10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

[lightgigantic]

No, not really. Further explanation below..

You know, the computer sitting in front of you is a long way down the line as far as the evolution of mathematical computation devices go. Can you connect speakers to an abacus?

Hopefully this simple analogy will show the error in your question and your earlier claims that anyone is trying to make you "swallow the idea that fish grow feathers".

What your equation attempts fallaciously to do is simply to add more time and skip out the middleman. That's plain stupid.

If you want to demand that certain parts of the time(4) period be given a special status, that's fine

but it doesn'thelp you answer the questions regarding direct perception and your definitions of evolution as a practical fact

All you seem to be doing is offering a further spurious detail of your theoretical explanation - if you have seen a fish turn into an amphibian and an amphibian turn into a quadruped and a quadruped turn into a lizard and a lizard turn into a bird - then there would be no problems

let's try once more

so in other words you can accept something as a practical fact despite neither you nor no one else ever having seen or proved it?

what parts of this model have you seen?

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B

 

[John99]

Well, technically every species is 'transitional', but would you care to provide me with your understanding of what 'transitional species' should mean? I mean, what is it you would expect to see in a 'transitional species'?

Please tell me it's not along the lines of Ray Comfort's "crocoduck".

No, i never heard of Ray Comfort.

I am curious, since you say that everything is evolving then where would you fit hard corals into evolution? And how are they evolved or did they evolve?

What do you think is the principal reason organisms would evolve? I know all the reasons given but i am wondering as to what is the main reason.

 

[iceaura]

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B

so why doesn't F x time(4) = B

None of the equal signs in there are valid, even as analogies to the mathematical symbol. It would be more (slightly more) analogous to write F x time {not equal} A, and so forth.

Multiplication is not analogous to the operation(s) involved, and the variables are not members of a group.

Metaphorically, you are eliminating the essential element of having seen something - time. So you claim significance in not having seen something that requires time, in no time. That is an odd omission, given your focus on time in the past.

You are trolling.

I am curious, since you say that everything is evolving then where would you fit hard corals into evolution? And how are they evolved or did they evolve?

You are asking a question of fact, unanswerable without serious research. The answers may be different for different hard corals.

Except for the question of whether they did evolve, at least somewhat - they all (AFAIK) contain obligatory symbionts, which vary by coral, and are incompletely assimilated. That is very strong evidence for having evolved.

 

[SnakeLord]

but it doesn'thelp you answer the questions regarding direct perception and your definitions of evolution as a practical fact

Ok, seemingly we have moved away from the idea that fish grow feathers, that's certainly a start.

1) What I originally offered on this forum was a very simple and quick answer to John's questions concerning the fossil record. Nowhere in that did I imply that I had "direct perception" of living, breathing dinosaurs and needless to say my quick post did not cover the entire subject of evolution and nor did it intend to.

2) Evolution has been observed in both the field and the laboratory. What exactly is there to contest?

what parts of this model have you seen?

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B

The question is a dodgy one, (and fallacious), but nevermind. Your version of 'seen' seems to be implying that one must literally sit down and watch a specific fish magically wake up one morning as an amphibian. In that context I have not seen any parts of that model and nor can anyone really expect to. However these things have still been seen. Let me use an analogy to explain:

Dr Rob did not sit down and see Dave having sex with Sue. Nor did Dr Rob sit down and watch Sue giving birth to Ian. With some tests however, Dr Rob can see that Dave is Ians father.

That takes just one simple test, evolution unites biology (neontology), molecular biology, zoology, genetics, geology, paleontology, physical chemistry, physics, and so on.

 

[lightgigantic]

None of the equal signs in there are valid, even as analogies to the mathematical symbol. It would be more (slightly more) analogous to write F x time {not equal} A, and so forth.

Multiplication is not analogous to the operation(s) involved, and the variables are not members of a group.

The variables take place within time
true or false?
:shrug:

Metaphorically, you are eliminating the essential element of having seen something - time. So you claim significance in not having seen something that requires time, in no time. That is an odd omission, given your focus on time in the past.

