I found this interview posted on Ray's blog rather interesting between Ray Comfort and another atheist Hemant Mehta.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/26/interview-with-ray-comfort/#comments/
I don't necessarily agree with everything Ray says but he does bring some good points.
DB
Hey Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteCould you give us an example of a 'good point' that Ray makes?
Cheers,
Hah I was just about to ask the same thing. And the link is broken too btw.
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteHah I was just about to ask the same thing.
And I should have pre-written your responses and even sign your name off at the end :)
Now to answer your questions...
Quotes that I think are quite good from Ray:
(Speaking of evolution)
"I listen to arguments and if they don’t hold up, I don’t accept them."
"I don’t have any idea about the age of the earth. Those who believe it’s 4.5 billion years old have to have faith in radioisotope dating techniques."
Some truth to what he has said I think. I am glad he will not date the Bible because the Bible gives no date.(Although as I have stated before, I am quite happy to accept an old earth)
"Theism or non-theism isn’t the issue. For example, religion has caused terrible atrocities throughout history (and still does today). It comes in at the number two spot. Number one is atheistic communism, which has been responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths throughout history*. So the problem has little to do with religion or atheism. The root problem is people that use whatever means possible for their own evil agenda. Crime is all over this world, because sin dwells in every person."
Yep, I think he hit a good point there.
I think there is also some truth to what he is pointing out about the TOE:
"The Theory of Evolution is like a puffy summer cloud. It changes almost daily. It is nebulous, and can be as large or as small as the imaginations of men. I have said many times that its language is the language of speculation — using words like “believe” “suppose,” “probably,” and “perhaps.” Nothing is sure, because “science” is forever changing its position as it searches for truth. Today’s “missing link” is discarded for tomorrow’s, and something that was 300 million [years old] years ago can become 400 million years [old] overnight. So much is based on faith in dating methods and unscientific beliefs of men who have an erroneous presupposition. I don’t have faith in the same things in which evolutions have faith."
TOE may be true as in being many animals origins, but who really knows? He is right that a lot of it is speculation.
I think Ray is simply being skeptical about what many atheists believe about TOE and they don't like it.
Just as atheists are skeptical about Christianity and Christians are frustrated with their skepticism.
DB
Ray has explicitly stated on his blog he will accept no evidence for evolution it wasn't even that long ago.
ReplyDelete"The Theory of Evolution is like a puffy summer cloud. It changes almost daily."
I'll be generous and accept that he's exaggerating, can you name 2 ways the theory of evolution has changed in the past month?
All death is a punishment from God, even if we were to accept the ridiculous claim that communists killed people because of their athiesm. How does 100 Million compare to the all other death on the history of the planet?
"I listen to arguments and if they don’t hold up, I don’t accept them."
No he ignores them if he can't blow them off.
He's been given species to species transitional fossils, he ignores them every time.
He lied that the book ignores the evolution of sex, There is a whole chapter on it!
If he had genuine arguments and issues he wouldn't have to lie and create deformed strawmen of science to rail against.
If you can the comments over at FA you will see one of my comments where I got into some of his lies on 1 page of the intro.
And remember, he knows he's lying.
Just like he knew he was plagiarising part of his summary from Dr. Stan Guffey, he just doesn't care! And now another author has come out and said Ray has plagiarised him too. I wonder if that's why he's pulled down the pdf from his site.
Remember with Ray it isn't just ignorance, it's continued repetition of stuff he knows is wrong after he's been corrected over and over and over again.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteTaking each of your Ray-quotes in turn;
"I listen to arguments and if they don’t hold up, I don’t accept them".
No. No he doesn't. As BathTub said, he doesn't even listen to the arguments, let alone hold them up to some sort of intellectual scrutiny. And he certainly doesn't accept/reject arguments based on such a rigorous review.
"I don’t have any idea about the age of the earth. Those who believe it’s 4.5 billion years old have to have faith in radioisotope dating techniques".
He doesn't have any idea......but those who do must be basing their view on faith?
He clearly does have an opinion on the age of the earth, so why won't he say what it is?
He also fails to say what the problem with current dating methods are (I suspect because he has no idea about them)
"Theism or non-theism isn’t the issue. For example, religion has caused terrible atrocities throughout history (and still does today). It comes in at the number two spot. Number one is atheistic communism, which has been responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths throughout history*. So the problem has little to do with religion or atheism. The root problem is people that use whatever means possible for their own evil agenda. Crime is all over this world, because sin dwells in every person".
He's right in that a persons beliefs regarding deities has no bearing on whether or not they'll act in a civilized and humane manner.
I wonder why then he feels the need to 'rank' atrocities and point to 'atheistic communism' as the #1.
"The Theory of Evolution is like a puffy summer cloud. It changes almost daily".
I second BathTub's request.
"It is nebulous, and can be as large or as small as the imaginations of men. I have said many times that its language is the language of speculation — using words like “believe” “suppose,” “probably,” and “perhaps.” Nothing is sure, because “science” is forever changing its position as it searches for truth".
Please explain to me how this is a bad thing.
Would he (and you) prefer that science pretended to be all-knowing and certain, even when it doesn't have all the necessary data? How would that be better.
He's taking the greatest strength of science and pretending it's a weakness.
"Today’s “missing link” is discarded for tomorrow’s,".
What does that even mean?
"...and something that was 300 million [years old] years ago can become 400 million years [old] overnight".
Name one instance where this has happened.
"So much is based on faith in dating methods and unscientific beliefs of men who have an erroneous presupposition".
Such as? What is based on faith in dating methods? What about all the theists who are scientists, do they have 'erroneous presupposition[s]'?
"I don’t have faith in the same things in which evolutions have faith".
Except for all the Christians who except evolution, of course.
You said;
"I think Ray is simply being skeptical about what many atheists believe about TOE and they don't like it".
Ray has shown time and time again that he either doesn't understand evolution or is willing to lie about it. His skepticism is a sham.
Cheers,
1 point to note, Ray NEVER uses science papers as his source, only popular media. Then he of course he blames 'science' for media hype.
ReplyDeleteHere is Ray's post where says you could never make him accept the Theory of Evolution.
ReplyDeletehttp://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-would-make-me-believer.html
Hey again fellas,
ReplyDeleteHere is the question I was originally answering:
Could you give us an example of a 'good point' that Ray makes?
I stated: "I don't necessarily agree with everything Ray says but he does bring some good points."
The quotes I quoted I took from face value as "good points".
As to whether Ray follows what he says...I do not know, although it seems you guys seem to know him better than I.
"The Theory of Evolution is like a puffy summer cloud. It changes almost daily."
I cannot support Ray on this from my knowledge and it is obvious that he is exaggerating, BUT I like the quote because I see the point he is trying to make and that is that evolutionary ideas change a lot...so I have heard.
Such as? What is based on faith in dating methods? What about all the theists who are scientists, do they have 'erroneous presupposition[s]'?
I can see his point that no one has been there and seen that the earth is millions of years old. Faith has to be placed in measurements. Though I BELIEVE the earth is old...he still has a point that you and I believe the earth is old with the evidence we have.
I think he may have been referring to mainly evolution in conjunction with old earth in regard to "'erroneous presupposition[s]'?"
Would he (and you) prefer that science pretended to be all-knowing and certain, even when it doesn't have all the necessary data? How would that be better.
No, his quote from my understanding is aimed at people resting on macro-evolution as a FACT when it is full of "maybes" and "possiblies".
BT,
As for this,
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-would-make-me-believer.html
I disagree with Ray in his stance. I can agree with some of his points and struggles with believing evolution, but he takes it farther than I.
Hope you guys follow...
Dan
Can you name a science that is stagnant?
ReplyDeleteThe LHC just broke a new world record this week for powerful collisions.
New Physics!
There would be a lot less people around if medical science didn't change.
The changes are 'well now we know more information, our perspective is better'
I can think of 1 "big" change so far this year. The publication of Ardi (and her species) changed the way the field thought about the last common ancestor between Chimps and Humans. Previously it was thought to be more chimp like. Now it's it's thought to be less chimplike, and chimps themselves are more specialized.
That's the big rocking change.
Again 'media hype' isn't science. It's complete BS to use things like the popular media's over exaggeration of Ida and say that's a daily change when the hype played out and was determined to be ... hype just like EVERYONE had been saying it was.
Ida is a great fossil, but overhyped.
Here is just another weird example Ray said the book Evolution for Dummies ignored the origin of sex.
It has a whole chapter on it!
I went and looked it up on Amazon, heck 'look inside' lets you read the chapter.
I mean see that's a head scratcher, what does he think he's achieving by saying that?
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteRe: evolution being like a 'fluffy cloud';
"I cannot support Ray on this from my knowledge and it is obvious that he is exaggerating, BUT I like the quote because I see the point he is trying to make and that is that evolutionary ideas change a lot...so I have heard".
You have yet to explain what evolutionary ideas have changed, and why it would be a bad thing if they did.
Re: dating techniques;
"I can see his point that no one has been there and seen that the earth is millions of years old. Faith has to be placed in measurements. Though I BELIEVE the earth is old...he still has a point that you and I believe the earth is old with the evidence we have".
Do you think it is a bad thing to base decisions on available evidence? Why is there any more faith required to accept the accuracy of dating measurements than, say, engineering measurements during building construction?
"I think he may have been referring to mainly evolution in conjunction with old earth in regard to "'erroneous presupposition[s]'?".
This is unclear. What presuppositions are you talking about? Geologists tell us the earth is old because the geological evidence says so - they don't base their conclusion on a desire for evolution to be true!
Re: uncertain terminology;
"No, his quote from my understanding is aimed at people resting on macro-evolution as a FACT when it is full of "maybes" and "possiblies".
'macro-evolution' is a fact. That doesn't change the need to use qualifiers like 'maybe' and 'possibly' when describing specific things to do with evolutionary biology - because we still don't know everything.
For example, it's a FACT that the Great Pyramid was built. Just because archaeologists say 'maybe' or 'possibly' when discussing construction techniques does not mean that they are unsure about whether it was built or not. The same is true for evolution.
Da Bomb,
I know you're not a Ray Acolyte or anything and you think for yourself. But if you're going to claim that Ray Comfort has anything of use to say about science (evolution in particular) then you're going to get a reaction like this because the guys knows absolutely nothing about the subject (or he knows plenty but is happy to lie about it).
Cheers,
EPM,
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to explain what evolutionary ideas have changed, and why it would be a bad thing if they did.
OK, I am going by what I have been told. I can't imagine evolution going through discoveries without much change. Evolution is really about the evolution of evolution as well :)
I just seen a gaping hole EPM LOL.
For example, it's a FACT that the Great Pyramid was built. Just because archaeologists say 'maybe' or 'possibly' when discussing construction techniques does not mean that they are unsure about whether it was built or not. The same is true for evolution.
It's a FACT that the Great Pyramid was built. Just because archaeologists say 'maybe' or 'possibly' when discussing construction techniques does not mean that they are unsure about whether it was built or not.
The same is true for Creationism.
The Great Pyramid was built...and didn't just happen to be by mindless planning.
Why is there any more faith required to accept the accuracy of dating measurements than, say, engineering measurements during building construction?
One can be tested as to being true or false in the now and the other can't...that is, in the same way.
BT,
ReplyDeleteCan you name a science that is stagnant?
Um, no...then again...mathematics?
2+2 will always equal 4.
There would be a lot less people around if medical science didn't change.
True, but did people get it wrong in the old days about medical situations? Yes they did.
Could the moving science of macro-evolution be wrong also?
The changes are 'well now we know more information, our perspective is better'
But changes could also mean, "well now we know more information, our perspective was completely wrong".
I am trying to draw out good points to a greater or lesser degree that I think Ray has made.
Dan
Heh math isn't as stagnant as you might think, do you think people aren't researching new fields in mathematics? :P
ReplyDeleteThe Structure of DNA hasn't changed recently but Genetics is cutting edge stuff.
Could 'macro'-evolution be wrong? Of course. Someone would have to come up with a better theory. Currently there are no competing Theories on the table.
Heh math isn't as stagnant as you might think, do you think people aren't researching new fields in mathematics? :P
ReplyDeleteLOL, I suppose so. But then mathematics is rather limited regarding change in comparison to the more interpretable sciences. Maths is quite cool...there is either a wrong or a right answer.
What would you class as a "theory"?
"Theory Definition
theo·ry (t̸hÄ“′É™ rÄ“, t̸hir′Ä“)
noun pl. theories -·ries
1. Obsolete a mental viewing; contemplation
2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done
3. a systematic statement of principles involved the theory of equations in mathematics
4. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
5. that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.
6. popularly a mere conjecture, or guess"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/theory
You should know very well by now what a scientific theory is. 4 I guess applies if the choice is only that list.
ReplyDeleteStealing from wikipedia.
"In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
Depends on who is speaking. You didn't actually say "scientific theory", only implied. Best not to assume sometimes.
ReplyDeleteTwo questions:
1. Will macro-evolution forever be a scientific theory (because of the nature of its ancient-like evidence) in your opinion?
