Evolution or Creation?

[Aegeri]

If it makes you feel any better, I've always given you the benefit of the doubt that these articles were real and made the points that you stated.

I would hope not, I would hope that anyone would look up my references and make sure I was being honest! Which, I'm pretty certain I am, but none the less, I do provide the reference in the hope people will look it up for themselves. I'm well aware that I can access journals from work/home and others can't, so I do try to provide as much of the article as possible (unless its in acrobat, which I can't copy and paste any out of, that nature article I quoted I wrote that piece out manually >_<).

Also, I looked up many of the papers you referenced and I'll look up the print text of the other one as well.

Again, I don't claim ICR to be infallible, only that they have accreditted scientists on staff.

Ok, I have clearly misinterpreted your argument and what you were trying to say. Sorry for that, I thought you were implying something else from the beginning, but re-reading things I've dragged this off into an irrelevant tangent that doesn't have anything to do with your point.

I'll drop the argument.

Admittedly, that DOES surprise me a bit. Still, you could just as simply have stated that it was a philosophical point (which I already pointed out origins questions are philosophical by default), but there's still a fundamental difference. Creation science looks at the same evidence but through a different set of interpretations. They presuppose a young earth, which is no different in principle than pre-supposing an old earth with constancy and an assumed set of initial conditions.

Yes, but some of their problems come in the way they try to 'support' this view by very creatively interpreting some things. For example, radioation dating is commonly attacked at the C14 level, the paper you gave me was interesting because I've rarely seen U-Pb dating mentioned by creatonists let alone an attempt to actually discredit it.

Otherwise yes, it is quite amazing that I do when I mention it to most people. But this is why I so adamantly separate what I know is true "just because" and what I know is true because that is the way the evidence happens to lie.

That at least is a fair criticism. I'm not very studied on biology, I actually find the geological tenets of the debate far more interesting.

I'm not a geologist, but I do know many little tidbits like zirconian cages for example and the like.

Again, for you to assume that they're all crackpots because of one man's philosophy degree, is no better than if I were to assume that they were all credible because of one man's biology doctorate.

No, just it was odd they were calling him a scientist tis all.

And in the one discussion where he isn't... you bring him up yourself?... were you somehow trying to set me up for the Hovind dig, expecting me to bite?

No actually, it's automatic these days. I always always bring him up, because somewhere, somehow he does. So if I just deal with him immediately, I can just point it out and go on with something else.

Why do you keep making this claim, EVEN AFTER you PERSONALLY said that people in the creationist camp are trying to weed out the bad science?

Sometimes, I did not exactly say that. What I did say was they try to dull down certain arguments, but the tactics that made those initial fraudulent arguments ae the same.

Actually I probably didn't say that, because I'm more likely to have said it cryptically and in a way nobody but me could have understood. That is hopefully clearer.

LOOK, a paper telling people to GET OFF the moondust thing.

I did mention that earlier.

LOOK, an entire list of arguments that don't hold water because they've been scientifically disproven, or they are logical fallacies, or they're just Internet urban legends. STOP CALLING THEM UNACCOUNTABLE as a blanket statement. At least give them SOME credit for TRYING to clean house.

No, because as I mentioned, there has never been an official retraction by the scientists at ICR that initially made the fraudulent claims nor why they did so. Dropping the moon dust argument isn't so much based on 'science', it's based on keeping up the illusion of being scientists. The REAL reasons for them dropping it have nothing to do ultimately with being scientific, more to do with protecting the sort of tactics they use (If you've ever wondered why they use ancient references, consider the fact you have to nearly always go to a library and can't directly look up the quotes to the papers they are mentioning. There IS a reason for that).

Already done. See above. Also, he was busted for trying to do that whole "taxation is unconstitutional" bit, which has to be one of the dumbest things anyone in America has ever tried to do.

Not even I knew that.

If you consider the techincal papers produced by, for example, AiG to be illegitimate, I don't know what else to tell you.

Pubmed is a good place to start (linked to earlier), nature and science are the two premier journals around. I've seen papers that critcise U-Pb dating for example, I can even find some of them, but the complaints have always been very credible and clearly in an attempt to improve the technique not blatantly discount it. It was from one of these papers that the first revelation of using the atoms trapped in zirconian cages was formed, and then later they worked out a much better way to verify the 'true' age of the rock was to compare the atoms of U-Pb in the non-zirconian enclosed portions to those in.

Without fail, the ones outside cages are fluctuating, but the degree of error is only a few million years. When you are dating rocks that are in the billions of years old bracket, you realise that isn't much of an error.

Note: I would like to concede though that these are MORE credible than websites, infinitely more, because at least a copy exists in print. I am more enthused to read an article like that, than one of AiGs random ranting pages for example. Being in print as well as on the web adds a lot to the credibility, in this case it's mostly the content (of which one paper claimed that C14 data was unreliable, it automatically meant all radiation based dating methods were too).

And I propose that there are creationists who wish to get rid of disproven science, especially wherethey do not agree with Hovind's theories and methods.

Nobody does, but that is only some of his ideas. In reality, they share more ground than people realise. Again, I encourage the watching of the AiG, ICR and Hovind videos, because they really don't diverge too much (except on certain points as I have conceded).

This is out of my league. Upon first glance, after having to dig it out, they seem to be saying that the appendix, once thought to be vestigal, is in fact functionary. I always thought that the appendix HAD been found to have a use, not previously being privy to websites of this kind. If that's not the case, I'd be interested to know, but it's not a point I care to debate.

Not enough time now, but I'll copy and paste (yes after doing this enough I'm allowed such liberties) on why it's full of garbage if you feel like it.

Exactly. I knew you would find that odd.

It certainly does hurt the brain

I love soap that claims to kill 99% of bacteria, which would technically make your skin close to being 'immunocompromised' as skin could get. Those bacteria on there are doing you good, not harm!

Anyway...

If you'd like, but in the interest of brevity, I should point out that gravity is immediately verifiable merely by dropping an objec

Gravity, the concept you've just said isn't actually what might make objects drop. Remember, gravity was just the name of the theory by which larger objects generate a field that causes smaller objects to be attracted to them (deliberately simplified and butchered for no particular purpose, my full apologies to Sir Issac Newton). That idea might not actually be correct.

You see, objects might still drop to earth if you disprove gravity, but it will mean that you won't call it gravity anymore.

Which is the part where people talk about evolution as faith-based. It's a poor description for inferrence based on available data, but I'm just sayin...

Kay, I see where this argument comes from anyway.

So long as we don't end up doing stupid things like saying "Evolution lead to communists and NAZI's" and "Reglion ended up in burning people and the crusades" then that's fine. I hate those arguments.

Probably because they would have trouble determining how you could reconcile non-creative evolution with a definitive intercession in the form of Jesus Christ. I'm personally curious about that myself. If God exists but the universe was not created by Him... then what?

I think God directed evolution obviously for whatever purpose. I'm just not going to bother trying to say that and end up with someone like me nothing I can't defend my position. So I just say "you can't prove me wrong either, nyah nyah" and sit on my unassailable pedestal of stone.

He was merely floating about and the universe burst into existence beside Him? I'm not trying to be snarky here (just charmingly irreverent), but it does beg the question.

You're welcome to be snarky if you want, I was bringing up invisible pink unicorns earlier . Anyway, yes I see the point, no I won't bother defending it because I can't provide evidence to basically prove what I know is true. I don't care if other people think it's true, but I think God directed evolution (but proving it is impossible) or whatever purpose he had, but I won't try and find 'scientific' evidence to do so, because it just isn't there.

Don't know if anyone's seen this, it was just discovered a couple weeks ago, but it seems to be turning prehistoric theories upside-down.

Pretty much, nobody really thought it possible until that one was dug up. It fills a few gaps as well that we've had, and is an incredibly interesting little critter. It doesn't get up there with the large carnivourous dinosaurs, but at least it is "reprasenting" for mammalian kind.

 

[Renegade Retard]

You're trying to play on words and technicalities. I'm not buying it.

By "small change" you know good and well what is meant, a change within a species. I agree that slight alterations in the jaw are not "small" to the species, but in fact can have large ramifications on a species. Again, I have never said that I disagree with change within a species. However, change from one kind to the next is a different story.

