macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[Bust Nak]

I reject the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird (as I said in post # 27). I also reject the idea that reptiles evolved into birds (as I said in post #30). You can continue to split hairs all you like..I will leave that up to you.

I reject the idea of creationism but that doesn't stop me from learning what creationism actually says. You can reject what you want but the fact is you said evolution taught a reptile evolved into a bird on multiple occasions. You were wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it. That's what being disingenuous looks like, and now we can add hypocrisy to the list, for having questioned if I was being genuine.

Even after you were told how the distinction between singular and plural is a big deal, you still want to dismiss it as hair splitting. That is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that evolutionists are more than justified in calling creationists out for not knowing what evolution says; worse still, not caring about what evolution says.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes it is all in the argument and the problem for Craig (and you as a Craig sycophant) is that Craig is lazy and having hit on a "winning" debate technique some decades ago he has failed to update his knowledge base and thus is left spewing antique beliefs. He might just as well be arguing for limiting the periodic chart to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

"Winning debate technique"?

1) The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist�

2) Craig defines “universe� as “the whole of material reality.�

3) This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.� In other words, if the universe isn’t the whole of material reality, then it’s possible that some other part of material reality caused it.

Craig is advocating for the "Standard Bang Model" in the KCA. This is the model that has the most scientific evidence supporting it, and Craig, who is always willing to "go where science takes us", is simply using this model to support premise #2 of the argument, which is that "The Universe Began to Exist".

And this "Standard Model" is basically saying that the expansion of our universe is the ultimate rise and source from which all physical reality stems from. There is no physical reality outside of it.

So instead of going over and beyond necessity by postulating these vastly hypothetical models that has no scientific backing whatsoever, Dr. Craig simply focuses on the one model that has the most scientific evidence supporting it...which is what I thought science was supposed to be all about in the first place.

4) physicist Brian Greenebook in his book, The Hidden Reality (Pg. 4) writes: There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.

And I will ask you and Mr. Greenebook the following question; "What reason(s) do you have to believe that there is any universe or universes out there besides our own".

I mean, you can hypothesize ANYTHING, but when it comes down to it, where is the evidence to support or falsify the hypothesis? There is none. We only know of one universe, and that is the universe that we happen to inhabit. Anything besides that is speculative, and not to mention faith-based.

5) Physicist Lawrence Krauss in his book, A Universe from Nothing (Pg.125-126), in much the same vein wrote: Talking about many different universes can sound like an oxymoron. After all, traditionally the notion of universe has become synonymous with ‘everything that exists.’ More recently, however, universe has come to have a simpler, arguably more sensible meaning. It is now traditional to think of ‘our’ universe as comprising simply the totality of all that we can now see and all that we could ever see.

I actually agree with Krauss here, wow.

6) Craig, cites the work of physicist Alexander Vilenkin to buttress his claim that “the whole of material reality� began to exist. The following question was emailed to Dr. Vilenkin: Could you briefly define your use of the term “universe,� as you use it in the context of your work on the beginning of the universe? I’m just curious to know whether you use the term in the traditional sense, “all of physical reality,� or if you use it in the more modern sense of “those parts of ‘everything’ that we could, in principle, have access to.�

7) Dr. Vilenkin responded: It is certainly more than what we can have access to. Regions beyond our cosmic horizon are included. But if there are other universes whose space and time are completely disconnected from ours, those are not included. So, by “universe� I mean the entire connected spacetime region.

No problems there.

8) Were Craig to update his argument with a modern definition of the word “universe� such as that used by Krauss, or Greenebook, or today's opinion of Craig's quoted authority Vilenkin ... then (1) and (2) are falsified and (3) comes unhitched and Craig is left there without a prayer (as it were).

Yes it is all in the argument, and that is where Craig fails with a mightly faceplant.

(thanks to wordpress.com)

I failed to see where the KCA was falsified and thereby negated.

[H.sapiens]

Yes it is all in the argument and the problem for Craig (and you as a Craig sycophant) is that Craig is lazy and having hit on a "winning" debate technique some decades ago he has failed to update his knowledge base and thus is left spewing antique beliefs. He might just as well be arguing for limiting the periodic chart to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

"Winning debate technique"?

1) The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument states, “the universe began to exist�

2) Craig defines “universe� as “the whole of material reality.�

3) This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.� In other words, if the universe isn’t the whole of material reality, then it’s possible that some other part of material reality caused it.

Craig is advocating for the "Standard Bang Model" in the KCA. This is the model that has the most scientific evidence supporting it, and Craig, who is always willing to "go where science takes us", is simply using this model to support premise #2 of the argument, which is that "The Universe Began to Exist".

And this "Standard Model" is basically saying that the expansion of our universe is the ultimate rise and source from which all physical reality stems from. There is no physical reality outside of it.

So instead of going over and beyond necessity by postulating these vastly hypothetical models that has no scientific backing whatsoever, Dr. Craig simply focuses on the one model that has the most scientific evidence supporting it...which is what I thought science was supposed to be all about in the first place.

4) physicist Brian Greenebook in his book, The Hidden Reality (Pg. 4) writes: There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.

And I will ask you and Mr. Greenebook the following question; "What reason(s) do you have to believe that there is any universe or universes out there besides our own".

I mean, you can hypothesize ANYTHING, but when it comes down to it, where is the evidence to support or falsify the hypothesis? There is none. We only know of one universe, and that is the universe that we happen to inhabit. Anything besides that is speculative, and not to mention faith-based.

5) Physicist Lawrence Krauss in his book, A Universe from Nothing (Pg.125-126), in much the same vein wrote: Talking about many different universes can sound like an oxymoron. After all, traditionally the notion of universe has become synonymous with ‘everything that exists.’ More recently, however, universe has come to have a simpler, arguably more sensible meaning. It is now traditional to think of ‘our’ universe as comprising simply the totality of all that we can now see and all that we could ever see.

I actually agree with Krauss here, wow.

6) Craig, cites the work of physicist Alexander Vilenkin to buttress his claim that “the whole of material reality� began to exist. The following question was emailed to Dr. Vilenkin: Could you briefly define your use of the term “universe,� as you use it in the context of your work on the beginning of the universe? I’m just curious to know whether you use the term in the traditional sense, “all of physical reality,� or if you use it in the more modern sense of “those parts of ‘everything’ that we could, in principle, have access to.�

7) Dr. Vilenkin responded: It is certainly more than what we can have access to. Regions beyond our cosmic horizon are included. But if there are other universes whose space and time are completely disconnected from ours, those are not included. So, by “universe� I mean the entire connected spacetime region.

No problems there.

8) Were Craig to update his argument with a modern definition of the word “universe� such as that used by Krauss, or Greenebook, or today's opinion of Craig's quoted authority Vilenkin ... then (1) and (2) are falsified and (3) comes unhitched and Craig is left there without a prayer (as it were).

Yes it is all in the argument, and that is where Craig fails with a mightly faceplant.

(thanks to wordpress.com)

I failed to see where the KCA was falsified and thereby negated.

Then you'll just have to live with being ignorant of the falsification for a while since I am far to busy today to hold your hand through the learning process. Maybe next week.

Here's a quick hint: This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.� In other words, if the universe isn’t the whole of material reality, then it’s possible that some other part of material reality caused it.

Interesting how you use Craig's honorific prefix but avoid Greenebook's and Krauss'. I much prefer the tradition of where I went to school where everyone from a new freshman to the deparment chairs was simply "Mr."

[For_The_Kingdom]

Then you'll just have to live with being ignorant of the falsification for a while since I am far to busy today to hold your hand through the learning process. Maybe next week.

I truly doubt that there is much (if anything) that you can teach me regarding the subject matter.

Here's a quick hint: This definition is important to the Kalam argument because it serves as a linchpin for Craig to argue that the universe must be caused by something which is “uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial.� In other words, if the universe isn’t the whole of material reality, then it’s possible that some other part of material reality caused it.

The KCA, in its totality, seeks to demonstrate why any material reality can not be infinite in its past, and therefore requires a beginning.

Interesting how you use Craig's honorific prefix but avoid Greenebook's and Krauss'. I much prefer the tradition of where I went to school where everyone from a new freshman to the deparment chairs was simply "Mr."

Krauss was already destroyed by the likes of Craig in two debates, and I doubt Greenebook is adding anything new to the game and is more than likely rehashing the same ole cosmo-babble that everyone else is using.

[Elijah John]

Then you'll just have to live with being ignorant of the falsification for a while since I am far to busy today to hold your hand through the learning process. Maybe next week.

Moderator Final Warning

You have been warned over and over again regarding your condescending and uncivil tone. Busy or not, this is your final warning.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[help3434]

Instead of giving a definition of it, how about I give an illustration? Because we all know that no matter how a theist (a person that doesn't believe in evolution) defines the term, it is never good enough for the evolutionist.

I would definitely be wary of any terms used by someone who, out of the blue, redefined theists as a person who doesn't believe in evolution. If the millions of people who believe in God or gods and in the theory of Evolution are not theists, what are they?

[help3434]

If you are an atheist/naturalist, and you cant conclusively prove how and/or whether life came from nonlife, then you cant definitively explain how life began to change forms.

Er, why? Usualy evidence of more recent things are easier to find than things that happened further in the past.

My objection isn't necessarily that just because I can't see it occur, therefore, it doesn't occur. I am saying that I only see animals produce what they are, not what they aren't,

Wait, you only see animals producing exact clones of themselves? Are you sure?

and I have no reason to believe that the animals of a million years ago were able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

Who is saying animals of a million years ago were able to do something that animals of today have never been observed to do? Looks like a typical creationist straw man to me. Animals of today do certainly produce offspring that are not clones of themselves.

Magic is needed. Unless you can naturally demonstrate how life came from nonlife, consciousness came from unconsiousness, language came from the mute, and order came from chaos.

So before people could demonstrate the cause of lightening it would have been accurate to say magic was needed for lightening to occur? This is a fallacy called argument from ignorance.

But I don't think you can do that, can you?

Have you tried asking scientists in the relevant fields to explain things to you instead of just staying comfortable in your own ignorance?

[help3434]

But then again, I am not the one that said evolution occurs in populations, not individuals (whatever the hell that means).

What ever the hell that means?! Why are you arguing against evolution when you don't even understand the basics? Its like watching someone that doesn't understand arithmetic argue that the Calculus professor has got it all wrong.

[Kenisaw]

Dogs never produced cats (even over geological time) because the are contemporary taxa that shared a common ancestor (similar to Dormaalocyon latouri) about 60 million years ago. D. latouri was neither cat nor dog but was a Carnivoraformid that was well diversified at the earliest Eocene, suggesting that they were diversified during the latest Paleocene.

Fish produced all terrestrial quadrupeds. Not instantly but over time. Arising from fish ancestors were amphibians who age rise to reptiles who gave rise to both birds and mammals.

So you are basically telling me your religion. You are explaining to me your religion, which is pretty much bio-preaching.

What I want is EVIDENCE for the theory. Got any of that?

There's all kinds of evidence. Visit any university, college library, research institute, museum, or website that deals with the natural sciences and you can find more material than you can go through in a lifetime. There are hundreds of millions of man hours spent over the last 150 years pouring through 2 billion fossils, sequenced genomes of most living things, morphological and geological studies, etc. There is, literally, a mountain of data and empirical evidence for you to look at. It doesn't surprise me that a cultist like yourself thinks all that could just be put into a post on a chat board though...

Start with endogenous retroviruses in genetics. That's as good a place to start as any. They exist in practically all genetic groupings. Let us know our thoughts on the topic...

In no case is it suggesting that these changes in grade occurred within a single generation.

I said EVIDENCE.

I would recommend getting a library card so that you can access the materials. A lot of college and university libraries will also give you free access if you live in the community, so I would try those as well.

There are lots of things that you have not seen and can't imagine, but don't forget (if I may take a short cab ride) your sacred texts: (Jer. 5:21): They have eyes, but they see not, ears, but they hear not ... In other words, Jeremiah argued against willful ignorance.

Coollll beans. I got one for you too. Genesis 1:24-25

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good".

Now, the book of Genesis was written a few thousand years ago. If we fast forward from the time it was written, to 5-11-16...what do we see? We see animals producing their own "kind".

Well, producing their own kind AFTER some being just willed them into existence you mean. That was before man was created of course, or after man was created in Gen 2, depending on which inerrant word of a god creature you think is inerrant...

If you believe that hundreds of million years ago, when no one was conveniently around to see it, animals were producing different "kinds" than what they were, then fine. Believe it. But that isn't science, that is voodoo.

So you ask above for evidence, because apparently you haven't seen any yet. Since you haven't seen it yet, how do you know it isn't science? Seems rather odd to ask for evidence and then dismiss the work based on that evidence BEFORE you've seen the evidence. What a stunning display of contradiction...

So one one was around to see it occur back then, and the next "change" will happen so far into the future that no one alive today will be able to see it. So no matter what point man is in history, those that are alive at any point on the time scale will never see it, because it will always have happened "so long ago" and it won't happen again until "so long from now".

So basically, the entire theme is "no one has ever saw it, nor will anyone ever see it, but......it happens".

You can see it. They are called fossils. You can also see it in the genomes of all living things. You have the typical cultist misunderstanding of what "observed" means. That doesn't mean a human has to physically be there the moment something happens. It means that everyone can observe and record the same data and evidence so they can examine it themselves. The bones were there when that animal lived, so we can observe them as they existed back in time.

If the world used observe as you define it, then no one could ever be convicted of a crime based on forensic evidence only, without any eye witness testimony. I mean if a human didn't see it, you must acquit, right? So when are you going to ask for all those criminals to be released from prison i wonder...

You shouldn't believe the Sun exists either. It takes 8 minutes for that light to get here, so it isn't being observed in real time either. I'll let everyone know you think the Sun is voodoo...

If you don't see the scam...the absolute CON that is evolution, then I can't help you. You are the one that is willfully ignorant if that is the case.

Right. Hundreds of thousands of scientists since the time of Darwin have conspired to create an enormous fraudulent claim that has spanned generations of human beings in every country on Earth. Even though a majority of scientists are religious or believe in a personal god, they still keep the conspiracy going because they see the value in tricking a minority of fundamentalists.

That is the textbook definition of delusional right there.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by Texan Christian]

There was a time not too long ago where the creationist said nothing changed and it was all created at the same time or in the case of "bad" stuff like viruses or bad bacteria was the result of the moment of the fall of man through Adam.

When survival of mutations from adaption to environmental pressures (aka natural selection) was demonstrated within the laboratory with organisms that can replicate thousands of generations in days and weeks such as with virus and bacteria then the creationist had to admit change did occur due to the environment but it only happened in a micro level within species and not external to that on a macro scale.

Micro and macro differentiation is a creationist idea in backing up from their original claims to accept it can be demonstrated but only in a micro instance.......

The creationist is force by what nature reveals through the evidence to back track on their original claims from the Bible and now are in a defensive posture claiming that change doesn't have any impact in species differential over longer periods of time.

They have already painted themselves into a corner on the subject....

Good luck with that.........