Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Knight Templar]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

 

[monfang]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

Do you have the page numbers by any chance?

 

[DracoSuave]

But Nanako....

but....

...ih...

 

[monfang]

Draco, I don't believe that the Scientific Method can prove Creationism, ID, or Evolution.

Instead, I go by the Forensic Method.

You can not perform experiments to make creatures evolve into new species without there being some element of control over them. (Controlling the creatures to evolve only proves ID, not prove Evolution.) Nor can you prove that God exists though the Scientific Method. However, if we look at the evidence before us, I believe that we can find the truth.

Forensic science is based on observation. They know the cause and observe the effect. This makes it possible for them to reason from effect back to the cause with a high degree of certainty.

A forensic scientist would never be so foolish as to say, ?I?ve never seen a wound like this before. Therefore, it must have come from a Martian Death Ray, which proves there must be life on Mars.? The conclusions of forensic scientists are always based on observations of effects with known causes.

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

The fallacy in their argument is that they believe they can reason from an effect they have never seen before back to a presumed cause that has never been observed.

 

[evilneko]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

 

[DracoSuave]

Wouldn't previous existance of, and subsequant extinction of, certain mythological creatures such as griffons be supporting evidence FOR evolution?


Also, griffons, pegasii, any sort of large winged mammal hybrid thing can't exist. There's this thing called the cube law regarding the mass of things, stating that as you double the dimensions of something, you must multiply its mass by 8 times. This would necessitate increasing the wingspan of such a creature by 8 times in order to get the same lift.

I mean, there's a REALLY simple explanation for how such things came to be in folklore.

People's got imaginations. They dream up such trippy shit.

 

[monfang]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

Lucy (started with skull fragments I believe) , Eosimias (The proof comes from two grain sized pieces of bone.), Millennium Man (A tooth started it now they have 13 bones from diffrent individuals, not even full bones), Ardipithecus (Same as before, but mostly teeth.)

 

[DracoSuave]

Draco, I don't believe that the Scientific Method can prove Creationism, ID, or Evolution.

Instead, I go by the Forensic Method.

You can not perform experiments to make creatures evolve into new species without there being some element of control over them. (Controlling the creatures to evolve only proves ID, not prove Evolution.) Nor can you prove that God exists though the Scientific Method. However, if we look at the evidence before us, I believe that we can find the truth.

There's a fallacy to this thinking:

Forensic science is based on observation. They know the cause and observe the effect. This makes it possible for them to reason from effect back to the cause with a high degree of certainty.

We know the cause, therefore we can look at the effect and determine the cause.

The problem with applying this 'forensic method' is that you do NOT know the cause. That's kinda the point isn't it?

Not to mention it's logically fallacious. A -> B does not mean B -> A. Logical implication is not bi-directional.

A forensic scientist would never be so foolish as to say, ?I?ve never seen a wound like this before. Therefore, it must have come from a Martian Death Ray, which proves there must be life on Mars.? The conclusions of forensic scientists are always based on observations of effects with known causes.

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

The fallacy in their argument is that they believe they can reason from an effect they have never seen before back to a presumed cause that has never been observed.

The counter argument to this actually exists. There have been dinosaur species, thought to exist, where strange remains were found with them. Further strange findings caused a later conclusion that the original species did not exist, but, in fact, were because of two different species being found at the same location, with the strange fossil findings being the parts missing of those two species.

Science doesn't, as you insist, go 'Hey look, this is odd, it must be a martian death ray!' What it DOES do is go 'Hey, this is odd. We should examine this further.' Then it makes hypotheses.

The only time science says something for certain, is when it has been tested with rigor, when evidence has piled up. So, it's not going to say 'It's a martian death ray' until they've discovered enough of them, on mars, at the scene of a war, with dead martians from wounds that look like they were caused by the death ray.

 

[Scipio1770]

want to research it now? try this link.

http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/debates/

Did you really just link a Kent Hovind video as research??

 

[metal mustache]

hooooooooooooly crap I could not listen to just him for even one minute haha.
skipped to the Q and A, on a side, loved how that proffessor repeaditly asked him to stop avoiding the questions. So, is there any chance you know of any actual creationism science? his whole speech appeared to be an attempt to discredit evolution anyway. All i can recall from my time in catholic school is 'On the nth day(5?), god created the animals'.