Insect "jaws" (again for simplicity) - again, you're trying to twist words. I never said that just because it was a good design that it was applicable to all. A good design can be found in certain organisms, but not all. Where would the creativity (yeah, I know, cheap play on words) be if everything was the same? Not all designs are best for all circumstances. I my analogy of architechture, you can find similar designs in say, the Sears Tower and the Empire State building. But those same designs would not work well in something like the Brooklin Bridge. Your argument of comparing insects' mouths to those of other species is obsurd, taking something completely out of context and finding something that has absolutely nothing to do with the other. A very poor point.

And yet, you go on and on trying to show everyone just how big you micobiological peniz is. You're currently in the field, and I've been out of it for almost 10 years. You can spout of facts because they're currenly before you. I'd have to go into storage and dig up my notes. But just because I'm currently not studying, doesn't mean I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. I've moved on to the financial industry and have become a bit of an expert there. Now, if you were to come to me and say "I've got two 5 dollar bills, so I have $10", I can't say to you "no, you fool, those two 5 dollar bills equal $2. I'M the expert you fool, and you don't have the knowledge and training I have, so I'm right and you're wrong!" This is in essence what you're stating, and you're showing just how arrogant you are. Arrogance is often a sign of a lack of confidence. (I say this in jest, with a big attached to it).

But if your only argument is to attack me to make you feel more assured, then attack away.

You're beginning to annoy me.

Too bad. Either get over it or stop posting.

Now, as I have repeatedly stated, my point of posting in this thread isn't an attempt to prove one theory as better than the other, but to get people to think for themselves. You, on the other hand, keep pressing and pressing for someone to get into a big biological debate with you, all the while refusing to debate other aspects of the issue. So, I'll ask you one "biology" question and be done with it, just to satisfy your craving - please explain to me how the woodpecker's tounge evolved. As a biologist, you know that the woodpecker is unique in that it's tounge is not attached in the throat like most other organisms, but instead raps around the skull and attaches to it's nostril. If this attribute is unique to the woodpecker, then how did it evolve from other species? As you pointed out, small changes can be catestrophic. How did this structure change from being based in the throat to such a drastic difference? Evolution takes long periods of time to occur, then there must have existed organisms that had a tongue that was in transition from other organisms to this one. Is there any? How is the transition explained? I sure hope you aren't going to subscribe to the "hopeful moster" theory (where one species individual game birth to an individual of an entirely different species), since this is an entirely outdated evolutionary theory (but, according to you, creation is the only one that has changed it's stance, causing it to lose credibility. But I digress...).

Edit - Added the above. After re-reading, it came across more harsh than I intended.

 

[LHABulldog6]

Evolution.

If we're to the point of debating jawbone structures, I'll just assume that what I'd say in the way of explanation has most likely already been said.

 

[O.S.T]

By "small change" you know good and well what is meant, a change within a species. I agree that slight alterations in the jaw are not "small" to the species, but in fact can have large ramifications on a species. Again, I have never said that I disagree with change within a species. However, change from one kind to the next is a different story.

why is a change from one kind to the next a different story?
"big changes" are just the sum of "small changes"
if an animal changes masses of small things, because it goes to another terrain or the food changes, over a long time, it can become a new species

 

[W0RF]

I think God directed evolution obviously for whatever purpose. I'm just not going to bother trying to say that and end up with someone like me nothing I can't defend my position. So I just say "you can't prove me wrong either, nyah nyah" and sit on my unassailable pedestal of stone.

Isn't directed evolution, though, essentially a form of intelligent design, i.e., guiding the process?

I think in the little continuum scale people like to apply, that would put you in the "evolutionary creationism" camp, and in fact the departure from the ID crowd actually takes the form of the old-earth vs. young-earth argument.

If you had to put me somewhere on the continuum, you probably couldn't. I see merit in the tenets of most of the different perspectives, with the possible exception of Special Creationism, and the certain exclusion of the materialist evolution (a strange cognitive dissonance of acknowledging the observances of evolution and the spiritual truth of God).

Pretty much, nobody really thought it possible until that one was dug up. It fills a few gaps as well that we've had, and is an incredibly interesting little critter. It doesn't get up there with the large carnivourous dinosaurs, but at least it is "reprasenting" for mammalian kind.

It's also an example of different interpretations of identical data, as it has been previously and ardently stated that no such mammals existed at the time. I submit this as something that evolution did NOT predict (and I understand the theories are not cast in stone).