You are trolling.

all snakelord has indicated are a few instances of minor drift within species - my point is that extrapolating that to the full dimensions of evolution (that you and your like expect us to swallow) is highly inductive.
For some reason you have trouble admitting this
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
but it doesn'thelp you answer the questions regarding direct perception and your definitions of evolution as a practical fact
”
Ok, seemingly we have moved away from the idea that fish grow feathers, that's certainly a start.

once again, your spurious assertions don't change much
If you arguing that the great great ancestors of birds are fish, you are arguing that fish have grown into birds (over several million generations).
If you are also arguing that this is a practical fact (as opposed to an inductive theory of a dubious foundation) you should also be able to deliver the goods

1) What I originally offered on this forum was a very simple and quick answer to John's questions concerning the fossil record. Nowhere in that did I imply that I had "direct perception" of living, breathing dinosaurs and needless to say my quick post did not cover the entire subject of evolution and nor did it intend to.

I'm not asking for an elaborate theoretical explanation
I am asking for what has been actually observed as opposed to theoretically applied

2) Evolution has been observed in both the field and the laboratory. What exactly is there to contest?

so how much has been observed (as opposed to inductively implied) in the name of macro-evolution. Feel free to use the example of a fish being the ancestor of a bird.

“
what parts of this model have you seen?

F x time = A
A x time = Q
Q x time = M & L
L x time = B
”
The question is a dodgy one, (and fallacious), but nevermind. Your version of 'seen' seems to be implying that one must literally sit down and watch a specific fish magically wake up one morning as an amphibian. In that context I have not seen any parts of that model and nor can anyone really expect to. However these things have still been seen. Let me use an analogy to explain:

Dr Rob did not sit down and see Dave having sex with Sue. Nor did Dr Rob sit down and watch Sue giving birth to Ian. With some tests however, Dr Rob can see that Dave is Ians father.

they can come to this conclusion because they can isolate biological qualities that are inherently unique to dave, ian and sue.
To make this analogy parallel to the claims of evolutionists, it would be like Dr Rob coming to the conclusion that Ian is the child of Sue and Dave because

1. Sue has blue eyes
2. Dave has blonde hair
3. and Ian has blue eyes and blonde hair

IOW evolution (particularly macro-evolution) works with elements of similarity rather than inherent unique qualities of the subjects of investigation

That takes just one simple test, evolution unites biology (neontology), molecular biology, zoology, genetics, geology, paleontology, physical chemistry, physics, and so on.

and clearly all these things are based on mere similarity
The diagram you offered in your explanation clearly illustrates this

 

[iceaura]

The variables take place within time
true or false?

False - as you used them, with the BS notational analogy.

You have removed actual time, and its properties, from your argument. Hence the falseness of the analogy.

all snakelord has indicated are a few instances of minor drift within species -

Nothing of the kind. He posteda picture of an example of the fossil record agreeing with Darwinian evolutionary theory, in response to John's request.

IOW evolution (particularly macro-evolution) works with elements of similarity rather than inherent unique qualities of the subjects of investigation

Wrong, as usual whenever making direct claims about evolutionary theory.

I don't think you understand it. Like this:

I am asking for what has been actually observed as opposed to theoretically applied

What has been observed, among several other important realities, is a fossil record that agrees with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and disagrees with every Creationist theory ever propounded.

 

[SnakeLord]

If you arguing that the great great ancestors of birds are fish, you are arguing that fish have grown into birds (over several million generations).

Not at all. I don't understand why you're cutting out everything in between.

If you are also arguing that this is a practical fact

Alas it is your argument and your argument alone.

so how much has been observed (as opposed to inductively implied) in the name of macro-evolution.

Just to clarify please tell me what "macro evolution" is. I thank you in advance.

To make this analogy parallel to the claims of evolutionists, it would be like Dr Rob coming to the conclusion that Ian is the child of Sue and Dave because
Sue has blue eyes
Dave has blonde hair
and Ian has blue eyes and blonde hair

Not really although I admit it can certainly look like that to the layman. It is of course an in-depth issue that cannot be covered completely on a forum thread. If you would like decent sources then please ask. It would seem the assertion here must be that transitional and shared traits must be mere coincidence. That, (tiktaalik for example), having both gills and lungs is not somewhere in between sea and land dwellers but is just some random fluke of nature. If this were so you would not expect to find it so consistent and ordered. However merely for the interest of discussion. Tiktaalik with its gills and lungs is not a transitional between sea and land dwellers. So what is it?

and clearly all these things are based on mere similarity
The diagram you offered in your explanation clearly illustrates this

Actually I am not going to argue against this just now. I will pick up this statement again when I have your definition of macro evolution.

 

[lightgigantic]

Iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
The variables take place within time
true or false?
”
False - as you used them, with the BS notational analogy.

You have removed actual time, and its properties, from your argument. Hence the falseness of the analogy.

given that the variables clearly operate out of cause and effect (aka time) it seems you are just full of hot air
“

Originally Posted by LG
all snakelord has indicated are a few instances of minor drift within species -
”
Nothing of the kind.

I am referencing the only hard evidence he has ever posted when we have been down this lane before

“
Originally Posted by LG
IOW evolution (particularly macro-evolution) works with elements of similarity rather than inherent unique qualities of the subjects of investigation
”
Wrong, as usual whenever making direct claims about evolutionary theory.

I don't think you understand it. Like this:

then once again, its not clear why you have problems admitting the inductive nature of the claim
“

Originally Posted by LG
I am asking for what has been actually observed as opposed to theoretically applied
”
What has been observed, among several other important realities, is a fossil record that agrees with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and disagrees with every Creationist theory ever propounded.

so its simply a case of one theory vs another theory?
(If the drift from one genus to another remains an inductive conclusion, it's not clear why you can't say it in those words)
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

If you arguing that the great great ancestors of birds are fish, you are arguing that fish have grown into birds (over several million generations).
”
Not at all. I don't understand why you're cutting out everything in between.

apart from a spurious detail, it's not clear hoe everything in between offers a radical alternative

“
If you are also arguing that this is a practical fact
”
Alas it is your argument and your argument alone.

then what is the biological contribution of a fish to the appearance of birds (in your humble opinion)?

“
so how much has been observed (as opposed to inductively implied) in the name of macro-evolution.
”
Just to clarify please tell me what "macro evolution" is. I thank you in advance.

what your previously supplied diagram is claiming - fish -> land living vertebrate

“
To make this analogy parallel to the claims of evolutionists, it would be like Dr Rob coming to the conclusion that Ian is the child of Sue and Dave because
Sue has blue eyes
Dave has blonde hair
and Ian has blue eyes and blonde hair
”
Not really although I admit it can certainly look like that to the layman. It is of course an in-depth issue that cannot be covered completely on a forum thread. If you would like decent sources then please ask.

If you have anything to indicate they are working with inherently unique biological material of the subjects in question feel free to indicate it

It would seem the assertion here must be that transitional and shared traits must be mere coincidence. That, (tiktaalik for example), having both gills and lungs is not somewhere in between sea and land dwellers but is just some random fluke of nature. If this were so you would not expect to find it so consistent and ordered. However merely for the interest of discussion. Tiktaalik with its gills and lungs is not a transitional between sea and land dwellers. So what is it?

The similarity of design also indicates a similar engineer or manufacturer

For instance Volkswagen, despite a variety of designs, has the hot air vent from all its vehicles in a way unique to any other manufacturer

(Its not clear from what perspective it is ascertained that having both gills and lungs is a design anomaly.
For instance does the hundreds of legs of a millipede also appear to be a design anomaly?
Does a heat vent that is powered by the combustion as opposed to the radiator appear to be a design anomaly?)

