Vision in Verse
New member
What do you mean "naturalistic?"
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Here's some stuff "hot off the press".
http://www.livescience.com/space/scienceastronomy/070710_distant_galaxies.html
I wonder which 2004 findings they referred to as "spurious"?
Species changing - most creation scientists agree that lifeforms change over time.
The tree of life - not observable.
Age of the Earth - not observable.
mighty_duck
New member
Not the UHDF images.
"The near-infrared observation was made with the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile"
The age of the Earth is not "observable" via radioisotopes.
Math doesn't lie, but it frequently does not reflect the real world.
Whatever.
baloney remarks:
Your immature attitude towrds the modern world makes other Christians look stupid.
(bob musters all the maturity he can for his reply)
Your immature attitude towrds the modern world makes other Christians look stupid.
(bob musters all the maturity he can for his reply)
This one, presented by bob is, I think, the result of ignorance, not deviousness...
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions.
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane" refers to the idea that we should see a smooth and gradual transition of all characteristics in transitionals. In other words, everything changes gradually at the same time. What we see is something quite different, "mosaics" like Archaeopteryx, which show some things evolving before others. So Archaeopteryx has the skull of a dinosaur but complete flight feathers. (there is a Proarchaeopteryix with symmetrical, non-flight feathers, but it is clearly a dinosaur)
It does not in any way contradict Gould's assertion that there are abundant transitionals. It just means that they didn't turn out the way some people expected them to be.
The second quote is now fifty-two years old, and we now have the transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, ungulates and whales, fish and tetrapods, and a great many more. Turns out there are a great many more fossils to be found than Simpson knew. Important new ones turn up monthly.
Gould's observation that transitionals are abundant is confirmed again and again, as the search goes on.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions.
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane" refers to the idea that we should see a smooth and gradual transition of all characteristics in transitionals. In other words, everything changes gradually at the same time. What we see is something quite different, "mosaics" like Archaeopteryx, which show some things evolving before others. So Archaeopteryx has the skull of a dinosaur but complete flight feathers. (there is a Proarchaeopteryix with symmetrical, non-flight feathers, but it is clearly a dinosaur)
It does not in any way contradict Gould's assertion that there are abundant transitionals. It just means that they didn't turn out the way some people expected them to be.
The second quote is now fifty-two years old, and we now have the transitionals between birds and dinosaurs, ungulates and whales, fish and tetrapods, and a great many more. Turns out there are a great many more fossils to be found than Simpson knew. Important new ones turn up monthly.
Gould's observation that transitionals are abundant is confirmed again and again, as the search goes on.
Nomally bob simply snips out his "quotes" to change what they mean. (the faked Gould quote for example)
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
In his essay "The Tell-tale Wishbone" Gould specifically states that Archaeopteryx is a transitional.
I'll say it one more time:
Bob, surely you must see how other people perceive your behavior in this matter. You have consistently misrepresented what scientists say about transitionals, even after being shown what they actually said. At some point, we can no longer put this off to ignorance, but must conclude you are intentionally doing so.
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
In his essay "The Tell-tale Wishbone" Gould specifically states that Archaeopteryx is a transitional.
I'll say it one more time:
Bob, surely you must see how other people perceive your behavior in this matter. You have consistently misrepresented what scientists say about transitionals, even after being shown what they actually said. At some point, we can no longer put this off to ignorance, but must conclude you are intentionally doing so.
If you can prove that I erred please prove it. Calling it "faked" implies I deliberately lied. Not very Christian of you.
Again you accuse me of deceit. Shame on you.
He does not define either "abundant" or "larger groups".
Others like Simpson call it a "mosaic". Didn't you just post that?
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
Conclude what you will. I stand on what I say.
Others can judge your behavior by what you say also.
Or, as I suggested, you were gulled by someone dishonest. At any rate, everyone saw that you blatantly misrepresented Gould who said exactly the opposite of what you claimed he did.
I pointed out the misrepresentation. It's true. Would you like me to post it again, bob?
Barbarian observes:
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
I suggested you simply didn't know what you were talking about. Everyone can see that, bob.
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
He means there are sufficiently many of them. That's what "abundant" means, bob.
a·bun·dant [uh-buhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key
–adjective 1. present in great quantity; more than adequate; oversufficient: an abundant supply of water.
And obviously, he defines "larger groups" as those above species level. Why deny what's obviously there, bob?
Barbarian observes:
In his essay "The Tell-tale Wishbone" Gould specifically states that Archaeopteryx is a transitional.
Gould points out that almost all transitionals are mosaics. As I said before, one problem is you don't understand what you're talking about, and this leads you into constant embarassments.
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
Notice that here, Gould calls mosaics "transitions." Right in front of you, and yet you continue to misrepresent what he said.
Barbarian observes:
I'll say it one more time:
Bob, surely you must see how other people perceive your behavior in this matter. You have consistently misrepresented what scientists say about transitionals, even after being shown what they actually said. At some point, we can no longer put this off to ignorance, but must conclude you are intentionally doing so.
(denial by bob)
Pretty much all you have left.
Again you misrepresent. Have you no shame?
Go ahead. Gould said what I quoted him as saying what he did. If he said something else too that's not my problem.
That has little to do with what I think and understand.
I don't "doctor" quotes. Do have anything else but misrepresentations?
Perhaps everyone can see you have failed to make your case and thus resort
to false charges.
They are above the species level I agree. How far above is a matter of opinion.
If that is the "official" definition of a mosaic then I would say evolutionists are playing a clever word game to convince people that their ideas are true.
Your quote also said, "curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count".
And I will say again that your kind of evolutionist must have little to support your idea if you spend so much time accusing an honest person like myself of deceit and ignorance. Such tactics might work with less seasoned people, but I have learned over the years to simply speak the truth and lets the chips fall where they may. I know I am winning the argument when people have to resort to intimidation tactics.
But I know from experience that when I am right I will eventually overcome, if I stick to my guns. And I always do.
Barbarian observes:
Or, as I suggested, you were gulled by someone dishonest. At any rate, everyone saw that you blatantly misrepresented Gould who said exactly the opposite of what you claimed he did.
C'mon bob. Everyone saw it. You claimed that Gould said that transitionals between major groups didn't exist. That was a complete fabrication. He wrote that such transitionals were abundant.
Barbarian observes:
I pointed out the misrepresentation. It's true. Would you like me to post it again, bob?
Bob says:
It's one of the most commonly used scams by creationists. Gould of course, says that transitions between major groups are abundant.
Bob says:
I think you already know that's false. At least, you tuck tail and run every time I challenge you to name one set that lacks transitionals.
Barbarian observes:
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
Little in reality seems to have much to do with what you think. Gould is kind and suggests that it might be stupidity rather than deviousness.
Barbarian observes:
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Barbarian observes:
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Barbarian observes:
I suggested you simply didn't know what you were talking about. Everyone can see that, bob.
I took the liberty of restoring the context you edited out. As you can see, I suggested that you didn't know what you were talking about. Tell the truth, and this won't happen again.
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
He means there are sufficiently many of them. That's what "abundant" means, bob.
a·bun·dant [uh-buhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key
–adjective 1. present in great quantity; more than adequate; oversufficient: an abundant supply of water.
And obviously, he defines "larger groups" as those above species level. Why deny what's obviously there, bob?
Sounds like a testable claim. You tell me how far above, and we'll take a look.
Barbarian observes:
In his essay "The Tell-tale Wishbone" Gould specifically states that Archaeopteryx is a transitional. Gould points out that almost all transitionals are mosaics.
Nope. You just got gulled by the guys who sold you those doctored quotes. A transitional is an organism which has apomorphies of two different groups. In other words, a dinosaur with feathers, or a fish with legs. A mosaic is a transitional, in which some features are advanced, and others are not.
As Gould pointed out, almost all transitionals are mosaics.
Barbarian observes:
As I said before, one problem is you don't understand what you're talking about, and this leads you into constant embarassments.
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
Notice that here, Gould calls mosaics "transitions." Right in front of you, and yet you continue to misrepresent what he said.
They do not count as "smooth intermediates between Bauplane." They count, as your own quote indicates, as transitionals. You've been suckered by whoever's been feeding you those quotes, bob.
Barbarian observes:
I'll say it one more time:
Bob, surely you must see how other people perceive your behavior in this matter. You have consistently misrepresented what scientists say about transitionals, even after being shown what they actually said. At some point, we can no longer put this off to ignorance, but must conclude you are intentionally doing so.
Pretty much all you have left.
See above. You accused me of calling you decietful, when I suggested you didn't know what you were talking about. You told us that Gould denied transitions between major taxa when in fact, Gould wrote that such transitions were abundant.
You confused "mosaic" and "transitional" as mutually exclusive, when in fact your own quote says mosaics are transitionals.
You are either very deceptive, or very ignorant, or both.
As you see, you didn't speak the truth. Whether you intended to deceive or not, I can't say.
Your ad hom won't help you, bob. You might attack me, but even if I was a terrible person, your argument fell apart, when your doctored quotes were exposed.
