moves the bar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, you were not following the discussion if you think that is the case.



Please, if all you can do is to nitpick I will ignore those arguments.

Try again.




Citation needed. From what I have read the opposition was based upon religious beliefs only. I have never seen anyone from that time make the parallax argument, which obviously fails due to the limited ability to measure parallax in those days.

From what I have read on the subject, you are correct. The rejection of a heliocentric model was based on religious belief and not due to some scientific challenge.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it is exciting. Evolution in action. Creationists have demanded it, but now that more and more examples are arriving they move the bar. Not even to something rational either, but to outlandish creatures of mythology that wouldn't arise by evolution.

A crocoduck, a flying turtle and man arising from an amoeba in a single step would actually refute the theory of evolution as well as a some other scientific theories.

On the contrary, the more the fossil record reveals and clarifies the distinct separations, jumps, gaps, stasis in natural history -rather than the smooth transitions Darwinism predicted- the more the goalposts of what constitutes 'evolution' are moved to smaller and smaller examples of adaptation- or merely 'change over time' by any means as some define it

we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time, as Raup said- many previous examples based on superficial physical similarities have been debunked

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the contrary, the more the fossil record reveals and clarifies the distinct separations, jumps, gaps, stasis in natural history -rather than the smooth transitions Darwinism predicted- the more the goalposts of what constitutes 'evolution' are moved to smaller and smaller examples of adaptation- or merely 'change over time' by any means as some define it

we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time, as Raup said- many previous examples based on superficial physical similarities have been debunked

This claim of yours has been refuted countless times. You quote mined someone to support that statement. There are countless transitional fossils, none have been "lost". You simply purposefully misunderstand the person whose quote you abuse.

Your side lost a long long time ago. And not only is there undeniable fossil evidence for evolution, there are several other sources. The fossil record is only a small part of the mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The author seems to use the word species in a manner other than the one I learned, which says that what makes a group of birds two species rather than one is that half of can produce viable offspring together, and the other half can do the same, but members of the two groups cannot successfully interbreed:

"In this week's issue of the journal Science, researchers from Princeton University and Uppsala University in Sweden report that the newcomer belonging to one species mated with a member of another species resident on the island, giving rise to a new species that today consists of roughly 30 individuals."

"The researchers took a blood sample and released the bird, which later bred with a resident medium ground finch of the species Geospiz fortis, initiating a new lineage"

Hey IANS. There are a number of definitions for species, but the biological definition you are using is the one that I was originally taught and the one that I use. There is a barrier between biological species that prevents interbreeding under normal circumstances. In some cases, the barrier is physical or genetic incompatibility. In others it is a physical, geographical or temporal barrier that prevents interbreeding. In the latter, the species may be able to interbreed successfully, but would normally not be able to do to the fact that they don't exist together in place or time. That kind of barrier will likely lead to further changes that prevent interbreeding, but it is sufficient to consider them separate species since there usually is no gene flow.