 

[Metakill]

Don't know if anyone's seen this, it was just discovered a couple weeks ago, but it seems to be turning prehistoric theories upside-down

Yeah, thats really cool. Maybe the dinosaurs really died off because we ATE their sorry antiquated asses.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

why is a change from one kind to the next a different story?
"big changes" are just the sum of "small changes"
if an animal changes masses of small things, because it goes to another terrain or the food changes, over a long time, it can become a new species

Because, just like my loopy analogy of Man being descended from an Albatross being impossible, it is also simlarly impossible for any genetic line to "jump the track" so to speak. Meaning that a fruit fly will always breed a fruit fly, regardless of whether it's molecular structure has changed, or it's physical nature.

The point of that is all those fancy images Aegeri posted earlier. It's obviously possible that some genus' of lizards descended from one another due to the similarity in the bone structure of even just their jaw. However, none of those lizard could, for example, have common ancestry with an ape before the "amoebic" level because of how they had to evolve into their habitats. Likewise, you cannot get a monkey to have lizard offspring, or a human to have bobcat offspring (except in the tabloids).

 

[Aegeri]

You're trying to play on words and technicalities. I'm not buying it.

Isn't that all you did to begin with?

By "small change" you know good and well what is meant, a change within a species.

Synapsid dinosaurs and mammals are not the same species. The jaw is one change that happened to come around yes.

I agree that slight alterations in the jaw are not "small" to the species, but in fact can have large ramifications on a species.

And the entire animals physiology.

Again, I have never said that I disagree with change within a species. However, change from one kind to the next is a different story.

Again where is your biology? Where is your analysis and rebuttal to the skulls pictured earlier that are from clearly different organisms, yet clearly show a change in traits from one to the next.

Come now, you haven't answered my argument at all, in fact, you've just tried badly to avoid it.

Insect "jaws" (again for simplicity) - again, you're trying to twist words. I never said that just because it was a good design that it was applicable to all.

So you blather on and on and never actually prove your case by demonstrating why insect jaws are biologically 'not good' designs over the jaw for say, mammals.

Uh huh. Good dodge.

A very poor point.

Except you haven't actually proved your argument with any biology. Why aren't they good for animals? Why wouldn't an animals jaw design for an insect be good?

WHERE IS YOUR BIOLOGY, YOUR FACTS, IN FACT, YOUR SCIENCE.

And yet, you go on and on trying to show everyone just how big you micobiological peniz is.

Currently, you're shooting blanks mate

You're currently in the field, and I've been out of it for almost 10 years. You can spout of facts because they're currenly before you. I'd have to go into storage and dig up my notes

Oh dear notes from 10 years ago.

Wait, hasn't science advanced in 10 years?

. But just because I'm currently not studying, doesn't mean I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. I've moved on to the financial industry and have become a bit of an expert there. Now, if you were to come to me and say "I've got two 5 dollar bills, so I have $10", I can't say to you "no, you fool, those two 5 dollar bills equal $2. I'M the expert you fool, and you don't have the knowledge and training I have, so I'm right and you're wrong!" This is in essence what you're stating,

No, congradulations on making a strawman and now you're just showing that really, you can't answer my arguments.

Blah blah blah, whatever, I've asked you to provide this 'biology' behind the statements you have made (like your good design argument) yet you refuse to do so. Come on, either get on with ceasing to avoid my arguments and running down irrelevant points as I nearly did to Worf over the ICR issue, or admit you have no idea why insect jaws wouldn't suit a mammal.

and you're showing just how arrogant you are. Arrogance is often a sign of a lack of confidence. (I say this in jest, with a big attached to it).

Actually, I'm only arrogant because I know fully that if I make a statement that is in my science I know I can back it. If, however, I was to argue with you over a financial aspect, I would be more than 100% certain to make sure if you asked me to prove my shoddy accounting (which it would be), I'd at least make an attempt to answer you how I came to my figures. I wouldn't try to strawman something irrelevant, ignore your main points and then give myself some sort of victim syndrome to ultimately disguise the fact I'm talking out of my rear end.
'

But if your only argument is to attack me to make you feel more assured, then attack away.

I've not attacked you, merely challenged you to provide your evidence and science behind your statements. You've taken my challenges, realised you HAVE NO idea what you are talking about and have now tried to make it out like I'm attacking you on no basis. I have a very good basis however for my challenge, because if you're going to claim something is a 'good' design for an animal and not an insect, is it so surprising you're going to actually have to prove your case?