2. Is intelligent-design a scientific theory in your opinion?
That's being a little obtuse given the nature of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteRemember "macro"-evolution is a entirely arbitrary limit that doesn't actually exist.
There is no Theory of Micro Evolution vs The Theory of Macro-Evolution.
It's The Theory of Evolution.
You know, like Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Heliocentric Theory etc.
No, there is no Theory of Intelligent Design. And that isn't my opinion that a simple statement of fact. The Discovery Institute doesn't have a 'theory', That's one of the things they were meant to be working on.
Unfortunately the intelligent design research journal died in childbirth, and now all the fellows of the institute have pretty much gone and got teaching positions at various Christian colleges.
Remember Intelligent Design was an attempt to get God/Creationism back into schools. We know this because they quite ridiculously wrote it down. And of course it got leaked online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
I highly suggest you watch Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial.
They had their day in court, and you know what happened? They almost didn't even show up. I think like 1 of 7 witnesses for ID even bothered to show up.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"I can't imagine evolution going through discoveries without much change".
You have still not explained how this is a bad thing. Elements of the overall theory change as new information is acquired - this does nothing to alter the fundamental accuracy of evolution by means of natural selection.
"I just seen a gaping hole EPM LOL".
Did you now? Let's see...
"It's a FACT that the Great Pyramid was built. Just because archaeologists say 'maybe' or 'possibly' when discussing construction techniques does not mean that they are unsure about whether it was built or not.
The same is true for Creationism".
Fail.
That is what is called an assertion. You are asserting that it is a FACT that the world is a 'creation' without evidencing that position.
"The Great Pyramid was built...and didn't just happen to be by mindless planning".
That's because it is a man-made structure. We know lots about man-made structures because....we make them. We watch them being made and there is significant evidence to back this up.
So we know that the Great Pyramid was made by man (or aliens), although we don't necessarily know exactly how they did it.
However, you've missed the point. This was not a builder-building argument or comparison. It was a comment about scientific language, about how you can know something for a fact, despite not yet knowing all the details about how it works or how it came about - the construction of the Great Pyramid is an example that works, because the building processes happened in the past.
Nobody thinks that because archaeologists use 'maybe' and 'possibly' when describing construction methods that they are somehow unsure that the Pyramid was built!
Likewise, nobody should think that just because biologists use words like 'maybe' and 'probably' when describing evolutionary mechanisms that they are somehow unsure that evolution happens!
And yet this is the basis for what Ray calls the 'language of speculation' and he uses that to imply that biologists are unsure about whether or not evolution is a fact or not.
Do you get what I'm saying?
I said;
"Why is there any more faith required to accept the accuracy of dating measurements than, say, engineering measurements during building construction?"
"One can be tested as to being true or false in the now and the other can't...that is, in the same way"
I've done historical engineering. We analyze the structural stability of heritage buildings which are generally without the original design calcs and the engineers are almost always all dead. Do you know how we do it? We use up to four different analysis techniques that are all cross-checked against each other. If even one of them is outside a given tolerance level, we do the whole thing again.
By cross-checking different lines of analysis against each other, we ensure an accurate analysis and can proceed to maintain, bolster or demolish as is appropriate.
There are hundreds of dating techniques that can be used to show the world is older than 10,000 years. Each of these is based on thousands of measured samples conducted by tens of thousands of researchers and lab technicians.
It requires more faith to trust that me and my colleagues analyzed an existing bridge correctly than it does to trust that the world is very old.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you're asking about the definition of theory again...
EPM,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you're asking about the definition of theory again...
Again?
"I can't imagine evolution going through discoveries without much change".
So many people put there faith in it as opposed to God when there is still uncertainty about it...that is why I find it sad. I may be speaking relatively though.
Put yourself in my and Ray's position maybe.
(I know there are Christian evolutionists)
Do you get what I'm saying?
Yep,
Though one question.
So we know that the Great Pyramid was made by man (or aliens), although we don't necessarily know exactly how they did it.
Where is the evidence for aliens that you should consider them?
Or is the reason because the Great Pyramids are so awesomely made that man can not have made it, so you imply a more intelligent designer?
Sound familiar?
BT,
There is no Theory of Micro Evolution vs The Theory of Macro-Evolution.
Isn't there? Macro is really just glorified micro, is it not?
Everyone that I know believes in micro but not everyone believes in macro.
I highly suggest you watch Judgement Day:Intelligent Design on Trial.
