Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Nope. I don't need "faith" to question the existence of a deity, particularly any local very human one.Yes i am serious, It requires faith to believe in God and It requires faith to disbelieve in God --- as you had already made point --- see, in your own language
as there's no direct evidence which approves or disapproves existence of God --- So belief and disbelief in God is always matter of faith --- SO, when atheists say no to God, It is pure act of faith which make them a follower of religion --- That's my point
That's a contradiction. If Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses they believe in more than one god. One may be higher or lower, but they believe in other gods, not just one. They're not alone in this either.You don't know, Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses, at the same time they also believe in the existence of one supreme God and that supreme God is one --- It doesn't matter, by whatever name you may call him --- Majority of people, in the world, have faith in one God
Again with the veiled aggression.You are ----... See, i don't want to break your innocent heart --- You are that cute who is living in a garden full of flowers --- You haven't ever visited to jungle -- The jungle is so rough and full of beasts -- They pluck flower like you from its roots --So, i hope, next time, your bigotry will see points in my statements--
All this is because, i love your innocence --- I don't want to make you cry
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Nobody has made such claims.
We state that there is insufficient evidence that would point to there being some sort of creator, and until such evidence arises - we are humble enough to accept that 'we don't know' how life came about or how the universe was created. It is a perfectly valid stance to take, instead of filling in gaps with some mythological figure.
, You see bold, Who are "You" to "state" there is "insufficient evidence" --- ain't your beliefs behind "insufficient evidence" as it is your wish to explain origin of everything without creator ---
I am very convinced as you've got extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims -- Should i be convinced? ThanksFirstly - We don't know that other planets (or moons) don't support life. Theoretically, life may exist on Europa, or on Mars in a primitive or bacterial form. Even if life is not present on Mars or Europa, that is meaningless, as they are not within the Goldilocks zone, and as such - the chances of life existing on them are substantially less than Earth.
That does not mean that life does not exist elsewhere in the Universe however. Earlier this year, we detected a number of Earth-sized planets within the goldilocks zone. The reality is, there are probably billions of planets in this Universe which are capable of sustaining life.
So if you're argument is that Earth has some unique place in the Universe in terms of having the right conditions to sustain life, then it is a very weak argument -
Many lives had already been wasted life in this great american political dramaWasting your time there, dead one doesn't believe in NASA. He actively disbelieves that humans set foot on the moon, remember? Which, considering his latest tirade on evidence, is something I find incredibly amusing. There's certainly more evidence for moon landings (hundreds of books and scientific papers, video footage, actual first hand witnesses) than there is for Mohammed (one terribly-written book cobbled together by superstitious goat herders), but he's not going to be consistent and stop believing in that guy.
Why should i believe in American Cheater --- Even they still are cheating world by creating a new great stage play 9-11 --- Why should i believe in cheaters, who tried cheat the fate of humanity --- He can believe in them who is dishonest... Majority of american governments proved them to be enemy of human race --- The cheater are the only source of world problems --- who would believe, these cheaters will set fate of humanity
You don't need faith to question the existence of a diety, but you need faith not to believe in deity ----Nope. I don't need "faith" to question the existence of a deity, particularly any local very human one.
They believe in supreme being, with believing in gods and godessess--That's a contradiction. If Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses they
Did you read his veiled stupidnessAgain with the veiled aggression.
0 -
Yes you can retreatCan we lock the thread now? A ban for JC and dead one would go down a treat as well.
robindch, save your body from fats of materialism --- only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. ----Robin ... you should have stayed off the hormone therapy!!!!!:):D0 -
-
-
-
-
Since I'm waiting for some data backups to complete, I thought that I would post an addendum to my previous contribution because I wasn't entirely satisfied with my reply to JC's comment about horse kinds. In particuar, there are things in his original post about horse kinds that I'd like to take issue with.
The foundation that JC is building his argument on is the work of Mats Molen, particularly this article on Creation Ministries International.
The evolution of the horse
I'm going to show why Molen's argument doesn't stand up and consequently why JC's doesn't.
Molen, unsurprisingly for a creationist, manages to fall at the first hurdle. He introduces the main body of the article by referring to a figure which represents what he claims is the development of the horse according to evolution.
This is the classic creationist strawman tactic. Molen is using an evolutionary tree constructed in 1951 as a representation of modern evolution. Unfortunately for Molen, research has not stood still in the last 60 years so a more up-to-date tree shows a different story.
(Source1)
(Source2)
So already Molen isn't even arguing against what modern evolutionary theory is claiming, just an outdated caricature. A lot of the changes represent additions from new fossil finds or reclassifications thanks to information gained from comparative genomics. Many of the changes have no significant impact on the overall path from Hyracotherium to Equus, however Molen's diagram incorrectly places Pliohippus between Merychippus and Equus. We now know that this place should be occupied by Dinohippus with Pliohippus being a separate offshoot of Merychippus between Calippus and Astrohippus.
Now to get to the "problems that Molen identifies.
1. Gaps in the Fossil Record
Molen identifies two weaknesses in the fossil record that evolutionists use to support the evolution of the horse. In both cases, he comments on the scarcity of fossil records and how tenuous any conclusions drawn from the existing ones are.
1a - Epihippus
Molen comments regarding Epihippus:
"Only sparse fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species."
He references a paper by Froehlich from 2002 which, of course, doesn't say, what he says it does. In fact the fossil record of Epihippus is extensive with fossils recovered from the following locations:- Colmena Tuff Formation, Presidio County, Texas
- Myton Pocket, Duchesne County, Utah
- Teepee Trail Formation, Hot Springs County, Wyoming
- Washakie Formation, Moffat County, Colorado
- Swift Current Creek, Saskatchewan, Canada
- Dell Beds Formation, Beaverhead County, Montana
As for the resemblance, you would expect a great deal of resemblance between Epihippus and Orohippus from which it directly arose. However, the development of another premolar into a molar giving five grinding teeth shows the adaptation of Epihipppus in the changing American plains.
1b - Parahippus
Molen manages to make an even bigger eejit of himself with Parahippus. In particular he makes two claims which can be shown to be outdated and groundless:
"The early Parahippus species are supposed to resemble Miohippus and Mesohippus while the latter ones are supposed to look like Merychippus; this is only partly supported by the fossil findings."
"Furthermore, the fossil material for Parahippus is incomplete."
The references he uses to back up these claims date to 1918 and 1937 respectively. He completely ignores any and all research in the intervening period. Research such as:- Paleoecology and population dynamics of the early Miocene horse Parahippus Leonensis from the Thomas Farm Site, Florida
- Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic calibration of horse evolution: Evidence from the Miocene of Florida
- Evolution of the Proximal Third Phalanx in Oligocene-Miocene Equids, and the Utility of Phalangeal Indices in Phylogeny Reconstruction
- The origins and evolution of the North American grassland biome: the story from the hoofed mammals
- Paleobiogeography of Miocene Equinae of North America: A phylogenetic biogeographic analysis of the relative roles of climate, vicariance, and dispersal
"This latter result can also be inferred by the work of Cavanaugh et al., as Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses. Therefore, the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils."
Molen completely ignores adaptive radiation and the body of research supporting this in the case of Parahippus.
2. Horse series not monophyletic
Molen moves on to point out that the original Hyracotherium group was reclassified in 1992 and also references Froelich's paper from 2002 to support this. However, the only thing that Molen is successful in demonstrating is that he has no idea how cladistic phylogenetics works or how taxonomy relates to evolution.
"In 1992, the genus Hyracotherium was reclassified as five animals belonging to different families of which only one group was regarded as having anything to do with horses.15 More recent research has reclassified these animals into ten different genera and at least three families, of which many are not supposed to have anything to do with the horse series but are similar to e.g. tapirs (family Tapiromorpha).9 One Hyracotherium species (angustidens) has been renamed Eohippus, and all the other Hyracotherium species except one, have been given new genus names. The single animal still retaining the name Hyracotherium (leporinum) is no longer in the horse series but is regarded as belonging next to the Palaeotheriidae, which resemble tapirs and rhinoceros."
Froelich points out in his paper that the original group was far too diverse to be considered a single clade and instead reclassifies it to create a paraphyletic sequence. However, none of this has any negative impact on the established ancestry of the modern Equus genus.
3. Early horses from same age as later horses.
In this section, Molen repeats the oft-quoted creationist claim that early horses such as eohippus are found in the same strata as later ones. He cites Barnhart's "A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse" as his supporting evidence. However, Barnhart among other authors falls into the trap of repeating this long debunked creationist hoax. A detailed treatment of this claim can be found here:
Did Hyracotherium and Equus live at the same time?
4. Transitional forms showing tooth development are rare
The final section of Molen's article which attacks evolutionary theory concerns the alleged lack of evidence showing tooth development from leaf-eating to grazing among fossil horses. This, though, seems to be a case of Molen sticking his head in the sand. Tooth development, along with hoof development is one of the key indentifying features in the morphological progression of the horse series. It can be readily observed as seen in this image:
Source
Kathleen Hunt also makes frequent use of tooth development as a guide in her excellent treatise on horse evolution.
Horse Evolution
Following these points, Molen goes on to discuss where he would place the various ancestral species into different kinds and then attempts to demonstrate that there was no post-flood evolution.
His conclusions are in essence one monumental argument from ignorance resulting from poor reasoning, dishonest argument, denial of evidence and limited understanding of the subject matter. He demonstrates nothing to contradict the established evolution of modern horses and JC's farcical use of his work shows just how stupid some creationists can be.
0 -
-
The cry of every dictator down the centuries ... 'I don't like what he is saying ... so send him to the Gulags ... to the guillotine ... to be burned at the stake!!!'Can we lock the thread now? A ban for JC and dead one would go down a treat as well.
Just like every pseudo-liberal, you are great at claiming free speech ... but not so good at granting it to those who disagree with you!!!
... and why does myself and Dead One deserve a ban? ... we have broken no rules and have politely engaged in the debate ... but then the millions murdered by dictatorial regimes (of all religious persuasions and none) down the centuries didn't deserve to be killed or banned from their societies either!!!:(
... and as sombody has already observed on this thread ... the burning of books (suppression of ideas) has often led to the exiling/killing of their authors!!!
... and the gulags of the Soveit Atheists lasted up until 1988!!!
0 -
Advertisement
-
The cry of every dictator down the centuries ... 'I don't like what he is saying ... so send him to the Gulags ... to the guillotine ... to be burned at the stake!!!'
Just like every pseudo-liberal, you are great at claiming free speech ... but not so good at granting it to those who disagree with you!!!
... and why does myself and Dead One deserve a ban? ... we have broken no rules and have politely engaged in the debate ... but then the millions murdered by dictatorial regimes (of all religious persuasions and none) down the centuries didn't deserve to be killed or banned from their societies either!!!:(
... and as sombody has already observed on this thread ... the burning of books (suppression of ideas) has often led to the exiling/killing of their authors!!!
... and the gulags of the Soveit Atheists lasted up until 1988!!!
Clearly you're still waffling freely, so why not address some of the points put to you in the post above you by Oldrnwisr.0 -
-
The two diagrams perfectly illustrate the fact that the Human Imagination is endless ... and you can combine different species into an effective infinity of supposed Evolutionist 'trees' and 'stories' ... that change incessantly.Molen, unsurprisingly for a creationist, manages to fall at the first hurdle. He introduces the main body of the article by referring to a figure which represents what he claims is the development of the horse according to evolution.
This is the classic creationist strawman tactic. Molen is using an evolutionary tree constructed in 1951 as a representation of modern evolution. Unfortunately for Molen, research has not stood still in the last 60 years so a more up-to-date tree shows a different story.
Anybody can claim that a variety of tapir turned into a Horse ... or a glorified rat turned into a man ... but if they cannot show how even one specific functional 100 chain sequence can be produced spontaneously then such speculations remain in the realm of speculation.
... and the fact that crocodiles, rats and tapirs (and thousands of other 'living fossils') have remained crocodiles, rats and tapirs during all the supposed millions of years of Evolutionary 'time' undermines the credibility of these speculations.
It really doesn't matter where you place these fossils ... all that can be said scientifically about them is that they existed at one time, were killed catastrophically ... and preserved by rapid burial under millions of tonnes of water-borne sediment that was deposited all over the world ... something like a worldwide flood!!!!:)So already Molen isn't even arguing against what modern evolutionary theory is claiming, just an outdated caricature. A lot of the changes represent additions from new fossil finds or reclassifications thanks to information gained from comparative genomics. Many of the changes have no significant impact on the overall path from Hyracotherium to Equus, however Molen's diagram incorrectly places Pliohippus between Merychippus and Equus. We now know that this place should be occupied by Dinohippus with Pliohippus being a separate offshoot of Merychippus between Calippus and Astrohippus.
One man's 'scarcity' is obviously another man's 'abundance'.:)Now to get to the "problems that Molen identifies.
1. Gaps in the Fossil Record
Molen identifies two weaknesses in the fossil record that evolutionists use to support the evolution of the horse. In both cases, he comments on the scarcity of fossil records and how tenuous any conclusions drawn from the existing ones are.
1a - Epihippus
Molen comments regarding Epihippus:
"Only sparse fossil pieces have been found of this animal, and they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species."
He references a paper by Froehlich from 2002 which, of course, doesn't say, what he says it does. In fact the fossil record of Epihippus is extensive with fossils recovered from the following locations:
... some people have four third molars (or 'wisdom' teeth) ... while 35% of the population don't have any at all ... and other people have more than four of these teeth ... but none of this is due to 'evolution' or how much they grind their teeth.As for the resemblance, you would expect a great deal of resemblance between Epihippus and Orohippus from which it directly arose. However, the development of another premolar into a molar giving five grinding teeth shows the adaptation of Epihipppus in the changing American plains.
Ditto with the dentitition of Epihippus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth
... he certainly showed that the classification of the 'horse groups' is very 'fluid'... and changes by the minute.1b - Parahippus
Molen manages to make an even bigger eejit of himself with Parahippus. In particular he makes two claims which can be shown to be outdated and groundless:
"The early Parahippus species are supposed to resemble Miohippus and Mesohippus while the latter ones are supposed to look like Merychippus; this is only partly supported by the fossil findings."
"Furthermore, the fossil material for Parahippus is incomplete."
The references he uses to back up these claims date to 1918 and 1937 respectively. He completely ignores any and all research in the intervening period. Research such as:- Paleoecology and population dynamics of the early Miocene horse Parahippus Leonensis from the Thomas Farm Site, Florida
- Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic calibration of horse evolution: Evidence from the Miocene of Florida
- Evolution of the Proximal Third Phalanx in Oligocene-Miocene Equids, and the Utility of Phalangeal Indices in Phylogeny Reconstruction
- The origins and evolution of the North American grassland biome: the story from the hoofed mammals
- Paleobiogeography of Miocene Equinae of North America: A phylogenetic biogeographic analysis of the relative roles of climate, vicariance, and dispersal
"This latter result can also be inferred by the work of Cavanaugh et al., as Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses. Therefore, the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils."
Molen completely ignores adaptive radiation and the body of research supporting this in the case of Parahippus.
2. Horse series not monophyletic
Molen moves on to point out that the original Hyracotherium group was reclassified in 1992 and also references Froelich's paper from 2002 to support this. However, the only thing that Molen is successful in demonstrating is that he has no idea how cladistic phylogenetics works or how taxonomy relates to evolution.
Yet more 'chopping and changing' ... but nothing proven about what actually happened.["In 1992, the genus Hyracotherium was reclassified as five animals belonging to different families of which only one group was regarded as having anything to do with horses.15 More recent research has reclassified these animals into ten different genera and at least three families, of which many are not supposed to have anything to do with the horse series but are similar to e.g. tapirs (family Tapiromorpha).9 One Hyracotherium species (angustidens) has been renamed Eohippus, and all the other Hyracotherium species except one, have been given new genus names. The single animal still retaining the name Hyracotherium (leporinum) is no longer in the horse series but is regarded as belonging next to the Palaeotheriidae, which resemble tapirs and rhinoceros."
Froelich points out in his paper that the original group was far too diverse to be considered a single clade and instead reclassifies it to create a paraphyletic sequence. However, none of this has any negative impact on the established ancestry of the modern Equus genus.
I've read your link ... and I've found no evidence that disproves Molen's claim that horses such as eohippus are found in the same strata as supposedly 'later' ones.3. Early horses from same age as later horses.
In this section, Molen repeats the oft-quoted creationist claim that early horses such as eohippus are found in the same strata as later ones. He cites Barnhart's "A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse" as his supporting evidence. However, Barnhart among other authors falls into the trap of repeating this long debunked creationist hoax. A detailed treatment of this claim can be found here:
Did Hyracotherium and Equus live at the same time?
Tooth development would not be conclusive evidence either way ... as NS is quite capable of selecting dentition patterns to suit particular environments by selecting from the pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused at creation in the Horse Kind.4. Transitional forms showing tooth development are rare
The final section of Molen's article which attacks evolutionary theory concerns the alleged lack of evidence showing tooth development from leaf-eating to grazing among fossil horses. This, though, seems to be a case of Molen sticking his head in the sand. Tooth development, along with hoof development is one of the key indentifying features in the morphological progression of the horse series. It can be readily observed as seen in this image:
Source
Kathleen Hunt also makes frequent use of tooth development as a guide in her excellent treatise on horse evolution.
Horse Evolution
I will not even respond to this Ad Hominem attack, as it makes no scientific observations about the supposed 'horse series' or Molen's research and conclusions.Following these points, Molen goes on to discuss where he would place the various ancestral species into different kinds and then attempts to demonstrate that there was no post-flood evolution.
His conclusions are in essence one monumental argument from ignorance resulting from poor reasoning, dishonest argument, denial of evidence and limited understanding of the subject matter. He demonstrates nothing to contradict the established evolution of modern horses and JC's farcical use of his work shows just how stupid some creationists can be.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Eh not quite. These so called living fossils have changed over time. They're still recognisable as those animals, but they ain't the same. In any event so what if some life doesn't change much? If they have a niche in the ecosystem that doesn't vary over time, why change? There's no pressure to do so. Very few if any "living fossils" remain the same. The Gingko, one of the best examples, has changed in leaf layout and size in the 100's of millions of years it's been around. It's also got a huge DNA strand, that it's picked up over that time.... and the fact that crocodiles, rats and tapirs (and thousands of other 'living fossils') have remained crocodiles, rats, tapirs (and unchanged 'living fossils') during all the supposed millions of years of Evolutionary 'time' totally undermines the credability of these speculations.
Complete and utter nonsense. You can't state anything approaching that "scientifically". In a very broad sense there are two types of fossil assemblages. Life assemblages and death assemblages. The former are rapid burial(though in the case of sedentary life, not always). The latter are fossils laid down over time, not rapid burial. They can show scavenger action and even weathering. Oh and the death assemblage is the more common. How would that work in Noah's flood? Answer, it wouldn't.It really doesn't matter where you place these fossils ... all that can be said scientifically about them is that they existed at one time, were killed catastrophically ... and preserved by rapid burial under millions of tonnes of water-borne sediment that was deposited worldwide.
Oh and BTW fossils don't have to be found in water borne sediment. Many are found in desert sediments where wind and sand have covered them. Again no water or Noah required.
Another issue with your Biblical "scienticians" and their flood is why do marine animals die out in this flood? More marine life than land life has gone extinct in the history of the earth. You'd think a flood would be like catnip to them...
Actually it has. Soft tissues evolve faster than bony tissue. Our palate has changed over the last 100,000 years(likely to do with the evolution of speech). Earlier humans had larger palates. Modern humans are selecting for smaller teeth and palates. Some moderns just show some earlier features. EG I've got an extra lower vertebra. The majority don't, but earlier hominids did, so I'm a bit of a throwback... some people have four 'wisdom' molars ... while 35% of the population don't have any ... and other people have mre than 4 ... and none of this is due to 'evolution' or how much they gring their teeth.. It's also thought to be down to lifestyle. Humans on "natural" hunter gatherer diets don't suffer to near the same extent with dental overcrowding and have better developed palates.
BTW what about my question regarding early humans? Where do they fit in with your biblical science?Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6y2CTxbtL0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement