01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOkay. Let me try again... sigh, I can't even remember half of it.
Hell, that sounds just like...never mind.
Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure. Dinosaurs and birds were linked on the basis of this evidence. It makes morphological sense. Feathers were discovered to bolster the theory. Obviously, birds had descended from reptiles. The latest eviden ...[text shortened]... ustean bed you have made up for it.
Can you see no advantage in an evolutionary perspective?
Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure.... Obviously, birds had descended from reptiles.
You may say that homology is determined by ancestry as per the TOE, but when you conclude that homology is proof of ancesty you are using circular reasoning.
It's a complex dynamic theory, not the Procrustean bed you have made up for it.
Lol, okay. Fair enough. I'll just need much more of these complex dynamics to cross some major hurdles:
1) Reptiles are cold-blooded - Aves are warm-blooded
2) Even the earliest skeletons of these birds display fully developed wings and the specialized torso and hips so characteristic of the entire flying order.
3) Aves have a unidirectional respiratory system - reptiles have a bidirectional respiratory system.
4) and many more morphological barriers.
I submit for your perusal a paper that I think sums up my position very well on this issue of origins, my skepticism of the TOE and the alternatives:
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by Halitoseyour good at dismissing what everyone else says but never put your self up to be shot down.
Okay. Let me try again... sigh, I can't even remember half of it.
[b]Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure.... Obviously, birds had descended from reptiles.
You may say that homology is determined by ancestry as per the TOE, but when you conclude that homology is proof of ancesty ...[text shortened]... my position very well on this issue:
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html[/b]
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by trevor33Yep. That is the way of the skeptic, I can ridicule at wont without having to take a position which itself begs for ridicule. Anyway, read through my link above and have at that if you so wish.
your good at dismissing what everyone else says but never put your self up to be shot down.
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThis is very true - And based upon scientific study, could be a much more viable theory of evolution....but it is still a theory of evolution and only supports evolution.
That must be why some of the greatest evolutionists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have 'rejected' the pure Darwinian selection and instead suggested the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. There have been many improvisations of Darwin's original 'natural selection'.
Certainly not an argument against evolution.
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by KnightWulfeYeah. My point was just that "Origin of Species" was old hat.
This is very true - And based upon scientific study, could be a much more viable theory of evolution....but it is still a theory of evolution and only supports evolution.
Certainly not an argument against evolution.
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYou say you are a skeptic -
Yep. That is the way of the skeptic, I can ridicule at wont without having to take a position which itself begs for ridicule. Anyway, read through my link above and have at that if you so wish.
skep·tic also scep·tic (skĕp'tĭk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?–272? B.C.).
And yet you refute scietific theory and hold close a belief entirely based on faith (which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence)?
01 Dec 05
2 edits
Halitose - I am very curious what you have to say here....
Very interesting thread -
I will start my comments with Halitose -
Lets give this theory a bit of discussion.
Science has shown that the speed of light, unimpeded, is a constant. For simplicity, we will say that it has a value of 1. If we measure the light year distance of an object with an unimpeded path (the moon, for example) we get its value. We measure another object (the sun) and get its value. Using mathmatics, which deals in constants, we can gauge their distance from the earth. Now, we want to know how far away that star over there is - So, in our revolution aroiund the sun, we gather numbers from multiple points (not just two) to get a more accurate measurement. Using a telescope, we are able to determine that there are no other celestial bodies or phenomenon in the path of that star to us. With light having the value of 1, we determine that said star is 20,000 units away. Even giving to human error, which has been proven, we will give a 20% range of error. This mean that the value can be between 16,000 and 24,000 - and 20% is a HUGE margin of error. Even at the low end of the equation, it takes the light from that star 16,000 years to reach us. If God placed that star in the sky 10,000 years ago, when the light from that star began to glow, we would not be able to see that star in the sky for another 6,000 years.
If your comments on the evolution from dinosaur to bird, you state/ask "Both are constructed from keratin to my knowledge. The one is highly complex, the other less so. What was the mechanism for this evolution? Was flight consciously sought for in its development?" - Why do you assume that flight is the purpose of the evolutionary change? Feathers do not mean flight. There are flightless birds that have feathers. Bats fly and they dont have feathers. The theory of dinosaur to avian includes the change from scales to feathers, a hollow bone structure, the aerodynamic "chassis" of creatures of flight, plus a number of other factors. The theory of scale to feather is based on evolution. Taking that into account, to go from scale to feather over a period of 20 million years is not a stretch. You negate the TOE so you can easier negate theories that use TOE as a base.
On Scientific method -
Scientists use observations(The act or faculty of observing), hypotheses(A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation) and deductions(Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. The conclusion also must be based only on the evidence previously provided; it cannot contain new information about the subject matter. Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle.) to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.
Observation is but one tool that is used in the method, not the only one.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeScience has shown that the speed of light, unimpeded, is a constant.
Very interesting thread -
I will start my comments with Halitose -
Lets give this theory a bit of discussion.
Science has shown that the speed of light, unimpeded, is a constant. For simplicity, we will say that it has a value of 1. If we measure the light year distance of an object with an unimpeded path (the moon, for example) we get its value. ...[text shortened]... e form of theories.
Observation is but one tool that is used in the method, not the only one.
Really? Have they taken samples from outer-space? It's certainly impeded by gravity according to the theory of General Relativity.
So, in our revolution around the sun, we gather numbers from multiple points (not just two) to get a more accurate measurement.
*Disclaimer for near-absurdity to follow*
Yes. Assuming a heliocentric system. With relative motion, one cannot be perfectly sure. These numbers could look hilarious on a more revised system in the future.
You can't even prove conclusively that we are orbiting the sun. NASA has used geocentric models for their calculations and the solutions correspond to heliocentric ones.
If God placed that star in the sky 10,000 years ago, when the light from that star began to glow, we would not be able to see that star in the sky for another 6,000 years.
As I've said before, if you can accept that God placed a star to begin with, why can't you accept that the light radiating from it wasn't also created at the same time - or the speed of light was multiples of itself for the first few seconds, minutes or hours.
Taking that into account, to go from scale to feather over a period of 20 million years is not a stretch.
Time does not equal Scientific-Magik (TM). A theory needs substantial proof to account for all these factors that you have claimed:
The theory of dinosaur to avian includes the change from scales to feathers, a hollow bone structure, the aerodynamic "chassis" of creatures of flight, plus a number of other factors.
Scientists use observations(The act or faculty of observing), hypotheses(A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation) and deductions(Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. The conclusion also must be based only on the evidence previously provided; it cannot contain new information about the subject matter. Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle.) to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.
Observation is but one tool that is used in the method, not the only one.
My point exactly. I merely emphasised observation as an essential tool to the scientific method.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeAnd yet you refute scietific theory and hold close a belief entirely based on faith (which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence)?
You say you are a skeptic -
skep·tic also scep·tic (skĕp'tĭk)
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek ...[text shortened]... irely based on faith (which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence)?
My religious belief system does not have empirical proof or evidence as a prerequisite - science on the other hand, does.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseYou sound like you are floundering. You keep asking for hard data. You have yet to offer it. If you want to prove your point, please do. I would like to read the conclusive study that shows we are not, in fact, orbiting the sun.
[b]Science has shown that the speed of light, unimpeded, is a constant.
Really? Have they taken samples from outer-space? It's certainly impeded by gravity according to the theory of General Relativity.
So, in our revolution around the sun, we gather numbers from multiple points (not just two) to get a more accurate measurement.
*Discl ...[text shortened]... My point exaclty. I merely emphasised observation as an essential tool to the scientific method.[/b]
Yes, they have taken measurements from outer space. That is one of those things those big telescopes in orbit do. 🙂
As I've said before, if you can accept that God placed a star to begin with, why can't you accept that the light radiating from it wasn't also created at the same time - or the speed of light was multiples of itself for the first few seconds, minutes or hours.
WOW, that is a stretch. I have heard things stretched to argue a point before but damn....that is a good one.
On the reptile to avian theory - You still did not answer why you assume that feathers = flight.
My point exaclty. I merely emphasised observation as an essential tool to the scientific method.
Um...no. You said that it was the ONLY tool.... not just an essential tool. There is a huge difference.
01 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KnightWulfe[/b][/b]You sound like you are floundering. You keep asking for hard data. You have yet to offer it.
You sound like you are floundering. You keep asking for hard data. You have yet to offer it. If you want to prove your point, please do. I would like to read the conclusive study that shows we are not, in fact, orbiting the sun.
Yes, they have taken measurements from outer space. That is one of those things those big telescopes in orbit do. 🙂
[b]A ...[text shortened]... . You said that it was the ONLY tool.... not just an essential tool. There is a huge difference.
Hey, this is not the way this game is played; my ridicule of a theory is not reliant on my ability to postulate an alternative.
If you want to prove your point, please do. I would like to read the conclusive study that shows we are not, in fact, orbiting the sun.
As I said before, it's relative motion, it could be the sun moving, the earth moving, or both. You can check out Brahe's geocentric model - let me note that the helio/geocentric rebuttal was a failed attempt at humour.
Yes, they have taken measurements from outer space. That is one of those things those big telescopes in orbit do. 🙂
Of the speed of light? Anything more than a couple light minutes away from earth?
WOW, that is a stretch. I have heard things stretched to argue a point before but damn....that is a good one.
Why, thank you. I'm honored. 😏
On the reptile to avian theory - You still did not answer why you assume that feathers = flight.
I didn't answer because you were right, I had incorrectly assumed as much.
Um...no. You said that it was the ONLY tool.... not just an essential tool. There is a huge difference.
Allow me to quote myself:
"As is quite obvious, empiricism [i.e. observation] is assumed in step (1) and (4) of this simplified version of the scientific method."
Obviously step (2) and (3) do not necessarily include observation, thus I didn't contend it to be the only ingredient of the scientific method.
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseVery interesting, again one that leaves more questions than answers and one that has left me with more questions than anyone could ever have the answers for. Thanks!
Yep. That is the way of the skeptic, I can ridicule at wont without having to take a position which itself begs for ridicule. Anyway, read through my link above and have at that if you so wish.
The theory that I believed and would still sway towards (but with some doubt) is the theory of universal common ancestry. Although a difficult theory to come to terms with, if you look at the past 100 years and the changes in climate, new virus and the advances in technology, most of which I admit had a lot to do with man but if that kind of change can be made in a short period of 100 years think what could happen over millions or even billions of years. (Depending on the age of the earth, something that I don’t think will ever be resolved.) Is it completely out of the question that either something from space collided with the earth that started TUCA, or that as the sun cooled the earth became the right temperature for life to form in a kind of bacteria or parasites, which slowly evolved into bigger living organisms which in turn evolved like a family tree starting with one person and eventually ending up with hundreds of completely different people, or in this case different spices.
In the case of the theory of multiple separate ancestries, I think for this to be feasible a creator or an intelligent being (possibly from a different planet) must have been involved in the creation of live on earth. This is something that could be true but I doubt that something of this power has ever existed. (Or I’m too scared that a creator could decide he’s fed up with earth and destroy it, something that man will end up doing in a couple of hundred years anyway).
In conclusion this was a fascinating read and I thank you for making this page available to me. I don’t think anyone will ever know how live stated on earth or how it became to be today.
Ps, it still doesn’t say what theory you would be more inclined to believe, but thanks anyway.
02 Dec 05
Originally posted by David CI had heard of him before and i'm not sure is he just a crazy frenchman or that everything he says is ture. I doubt that he has met moses, jesus + mohammed as I don't believe in there people but i would have to read his book to fully pass judgment.
Are you familiar with Claude Rael?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rael
02 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by trevor33French, you say? His origins already discredit his authenticity. Are you sure his book isn't intended as a comedy?
I had heard of him before and i'm not sure is he just a crazy frenchman or that everything he says is ture. I doubt that he has met moses, jesus + mohammed as I don't believe in there people but i would have to read his book to fully pass judgment.