Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-07-2007, 01:30 PM

Still dodging the tricky questions, Dave? Did you read my last post?
Here's the link to the relevant article again: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/apr05...ileFloods.html

Now Davey boy, me ol' George of the jungle, wotcha reckon about that then?
Do you find it interesting that an independent dating test performed after the establishment of the standard chronology for dynastic Egypt ends up backing up that chronology? Note that the article not only mentions that Egyptian society was collapsing in 2170 BC, but that the Nile was behaving itself and Egyptian society was prosperous around 3300 BC when the standard chronology says the pyramids were built. Don't you think this sorta buggers Smyth's theory?
I sure do.

Anyway, back to geology. Now, if your wafflings about catastrophes are accurate and you are the next Bretz (so there) don't you think that the area around Aswan should look like the scablands? You know, same evidence remaining? Well?

Seven Popes · 08-07-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why do committed materialists always say "science is self correcting" when faced with the fact that their materialist theories are wrong? Why not give credit where credit is due and say "Yup ... We were wrong about slow and gradual here ...

Scientists are willing to believe in a biblical flood, Dave. All they want is proof. The YEC crowd have none.
Remember Dave, Many of these scientists are Christians. They are just following the evidence.

Dave Hawkins · 08-07-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

[1] Got a citation for any scientist who said that cells were simple? I'll bet that was the prevailing view in the 19th century, at a time when cellular biology was in its infancy. That's the whole point though Dave - scientists have acquired a vast amount of extra knowledge since then. Indeed that's the whole point of science - updating hypotheses in the light of new experimental data. An approach that has yielded incalculable benefits, and the very antithesis of the approach you would have the world adopt, namely rigid adherence to the precepts of a 3,000 year old text as the last word on all scientific questions.

[2] People here and elsewhere have exhibited transitional forms that are accepted as such by legions of genuine scientists. Just because you don't accept them as such (or accept their ages) because doing so doesn';t conform to your religious preconceptions does NOT in any way invalidate this. In fact, Dave, biologists have been aware for decades that since the very concept of 'species' is a dynamic one, all organisms that are alive today and that have ever lived are 'transitional'. How else could it be given that dissemination of variation across generations via DNA is an established fact?

[3] I wasn't around when this was being dealt with at AtBC, but I gather that several other people here were, and can provide us with what MacNeill actually said in this regard. Might be intereting to see his full words to see if they match your interpretation (it would hardly be setting a major precedent if they did not) ...

[4] Actually, what geologists accept nowadays is a mixture of slow, gradual processes puncutated by intermittent larger scale events. They haven't "largely discarded Lyellinaism", they've refined their approach, which is somewhat different. I think you'll find that the typical accredited geologist accepts that quite a few important processes take a long time. Sedimentary deposition in lakes not subject to high-speed water flows being one of them.

[1] No, but I'm sure some exist. You yourself said you bet this was the prevailing view in the 19th century, which of course, is my point so why bother hunting for a citation? In the 19th century, scientists thought cells were simple, so the idea of spontaneous generation and development of species seemed like it would not require any special intelligence to have created it.
[2] You can assert that archaeopteryx and and other specimens are transitional, but they don't seem very transitional upon close inspection. For example, can you describe the process of how scales evolved into feathers? Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?
[3] I gave a link to the entire MacNeill quote here at this forum -- here it is again -- http://www.uncommondescent.com/archi...#comment-69014 -- and you came back and scolded me for using UD as an authority. I still haven't figured how UD is being used an authority here when it was MacNeill himself that posted the comment. Please explain that one to me. Thx

Dave Hawkins · 08-07-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Popes

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Why do committed materialists always say "science is self correcting" when faced with the fact that their materialist theories are wrong? Why not give credit where credit is due and say "Yup ... We were wrong about slow and gradual here ...

Scientists are willing to believe in a biblical flood, Dave. All they want is proof. The YEC crowd have none.
Remember Dave, Many of these scientists are Christians. They are just following the evidence.

There is no such thing as 'proof' for an event in ancient history ... just evidence. And I have given mounds of it already. See my Formal Debate at RD.net with Deadman Eric Murphy.

08-07-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

There is no such thing as 'proof' for an event in ancient history ... just evidence. And I have given mounds of it already. See my Formal Debate at RD.net with Deadman Eric Murphy.

Some of us did see it. Your "evidence" was pathetic. You haven't answered my last two posts yet. Planning to?

Occam's Aftershave · 08-07-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

[1] Got a citation for any scientist who said that cells were simple? I'll bet that was the prevailing view in the 19th century, at a time when cellular biology was in its infancy. That's the whole point though Dave - scientists have acquired a vast amount of extra knowledge since then. Indeed that's the whole point of science - updating hypotheses in the light of new experimental data. An approach that has yielded incalculable benefits, and the very antithesis of the approach you would have the world adopt, namely rigid adherence to the precepts of a 3,000 year old text as the last word on all scientific questions.

[2] People here and elsewhere have exhibited transitional forms that are accepted as such by legions of genuine scientists. Just because you don't accept them as such (or accept their ages) because doing so doesn';t conform to your religious preconceptions does NOT in any way invalidate this. In fact, Dave, biologists have been aware for decades that since the very concept of 'species' is a dynamic one, all organisms that are alive today and that have ever lived are 'transitional'. How else could it be given that dissemination of variation across generations via DNA is an established fact?

[3] I wasn't around when this was being dealt with at AtBC, but I gather that several other people here were, and can provide us with what MacNeill actually said in this regard. Might be intereting to see his full words to see if they match your interpretation (it would hardly be setting a major precedent if they did not) ...

