Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[rjd970]

Really? Are you saying you can't test for function and design?

And are you further saying that macro evolution should be thrown into the same bucket as ID?

Without knowing the designer's intent? Yes.

Please share the objective testable and observable design and function criteria that would delineate structures from being evolved.

 

[Septic]

So just for clarity, which testable, observable and repeatable fact supporting macro is he denying?

There you go again, inserting words in attempt to prop up your position.

No where did I state, infer or imply that he was denying testable, observable or repeatable facts.

My correction was that YEC's deny macro evolution, marcus stated:

X

Do I think all dogs ( as well as wolves etc.) Had a common ancestor? Sure. Guess what? It was a dog. Not a bird. Or a fish...or an asparagus. God said animals would "bring forth according to their kind." They are the same kind of animal.

 

[Roustabout]

Without knowing the designer's intent? Yes.

Sorry, but there are examples in the engineering sciences where this is done all the time. It's called reverse engineering.
Medusa Reimagined: Caltech-led Team Reverse Engineers a Jellyfish with the Ability to Swim - ScienceNewsline

Please share the objective testable and observable design and function criteria that would delineate structures from being evolved.

Your question is equivocating the use of the term evolved. Further, I already provided a quote and source that addresses that very question.

Here is what I see you and others saying. ID, which is not taught, has a higher burden of proof than that which is taught? That is a tough one. As I've said before, we have a lot of skeptics who are not consistent in applying their skepticism. There is no one here that I've seen that is genuinely concerned about science. what we have are people arguing that their postmodern philosophy is right because of evolution, and therefore our worldview is wrong.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I stand by this. There is no irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Some tree hugger with a shovel finds a fossil of a dinosaur that they believe had feathers. Guys like you look at this and say "wow all birds came from dinosaurs." Really? That's a huge leap of faith.
That's where my beliefs and yours part ways. Does it mean this particular dinosaur had feathers? Probably. Was it a bird or a reptile? It was a reptile. A dinosaur. Did it have hollow bones like a bird? No. Did it regulate its own body temperature like a bird? No. When the scientific method is abandoned what results is no longer science. Its supposition. What results is a belief system. A religion. There is no physical proof that any living creature has ever produced a different KIND of living creature. Either by live birth or thru an egg. That's not science. Its science fiction. Believe it if you want...its your right. Don't push it on kids as fact though.

 

[VOLatile]

I stand by this. There is no irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Some tree hugger with a shovel finds a fossil of a dinosaur that they believe had feathers. Guys like you look at this and say "wow all birds came from dinosaurs." Really? That's a huge leap of faith.
That's where my beliefs and yours part ways. Does it mean this particular dinosaur had feathers? Probably. Was it a bird or a reptile? It was a reptile. A dinosaur. Did it have hollow bones like a bird? No. Did it regulate its own body temperature like a bird? No. When the scientific method is abandoned what results is no longer science. Its supposition. What results is a belief system. A religion. There is no physical proof that any living creature has ever produced a different KIND of living creature. Either by live birth or thru an egg. That's not science. Its science fiction. Believe it if you want...its your right. Don't push it on kids as fact though.

Aaaaaand you've gone back to talking out of your butt.

 

[MercyPercy]

Except almost every respectable paleontologist have recognized that birds come from a branch of dinosaurs. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Without knowing the designer's intent? Yes.

SETI researchers look for design in radio signals without knowing the potential broadcaster's intent.

Please share the objective testable and observable design and function criteria that would delineate structures from being evolved.

Where did this "function criteria" come from? Please define before we discuss. Do you mean that a potential design must pass some "grade" level before it can recognized as "designed"? Please defend this philosophical constraint. I'll give a couple of examples to dispute it.

Ford Pintos sucked. They were designed.

I missspelled this sentinse. It was still designed.

My watch stopped keeping time. It was designed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Except almost every respectable paleontologist have recognized that birds come from a branch of dinosaurs. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't make it any less true.

At one time, pretty much everyone on earth believed it to be flat. That did not make the world flat. Appeals to Authority are wasted keystrokes.

