Fighting the fight

[CoombellKid]

Dennis,

hehehe, yes well I think that now has become legend! What is the slogan...
"Clear one night supernova the next" should be appended with "If not you
can always chat to a G11" lol... well maybe Paul's one apparently and
according to you it talks back

regards,CS sunny days

[ving (David)]

what I dont really get is why post something like this on an astronomy forum? generally speaking astronomers believe in the big bang, and most likely evolution because like the big bang its not a creationist POV. there are of course people here that do believe in creation but they are the vast minority...

this discussion would go down really well on a religious forum
I am sure those of a evolutionist way of thinking would have great fun trying to explain thier way of thinking to a forum of christians and it would be much more of a challenge trying to convert those who arent already converted.

and i am sure that the religious forum would be able to give a much better argument for thier cause.

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Originally Posted by ving

what I dont really get is why post something like this on an astronomy forum?

It isn't - its in a General Chat forum on an Astronomy related site.

And from what I see, the General Chat area is almost 100% spam so it would be difficult to criticise the relevance of anything posted here!

[iceman (Mike)]

If there's nothing else on topic to add to this thread, please just stop replying and let it age gracefully.

It seems like it's reached a logical conclusion.

[CoombellKid]

Thanks Mike,

Maybe that should of been brought in about msg#5 : )

regards,CS sunny days

"When the going gets hard the soft flee"

[Doug]

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

I'd give up on that thread of the argument - that's the Christian equivalent of the Apollo Moon hoax sites!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm for a starter...

Yup.. should be more carefull. It is a great pity when people of any persuasion misrepresent things.

I didn't pay much attention to the hammer, usually finds like that are used merely to illustrate that it doesn't take zillions of years for things to be encased in rock etc. for example there was a drink bottle discovered under an old building here in Sydney that was encased in a stalegmite, but could only have been there 100 or so years.

I was interested in footprints but these too seem to be unverifiable, some from Russia, not proven hoaxes, but not confirmed either.

Thanks for pointing that out.
cheers,
Doug

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

speaking of wings, i like this:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1795700.htm

Speaking oif wings, here is an interesting article. Note the belief system of the interviewed authority and the observation about 'Nature' magazines standards of authentification.
it seems there are shonks on both sides and these do nobody any good.

Doug

[Doug]

Quoted from Argonavis:

This is taken totally out of context, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1a.html#tran

No so. The bone of contention as any well researched evolutionary apologist should know is not speciation, but links from one kind to another. Therefore my quote was not out of context but rather quite germane.
Species can progress, and yes it either takes a long time or exceptional circumstances to occur. Creationists do not deny speciation, however this progressive species change is not as straightforward as some might want to claim.
How any reputable fossil biologist can be certain of their clams is something of a mystery given the requirements for a viable species change occurring. See 'Haldane's rule', and note it is a rule not a law. A modern day illustration of the difficulties in getting new species off the launch pad as a viable new species might be the woes of the courtship of the Male Tiger and the Lioness. The offspring of such a mixed marriage results in infertile males yet fertile females. No new species here. On the otherhand The Male Lion and the Tigress will apparently produce fertile young of both genders.

As to species the Tigon might well qualify, but it is still a member to the 'Kind' Panthera; it is not a 'New Kind' And it is the links between 'Kinds that are missing.

Doug

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

the steps in between is called gliding, which is still with us with gliding possums etc, muscles and flight evolved from the survival advantages of being airborne.


and only a very small %age of fossils have been discovered

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...s-debate_x.htm

suggests that 71% of dino species remain to be discovered

same with hominids

http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/20...ils_are_there/



with all the evidence, it would be very difficult to say evolution is not almost 100% correct, it is about as certain as anything in science.

Seriously, is this science?
How can it be known how many of anything remains to be discovered? Surely if there are more species of Dino to be discovered, and there might well be, how can the number be known or even guestimated?

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Speaking oif wings, here is an interesting article. Note the belief system of the interviewed authority and the observation about 'Nature' magazines standards of authentification.
it seems there are shonks on both sides and these do nobody any good.

Doug

There is nothing in that article about Nature magazine, unless you have forgotten to post a link

Scientific "shonks" are fairly promptly discovered (this is called scientific fraud) and driven from science. It is the highest crime.

Elsewhere, con artists can just go on and on, feeding on public gullibility.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Seriously, is this science?
How can it be known how many of anything remains to be discovered? Surely if there are more species of Dino to be discovered, and there might well be, how can the number be known or even guestimated?

If you had read the entire page:


http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/20...ils_are_there/

there are some comments at the foot of the page about the statistical techniques involved.

Basically, you start with the diversity of life we observe around us and the number of species and genuses alive now and look at how closely their physiology is related (ie you are looking at a spectum of variation) and compare that with the known sample of extinct species and assume that they had just as many closely related species living along side them.

There are quite a few of these statistical techniques in biology which can be used to estimate population sizes of wild animals etc.

Astronomy uses the same techniques to estimate the number of stars, galaxies etc. without having to count each individual one.

[Doug]

Oops... try http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...8feathered.asp

[Doug]

I also read on that page that the estimates were based on the rate of discovery thus far.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

I was interested in footprints but these too seem to be unverifiable, some from Russia, not proven hoaxes, but not confirmed either.
Doug

The only hominoid footprints I am aware of is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2844287.stm


I would not call these unverified.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Oops... try http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...8feathered.asp

I am all for skepticism, but this web site is run by Ham and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. It is pushing a political view.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

I am all for skepticism, but this web site is run by Ham and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. It is pushing a political view.

ie. It is not saying what some evolutionists care to have made public.

Are you suggesting that either the interview that I linked to is false, or that Dr Alan Feduccia himself is also of no scientific credibility?
Quoting from his own web link,

Avian Evolution, Paleobiology and Systematics
Telephone: (919) 962-3050
Fax: (919) 962-3690
E-mail: feduccia@bio.unc.edu
Office: 304 Coker Hall

Mailing Address:
CB# 3280, Coker Hall
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3280 S.K. Heninger Professor and Chair
Ph.D., University of Michigan (1969)
M.A., University of Michigan (1966)
B.S., Louisiana State University (1965)

Selected References

Research Interests

• Evolutionary Biology
• Vertebrate Evolution and Systematics
• Avian Evolution and Paleontology
• Conservation Biology

Synopsis
Alan Feduccia's research centers on the origin and early evolution of flight, feathers, and endothermy. He is also interested in the evolution of birds through the Tertiary, the origins of flightlessness and the evolution of other morphological specializations in the world avifauna, and avian systematics in general.

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

I am all for skepticism, but this web site is run by Ham and has no scientific credibility whatsoever. It is pushing a political view.

Argo, I don't know how you could possibly take umbridge at "they disagree over a minor point which means that the whole hypothesis of evolution is wrong, and therefore creation, for which I have presented not one reasonable argument must be true"

[WARNING, ON TOPIC]I would have thought that the ID would be a beter counterpoint to evolution than creation in religious schools[/ON TOPIC]