Too bad. Either get over it or stop posting.

Not really, I can certainly ignore your posts if you're not going to answer my arguments, yet expect me to answer yours. Guess what, a debate is a two way street.

Now, as I have repeatedly stated, my point of posting in this thread isn't an attempt to prove one theory as better than the other, but to get people to think for themselves.

Of course, I'd like people to think for themselves too. I'd like people who think certain things to be able to defend their logic and statements they've made. If you're going to say "There is no evidence/whatever else" of a biological nature, and I'm around, be prepared to defend your position or say nothing at
all.

I would think your complete disregarding and ignoring of my arguments say volumes for how 'valid' your position really is.

You, on the other hand, keep pressing and pressing for someone to get into a big biological debate with you, all the while refusing to debate other aspects of the issue.

Actually I have, ironically, the one avoiding arguments here is you. I've been going through more of the cosmology/beliefagainstscience side of the debate against Worf. Heck, unlike you, Worf doesn't even claim to know any biology, yet still approaches points made about biology and at least addresses my arguments to a degree (though it isn't what I'm discussing with him primarily).

At the same time, Worf hasn't made any statements of biology just because (unless I missed it) and neither have several others. YOU have made statements concerning aspects of biology, AND YOU ARE SURPRISED THAT I ASK YOU TO BACK THEM UP USING BIOLOGY?

Ho ho ho, your logic is quite warped indeed.

So, I'll ask you one "biology" question and be done with it, just to satisfy your craving - please explain to me how the woodpecker's tounge evolved. As a biologist, you know that the woodpecker is unique in that it's tounge is not attached in the throat like most other organisms, but instead raps around the skull and attaches to it's nostril. If this attribute is unique to the woodpecker, then how did it evolve from other species?

Considering that you have not bothered answering any of mine, I really shouldn't bother answering yours either, but unlike you, I don't shirk arguments simply because they are difficult.

While I am busy at the moment, I shall answer this argument after I've had some time to look up a few references, but I do have an idea as to how this would have evolved already.

I shall respond later tonight, as unlike you, I answer my critics challenges.

As you pointed out, small changes can be catestrophic.

I mentioned they have significant effects on many aspects of the animals biology, not just the one little thing you isolated. Don't put words in my mouth.

How did this structure change from being based in the throat to such a drastic difference? Evolution takes long periods of time to occu

Who says? What are Hox genes?

, then there must have existed organisms that had a tongue that was in transition from other organisms to this one. Is there any?[/quoe]

Let me look it up and we'll find out eh

How is the transition explained? I sure hope you aren't going to subscribe to the "hopeful moster" theory (where one species individual game birth to an individual of an entirely different species

Please, don't use strawmans and idiotic arguments to make your failing position and inability to answer your detractors challenges look better.

), since this is an entirely outdated evolutionary theory (but, according to you, creation is the only one that has changed it's stance, causing it to lose credibility. But I digress...).

I've never said that either, again, what didn't you understand that you would like me to clarify about that argument?

Edit - Added the above. After re-reading, it came across more harsh than I intended.

It would have to have answered my arguments and actually done something to further yours, other than make you look like someone who can give out 'challenges' to be answered yet won't even answer a single one from his opponent.

None the less, I shall get back on the issue on the woodpecker when I have the time to look it up in detail (although I have an idea as to how such an animal would have evolved already, because I don't think you know how to make a biological argument, I'll show you how it is done properly).

 

[Metakill]

I would just like to mention that there are plenty of things that science makes no claims at currently having an explanation for. Science has not managed in its short lifetime to make a complete dissection of the universe and all of its features yet. Its still in its infancy.

Also that believing in something and claiming scientific evidence for it are two different things. Creationists want their ideas to be taught alongside evolution, but it has no place being taught as science, at least until it comes up with some actual physical evidence.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I would just like to mention that there are plenty of things that science makes no claims at currently having an explanation for. Science has not managed in its short lifetime to make a complete dissection of the universe and all of its features yet. Its still in its infancy.

Also that believing in something and claiming scientific evidence for it are two different things. Creationists want their ideas to be taught alongside evolution, but it has no place being taught as science, at least until it comes up with some actual physical evidence.

The nature of creationism requires that there IS NO finite evidence. The problem is that that goes against everything every scientist will tell you.