 

[MercyPercy]

At one time, pretty much everyone on earth believed it to be flat. That did not make the world flat. Appeals to Authority are wasted keystrokes.

I wonder if you even realize how stupid this comparison is before you furiously type it out like an automated response.

The difference between what we know now and our capabilities back then is astronomical, and to my great delight, you saying dinosaurs were not ancestors of modern birds because we once thought the earth was flat is a big fat logical fallacy.

Welp.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I wonder if you even realize how stupid this comparison is before you furiously type it out like an automated response.

The difference between what we know now and our capabilities back then is astronomical, and to my great delight, you saying dinosaurs were not ancestors of modern birds because we once thought the earth was flat is a big fat logical fallacy.

Welp.

It is not. The analogy carried the very valid truth that agreement does not dictate truth. There is nothing fallacious about that. If you like, we can continue to point out your fallacies. Like this one.

The difference between what we know now and our capabilities back then is astronomical

If you are saying that we know now that birds came from dinosaurs, then you are begging the question, since the very question is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If you are just saying that we know the earth is round now, and not then, then all you've done is support my analogy.

If you're just saying that we know a lot more stuff about stuff now, then you're just speaking in non-sequiturs.

 

[MercyPercy]

It is not. The analogy carried the very valid truth that agreement does not dictate truth. There is nothing fallacious about that. If you like, we can continue to point out your fallacies. Like this one.



If you are saying that we know now that birds came from dinosaurs, then you are begging the question, since the very question is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If you are just saying that we know the earth is round now, and not then, then all you've done is support my analogy.

If you're just saying that we know a lot more stuff about stuff now, then you're just speaking in non-sequiturs.

The best part is I think you honestly believe you're right.

 

[Septic]

It is not. The analogy carried the very valid truth that agreement does not dictate truth. There is nothing fallacious about that. If you like, we can continue to point out your fallacies. Like this one.



If you are saying that we know now that birds came from dinosaurs, then you are begging the question, since the very question is whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.

If you are just saying that we know the earth is round now, and not then, then all you've done is support my analogy.

If you're just saying that we know a lot more stuff about stuff now, then you're just speaking in non-sequiturs.

The amount of effort you put into your replies without saying much at all is impressive.

 

[MercyPercy]

You've made your point that you won't ever agree with scientific consensus when it doesn't conform to your world view. It's not about the validity of the facts and science for you, that much is obvious. We could have you sit down with Jack freaking Horner and he could explain everything to you in explicit detail and it would change nothing because you'd be sitting there with your fingers in your ears.

Cry appeal to authority all you want, you just end up showing your unwillingness to accept that certain people know a hell of a lot more than you do.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Except almost every respectable paleontologist have recognized that birds come from a branch of dinosaurs. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't make it any less true.

You've made your point that you won't ever agree with scientific consensus when it doesn't conform to your world view. It's not about the validity of the facts and science for you, that much is obvious. We could have you sit down with Jack freaking Horner and he could explain everything to you in explicit detail and it would change nothing because you'd be sitting there with your fingers in your ears.

Cry appeal to authority all you want, you just end up showing your unwillingness to accept that certain people know a hell of a lot more than you do.

Translation: When asked to prove DE I get really annoyed that I can't do it. I hate it when people point out my logical fallacies and so I respond with more logical fallacies.

(Hint: Straw Man, Question begging, ad hominum, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Genetic Fallacy... Yes. You squeezed every one of those into your little tantrum.)

 

[MercyPercy]

Translation: When asked to prove DE I get really annoyed that I can't do it. I hate it when people point out my logical fallacies and so I respond with more logical fallacies.

(Hint: Straw Man, Question begging, ad hominum, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Genetic Fallacy... Yes. You squeezed every one of those into your little tantrum.)

Translation: he hit a little too close to home.

 

[Septic]

Translation: he hit a little too close to home.

 

[MercyPercy]

I have a good feeling that eventually instead of the "oh yeah, well we used to think the earth was flat!" tactic will be replaced with, "oh yeah? Well we used to believe in deities!"

 

[Roustabout]

Except almost every respectable paleontologist have recognized that birds come from a branch of dinosaurs. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't make it any less true.

Let me challenge you to read the entirety of this post, because it will expose your wrong way of thinking, and in conclusion will show you that not refraining from fallacious reasoning will eventually turn around to bite you in the arse.
First you poisened the well by saying that a paleontologist who doesn't accept these conclusions (bird to dino) is not respectable. I cannot for the life of me see how you don't see the dishonesty in such a statement?

For one, and as all ready pointed out, it is a faulty appeal to authority. I know, you mock those who would demand that you reason logically, but please continue because here is the real problem. Secular science is already rewriting their theory on bird to dino evolution.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
It is NOW believed by MANY credentialed paleontologist that modern bird types were contemporaries with dinosaurs. Duck like fossils have been discovered in the Cretaceous layer.

So, based on your question begging, what you have done is discredit a myriad of pro-darwinian scientist that you don't even know.

So, now we have an atagonist who in an attempt support his 'pro-science' position, is actually is going against findings within modern science. You end up impugning the scientists you are claiming support your view. While attempting to appeal to a consensus authority, you blew up their expertise by saying if they deny bird to dino evolution then they aren't respectable. Why would you continue to reason like that?
If the foundations of your very thinking are shaky, then what does that say about your worldview?
I would abandon any thinking that had the disastrous results you just demonstrated here.

 

[MercyPercy]

Let me challenge you to read the entirety of this post, because it will expose your wrong way of thinking, and in conclusion will show you that not refraining from fallacious reasoning will eventually turn around to bite you in the arse.
First you poisened the well by saying that a paleontologist who doesn't accept these conclusions (bird to dino) is not respectable. I cannot for the life of me see how you don't see the dishonesty in such a statement?

For one, and as all ready pointed out, it is a faulty appeal to authority. I know, you mock those who would demand that you reason logically, but please continue because here is the real problem. Secular science is already rewriting their theory on bird to dino evolution.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
It is NOW believed by MANY credentialed paleontologist that modern bird types were contemporaries with dinosaurs. Duck like fossils have been discovered in the Cretaceous layer.

So, based on your question begging, what you have done is discredit a myriad of pro-darwinian scientist that you don't even know.

So, now we have an atagonist who in an attempt support his 'pro-science' position, is actually is going against findings within modern science. You end up impugning the scientists you are claiming support your view. While attempting to appeal to a consensus authority, you blew up their expertise by saying if they deny bird to dino evolution then they aren't respectable. Why would you continue to reason like that?
If the foundations of your very thinking are shaky, then what does that say about your worldview?
I would abandon any thinking that had the disastrous results you just demonstrated here.

Are you denying there is a scientific consensus regarding the origin of modern birds?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Are you denying there is a scientific consensus regarding the origin of modern birds?

Are you aware that if you click on a link and read you could know these things for yourself and not ask dumb questions?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

See how pointless that is? The adults have been having a good discussion here for quite some time and all you do is chime in with 1 liners that you think are clever. Waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[MG1968]

See how pointless that is? The adults have been having a good discussion here for quite some time and all you do is chime in with 1 liners that you think are clever. Waste of time and bandwidth.

yes, because the internet should only be about adults having conversations and patting themselves on the back for lacking a sense of humor or humility

 

[MercyPercy]

Are you aware that if you click on a link and read you could know these things for yourself and not ask dumb questions?

Web page not available.


Do you think there is scientific consensus regarding the origin of modern birds?

(Hint: god made them is not an acceptable answer)

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Aaaaaand you've gone back to talking out of your butt.

No...telling the truth.

Is there physical proof any animal has ever produced a different kind of animal either thru live birth or an egg?

Ill wait for this one.

Next question: When there is no proof that something ever occurred, even once...to believe it happens is:

A: Science
B: Faith

 

[Septic]

Are you aware that if you click on a link and read you could know these things for yourself and not ask dumb questions?

Given the topic, it's not a dumb question. If you have a source that refutes or otherwise shows there is not a scientific consensus to his question then please, share it.