Common Sense Deactivated?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How come there's no modern life forms in the Burgess Shale?

 

[Olinda]

I have no problem with evolution referring to changes on a limited scale, between species....even evolving into new species, within a family or order. But common descent, all life descending from unicellular organisms? Billions of diverse species, within only 650+ mya? No, to believe that is gullibility. In my view.

Thanks, I understand now why you regard the diversity of species as support for creation. As you didn't address the point that the Cambrian Explosion does not falsify the ToE. I'll assume we agree there also.

What is observed throughout the Cambrian Explosion fossil beds of Chenjiang China, the Sirius Passet formation in Greenland, and the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, however, is exactly what we would expect from a creator! Fully functional Life forms ‘appearing suddenly, and no trace of any transitional fossils’ found for Arthropoda.

Personally I would have expected no pre-existing life before the act of creation. If you look up "Ediacaran fauna" however (the Encyclopedia Britannica article is a good one), you will find that there was already quite a variety of creatures, including ones identified as the precursors of organisms with skeletons.

Perhaps it's best not to grab at scientific discoveries to support our beliefs (I'm no atheist!). New discoveries follow, which can change the picture.

Do you believe in walking whales? I don’t.

If a predecessor to whales walked, it wasn't a whale, we could at least agree on that.

So long, and take care.

And I wish you well too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You don't need to believe in walking whales. You can see the evidence for their existence. No belief required.

Really? Show me the ancestral lineage. (ToL view).

 

[viole]

Love him or hate him, Ray Comfort makes a good argument.

False dichotomy. You do not need to either love him or hate him. You can, for instance, find him entertaining.

Can nothing create everything?

I do not know many atheists that claim that nothing created everything.

What evidence would convince you that there is intelligence demonstrated in the DNA that makes up all living things?

The same evidence that will convince me that it is actually a sign of intelligence to design beings that, in order to survive, need to beat the design of other beings, and vice versa...and the designer is the same.

It looks pretty silly to me. A bit like playing solitary chess.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Really? Show me the ancestral lineage. (ToL view).

Whale Evolution | Australia Maritime Museum I await your handwave with great anticipation.

 

[Deeje]

Whale Evolution | Australia Maritime Museum I await your handwave with great anticipation.

Well a handwave isn't really necessary.......here is what they have....all you really have to do is read it.

Hans Thewissen examining the pelvis of Ambulocetus natans, the 49-million-year old ‘walking, swimming whale’ discovered in Pakistan by Thewissen and his team in 1992.

And here is what they imagine Ambulocetus looked like....

Looks like a photo, doesn't it? It isn't.

They say...."Before turning to whales’ ancient ancestors (called the Archaeoceti), it helps to understand a fossil that tells us about their origins and relatives. Indohyus was the size of a cat but shaped like a deer, and belonged to the order Artiodactyla, or even-toed ungulates. This large group today includes deer, hippopotamus, cows, giraffes, sheep and pigs."

Here is what they think Indohyus looked like....but this is "an extinct cousin of ancient whales".

A whale's cousin......I can really see the resemblance...can't you?

He's smirking for a reason I think....gotcha.

Then they say...."Indohyus skulls have a signature whale feature already mentioned: a thickened bone (auditory bulla) in part of the middle ear, likely an adaptation for underwater hearing. This shows that whales originated from artiodactyls."

What is this "signature" that makes them seem "related"? "a thickened bone (auditory bulla) in part of the middle ear"......really? An ear bone....?

"Thewissen suspects Ambulocetus natans looked and hunted like modern crocodiles, eating marine fish and maybe even ambushing animals that ventured too close to the water’s edge."

Is "suspecting" something the same as having actual evidence for it.......I wonder.

No handwave necessary....just a lot of silent giggling really.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well a handwave isn't really necessary...

And yet, you provided one anyway.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Whale Evolution | Australia Maritime Museum I await your handwave with great anticipation.

I appreciate your reply, I do. It only highlights how little and flimsy evidence (one being a bone in the middle ear? Really?) paleontologists have, yet they derive fantastic explanations!


You all put a lot of faith in them.

Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your reply, I do. It only highlights how little and flimsy evidence (one being a bone in the middle ear? Really?) paleontologists have, yet they derive fantastic explanations!


You all put a lot of faith in them.

Take care.

It appears that you are combining dishonesty and ignorance. The problem is that creationists have to go out of their way to keep themselves ignorant, a obviously dishonest tactic. If you did not understand the article the honest thing to do is to ask questions. Making statements like you did only indicates that you have no interest in learning why you are wrong at all.

Would you like to try again with proper questions this time?

 

[challupa]

There is a very good book by physicist Jonathan Krauss called 'A Universe from Nothing" that shows such a thing is possible.

Just wanted to say that the name is Lawrence Krauss. Great book btw

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I appreciate your reply, I do. It only highlights how little and flimsy evidence (one being a bone in the middle ear? Really?) paleontologists have, yet they derive fantastic explanations!


You all put a lot of faith in them.

Take care.

ONE being a bone in the middle ear. That isn't the only one, though.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It appears that you are combining dishonesty and ignorance. The problem is that creationists have to go out of their way to keep themselves ignorant, a obviously dishonest tactic. If you did not understand the article the honest thing to do is to ask questions. Making statements like you did only indicates that you have no interest in learning why you are wrong at all.

Would you like to try again with proper questions this time?

Basic argument from incredulity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ONE being a bone in the middle ear. That isn't the only one, though.

And he did not understand the point in the article. The evidence for evolution itself is almost endless the article was not about supporting something that has already been proven far beyond any reasonable doubt at all. It was about how one particular group, an infraorder, evolved. The original hypothesis was that whales evolved from the group that included elephants and sea cows, but that one bone showed that hypothesis was probably wrong:

"He began unwrapping a few pieces, starting with the ear, and immediately noticed an unusually heavy bone. This left him more baffled than ever, because it did not match an animal group related to elephants and sea cows—his best guess for the mystery fossil’s identity."

That led to a new approach to the problem and the jawbone along with the ear (along with other traits) told them that this was an ancestor of whales. But it was not from the route that they previously thought.

This appears to be an attempt not to understand. This sort of approach by creationists is why no reasoning person takes them seriously.

 

[gnostic]

You do not seem to realize that all science is "atheistic". At least all that I ha

Methodological naturalism shouldn't be conflated with atheism.

I didn't. I said atheistic and I made it rather clear that I used that term by putting the word in scare quotes. Lately some of the creationists have used such bogus terms as "creation science" and "atheist science". All science is atheistic in the sense that no god is appealed to. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god. It is a very big tent. Just as theism is a very big tent idea. Atheism does not declare that there is no god. Some Strong Atheists will claim that there is no god, but they are only one group out of many.

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying this, Subduction Zone...but...there’s always a BUT somewhere ...but, SZ, by saying what you are saying, you are practically turning this thread into the contest between atheism vs theism.

Yes, you are correct that god is not used in modern science, to explain nature or natural phenomena with a god, but using atheistic do have implication of atheism.

Science don’t need the excess “atheism” baggage.

I get why you are saying “atheistic”, but (again, another “but”, sorry), but the word is still associated with the question of existence of deity (deities), because the word is related to atheism, and atheism, like theism, is irrelevant here.

I think lewisnotmiller is correct that you need to come with a better word than “atheistic”.

It is bad enough that creationists bash science, by associating it with atheism, but you are not helping science by doing precisely the same thing.

So, I would ask you to not use atheistic with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying this, Subduction Zone...but...there’s always a BUT somewhere ...but, SZ, by saying what you are saying, you are practically turning this thread into the contest between atheism vs theism.

Yes, you are correct that god is not used in modern science, to explain nature or natural phenomena with a god, but using atheistic do have implication of atheism.

Science don’t need the excess “atheism” baggage.

I get why you are saying “atheistic”, but (again, another “but”, sorry), but the word is still associated with the question of existence of deity (deities), because the word is related to atheism, and atheism, like theism, is irrelevant here.

I think lewisnotmiller is correct that you need to come with a better word than “atheistic”.

It is bad enough that creationists bash science, by associating it with atheism, but you are not helping science by doing precisely the same thing.

So, I would ask you to not use atheistic with science.

Did you see who and what I responded to? There was a claim of "atheistic science" in regards to the theory of evolution, which is of course just regular science, and a supposed "creation science" in regards to the ignorance and lies that is creationism. I pointed out that since all real science does not invoke a god that all science is "atheistic". If there had not been the first bogus claim I would not have made my correction of that claim

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you see who and what I responded to? There was a claim of "atheistic science" in regards to the theory of evolution, which is of course just regular science, and a supposed "creation science" in regards to the ignorance and lies that is creationism. I pointed out that since all real science does not invoke a god that all science is "atheistic". If there had not been the first bogus claim I would not have made my correction of that claim

That's our point though. It's not a 'correction', it's buying into a false dichotomy. The original claim was 'not even wrong'. Directly refuting it gives it too much credit. In my opinion, of course.

 

[gnostic]

Did you see who and what I responded to? There was a claim of "atheistic science" in regards to the theory of evolution, which is of course just regular science, and a supposed "creation science" in regards to the ignorance and lies that is creationism. I pointed out that since all real science does not invoke a god that all science is "atheistic". If there had not been the first bogus claim I would not have made my correction of that claim

Look, SZ, I really do understand you saying what you said, about "atheistic", and what you really meant by it.

Your original message was in response to Guy Threepwood, not to lewisnotmiller, but Guy is already damned confused any way, so why reinforced his misunderstood belief in science, by associating science with atheism.

I have already tried to clarify to Guy, frequently that science isn't atheism (as well as science isn't theism), that science is neutral to both atheism and theism.

If you want to say science say nothing about God, then say it, just don't bring up anything relating to "atheism". If you are going to talk to Guy, then use the proper words, like Lewis' "Methodological Naturalism", or just plain old "Naturalism".

Guy like to make sweeping generalisation about science. There is no need for you to do that too. Just focus on the science, without atheism or atheistic. That's all I am saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, SZ, I really do understand you saying what you said, about "atheistic", and what you really meant by it.

Your original message was in response to Guy Threepwood, not to lewisnotmiller, but Guy is already damned confused any way, so why reinforced his misunderstood belief in science, by associating science with atheism.

I have already tried to clarify to Guy, frequently that science isn't atheism (as well as science isn't theism), that science is neutral to both atheism and theism.

If you are going to talk to Guy, then use the proper words, like Lewis' "Methodological Naturalism", or just plain old "Naturalism".

Guy like to make sweeping generalisation about science. There is no need for you to do that too. Just focus on the science, without atheism or atheistic. That's all I am saying.

I believe that if you go back even farther that you will find that I was responding to "James Bond". And I do know and appreciate the proper terminology. But sometimes one needs to hit the opponent with a pie to the face. You yourself admitted that proper terminology has not worked.

 

[gnostic]

I believe that if you go back even farther that you will find that I was responding to "James Bond". And I do know and appreciate the proper terminology. But sometimes one needs to hit the opponent with a pie to the face. You yourself admitted that proper terminology has not worked.

Well, james bond is no better than guy, when it come to science.

And yes, they both jump into quicksand without learning. Just let them make fools out of themselves.

Science isn't atheism, and atheism isn't science. That's the point you must point out to them.

Telling them that scientists never use god in their explanation (theories or hypotheses) for any natural or man-made phenomena.

If they too thick to understand, then clarify.

Just don't use "atheistic", because that will only reinforce their misconception about science and about atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, james bond is no better than guy, when it come to science.

And yes, they both jump into quicksand without learning.

Science isn't atheism, and atheism isn't science. That's the point you must point out to them.

Telling them that scientists never use god in their explanation (theories or hypotheses) for any natural or man-made phenomena.

If they too thick to understand, then clarify.

Just don't use "atheistic", because that will only reinforce their misconception about science and about atheism.

Perhaps, but seriously I do not think that they will allow themselves to learn no matter how the ideas are presented. When certain beliefs are threatened a massive cognitive dissonance can kick in for even the most rational of people.