Or, as I suggested, you were gulled by someone dishonest. At any rate, everyone saw that you blatantly misrepresented Gould who said exactly the opposite of what you claimed he did.
C'mon bob. Everyone saw it. You claimed that Gould said that transitionals between major groups didn't exist. That was a complete fabrication. He wrote that such transitionals were abundant.
Barbarian observes:
I pointed out the misrepresentation. It's true. Would you like me to post it again, bob?
Bob says:
It's one of the most commonly used scams by creationists. Gould of course, says that transitions between major groups are abundant.
Bob says:
I think you already know that's false. At least, you tuck tail and run every time I challenge you to name one set that lacks transitionals.
Barbarian observes:
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
Little in reality seems to have much to do with what you think. Gould is kind and suggests that it might be stupidity rather than deviousness.
Barbarian observes:
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Barbarian observes:
Other times, because he doesn't understand science, he just didn't understand what "Bauplane" means. I recall reading an article by Gould on his irritation that creationists confused that and "mosaic." I'll see if I can find it for you.
There's a lesson here, bob. You probably should stick to facts, rather than doctored quotes. At least there, you can understand what they are.
Barbarian observes:
I suggested you simply didn't know what you were talking about. Everyone can see that, bob.
I took the liberty of restoring the context you edited out. As you can see, I suggested that you didn't know what you were talking about. Tell the truth, and this won't happen again.
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
He means there are sufficiently many of them. That's what "abundant" means, bob.
a·bun·dant [uh-buhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key
–adjective 1. present in great quantity; more than adequate; oversufficient: an abundant supply of water.
And obviously, he defines "larger groups" as those above species level. Why deny what's obviously there, bob?
Sounds like a testable claim. You tell me how far above, and we'll take a look.
Barbarian observes:
In his essay "The Tell-tale Wishbone" Gould specifically states that Archaeopteryx is a transitional. Gould points out that almost all transitionals are mosaics.
Nope. You just got gulled by the guys who sold you those doctored quotes. A transitional is an organism which has apomorphies of two different groups. In other words, a dinosaur with feathers, or a fish with legs. A mosaic is a transitional, in which some features are advanced, and others are not.
As Gould pointed out, almost all transitionals are mosaics.
Barbarian observes:
As I said before, one problem is you don't understand what you're talking about, and this leads you into constant embarassments.
"Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G. Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to explain these transitions."
Notice that here, Gould calls mosaics "transitions." Right in front of you, and yet you continue to misrepresent what he said.
They do not count as "smooth intermediates between Bauplane." They count, as your own quote indicates, as transitionals. You've been suckered by whoever's been feeding you those quotes, bob.
Barbarian observes:
I'll say it one more time:
Bob, surely you must see how other people perceive your behavior in this matter. You have consistently misrepresented what scientists say about transitionals, even after being shown what they actually said. At some point, we can no longer put this off to ignorance, but must conclude you are intentionally doing so.
Pretty much all you have left.
See above. You accused me of calling you decietful, when I suggested you didn't know what you were talking about. You told us that Gould denied transitions between major taxa when in fact, Gould wrote that such transitions were abundant.
You confused "mosaic" and "transitional" as mutually exclusive, when in fact your own quote says mosaics are transitionals.
You are either very deceptive, or very ignorant, or both.
As you see, you didn't speak the truth. Whether you intended to deceive or not, I can't say.
Your ad hom won't help you, bob. You might attack me, but even if I was a terrible person, your argument fell apart, when your doctored quotes were exposed.
Wow. but think bob b, once upon a time the fact that the earth revolved around the sun was "highly surprising" and thought "impossible".
Nice try.
Yes, but the fact that evolutionists must now hypothesize that complex systems arose prior to the Cambrian Explosion is what was thought surprising, because it now means that the most significant features of the evolutionary hypothesis, the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, hoxdomains and sexual reproduction are no longer able to be supported by "just so" stories based on fossils, because these key features now have to be assumed to have arisen prior to the vast majority of the fossil record.
It will still take many years for most evolutionists to throw in the towel, because they will not be able to find an alternative "naturalistic" concept, and that is said to be the final stage prior to the abandonment of one paradigm for another.
Further research in microbiology will undoubtedly make their situation even worse as it has in the past few decades.
As we have already seen, the story in Genesis does not qualify as a scientific paradigm, because it does not permit scientific research into how it happened.
So the true story of the origin of first life must be rejected because it is not "scientific".
Pity.
SUTG
New member
It is amazing how often you declare the results of future research. It is almost as if you don't have to do the research at all! Just tell it like it is!
Undoubtedly. Thanks for the advance warning. I'd be concerned if you really understood half of what you read to support statements such as this.