 

[monfang]

We know the cause, therefore we can look at the effect and determine the cause.

The problem with applying this 'forensic method' is that you do NOT know the cause. That's kinda the point isn't it?

Not to mention it's logically fallacious. A -> B does not mean B -> A. Logical implication is not bi-directional.

A forensic scientist would never be so foolish as to say, ?I?ve never seen a wound like this before. Therefore, it must have come from a Martian Death Ray, which proves there must be life on Mars.? The conclusions of forensic scientists are always based on observations of effects with known causes.

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

The fallacy in their argument is that they believe they can reason from an effect they have never seen before back to a presumed cause that has never been observed.

The counter argument to this actually exists. There have been dinosaur species, thought to exist, where strange remains were found with them. Further strange findings caused a later conclusion that the original species did not exist, but, in fact, were because of two different species being found at the same location, with the strange fossil findings being the parts missing of those two species.

Science doesn't, as you insist, go 'Hey look, this is odd, it must be a martian death ray!' What it DOES do is go 'Hey, this is odd. We should examine this further.' Then it makes hypotheses.

The only time science says something for certain, is when it has been tested with rigor, when evidence has piled up. So, it's not going to say 'It's a martian death ray' until they've discovered enough of them, on mars, at the scene of a war, with dead martians from wounds that look like they were caused by the death ray.

I wonder how one would test if a pile of bones were a living creature millions of years ago... Especially when you only have say.. Teeth or a claw.

Beyond that, I can't comprehend the point you are trying to make.

"The counter argument to this actually exists. There have been dinosaur species, thought to exist, where strange remains were found with them."

Are you trying to say that because there are strange remains that don't match living animals, they must have come from extinct dinosaurs?

"Further strange findings caused a later conclusion that the original species did not exist, but, in fact, were because of two different species being found at the same location, with the strange fossil findings being the parts missing of those two species."

I'm sorry, but what?

 

[Ritter315]

I dislike the rather smug way atheist dismiss any Creation Science or even Intelligent Design arguements because its "Not really science" or has been "disproved before many times" because that could literally be said about anything (within reason obviously) Unless you can articulate the arguement, dont assume that you're correct. Also, the studies about atheists being more intelligent than believers is actually pretty skewed. Its not a matter of intellect or upbringing, its simply education. More highly educated people tend to be more atheistic. Does that mean atheists are SMARTER than believers? No, its just because most atheists arent lower class and believers (being a larger majority by A LOT) are obviously going to be less educated because there is MORE of them. Its a simple mathimatical miscalcuation.

 

[DracoSuave]

We know the cause, therefore we can look at the effect and determine the cause.

The problem with applying this 'forensic method' is that you do NOT know the cause. That's kinda the point isn't it?

Not to mention it's logically fallacious. A -> B does not mean B -> A. Logical implication is not bi-directional.

A forensic scientist would never be so foolish as to say, ?I?ve never seen a wound like this before. Therefore, it must have come from a Martian Death Ray, which proves there must be life on Mars.? The conclusions of forensic scientists are always based on observations of effects with known causes.

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

The fallacy in their argument is that they believe they can reason from an effect they have never seen before back to a presumed cause that has never been observed.

The counter argument to this actually exists. There have been dinosaur species, thought to exist, where strange remains were found with them. Further strange findings caused a later conclusion that the original species did not exist, but, in fact, were because of two different species being found at the same location, with the strange fossil findings being the parts missing of those two species.

Science doesn't, as you insist, go 'Hey look, this is odd, it must be a martian death ray!' What it DOES do is go 'Hey, this is odd. We should examine this further.' Then it makes hypotheses.

The only time science says something for certain, is when it has been tested with rigor, when evidence has piled up. So, it's not going to say 'It's a martian death ray' until they've discovered enough of them, on mars, at the scene of a war, with dead martians from wounds that look like they were caused by the death ray.

I wonder how one would test if a pile of bones were a living creature millions of years ago... Especially when you only have say.. Teeth or a claw.

If you are curious, you could probably study basic paleantology then. They have many means and ways of doing this. Some of them involve using the rock structure they are found in to determine the age.

Beyond that, I can't comprehend the point you are trying to make.

That your 'forensic method' involves circular logic, not science.

[quote["The counter argument to this actually exists. There have been dinosaur species, thought to exist, where strange remains were found with them."

Are you trying to say that because there are strange remains that don't match living animals, they must have come from extinct dinosaurs?[/quote]

Eh... what? That's not even close to what I said.

There have been times where paleantology has determined the existance of a species, but later, once evidence came forth (i.e. finding 'strange remains) that they were wrong, and they revised their thinking that it was two different species.

In other words, paleantology is perfectly willing and able to change the commonly accepted view based on provided evidence.

"Further strange findings caused a later conclusion that the original species did not exist, but, in fact, were because of two different species being found at the same location, with the strange fossil findings being the parts missing of those two species."

I'm sorry, but what?

I'll dumb it down for you.

Science will change its mind about stuff when you present wierd things that don't fit the theory. It's how science works.

 

[DracoSuave]

I dislike the rather smug way atheist dismiss any Creation Science or even Intelligent Design arguements because its "Not really science" or has been "disproved before many times" because that could literally be said about anything (within reason obviously)

The reason that evolutionists (which has nothing to do with atheism) don't accept creationism as science is because it's not scientificly valid do to the complete lack of experimentation. They don't claim it's wrong, because science doesn't work that way. They don't claim creationism has been disproven.

They claim that creationism is inherently untestable, and as such, is not of scientific value. Science is a process, and creationism does not fit within that process. So it is right for science to say 'This is not science' because of the lack of that process. It's not being smug, it's a statement of fact.

Ordinarliy there is no problem, however this debate does come up way too often in the realm of education. Creationists would have their philosophy taught as science. But, as previously established, it is not a science, so doing so would be a lie. Ergo, creationists wish to teach studants a lie, and that cannot be tolerated in any free society.

If they want to teach it, teach it as philosophy. Leave it out of science class.

Unless you can articulate the arguement, dont assume that you're correct. Also, the studies about atheists being more intelligent than believers is actually pretty skewed. Its not a matter of intellect or upbringing, its simply education. More highly educated people tend to be more atheistic. Does that mean atheists are SMARTER than believers? No, its just because most atheists arent lower class and believers (being a larger majority by A LOT) are obviously going to be less educated because there is MORE of them. Its a simple mathimatical miscalcuation.

I'm not touching this debate, as it's irrelevant to the actual topic of creationism's nonexistant body of work. However, it is very telling that education.. i.e. actual learning... tends towards atheism.

The conflict however, is in science vs. dogma. Science is the seeking of answers, and dogma is assuming answers already exist. If you are claiming that assuming answers exist is bad, and one should be openminded, then one must reject dogma. Science is the opposite of assumption.

To be a scientist you must accept there IS the unknown. You must be able to accept that what you know could be wrong. You must accept that the answers you have today might not be as good as the answers you have tomorrow.

Anyone who claims sciences says it has the answers is misleading. Science doesn't have all the answers... it chases the answers. It seeks them out. It wants to know, and test, and learn. Science is the process of learning. Dogma is the process of ignorance.

The choice is easy to make.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

You know making a self suficient universe would be a more intelligent design than one you have to keep running manually.

 

[Bradeck]

Sadly, I have. There just wasn't much science to speak off. Actually, there wasn't any, just a whole lot of bullshit. That Dr Dino crap...

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

"Evolved". Involved would suggest some type of romantic relationship.

Please show me scientific evidence against evolution, that does not have to do with the creation of life. Because they are not the same. God creating the universe has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is one species adapting to it's habitat, or forcibly changing itself at a cellular level to better achieve dominance. Granted, this takes millions of years.

TL;DR - Don't feed the creationist trolls.

 

[Images]

No I haven't. You're right though. I've turned a new leaf. Let me look into that as soon as I've finished my studies of the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns and El Chupacabra, the Mexican goat sucker.

 

[evilneko]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

Lucy (started with skull fragments I believe) , Eosimias (The proof comes from two grain sized pieces of bone.), Millennium Man (A tooth started it now they have 13 bones from diffrent individuals, not even full bones), Ardipithecus (Same as before, but mostly teeth.)

Lucy isn't the only australopithecus ever found, just the most famous, partly for being the first to be found and partly for the relative completeness of the fossil. Lucy is not just a few skull fragments.

"Millenium Man" or rather Orrorin tugenensis truly didn't leave us much to go on, but there's enough to say it existed and is different in significant ways from other hominids.

As for Ardipithecus, same story as Lucy, only more so. You've been sorely misinformed.

In none of these examples has an entire animal been reconstructed from paltry remains as you seem to imply. The closest you come to that is with Orrorin tugenensis but even with him, there are enough fossils to classify it and thus, he gets a name.

 

[UltraXan]

No because there isn't any.

Scientific creationism is an oxymoron.

You, sir, hit the nail dead on the head.

Anyway, there is 0 scientific evidence of creation. There IS scientific evidence for evolution, and it seems MUCH more likely that it happened, but as many people know, it is only a theory and hasn't been fully proven to be true. But let me ask you a something. There are two theories as to how we came to be. There is creation, and then there is evolution. What do you think is more believable? Being created just as we are by an invisible, all powerful being, one that doesn't have any solid proof for existing, or a theory that explains not only how we came to be, but how every animal on the planet came to be and adapt to their environment through mutation and evolution. A theory, I might add, that has proof to back it up, despite not being 100% definitive. All those religious people have to realize that what they're believing just doesn't make any sense compared to the alternative. COMMON SENSE, PEOPLE, YOU NEED MORE OF IT!

 

[monfang]

Evolutionists routinely find fragmentary fossils (a piece of skull, or a single tooth) unlike any fossils that have ever been seen before. Based on this single type-specimen, they define a new species, and confidently say what creature it descended from, and what creature it evolved into. That?s not forensic science. It?s not science at all. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution.

If this happens so often as you seem to imply then you should be able to provide an example or two or three.

Lucy (started with skull fragments I believe) , Eosimias (The proof comes from two grain sized pieces of bone.), Millennium Man (A tooth started it now they have 13 bones from diffrent individuals, not even full bones), Ardipithecus (Same as before, but mostly teeth.)

Lucy isn't the only australopithecus ever found, just the most famous, partly for being the first to be found and partly for the relative completeness of the fossil. Lucy is not just a few skull fragments.

"Millenium Man" or rather Orrorin tugenensis truly didn't leave us much to go on, but there's enough to say it existed and is different in significant ways from other hominids.

As for Ardipithecus, same story as Lucy, only more so. You've been sorely misinformed.

In none of these examples has an entire animal been reconstructed from paltry remains as you seem to imply. The closest you come to that is with Orrorin tugenensis but even with him, there are enough fossils to classify it and thus, he gets a name.

Have you seen any of those bones? They are so badly damaged and look so similar that it takes a bit of imagination to put them all together. And by imagination, I mean leaps of faith. Scientists even say it themselves.

The first, fragmentary specimens of Ardipithecus were found at Aramis in 1992 and published in 1994. The skeleton announced today was discovered that same year and excavated with the bones of the other individuals over the next three field seasons. But it took 15 years before the research team could fully analyze and publish the skeleton, because the fossils were in such bad shape.

After Ardi died, her remains apparently were trampled down into mud by hippos and other passing herbivores. Millions of years later, erosion brought the badly crushed and distorted bones back to the surface.

They were so fragile they would turn to dust at a touch.

Shreeve, National Geographic magazine, October 1, 2009, ?Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found?, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

How does one put together the badly damage and degraded bones of a creature they have never seen before?

Millennium Man as a total of 20 bone fragments (as I know of them.) Here is a picture that I can find of them: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v8i12g1.gif

The three largest are leg bones. They look like dog or cat bones to me but, anyway. I question again how they are able to take those and make this: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v8i12g2.jpg

Leap of faith, maybe? Lets hope they don't make the same mistake that they did with the Nebraska Man. (They found a tooth they believed was from a neanderthal. Turns out it was from a pig.)