[4] Actually, what geologists accept nowadays is a mixture of slow, gradual processes puncutated by intermittent larger scale events. They haven't "largely discarded Lyellinaism", they've refined their approach, which is somewhat different. I think you'll find that the typical accredited geologist accepts that quite a few important processes take a long time. Sedimentary deposition in lakes not subject to high-speed water flows being one of them.

[1] No, but I'm sure some exist. You yourself said you bet this was the prevailing view in the 19th century, which of course, is my point so why bother hunting for a citation? In the 19th century, scientists thought cells were simple, so the idea of spontaneous generation and development of species seemed like it would not require any special intelligence to have created it.
[2] You can assert that archaeopteryx and and other specimens are transitional, but they don't seem very transitional upon close inspection. For example, can you describe the process of how scales evolved into feathers? Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?
[3] I gave a link to the entire MacNeill quote here at this forum -- here it is again -- http://www.uncommondescent.com/archi...#comment-69014 -- and you came back and scolded me for using UD as an authority. I still haven't figured how UD is being used an authority here when it was MacNeill himself that posted the comment. Please explain that one to me. Thx

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........... For fuck sakes Dave, learn a new tune!

08-07-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

[2] People here and elsewhere have exhibited transitional forms that are accepted as such by legions of genuine scientists. Just because you don't accept them as such (or accept their ages) because doing so doesn';t conform to your religious preconceptions does NOT in any way invalidate this. In fact, Dave, biologists have been aware for decades that since the very concept of 'species' is a dynamic one, all organisms that are alive today and that have ever lived are 'transitional'. How else could it be given that dissemination of variation across generations via DNA is an established fact?

[3] I wasn't around when this was being dealt with at AtBC, but I gather that several other people here were, and can provide us with what MacNeill actually said in this regard. Might be intereting to see his full words to see if they match your interpretation (it would hardly be setting a major precedent if they did not) ...

[2] You can assert that archaeopteryx and and other specimens are transitional, but they don't seem very transitional upon close inspection. For example, can you describe the process of how scales evolved into feathers? Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?
[3] I gave a link to the entire MacNeill quote here at this forum -- here it is again -- http://www.uncommondescent.com/archi...#comment-69014 -- and you came back and scolded me for using UD as an authority. I still haven't figured how UD is being used an authority here when it was MacNeill himself that posted the comment. Please explain that one to me. Thx

Could this derail go over to Evo/Creo if you guys wish to continue it? Thanks.

Amaleq13 · 08-07-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

Could this derail go over to Evo/Creo if you guys wish to continue it? Thanks.

I officially second that notion though the utter ingorance of evolution revealed by the sentence "Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?" suggests it would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Calilasseia · 08-07-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?

This is not even worth a point of view.

Try acquiring some real knowledge of biological science Dave, instead of the crap you're fed by AiG.

Faid · 08-07-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

[1] No, but I'm sure some exist. You yourself said you bet this was the prevailing view in the 19th century, which of course, is my point so why bother hunting for a citation? In the 19th century, scientists thought cells were simple, so the idea of spontaneous generation and development of species seemed like it would not require any special intelligence to have created it.

Um, sorry, dave my man, but I'm quite sure your claim was about scientists being HORRENDOUSLY wrong in the 20TH CENTURY. Am I wrong?
What's next, dave? Are you prepared to drag the goalposts back to the Middle Ages, in order to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Quote:

[2] You can assert that archaeopteryx and and other specimens are transitional, but they don't seem very transitional upon close inspection. For example, can you describe the process of how scales evolved into feathers? Are there any fossil specimens with half scales/half feathers?

"Close inspection" my cloaca, as our friend Archaeo itself would say. What on earth do theories on HOW feathers evolved have to do with whether Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil? Are you prepared to deny there is a clear transitional pattern in Archaeopteryx, with indermediate characteristics between theropod dinosaurs and birds abundant? O RLY, as another avian theropod descendant would say?

Dave, both you and your mentors are entirely unable to "closely inspect" anything that does not agree with your precious Bible. Your brain just shuts it out.
That is the sad truth.

Quote:

[3] I gave a link to the entire MacNeill quote here at this forum -- here it is again -- http://www.uncommondescent.com/archi...#comment-69014 -- and you came back and scolded me for using UD as an authority. I still haven't figured how UD is being used an authority here when it was MacNeill himself that posted the comment. Please explain that one to me. Thx

Dave, your hilarious quotemining of McNeil has been discussed and demolished thoroughly and extensively, many months ago. Essentialy, it is like claiming that, since Einstein showed that Newton was wrong, then gravity doesn't exist and we can levitate if we try really hard.
Yeah. What. Ever.

Please find something new to entertain us with.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2007, 01:30 PM	#881
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Still dodging the tricky questions, Dave? Did you read my last post? Here's the link to the relevant article again: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/apr05...ileFloods.html Now Davey boy, me ol' George of the jungle, wotcha reckon about that then? Do you find it interesting that an independent dating test performed after the establishment of the standard chronology for dynastic Egypt ends up backing up that chronology? Note that the article not only mentions that Egyptian society was collapsing in 2170 BC, but that the Nile was behaving itself and Egyptian society was prosperous around 3300 BC when the standard chronology says the pyramids were built. Don't you think this sorta buggers Smyth's theory? I sure do. Anyway, back to geology. Now, if your wafflings about catastrophes are accurate and you are the next Bretz (so there) don't you think that the area around Aswan should look like the scablands? You know, same evidence remaining? Well?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.