Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

@ YEC's

nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 4:41:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 1:21:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

That article says nothing about why the thing in question is actually a DINOSAUR (other than that it's old, and the 150 million years that is claimed is a separate issue for debate and I understand that this is not the point you are trying to make). So, if by "are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?" you actually mean "are birds mentioned in the Bible?", then the answer is yes. Birds are mentioned in the Bible.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 5:29:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here is a much better article on the subject.
http://www.springerlink.com...
Please tell me you have no problem in saying this is an ancestor to modern day birds.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 5:28:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 4:41:21 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 2/5/2010 1:21:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

That article says nothing about why the thing in question is actually a DINOSAUR (other than that it's old, and the 150 million years that is claimed is a separate issue for debate and I understand that this is not the point you are trying to make). So, if by "are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?" you actually mean "are birds mentioned in the Bible?", then the answer is yes. Birds are mentioned in the Bible.

It's the gap between modern day birds and dinosaurs, essentially. And, it's a dinosaur fossil.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 9:35:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 5:29:36 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Here is a much better article on the subject.
http://www.springerlink.com...
Please tell me you have no problem in saying this is an ancestor to modern day birds.

Scientists have long said that birds are the modern day dinosaurs. If this is supposedly one of the first, what exactly does this change about the whole issue? Nothing.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 9:38:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 5:28:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

It's the gap between modern day birds and dinosaurs, essentially. And, it's a dinosaur fossil.

Again you just say that it's a dinosaur fossil. Why? Because it's old? Because it's a flightless bird? YEC's believe in birds. You guys are really reaching on this one.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 9:45:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 5:29:36 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Here is a much better article on the subject.
http://www.springerlink.com...
Please tell me you have no problem in saying this is an ancestor to modern day birds.

Just to clarify, no, not ALL modern day birds. If this thing didn't go extinct or anything, then it could be the ancestor of some of today's flightless birds. I don't think that flightless birds are specifically mentioned in the Bible, and if the purpose of the Bible was to describe in detail every single animal alive at the time of its writing, you might have something here. But you don't. The only issue is the same old same old, how old the thing actually is. Birds are in the Bible. You all have yet to make a valid point on how this fossil stands in opposition to the Bible (and the age is the only thing that stands in opposition to a young earth).
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 10:04:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 9:45:17 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Just to clarify, no, not ALL modern day birds. If this thing didn't go extinct or anything, then it could be the ancestor of some of today's flightless birds....

on the contrary, it has gone extinct. unless you have some running around your backyard that you're not telling us about.

not sure what your point is...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 10:38:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 10:04:33 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/6/2010 9:45:17 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
Just to clarify, no, not ALL modern day birds. If this thing didn't go extinct or anything, then it could be the ancestor of some of today's flightless birds....

on the contrary, it has gone extinct. unless you have some running around your backyard that you're not telling us about.

not sure what your point is...

Sherlockmethod and i-am-a-panda are arguing that this old flightless bird poses a problem for Bible believers by saying that it is a feathered dinosaur. It's an old bird. It doesn't matter if it's extinct or if has survived til today. Birds are in the Bible. They have made no point yet. This is the most futile attempt to trash the Bible that I have ever heard of.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 10:45:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do not think this poses a problem for Bible believers, just YECs. Read the article I linked. If you have no trouble in supporting this as an ancestor to modern birds then you should have no trouble in finding a common ancestor for most modern day creatures. This guy has traits similiar to dinosaurs (as listed in the article) and birds (also listed). This should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 10:57:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 10:45:37 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I do not think this poses a problem for Bible believers, just YECs. Read the article I linked. If you have no trouble in supporting this as an ancestor to modern birds then you should have no trouble in finding a common ancestor for most modern day creatures. This guy has traits similiar to dinosaurs (as listed in the article) and birds (also listed). This should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs.

YEC's have long had a response to the argument that similar characteristics/structures/whatever supports common ancestry and thus evolution. The following isn't the most technical of articles and I can find a more detailed one for you if you wish, but here is the official YEC position on the whole similar traits argument (http://www.answersingenesis.org...).

Arguing the YEC stance on this vs the evolutionist stance on this (ie which is more sound) is a separate issue. You said that "[similar traits] should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs" as if we've never heard of this issue.

If this new find was supposed to shock us, fail.

If it was supposed to make us yawn, point to the evolutionist.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 11:19:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have to go to work, but I will respond more fully tonight. Similarity alone does not support common descent, I fully agree. I am familiar with the AIG article. The problem with the YEC position is they use homology when convenient, and dismiss it otherwise. Did you read the baraminology paper I linked?
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 3:26:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 10:57:50 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 2/6/2010 10:45:37 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I do not think this poses a problem for Bible believers, just YECs. Read the article I linked. If you have no trouble in supporting this as an ancestor to modern birds then you should have no trouble in finding a common ancestor for most modern day creatures. This guy has traits similiar to dinosaurs (as listed in the article) and birds (also listed). This should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs.

YEC's have long had a response to the argument that similar characteristics/structures/whatever supports common ancestry and thus evolution. The following isn't the most technical of articles and I can find a more detailed one for you if you wish, but here is the official YEC position on the whole similar traits argument (http://www.answersingenesis.org...).

Arguing the YEC stance on this vs the evolutionist stance on this (ie which is more sound) is a separate issue. You said that "[similar traits] should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs" as if we've never heard of this issue.

If this new find was supposed to shock us, fail.

If it was supposed to make us yawn, point to the evolutionist.

As one should expect, the AIG article quotes Darwin and leaves out the rest. The quote mine is a powerful, yet dishonest, tool for the YEC. Why don't we let Mr. Darwin explain this similarity without Ken Ham's help.
http://books.google.com...

Read the section on morphology; it is not long. The biggest issue is not just the function of different aspects of the natural world but also form. As Mr. Darwin stated, "We never find, for instance, the bones of the arm and forarm, or of the thigh and leg, transposed".

Earst Mayr provides a very good study on morphology here:
http://books.google.com...

"The idealistic morphologists were completely at a loss to explain the unity of plan, and more particularly, why structures rigidly retained their pattern of connections no matter how the structures were modified by functional needs."

Read the whole section (the whole book is amazing, btw) and one will find how morphology was treated throughout history, not just biology. The AIG article ignores this entire history.

Does this alone provide evidence for common descent AND against the common designer? NO, not alone. Evolution deniers can simply provide that the common designer used the same system on a whim, or for some purpose unknown to man, or whatever else they can make up.

The strongest example for common descent is the unification of trees based on morphology using cladistics and trees using pseudogenes.

Coyne said it very clearly, "I've never seen a creationist explanation for why DNA trees based on pseudogenes match traditional trees based on morphology."
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

Morphology alone is not enough, but an understanding of why morphology and the independant testing of such morphological trees match is vital to this point. AIG did not mention any of this material.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 4:46:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Welcome Back, nickthengineer. Id ask you whether or not you could reply to my previous post regarding Insertion mutations, as you said you would look into it, but i suppose i wasting my breath.

At 2/6/2010 10:57:50 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
YEC's have long had a response to the argument that similar characteristics/structures/whatever supports common ancestry and thus evolution. The following isn't the most technical of articles and I can find a more detailed one for you if you wish, but here is the official YEC position on the whole similar traits argument (http://www.answersingenesis.org...).
The reason why this argument fails, is because the difference in useage of each homologous structure does nothing to change the fact that these are homologous structures.

For example, take boats. We have boats that are fitted for speed. Boats that are specially made for holding heavy objects. Boat that are made sturdy for war. Yet each boat can have its structure, the basis of their construction, the same, which involves a keel, rudder, etc.

And although i find it laughable that this creationist website makes the differentiation between "Leaps and clings" and "Swings from the trees", as they are both essentially describing the same thing, and chimps can also swing and leap and cling from trees, and so can any 10 year old child, all of this is irrelevant to the structure, specifically the bone structure which is the main topic of debate here. For example, Bats. We know that Bats are mammals and that their wings are homologous to human hands. It doesnt matter if their hands are used for flight, it matters that the structure, both in number of bones, location and shape, are similar to humans and other mammals. And this goes for flippers on a whale too.

Arguing the YEC stance on this vs the evolutionist stance on this (ie which is more sound) is a separate issue. You said that "[similar traits] should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs" as if we've never heard of this issue.

If this new find was supposed to shock us, fail.

If it was supposed to make us yawn, point to the evolutionist.

Im damn sure youve heard of this issue, and i propose that the reason you yawn is because youre tired of hearing the same sh*t over and over again. That doesnt mean youve addressed the issue, however, and nowhere in the article you provided produces a coherent argument towards the main point about Homologous structures.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 10:57:50 AM, nickthengineer wrote:

YEC's have long had a response to the argument that similar characteristics/structures/whatever supports common ancestry and thus evolution. The following isn't the most technical of articles and I can find a more detailed one for you if you wish, but here is the official YEC position on the whole similar traits argument (http://www.answersingenesis.org...).

Arguing the YEC stance on this vs the evolutionist stance on this (ie which is more sound) is a separate issue. You said that "[similar traits] should pose a problem for evolution deniers i.e. YECs" as if we've never heard of this issue.

If this new find was supposed to shock us, fail.

If it was supposed to make us yawn, point to the evolutionist.

Both sherlockmetheod and tkubok are now addressing whose argument over similar structures is best, the evolutionist or the Creationist. I have already pointed out (see above) that the next step in the debate is which argument is more sound.

HOWEVER, the original purpose of this thread was to point out to me, the YEC, that there exists a fossil of a very very very old bird and subsequently watch my jaw drop (for what reason, I can't possibly imagine). It does not and should not. YEC's have long had a response to the similar structures issue. The aim of the thread was to tell me that this thing is a dinosaur because of similar structures but that it also is a birdlike thing, and then ask the question "Are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?" as if this fossil is actually anything new to the Creation/evolution debate that has been going on for, like, a while dudes.

If you want to debate the similar structures thing, find someone who is interested. I don't have an interest in doing very technical research in the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, astrology, etc. I like physics, engineering, math, and reading my Bible. I only chimed in to point out the massive failure by I-am-a-panda to shock YEC's with a bird fossil. Birds are in the Bible, so this find brings nothing new to the table, although he clearly believed it did. The similar structures debate has been going on for, like, a while dude.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2010 10:48:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nick wrote:
If you want to debate the similar structures thing, find someone who is interested. I don't have an interest in doing very technical research in the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, astrology, etc. I like physics, engineering, math, and reading my Bible.

As with most YECs, whent the facts stack up they take off. Nick has done this twice now. If you are not interested then stop asking for sources and hiding ... dude.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 10:10:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 8:45:45 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Both sherlockmetheod and tkubok are now addressing whose argument over similar structures is best, the evolutionist or the Creationist. I have already pointed out (see above) that the next step in the debate is which argument is more sound.

I dont see the difference between which argument is best, and which is more sound.

HOWEVER, the original purpose of this thread was to point out to me, the YEC, that there exists a fossil of a very very very old bird and subsequently watch my jaw drop (for what reason, I can't possibly imagine). It does not and should not. YEC's have long had a response to the similar structures issue. The aim of the thread was to tell me that this thing is a dinosaur because of similar structures but that it also is a birdlike thing, and then ask the question "Are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?" as if this fossil is actually anything new to the Creation/evolution debate that has been going on for, like, a while dudes.

Again, ive addressed this. I know that this is something that has been addressed, but the arguments presented, as i have done before, are utterly lacking. Ive poked the holes in the argument(See above) already. If youre claiming that youve already addressed this, no, you havent addressed my objections to your arguments at all, and this has been going on for a while, dude.

If you want to debate the similar structures thing, find someone who is interested. I don't have an interest in doing very technical research in the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, astrology, etc. I like physics, engineering, math, and reading my Bible. I only chimed in to point out the massive failure by I-am-a-panda to shock YEC's with a bird fossil. Birds are in the Bible, so this find brings nothing new to the table, although he clearly believed it did. The similar structures debate has been going on for, like, a while dude.

Yes, and the similar structures debate has already been won by Evolutionists. If you didnt want to discuss biology, why were you, in other posts, going around blatantly claiming that Evolution is false? Why would you be posting your beliefs about a theory, and trying to argue why Evolution is wrong, when you, now, admit that you do not have both the credentials, knowledge and ability to debate this, or make any possible conclusion? Were you lying to me when you said you would read up on Insertion mutations? Are you a liar?

Judging by your previous posts and your eagerness to debate evolution, and your stance now, I am guessing that you first came over here to try to utterly decimate evolutionists and their foolish theories, but, after being decimated yourself, you had no choice but to feign non-interest and pretend as though you didnt want to argue this in the first place. Which is fine.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 10:34:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 9:38:56 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
At 2/6/2010 5:28:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

It's the gap between modern day birds and dinosaurs, essentially. And, it's a dinosaur fossil.

Again you just say that it's a dinosaur fossil. Why? Because it's old? Because it's a flightless bird? YEC's believe in birds. You guys are really reaching on this one.

Waaaah! Waaaah!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 11:06:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/6/2010 10:48:19 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Nick wrote:
If you want to debate the similar structures thing, find someone who is interested. I don't have an interest in doing very technical research in the fields of paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, astrology, etc. I like physics, engineering, math, and reading my Bible.

As with most YECs, whent the facts stack up they take off. Nick has done this twice now. If you are not interested then stop asking for sources and hiding ... dude.

I said nothing about discovering that the facts stack up against me and then choosing to take off. If you want to insult me for not having the time, patience, or passion to become well informed on EVERY SINGLE TOPIC KNOWN TO MAN, then go ahead. It will only make you look dumb. Paleontology, geology, biology, genetics, astrology, and the like do not interest me terribly, so I don't waste time reading up on them. That proves...what? Nothing. I am a mechanical engineering major with more of an interest in math (I will probably be a math professor in the future). These are the things that interest me. They may not interest you, which proves nothing about nothing. I have wasted countless hours of my time doing stupid math things, like writing a MATLAB program that finds all of the prime numbers up to 1,000,000 and then converts them all to binary code (just to see if I could find a pattern. I haven't yet lol). I also don't have much interest in politics.

If not having the interest to research a particular topic is in your mind the same thing as me researching it, discovering that the facts stand in opposition to what I would like to believe, and then subsequently claiming that I don't have an interest in it, then there is apparently nothing more I can say to you. If you have already made up your mind about me then have at it. Ask me if I care. Read my bio. I call myself a right wing Bible thumper :P
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2010 11:33:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nick,
I don't think anyone can learn every topic known to man, but I do expect one to speak intelligently when adding comments to a topic. I am horrible at math. If you start a thread concerning a subject I am not well versed in then I would either learn more or move on to another topic. Notice, I don't comment on many of the philosophy topics as the subject is very broad and I have limited knowledge concerning all of the philosophies mentioned. I will, however, do some research before commenting. If you do not wish for me to comment on your remarks, then start a thread on binary numbers and you won't see me do anything but ask questions as I am unfamiliar with the topic.

You commented on this thread. You then said you have no interest in studying the points mentioned, but proudly state that the similarity position has been addressed. Well, no it hasn't. When forced to defend a position the YEC hides behind rhetoric or simply dismisses the claims as being biased. Have you seen how absurd YECs and ID proponents appear when cross examined in court? As I stated in another thread, which you decided was not worth your time, avoiding direct questions is a common YEC practice. If you want to debate the YEC position then offer the debate to me, as I find value in debunking one of the most dishonest and intellectually bankrupt ideas in modern thought. I would let it go and laugh but YECs keep getting elected to positions that affect education and legislation.
You seem to enjoy name calling and have ask all who read to recognize my ignorance, yet when I provide solid refutations to your uneducated comments, you feign disinterest? Weak.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 11:16:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/7/2010 11:33:44 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Nick,
I don't think anyone can learn every topic known to man, but I do expect one to speak intelligently when adding comments to a topic. I am horrible at math. If you start a thread concerning a subject I am not well versed in then I would either learn more or move on to another topic. Notice, I don't comment on many of the philosophy topics as the subject is very broad and I have limited knowledge concerning all of the philosophies mentioned. I will, however, do some research before commenting. If you do not wish for me to comment on your remarks, then start a thread on binary numbers and you won't see me do anything but ask questions as I am unfamiliar with the topic.

You commented on this thread. You then said you have no interest in studying the points mentioned, but proudly state that the similarity position has been addressed. Well, no it hasn't. When forced to defend a position the YEC hides behind rhetoric or simply dismisses the claims as being biased. Have you seen how absurd YECs and ID proponents appear when cross examined in court? As I stated in another thread, which you decided was not worth your time, avoiding direct questions is a common YEC practice. If you want to debate the YEC position then offer the debate to me, as I find value in debunking one of the most dishonest and intellectually bankrupt ideas in modern thought. I would let it go and laugh but YECs keep getting elected to positions that affect education and legislation.
You seem to enjoy name calling and have ask all who read to recognize my ignorance, yet when I provide solid refutations to your uneducated comments, you feign disinterest? Weak.

I didn't want the thread to go unanswered. It didn't take research to point out that birds are in the Bible. The first post wasn't a technical argument for why the fossil in question is actually a dinosaur and not just an extinct bird or something. The first post was nothing more than "Are feather coated dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?" It was a simple question, so I gave a simple answer. You provided a not very detailed argument for why the thing is a dinosaur and not a bird, so I pointed out that Creationists have long been addressing that point.

I did nothing more than share the information I have. If you are afraid to have the other side of the argument shared, too bad. There was nothing wrong with the brief statements I gave, nor yours. If you want to get more technical about it you will have to find someone who wants to do the same. There was nothing wrong with me sharing the information I did.

I never "feign" disinterest. When the discussion switches to the nitty gritty of biology or paleontology, I actually AM disinterested, and how on earth can you assert otherwise about me? If I switched the discussion to prime numbers you would be disinterested. Anyone can assert that I am simply feigning it; no one can back it up.

And the only name I called you here was dude. If that offended you, sorry. I think I may have called you a hypocrite elsewhere but I'm not sure.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)