 

[SnakeLord]

apart from a spurious detail, it's not clear hoe everything in between offers a radical alternative

Possibly because, even given your own equation, l=b, not f=b. You cannot simply scrub the entire equation in the middle and end up with f=b because f does not = b, in your equation f=a.

then what is the biological contribution of a fish to the appearance of birds (in your humble opinion)?

Fish to birds? Well.. there are "flying fish". I think that covers it (I'm messing with you). Ok, to answer honestly.. What contribution to you was your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother?

[edit] Note: you are asking me to show you how this great... grandmother turned into you. The statement is fallacious.

Ok, I get your argument. It would be nice to say that somewhere in you is this great.... grandmother of yours, but that's simply not the case. Your great.... grandmother is not you.

what your previously supplied diagram is claiming - fish -> land living vertebrate

That's interesting. For the record, the earlier cited example:

"In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.

The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species."

Is macroevolution in line with actual definition. If you would like to contest that please try and do so.

Macro evolution has been observed.

The similarity of design also indicates a similar engineer or manufacturer

That's perhaps a different discussion. For now please tell me that tiktaalik, with both gills and lungs is not an example of transition, so what is it?

For instance Volkswagen, despite a variety of designs, has the hot air vent from all its vehicles in a way unique to any other manufacturer

That's interesting, I'm personally into Lamborghini's myself. But tell me, out of interest.. If you saw a car that had these hot air vents that are unique to VW's but also had a badge of a Spanish bull which is unique to Lamborghini what would be the logical conclusion even though you did not see the car made? (be honest).

As to your last statement on similarity.. I had to wait until you gave your understanding of the term 'macro evolution' because typically from a theist perspective it means frogs turning into dogs, or... as the theist would spout: one kind to another.

So I ask, how do we define 'kind'? How is it ultimately decided that a lion is a "kind" of cat if not on similarity? I do not see you contesting that a lion is a kind of cat even though it is based on similarity, (retractable claws, etc etc). So, as your entire understanding of 'kind' is based upon similarity, why would you put up such a fuss with something that is merely a tiny part of an understanding across so many different sciences? And something that is ultimately quite foolish to contest given the evidence, (yes, that's evidence, not proof).

The "evidence" would suggest that tiktaalik is in between a land dwelling and sea dwelling creature. Feel free at any time to offer an alternative to why a fish would grow lungs underwater. This is not simply evidence made up on the spot, but evidence backed up through multiple scientific disciplines. Of course this is falsifiable, testable, empirical, parsimonious, rational, general and tentative.

But let's start with what we have and make basic logical assumptions from there...

1) Evolution has been observed.

2) We know that evolution occurs.. You could now state that this is a new phenomenon, something that never used to happen but has, all of a sudden, for no particular reason. You could state that as it does happen, it has happened in the past and predict what you would find if that were the case.

3) Given the examples in 2, which would you go along with or feel free to add your own. Remember though that this is science and so needs to satisfy certain criteria.

4) So you assert that evolution has happened in the past. What would you (be honest) expect to find if you had the ability to see certain ages from the past?

5) What would you assert if, for example, you found a piece of wood with scratch lines on it on the lowest line. On the next line you found an abacus, on the next line you found a calcuator the size of manhattan, on the next line you found a computer with a 33mhz chip and on the next line you found a computer with a 233 mhz chip?

Please, be honest.

6) So what wouldn't we expect to find? Of course we wouldn't expect to find a 233 mhz computer on the bottom line, that would cause some major strife and we'd have to start from scratch. (Yes, it's falsifiable).

7) So who, (be honest), would contest it when you find exactly what you would expect to find, based upon that which you have observed, in an order exactly as you would expect to find it?

You find a 33 mhz computer, then a 50 mhz, then a 70 mhz, then a 90 mhz, then a 120 mhz etc...

What can be the only "plausible" conclusion?

 

[shichimenshyo]

You find a 33 mhz computer, then a 50 mhz, then a 70 mhz, then a 90 mhz, then a 120 mhz etc...

What can be the only "plausible" conclusion?

God created computers...duh

 

[iceaura]

given that the variables clearly operate out of cause and effect (aka time) it seems you are just full of hot air

That would invalidate your = sign. Choose.

am referencing the only hard evidence he has ever posted when we have been down this lane before

So you say, while pretending to respond to the post quoted. Yes, we have been down that road with you.

then once again, its not clear why you have problems admitting the inductive nature of the claim

What claim ? This one?

(If the drift from one genus to another remains an inductive conclusion, it's not clear why you can't say it in those words)

And since it isn't, then it is clear. Which is how I know you're trolling.

then what is the biological contribution of a fish to the appearance of birds (in your humble opinion)?
- -
If you have anything to indicate they are working with inherently unique biological material of the subjects in question feel free to indicate it

Spinal chord. Among other features too numerous to list.

so its simply a case of one theory vs another theory?

One theory vs other proposals. So far no other theories have survived examination. But if one did, then sure. Do you have one in mind ?

 

[SnakeLord]

God created computers...duh

As far as it actually goes, evolution does not deny the claim - indeed it has nothing to do with it. I understand you were just having a laugh but maybe this will be of some use to others that might genuinely assert that very thing.

 

[SnakeLord]

No, i never heard of Ray Comfort.

Coke can has a "pull tab", coke can was designed. Banana has a "pull tab" therefore god created bananas. Surely you know Ray? - www.snakeystew.com -> go to you tubes.

I am curious, since you say that everything is evolving then where would you fit hard corals into evolution? And how are they evolved or did they evolve?

Apologies, I know nothing of coral. The best I can do is point you to http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/biochem/steele/Frank.pdf, (it's a pdf) which will give you the lowdown on coral. If there is some specific argument concerning coral I am more than happy to study as much as time allows and get back to you with my findings.

What do you think is the principal reason organisms would evolve? I know all the reasons given but i am wondering as to what is the main reason.

You state that you "know all the reasons". As a result I shall consider this a simple experiment into opinion and offer one off the top of my head..

Some weird event occurs whereby some freaky sound blasts the earth. Anyone that can hear this sound will die. What are you left with? Yes, a planet entirely populated by the deaf. Now deafness is not specifically genetic, it serves as a simple example only. What you have is something that is not the "best of the best", (which is how 'survival of the fittest is often misunderstood), but simply something that was the fittest in this fictional scenario.

So... trying to neglect everything scientific and everything understood but just give you some unbiased opinion on the subject, (as much as I am able)...

The main reason organisms would evolve is because of the environment. I don't know where it comes from, but both of my daughters have exceptionally long eyelashes. I don't know why, it certainly isn't evident in any of my known family tree or my wifes but both my girls have this same trait. Indeed one of the very first things said when my second girl was born was "look at those eyelashes". I will at some stage take a picture so you can see these things. Nobody has ever not commented on their eyelashes. She didn't even have hair, but eyelashes that supermodels would kill for. If there was a sandstorm my daughters both instantly have the advantage and are more likely to pass their genes on than someone elses children that don't have any. In short I can only say that the swimmer survives longer in water than the person who can't swim.

So is life at the mercy of the planet, the evironment? Most certainly so. Those that are most suited will always out survive those that aren't. That doesn't mean they're "better", merely that they are better suited for the environment and everything that follows is a product of the survivors, (obviously).

Those that survive pass on their genes. Those that don't survive do not.

 

[lightgigantic]

That would invalidate your = sign. Choose.
So you say, while pretending to respond to the post quoted. Yes, we have been down that road with you.

once again it's not clear what you are trying to lead to with these spurious details

What claim ? This one?

the claim related to the diagram posted by snakelord
Is it inductive or not?
You say it isn't
Snakelord says it is
:shrug:

And since it isn't, then it is clear. Which is how I know you're trolling.

seems you disagree with snakelord or don't know what the word "inductive" means.
:shrug:

Spinal chord. Among other features too numerous to list.

I guess we see a connection
not only an inductive one but also a connection through time
:shrug:

One theory vs other proposals. So far no other theories have survived examination. But if one did, then sure. Do you have one in mind ?

out of curiousity, how does an inductive claim survive examination?
and how does you current favoured understanding of evolution survive examination?

might be easier to stick to general principles for the sake of brevity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
apart from a spurious detail, it's not clear hoe everything in between offers a radical alternative
”
Possibly because, even given your own equation, l=b, not f=b. You cannot simply scrub the entire equation in the middle and end up with f=b because f does not = b, in your equation f=a.

“
then what is the biological contribution of a fish to the appearance of birds (in your humble opinion)?
”
Fish to birds? Well.. there are "flying fish". I think that covers it (I'm messing with you). Ok, to answer honestly.. What contribution to you was your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother?

Ok, I get your argument. It would be nice to say that somewhere in you is this great.... grandmother of yours, but that's simply not the case. Your great.... grandmother is not you.

whatever my great etc grandmother was, through the passage of time, I arose out of it.
IOW my grandmother has the innate capacity to generate me, since taking her out of the generation effectively takes me out too.

“
what your previously supplied diagram is claiming - fish -> land living vertebrate
”
That's interesting. For the record, the earlier cited example:

"In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.

The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species."

BTW, just for the record, vedic understanding's of genealogy accommodate for drifts of species, but only within limits - for instance a milky sapped spindly leaves plant could generate into another type, but not into say a eucalyptus tree or a squid, no matter how many generations come to pass.

Is macroevolution in line with actual definition. If you would like to contest that please try and do so.

Macro evolution has been observed.

so how much has been observed of the transition from a fish to a bird?
suppose I can build a tricycle out of the parts of two bicycles.
Does that mean a claim that I can build a nuclear warhead out of bicycles, given enough time and bicycles, is logically tenable?

“
The similarity of design also indicates a similar engineer or manufacturer
”
That's perhaps a different discussion. For now please tell me that tiktaalik, with both gills and lungs is not an example of transition, so what is it?

you seem to be arguing that it is a design anomoly, therefore it has to be an example of a transition.
why can't it simply be as valid as a millipede or a camel?


“

For instance Volkswagen, despite a variety of designs, has the hot air vent from all its vehicles in a way unique to any other manufacturer
”
That's interesting, I'm personally into Lamborghini's myself. But tell me, out of interest.. If you saw a car that had these hot air vents that are unique to VW's but also had a badge of a Spanish bull which is unique to Lamborghini what would be the logical conclusion even though you did not see the car made? (be honest).

I would probably think they got the idea off Volkswagen, but, if you read on, you will see why this is not a conclusive analogy for all examples of similarity

As to your last statement on similarity.. I had to wait until you gave your understanding of the term 'macro evolution' because typically from a theist perspective it means frogs turning into dogs, or... as the theist would spout: one kind to another.

So I ask, how do we define 'kind'? How is it ultimately decided that a lion is a "kind" of cat if not on similarity? I do not see you contesting that a lion is a kind of cat even though it is based on similarity, (retractable claws, etc etc).
So, as your entire understanding of 'kind' is based upon similarity, why would you put up such a fuss with something that is merely a tiny part of an understanding across so many different sciences? And something that is ultimately quite foolish to contest given the evidence, (yes, that's evidence, not proof).

both bicycles and nuclear warheads are manufactured industrially and share some similar characteristics.
Suppose a politician deemed it appropriate to invade Iraq due to an unprecedented build up of bicycles that could be utilized for WMD's, and quoted how even the T. miscellus caught North America by surprise (suppose he was canvasing amongst evolutionists).

Sometimes we can show relationship amongst things with similarity
Sometimes we can show no relationship amongst things with similarity.
And sometimes we have no power to show relationship amongst things with similarity.

The "evidence" would suggest that tiktaalik is in between a land dwelling and sea dwelling creature. Feel free at any time to offer an alternative to why a fish would grow lungs underwater.

you mean have lungs under water?
Probably for the same reason as dugongs.
Once again it begs the question what body of knowledge you are calling upon to indicate a design anomaly.

This is not simply evidence made up on the spot, but evidence backed up through multiple scientific disciplines. Of course this is falsifiable, testable, empirical, parsimonious, rational, general and tentative.

But let's start with what we have and make basic logical assumptions from there...

1) Evolution has been observed.

more correctly, speciation

2) We know that evolution occurs.. You could now state that this is a new phenomenon, something that never used to happen but has, all of a sudden, for no particular reason. You could state that as it does happen, it has happened in the past and predict what you would find if that were the case.

once again, speciation

3) Given the examples in 2, which would you go along with or feel free to add your own. Remember though that this is science and so needs to satisfy certain criteria.

4) So you assert that evolution has happened in the past. What would you (be honest) expect to find if you had the ability to see certain ages from the past?

not sure what you are asking in 4
for instance if speciation/evolution was the only and exclusive paradigm in interpreting archeology we would have a greatly reformed and most likely bizarre understanding of human history

5) What would you assert if, for example, you found a piece of wood with scratch lines on it on the lowest line. On the next line you found an abacus, on the next line you found a calcuator the size of manhattan, on the next line you found a computer with a 33mhz chip and on the next line you found a computer with a 233 mhz chip?

interesting that you say that because logically you could determine that the design evolved, however we know that abacuses are still existing today, even though they may be unlikely to turn up in any archaeological investigation of the far flung future.
And even then, you beg the question by citing an example that we have known to evolve (much like the genetic example you cite with Dr. Rob is another known phenomena)

Out of curiousity, what would be your appraisal of conclusions based on these series of finds?

6) So what wouldn't we expect to find? Of course we wouldn't expect to find a 233 mhz computer on the bottom line, that would cause some major strife and we'd have to start from scratch. (Yes, it's falsifiable).

interesting that you say that since there are numerous indications that the dominant institutional perspective on how the archaeological record should be has shaped the way in which findings have been contextualized

7) So who, (be honest), would contest it when you find exactly what you would expect to find, based upon that which you have observed, in an order exactly as you would expect to find it?

You find a 33 mhz computer, then a 50 mhz, then a 70 mhz, then a 90 mhz, then a 120 mhz etc...

What can be the only "plausible" conclusion?

as already indicated, similarity can arise in cases of an existent relationship or a nonexistent relationship.

The simple fact is that if we don't have the ability to falsify the relationship (as opposed to falsifying the context in which findings are made -eg "yes the claim is falsifiable since it was made using scientifically authorized procedures of radioactive dating" etc etc) we don't have the power to determine relationship (or at least the power beyond highly inductive means).

IOW the plausible conclusion about determining genetic links in parenting is due to us actually knowing that certain children are born from certain parents.
The plausible conclusion about determining the history of the computer is due to us actually knowing how it developed.
The plausible conclusion about how a nuclear warhead exists separate from any vast reservoir of bicycles is due to us knowing how nuclear warheads are actually manufactured
The plausible conclusion about the significance of a sheriff's badge, and how it bears no relationship to star shaped candles and fruit is due to us knowing the actual history of the sheriff's badge.

The examples you cite as valid examples of inductive reasoning also have their deductive counterparts

My point is that evolution doesn't have a deductive counterpart.

This doesn't make it necessarily bad or even invalid.

It does however make atheists hypocritical when they advocate

“
Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
”
The fact of the matter is that you wont find many atheists saying "it must not exist". Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.

when the the vast portion of what they are expecting others to swallow in the name of evolution is untouched, unseen, unheard and not measured
(rather it is the theoretical models that involve the touching, seeing, hearing and measuring, as indicated by iceaura.......)

“Originally Posted by LG
Snakelord's explanation of evolution is based on deductive reasoning
True or false? "


False. "It's" based on a picture.

 

[SnakeLord]

whatever my great etc grandmother was, through the passage of time, I arose out of it.

Sure, but if you grew wings you wouldn't say "my great... grandmother grew wings" and if you did, you'd raise a few eyebrows.

BTW, just for the record, vedic understanding's of genealogy accommodate for drifts of species, but only within limits - for instance a milky sapped spindly leaves plant could generate into another type, but not into say a eucalyptus tree or a squid, no matter how many generations come to pass.

Is that where your understanding of evolution comes from?

so how much has been observed of the transition from a fish to a bird?

None, for reasons explained to you a few times already.

suppose I can build a tricycle out of the parts of two bicycles.
Does that mean a claim that I can build a nuclear warhead out of bicycles, given enough time and bicycles, is logically tenable?

Here

"until they were retired in 1998, the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key."

Seems bicycles certainly played a part in the functioning of those nuclear bombs. No, that does not mean bicycles become nuclear bombs, just like fish do not grow feathers.

Of course needless to say your argument is fallacious, but nevermind. It's all good fun.

you seem to be arguing that it is a design anomoly, therefore it has to be an example of a transition.
why can't it simply be as valid as a millipede or a camel?

Nobody said it isn't "valid", (whatever that means in context), nor is it a 'design anomaly', (the word 'design' is also out of place). But even 'design anomalies', (atavisms), are indications of genetic throwbacks.. such as humans growing tails.

I would probably think they got the idea off Volkswagen

That's good enough.

both bicycles and nuclear warheads are manufactured industrially and share some similar characteristics.
Suppose a politician deemed it appropriate to invade Iraq due to an unprecedented build up of bicycles that could be utilized for WMD's

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say.

Sometimes we can show no relationship amongst things with similarity.

Such as?

more correctly, speciation

Ok, and speciation is not evolution.. how? While we're there kindly define 'macro evolution' for me. Thanks.

And even then, you beg the question by citing an example that we have known to evolve (much like the genetic example you cite with Dr. Rob is another known phenomena)

How do we know?

Out of curiousity, what would be your appraisal of conclusions based on these series of finds?

Why those objects? From the perspective of the inanimate objects.. Man learnt how to make a star shape. From that stemmed everything that was man made and star shaped.

interesting that you say that since there are numerous indications that the dominant institutional perspective on how the archaeological record should be has shaped the way in which findings have been contextualized

Like what?

as already indicated, similarity can arise in cases of an existent relationship or a nonexistent relationship.

This isn't simply "similarity", it is a consistent line in order. Find one human being next to a t-rex and you'll have a case.

IOW the plausible conclusion about determining genetic links in parenting is due to us actually knowing that certain children are born from certain parents.

Genetics also shows that we share a common ancestor with apes, (which in turn explains genetic throwbacks such as wisdom teeth, goose bumps and tails). Is there a reason other than because it goes against your religious beliefs that you would contest that issue?

The plausible conclusion about determining the history of the computer is due to us actually knowing how it developed.

How do we know?

The plausible conclusion about how a nuclear warhead exists separate from any vast reservoir of bicycles is due to us knowing how nuclear warheads are actually manufactured

And yet they wouldn't even work until recently without the aid of bicycle keys.

when the the vast portion of what they are expecting others to swallow in the name of evolution is untouched, unseen, unheard and not measured

But they're not. That you would rather grasp your understanding of the issue from the vedas does not say much on your behalf. Neither does the fact that you have argued that fish grow feathers for the last half dozen posts.

 

[Anti-Flag]

To quote southpark:

In the beginning, we were all fish, okay, swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby. And the retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands, and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something, and made this retard-frog-squirrel and then that had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog, and then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you. So there you go. You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations.


Doesn't this just about cover the creationists understanding of evolution?

 

[John99]

LOL. Do they teach that in school yet.
:roflmao: