RE: Nested Hierarchy violations?

RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

DanJames -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/16/2009 4:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shakezula quote: ORIGINAL: RCC The fact that one or two paleontologists claim that birds probably aren't descended from dinosaurs doesn't make it true. i am intrigued by the findings. but i agree with those who said that this simply means that birds are descended from another animal. i am reminded though of a cover article in discover magazine back in the 90's. a researcher did a study and came up with compelling reasons why dinosaurs were cold-blooded, which runs counter to conventional theory. the guy seemed very reasonable and his study was pretty good. but no one since has found any evidence to support the cold-blooded view, so the warm-blooded assumption still holds. if this is the beginning of a major revision, then that is great. the more we learn, the better. but this does not refute evolution. instead it confirms that scientists are honest and are seeking the truth, and there is no conspiracy to force a false theory upon people. I think it confirms that no evidence can be leveled against evolution that cannot be assuaged by simply assuming that evolution is true.

RCC -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/16/2009 6:46:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: shakezula i am intrigued by the findings. but i agree with those who said that this simply means that birds are descended from another animal. i am reminded though of a cover article in discover magazine back in the 90's. a researcher did a study and came up with compelling reasons why dinosaurs were cold-blooded, which runs counter to conventional theory. the guy seemed very reasonable and his study was pretty good. but no one since has found any evidence to support the cold-blooded view, so the warm-blooded assumption still holds. if this is the beginning of a major revision, then that is great. the more we learn, the better. but this does not refute evolution. instead it confirms that scientists are honest and are seeking the truth, and there is no conspiracy to force a false theory upon people. I think it confirms that no evidence can be leveled against evolution that cannot be assuaged by simply assuming that evolution is true. Please explain, Dan. Shakezula expressed the opinion that if the BAD (Birds Are Dinosaurs) theory doesn't hold up, birds must be descended from another group if evolution is true. Then paleontologists would need to do further research to establish the phylogeny of birds and dinosaurs. If the further facts they were to discover fit the theory of common descent with modification, and were consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge, great; if not, we would revise or discard the theory and replace it with a better one. None of this justifies the conclusion you express above.

DanJames -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/16/2009 7:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCC quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: shakezula i am intrigued by the findings. but i agree with those who said that this simply means that birds are descended from another animal. i am reminded though of a cover article in discover magazine back in the 90's. a researcher did a study and came up with compelling reasons why dinosaurs were cold-blooded, which runs counter to conventional theory. the guy seemed very reasonable and his study was pretty good. but no one since has found any evidence to support the cold-blooded view, so the warm-blooded assumption still holds. if this is the beginning of a major revision, then that is great. the more we learn, the better. but this does not refute evolution. instead it confirms that scientists are honest and are seeking the truth, and there is no conspiracy to force a false theory upon people. I think it confirms that no evidence can be leveled against evolution that cannot be assuaged by simply assuming that evolution is true. Please explain, Dan. Shakezula expressed the opinion that if the BAD (Birds Are Dinosaurs) theory doesn't hold up, birds must be descended from another group if evolution is true. Then paleontologists would need to do further research to establish the phylogeny of birds and dinosaurs. If the further facts they were to discover fit the theory of common descent with modification, and were consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge, great; if not, we would revise or discard the theory and replace it with a better one. None of this justifies the conclusion you express above. Right, we need a better theory of evolution. Nevermind the thousands of scientific "roll of the eyes"isms that have been given to those who already know that it's ridiculous to think that lizards evolved into birds.

RCC -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/17/2009 4:52:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: RCC Please explain, Dan. Shakezula expressed the opinion that if the BAD (Birds Are Dinosaurs) theory doesn't hold up, birds must be descended from another group if evolution is true. Then paleontologists would need to do further research to establish the phylogeny of birds and dinosaurs. If the further facts they were to discover fit the theory of common descent with modification, and were consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge, great; if not, we would revise or discard the theory and replace it with a better one. None of this justifies the conclusion you express above. Right, we need a better theory of evolution. Nevermind the thousands of scientific "roll of the eyes"isms that have been given to those who already know that it's ridiculous to think that lizards evolved into birds. Dan, I can't figure out what point you're trying to make, in this post or the previous one. Maybe you could clarify. Anyway, no one claims that lizards evolved into birds, or into dinosaurs.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/26/2009 1:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shakezula but this does not refute evolution. That's because UCD is unfalsifiable. quote: instead it confirms that scientists are honest and are seeking the truth, and there is no conspiracy to force a false theory upon people. The fact that evolutionists are forced to believe something isn't an indicator of honesty. They believe this because they have no choice, the evidence forces them to, that's not to say they are honest (or dishonest). However, an honest scientist will know when to throw a theory out. If any other theory made as many bad predictions (ie: imagine if Einsteins theory of Relativity did so), with the complete lack of good predictions, that UCD made those theories would have been thrown out a VERY LONG time ago. Likewise, any honest scientist should have thrown out UCD a long time ago. The fact that evolution has been wrong about so much and right about so little (to the point where it makes postdictions, it compensates for the evidence after the fact and before the fact many scientists make many contradicting general predictions to cover the entire pool of possible predictions) suggests that UCD has either been falsified a long time ago or it is unfalsifiable.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/26/2009 1:40:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCC If the further facts they were to discover fit the theory of common descent with modification, and were consistent with the rest of our scientific knowledge, great; if not, we would revise or discard the theory and replace it with a better one. Notice how you have failed to make any specific predictions regarding future findings based on evolution (and I don't mean based on past findings either). Are you afraid of doing so, knowing that evolution really predicts nothing? quote: None of this justifies the conclusion you express above. The problem is that the evidence does not justify believing in UCD.

RCC -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (6/27/2009 2:30:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: shakezula but this does not refute evolution. That's because UCD is unfalsifiable. So apparently you believe that whenever creationists claim that the hypothesis of common descent is contradicted by the evidence (e.g., birds aren't descended from dinosaurs, so this contradicts common descent, or when they say that common descent is disproved by the fossil record), their arguments are completely bogus. At least we agree on something.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI