Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[PeteAtoms]

Yet, scientists take these bones (usually rather incomplete skeletons too) for granted and then start making huge assumptions out of it.
Now, who's unrealistic - me or them???

Have you ever seen an archaeologist, veterinarian, or paleontologist work? They can take a something as trivial as a single toe bone they found in the ground, and tell you what animal it came off of, the gender of that animal, the age, the size, etc. It's pretty amazing what they can deduce from a single bone.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Have you ever seen an archaeologist, veterinarian, or paleontologist work? They can take a something as trivial as a single toe bone they found in the ground, and tell you what animal it came off of, the gender of that animal, the age, the size, etc. It's pretty amazing what they can deduce from a single bone.

yes, but those are of animals that arent extinct.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Yet, scientists take these bones (usually rather incomplete skeletons too) for granted and then start making huge assumptions out of it.
Now, who's unrealistic - me or them???

You -- this is yet another of your many, many, many misconceptions about science, scientists and the scientific method.

civ2, I'm sorry, but you do really not know what you're talking about.

 

[classical_hero]

Creationists consider internal affirmation to be evidence, and it's not really something you can argue against. The smartest of them will say evolution is a logical possibility given the evidence, but will then go on to reject it due to their faith. I actually respect that, as long as they keep their unprovable ideas away from the class room.

You mean people with Ph.D's. Many of them are staunch creationists and we're not talking from some inter college, but reputable universities from around the world, some are still in the university and teach there. Here is list of some PH.D's who acknowledge a literal Six Day creation of about 6000 years ago, according to the first 10 chapters of the Bible. ANd there are more who don't reveal their views due to fear of losing their jobs over their views on the issue.
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation Many of these people have patents and have worked in internationally significant research laboratories

 

[civ2]

Wolf
Yes, but these are OBSERVABLE cases that actually happen even nowadays.
Whereas "inventing" new species means using assumptions.
Again, we end up using assumptions rather than facts, regardless of how probable each is.

Pete
To tell you the personal story from a single bone, you must know a lot about all possible choices you have.
Meaning, no problem to do so with something you can observe and/or gather info about.
So, there's no problem to apply such knowledge to nowadays animals, sure.
How would you observe an extinct animal?
How do you know that this tiny bone is a finger and not a toe, to bring the least examples.
Oh, speaking of "misjudging".
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurdiscovery/tp/dinoblunders.htm
That's just to begin with...
What you say is actually helping me to say (again...) that paleontologists "make up" species by "LEGO playing".

CE and ch
Thanks.

 

[emzie]

And here's a list of 1,170 scientists named Steve who accept evolution: http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

Wherein Steves make up 1-in-100 people in the US. So extrapolate and you'll get a better view of the disparity between scientists who are creationists and those who are not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

edit: Great minds

 

[Akka]

You mean people with Ph.D's. Many of them are staunch creationists

Selective denial and stupidity, as often pointed out and ignored. Not to add that the "many of them" is most probably a gross exageration.

Also, I'd like to point that MUCH MORE Ph.D. are rejecting Creationism, so if you're going for an appeal to authority, you just shoot your whole leg off.

 

[useless]

You mean people with Ph.D's. Many of them are staunch creationists and we're not talking from some inter college, but reputable universities from around the world, some are still in the university and teach there. Here is list of some PH.D's who acknowledge a literal Six Day creation of about 6000 years ago, according to the first 10 chapters of the Bible. ANd there are more who don't reveal their views due to fear of losing their jobs over their views on the issue.
http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation Many of these people have patents and have worked in internationally significant research laboratories

I don't suppose you share those same sympathies with Atheists in America?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Yeah, and Newton was into alchemy and thought he could find a secret code inside ancient Greek texts. Being a genius in one respect does not preclude one from also being a quack in another.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

the majority of Scientists used to support Alchemy, and before that it was spontaneous generation, and before that it was that geocentric. Eventually the scientific community saw their errors.

 

[emzie]

the majority of Scientists used to support Alchemy, and before that it was spontaneous generation, and before that it was that geocentric. Eventually the scientific community saw their errors.

And just about every scientist used to be a creationist. I like your line of thinking.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

And just about every scientist used to be a creationist. I like your line of thinking.

and now most scientists believe in evolution, and I highly doubt the number of creationist scientists is shrinking.

 

[Akka]

the majority of Scientists used to support Alchemy, and before that it was spontaneous generation, and before that it was that geocentric. Eventually the scientific community saw their errors.

That's what differentiate science from religion, which even with such an overwhelming amount of evidence, still hold onto ridiculous claims like Noah's Ark or YEC.

Thanks for scoring one against your team !
(and giving another example of "I'll go along with the part of science I'm comfortable with, but suddendly completely change my reasoning when it comes to the part I'm not comfortable with" ; when someone does that with his moral behaviour, it's called "hypocrisy" BTW)

and now most scientists believe in evolution, and I highly doubt the number of creationist scientists is shrinking.

Of course it is. USA is one of the very last place in the first world where there is still any kind of noticeable Creationist movement. It died quite a bit of time ago in the less religious-frenzy countries.

 

[emzie]

and now most scientists believe in evolution, and I highly doubt the number of creationist scientists is shrinking.

Compare my list to classical hero's, and then consider the filter my list went through.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Wolf
Yes, but these are OBSERVABLE cases that actually happen even nowadays.
Whereas "inventing" new species means using assumptions.
Again, we end up using assumptions rather than facts, regardless of how probable each is.

You're using an extremely narrow and rather useless definition of the term assumption. If you want to say that because something is only 99.999999999999% likely to be true and not 100% likely, it's an assumption, then fine, but that's a semantic argument and I'm not interested in having it. Unless you have something more than this completely pointless semantic argument to offer I'm going to go ahead and consider this case closed.

 

[PeteAtoms]

and now most scientists believe in evolution, and I highly doubt the number of creationist scientists is shrinking.

Your whole argument is completely backwards from the position your trying to support

Are you saying geocentrism is right??

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

That's what differentiate science from religion, which even with such an overwhelming amount of evidence, still hold onto ridiculous claims like Noah's Ark or YEC.

but how are they ridiculous?

 

[Ajidica]

but how are they ridiculous?

Because no evidence exists to suggest Noahs Ark actualy occured (and all the evidence suggests the Jews just inserted the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh without bothering to even change place names) and that were we to accept YEC as true, it would mean that our entire understanding of electromagnetics is completely wrong (in addition to just about every other area of science as YECism also violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy).

 

[Akka]

but how are they ridiculous?

Here are the answers, already given :

(and giving another example of "I'll go along with the part of science I'm comfortable with, but suddendly completely change my reasoning when it comes to the part I'm not comfortable with" ; when someone does that with his moral behaviour, it's called "hypocrisy" BTW)

If someone doesn't get it by himself, it means he's just so dead-set WANTING to believe it that no amount of evidence will make him change his mind.

Selective denial and stupidity, as often pointed out and ignored.