Unfortunately, there is no better way for creationism. Evolutionists will find most things that people believe prove the existance of an intelligent designer proof of Evolution, and vice versa... so there is no way to say you are right and they are wrong and vice versa either.

 

[Aegeri]

Because, just like my loopy analogy of Man being descended from an Albatross being impossible, it is also simlarly impossible for any genetic line to "jump the track" so to speak. Meaning that a fruit fly will always breed a fruit fly

Has it now? It is funny that you mention drosophila actually, because they have already been established to have mutations that can make considerably different animals than the parent, and even become reproductively isolated. All in a mere handful of generations in a lab.

Read, "The Fly" for more information on what exactly has been shown is possible with it.

, regardless of whether it's molecular structure has changed, or it's physical nature.

Except, you would be wrong as if nobody told you the second organisms (which are in fact beetle like, and don't really look that much like the orginal fruit fly) were from drosophila, you more than likely wouldn't be able to spot the difference. I would bet you'd say the exact same statement about that organism to boot

The point of that is all those fancy images Aegeri posted earlier. It's obviously possible that some genus' of lizards descended from one another due to the similarity in the bone structure of even just their jaw.

Except the last isn't a lizard, it's actually a definite mammal. Unless of course, you've missed what was going on with the ear bones (sneaky I know, but it is there). Do lizards have ear bones like that? I suggest you look that up.

However, none of those lizard could, for example, have common ancestry with an ape before the "amoebic" level because of how they had to evolve into their habitats.

Incorrect, they have common ancestory with all mammals, because they *are* the ancestors of mammals. We are mammals. We are primates. Apes are members of the primate group. We could not be related to birds very simply: Birds are diapsids, you and I, and apes too, are synapsids.

Your statement is completely refuted on a basic comparative level.

Likewise, you cannot get a monkey to have lizard offspring, or a human to have bobcat offspring (except in the tabloids).

STRAWMAN.

Congradulations you have just completely discredited your argument.

so there is no way to say you are right and they are wrong and vice versa either.

Again, wrong. This whole "well you can't say either way" stuff really doesn't fly. There is more support by the evidence for evolution, because as I keep harping on about, when it has made predictions it has found these predictions to be true. Based on the evidence and accuracy of the predictions alone, evolution is a more rock solid theory with BETTER evidence and testing behind it than even gravity.

If you want to question evolution go ahead, but I'd also like to know why you don't disbelieve gravity which has less solid evidence behind it! (And yes, I know I've already answered this question earlier)

Isn't directed evolution, though, essentially a form of intelligent design, i.e., guiding

Probably, but I define that as just what I think. I don't regard it as being a credible scientific hypothesis or idea. I wouldn't call myself a creationist, because I would never bother defending the idea as I'm well aware what I want to believe is my perogative. I'm not about to make silly blanket biological statements to try and make my world view credible, because I see no need to do so in the first place. Again, what I believe is what I believe, but what evidence is available clearly indicates evolution.

It's also an example of different interpretations of identical data, as it has been previously and ardently stated that no such mammals existed at the time. I submit this as something that evolution did NOT predict

Acually, there isn't really that much from an evolutionary point of view that would rule out such mammals. If you've read the report in the latest nature, the bones have been found in an area that has been devoid of large carnivourous dinosaurs. With an open niche and an animal with the equipment (read predatory abilities) to take advantage of it I'm not surprised at all, nor are other evolutionary scientists. Niche selection people will have a field day with the discovery, because it will provide evidence for certain aspects of their hypothesis correct.

 

[Renegade Retard]

STRAWMAN

Again, being pompous and high and mighty over everyone else.

And yes, as I've already stated before, I AM avoiding a debate on the biological facts because it is pointless. This topic has been debated in many many arenas in the past, and they always end with no resolution. That's why I have said all along that I wasn't going to be involved in a debate over who's right and who's not, because both sides of the arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't have time to argue with a pompous narrow-minded individual who puffs out his chest to proclaim he knows all, and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as an idiot just because he doesn't share his interpretations.

Now having said that, I have enjoyed your points and arguments (hey, I can be open-minded), all the "better than thou" stuff aside. You've done your homework, and it's refreshing to actually see someone argue their point and know a little bit of what they're talking about, even if I disagree with your assertation. I'm just not in the mood and don't have the time to get into a pizzing contest. I have to do that enough in the office.

Again, my point has been all along 1) that people think for themselves, and 2) (which I failed to mention the post before) that people at least admit that there takes a trust the the position they hold is legitimate because some of the basic foundations of both views rooted in ideas that cannot be proven by the scientic method, which includes being able to observe, experiement, test, and duplicate.

 

[NiftyBoy]

I'm sorry Aegeri I've been following the discussion closely and appreciate the effort you've put into your posts. I've definitely learned a lot. But seeing people gloss over all the points being raised and responding to one word makes me sad

 

[Aegeri]

Again, being pompous and high and mighty over everyone else.

Yep, you ignored all my points and have relegated to this position again. I'm sorry however, but the quoted statement was a strawman, anyone who knows what the theory of evolution says knows such a statement is a strawman, and in fact, if you google the term, such an exact phrase is used commonly describe a strawman argument (as the example).

And yes, as I've already stated before, I AM avoiding a debate on the biological facts because it is pointless. This topic has been debated in many many arenas in the past, and they always end with no resolution.

I've usually found a resolution in the arguments I've had

Of course, again, you make a stupid statement be prepared to defend it. As you are clearly unable and unwilling to defend your statements, please go elsewhere and cease filling the thread with needless crap.

That's why I have said all along that I wasn't going to be involved in a debate over who's right and who's not, because both sides of the arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't have time to argue with a pompous narrow-minded individual who puffs out his chest to proclaim he knows all, and dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as an idiot just because he doesn't share his interpretations.

Again with the victim routine, really, can't you just admit that either you cannot defend your position or that you cannot meet my arguments?

I could say the same about you though, I could say the same about you.

Now having said that, I have enjoyed your points and arguments (hey, I can be open-minded),

I assure you, I enjoy wasting time and effort on someone who makes ridiculous claims, gets hissy and overly defensive when someone counter points him, and then plays the victim routine: K bye I ignore your posts now.

What the hell, I was looking forward to answering your question about the woodpecker, but now that I realise it, you're not worth it.

all the "better than thou" stuff aside. You've done your homework, and it's refreshing to actually see someone argue their point and know a little bit of what they're talking about, even if I disagree with your assertation. I'm just not in the mood and don't have the time to get into a pizzing contest. I have to do that enough in the office.

I guess so, as I work in a lab I'm naturally surrounded by suitable textbooks, sources and with the fact gels and PCR reactions take 1-2 hours to do each, I have the free time now and again.

But honestly, don't make a statement you aren't prepared to defend.

Again, my point has been all along 1) that people think for themselves, and 2) (which I failed to mention the post before) that people at least admit that there takes a trust the the position they hold is legitimate because some of the basic foundations of both views rooted in ideas that cannot be proven by the scientic method, which includes being able to observe, experiement, test, and duplicate.

I guess you haven't followed anything I've been writing anyway, anyone would see that I've done 2, I've even decided for once to give people some indication that I'm not even an atheist (for a change, I prefer people I argue with to think that in these debates). Evidently, from the way you've decided to exit, ignoring every argument and counterpoint bought up against you, you've decided that I've already decided 1 should be 'what I think' for everyone.

I've never said that, I will, and ALWAYS will maintain that you can say what you want. But if you make a point about some aspect of biology, make sure you know it is correct or be prepared to defend the position from the other side. Again, if you're going to make such incredibly bold statements as "there is just as much evidence for creation as there is evolution" or "the changes in the jaws shown are only small" be prepared to defend that position when someone thinks you are horribly wrong, AND is presenting evidence.

Oh and yes, I'm an arrogant arse. I freely admit that, but I also admit that I'm only an arrogant arse when I know I can back up my position very confidently. Making a statement and claiming it as truth without being able to support your position, not only makes you an arrogant arse, it makes you a fool as well.

I'm sorry Aegeri I've been following the discussion closely and appreciate the effort you've put into your posts. I've definitely learned a lot. But seeing people gloss over all the points being raised and responding to one word makes me sad

It isn't like I don't see where he is coming from, many people find me flat out offensive because I call a spade a spade and a pick a pick. Whatever, I've ceased wasting time with people who aren't ready to debate, when there are others in the thread clearly doing so and intelligently.

 

[W0RF]

Niche selection people will have a field day with the discovery, because it will provide evidence for certain aspects of their hypothesis correct.

It also lends weight to the Young Earth hypothesis that mammals and dinosaurs did in fact exist at the same time, even if it is an isolated example. I mean, they HAVE been repeatedly ridiculed for even suggesting it (I know, I know, science, peer review, blah blah). Also, doesn't it say something about the supposed transition from dinosaurs to mammals if they did in fact exist together?

These are open-ended questions, of course. As you said yourself, I'm not dumb enough to make any definitive claims so far outside my field. And biology is about as far as I get from it

 

[Iron Archer]

I don't think either side has all the answers. Rather it is a combination of both. My rationale behind why the Bible does not have detailed explanations of the Big Bang, cell division and even evolution itself is that at the time man would have found such themes incomprehensible, and thus a more metaphorical account came to be in Genesis. To answer the question of why I would still put stock in some higher power creating the universe, I would have to point out the many animals that have features that protect them from specific predators and the overall complexity of the human organism. To think that humans, mammals, and all other animals are happenstance is pretty hard to believe--but then again, some people do have a problem with beliefs.

 

[Metakill]

It also lends weight to the Young Earth hypothesis that mammals and dinosaurs did in fact exist at the same time

But its been long known that they existed at the same time, just that dinosaurs originated first. What wasn't known was that mammals held a predatory niche in the world dominated by carnosaurs.

Also, doesn't it say something about the supposed transition from dinosaurs to mammals if they did in fact exist together?

Just because one species evolves fom another, it doesn't imply that the previous species immediately goes away. Case in point: fish arose prior to both dinosaurs and mammals, but still here they are.

 

[W0RF]

but dinosaurs are not.

I'm kinda with deadpool on this one, it's more efficient for the Hebrew method of oral transmission, and the epic language more befitting their linguistic style, although most of the poetry is lost in translation.

 

[bobtheking]

but then again, some people do have a problem with beliefs.

after hundreds of millions of years of natural selection, i don't find it hard to believe at all. you basically have the 'its too complex to happen without intelligence' argument here.

 

[Aegeri]

It also lends weight to the Young Earth hypothesis that mammals and dinosaurs did in fact exist at the same time, even if it is an isolated example.

Not quite. What they imply is that the *current* mammals, such as elephants, tigers and the like existed at the same time as dinosaurs. Not that *mammals* existed at the same time, which has been known for a long time now.

I mean, they HAVE been repeatedly ridiculed for even suggesting it (I know, I know, science, peer review, blah blah).

So have people who claimed there were larger mammals in the period of the dinosaurs. They now have some fossil evidence to indicate that they were quite correct.

Until an elephant shows up in the same strata as rocks, or better, bits of a modern mammal turn up in a dinosaur fossil, then the other viewpoint won't gain much credence.

Also, doesn't it say something about the supposed transition from dinosaurs to mammals if they did in fact exist together?

I would expect them to actually. Mammals diverged from dinosaurs *before* these fossils in terms of the record. Also, when animals begin to diverge, the old organism isn't just suddenly wiped out, speciation is generally a thing that occurs so that animals can exploit different niches found in the same habitat. In this case, it appears that large carnivourous dinosaurs were not present, or possibly not in large numbers and mammals were in such a position to take advantage of such a niche. Of course, I have to wonder if most mammals were supposed to be shrew like, where these larger ones had came from.

More holes for the fossil record I suppose.

These are open-ended questions, of course. As you said yourself, I'm not dumb enough to make any definitive claims so far outside my field. And biology is about as far as I get from it

The one about larger mammals being around at the time of the dinosaurs is very valid question though, and certainly should leave some room to debate exactly when mammals began to become the predominant species and what could have possibly done that.

but dinosaurs are not.

Unfortunately, dinosaurs were not as good at adapting to a changing environment as the mammals that later supplanted them. I say unfortunately, because although I would not like to meet a Velociraptor face to face, it would be a fascinating creature to study.

Plus it has one of those lovely jaws that I'm so obsessed about.

To think that humans, mammals, and all other animals are happenstance is pretty hard to believe--but then again, some people do have a problem with beliefs.

Some people just have a problem with God, don't see the need for one or whatever takes their fancy. A purely naturalistic view is just as reasonable to some over the idea of a intangible deity.