They had their day in court, and you know what happened? They almost didn't even show up. I think like 1 of 7 witnesses for ID even bothered to show up.
I haven't heard of that.
No, there is no Theory of Intelligent Design. And that isn't my opinion that a simple statement of fact. The Discovery Institute doesn't have a 'theory', That's one of the things they were meant to be working on
I am not referring to an organization but the idea the words portray.
I'll try to make an easy illustration for you guys since BT failed to demonstrate why intelligent design is not a scientific idea (hope you don't mind blunt talk :)):
If we as human kind found something complex that has no immediate confirmed explanation what do we do?
It has apparent design so we assume that it can't have come about by mindless means so we follow where the tangible evidence we have found leads and draw an explanation...a scientific theory, intelligent design.
Situation two:
If we as human kind found something complex that has no immediate confirmed explanation what do we do?
It has apparent design so we assume it can't have come about by natural means however some evidence has also been found "about" the complex evidence before us that suggests that it made itself. So these people follow and observe this tangible evidence and draw an explanation...a scientific theory, macro-evolution.
And some people mix the two situations together...Intelligent Being plus macro-evolution.
I actually just bought a book by a Christian evolutionist the other day to see his views on things.
Dan
hmmm
ReplyDeletethese comments are getting long!
I have to go for the rest of the day.
Cyas around.
Judgement Day : Intelligent design on trial - NOVA
ReplyDeletePart 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNGeXjpL1Hg
I do highly recommend it. (it's 2 hours long btw)
Intelligent Design is an Idea, no one is denying that. At it's root is simply this, 'Anything we currently don't understand, God did it... until we understand it'
The point is currently it offers no explanatory framework and no method of falsification.
"If we as human kind found something complex that has no immediate confirmed explanation what do we do?"
That's exactly where Science lives.
You make a Hypothesis. And Test it.
Hypthothesis: Tetrapods come from Lobe finned fishes.
We have lobe finned fish here 390 million years ago...
And Tetrapods there 370 million years ago....
then some time inbetween that, if my hypothesis is correct, we should be able to find fish-pods that slot directly between Fish and Tetrapods.
Now Geology tells me (if geology is correct) that Ellesmere Island has Rock of the Exact Age I need to look.
So lets go dig.....
*dig*dig*dig*
Tada!
Tiktaalik!
Exact features predicted, exact location predicted. Classic "Transitional" form.
That's testable science.
ID has nothing like that.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Again?".
Back in April, you said;
"Well evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes there is evidence for evolution but it is not".
And I replied;
Fact: observed evidence, data point, verifiable event etc...
Theory: Explanatory model that incorporates all known facts and laws and provides predictive power for further research and analysis.
You really have to learn this stuff if you're going to effectively write apologetics".
Then in May, you said;
"If you are right I may look into what some old earth christians actually think about evolution. I know David Pawson accepts the possibility and he sat under top evolutionist teachers in his day although they stressed it was a theory".
And now you're asking again.
The rest of your reply ignored most of my comment but no, I don't believe aliens might have built the Pyramid, it was a joke.
I'd like it if, when you have time, you'd actually go through my comment and respond to what I've written.
Cheers,
I'd like it if, when you have time, you'd actually go through my comment and respond to what I've written.
ReplyDeleteNo worries man...get back to ya.
I'll answer more fully than my reply I did earlier -
"Yep," to your question Do you get what I'm saying? ...in my 2nd to last comment.
cya
EPM,
ReplyDeleteHowever, you've missed the point. This was not a builder-building argument or comparison.
Yes, it seems to often happen to me also when I try to make a point and another person will pick on what I was not meaning an analogy for!
It was a comment about scientific language, about how you can know something for a fact, despite not yet knowing all the details about how it works or how it came about - the construction of the Great Pyramid is an example that works, because the building processes happened in the past.
Nobody thinks that because archaeologists use 'maybe' and 'possibly' when describing construction methods that they are somehow unsure that the Pyramid was built!
I cannot deny that your point about language such as "maybes" used about a science does not deny the "fact" of the core science.
Putting aside your point and without taking anything to extremes.
Do you see why Ray questions the reliability of Macro-evolution because there is disagreement or uncertainty in language used about its topics? Whether he is justified in doing so or not I can see the point he is trying to make.
Macro evolution is telling a story millions of years old and we with our little minds and limited evidence try to piece it together.
Can you not see a glimpse of his point?
I've done historical engineering. We analyze the structural stability of heritage buildings which are generally without the original design calcs and the engineers are almost always all dead. Do you know how we do it? We use up to four different analysis techniques that are all cross-checked against each other. If even one of them is outside a given tolerance level, we do the whole thing again.
That is cool, It sounds like an interesting job where you can learn a lot!
Your point is understood.
It requires more faith to trust that me and my colleagues analyzed an existing bridge correctly than it does to trust that the world is very old.
I like this, you are changing your use of faith!
I thought only applied it to "unreasonable" belief.
And now you're asking again
I was asking simply as to what was meant by "no other competing theories"...it is good to clarify terms.
Thanks.
BT,
Tiktaalik!
Exact features predicted, exact location predicted. Classic "Transitional" form.
That's testable science.
"Tiktaalik" again.
Are there any others as good? I notice that this one is repeatedly used.
cheers,
Dan
tiktaalik comes up because it's the classic case of multiple fields of science working together in a nice tidy bundle with a ribbon on it.
ReplyDeleteNot all examples are that tidy.
"Marsupials in Antartica."
This is one of the great examples in Jerry Coynes book. It's my favourite as I hadn't heard it before. Now this is from memory so a detail or 2 might be muddled slightly.
Palaeontologists can track the development of Marsupials from North America to South America.
But then they get to Australia.
How do you get to Australia from South America?
Well Plate Tectonics tells us that Australia was connected to South America via... Antartica.
So we have a path that leads down South America, bridges across Antartica, and connects to Australia.
So, go looking for fossils in Antartica and what do you think they found?
Marsupial fossils.
******************
The Whale Transitional forms, of which there are like a dozen now.
The found the earliest ones like 20 years ago in pakistan, so they had a good idea where to look to find more transitional steps.
So they look in Egypt, India, Pakistan, because again looking to other fields of science (Geology) they know that in the relevant time period that was a Sea. They don't look for them in Antarctica for example.
Whales have gone from a missing branch of the tree to one of the most complete branches in 20 years so much that it almost replaces the horse as the iconic family tree.
Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Dad_GhkT4
"Evolution is REAL Science #5"
It details a whole bunch of predicted and then discovered fossil transitional forms.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"I cannot deny that your point about language such as "maybes" used about a science does not deny the "fact" of the core science".
Fantastic. That's all I was trying to show.
"Putting aside your point and without taking anything to extremes.
Do you see why Ray questions the reliability of Macro-evolution because there is disagreement or uncertainty in language used about its topics?".
Nope. He's had the same thing explained to him hundreds of times so he has no excuse. Besides, that's not what's going on here. It's easy propaganda for him. He disagrees with evolution because he feels that it contradicts his interpretation of Genesis (he's said this) and no evidence will ever convince him otherwise (he's said this too) so he'll latch upon anything in order to attempt to discredit evolution. And it works - he had you thinking that the 'maybe' and 'possibly' stuff revealed unsurety about macro-evolution among scientists, didn't he?
"Whether he is justified in doing so or not I can see the point he is trying to make.
Macro evolution is telling a story millions of years old and we with our little minds and limited evidence try to piece it together.
Can you not see a glimpse of his point?".
Limited evidence? Limited?
Honestly?
You should watch AronRa's Youtube series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" start with number 9 or 10, they deal with a lot of this 'limited' evidence.
Ray muddys the waters on purpose because his agenda is to make people doubt evolution (he's said this too) and he doesn't care how he does it.
"I like this, you are changing your use of faith!
I thought only applied it to "unreasonable" belief".
Sorry, I should have written 'faith', not faith. I was referring to the way it is used by people like Ray who say you have to have 'faith' in dating methods; it's like you should have 'faith' that your chair won't turn to jelly underneath you. It was tongue-in-cheek usage.
To clarify; you should have a more reasonably assured confidence that dating techniques are applied properly and that they present accurate results than you should that people working today can analyze existing structures correctly.
Clear?
Cool.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteI said:
"Putting aside your point and without taking anything to extremes.
Do you see why Ray questions the reliability of Macro-evolution because there is disagreement or uncertainty in language used about its topics?".
EPM replied Nope....
I think I shall disagree in part. I have seen a video of Ray's where he talks to people and asks them questions about how animals evolved out of the water and developed lungs etc...
Some were university students (I think) and all they could do is guess or at least sounded like they were guessing what happened. They really had sure idea only possibles and probables.
Makes me see Ray's point.
Many people just believe what they are told without questioning it even regarding macro-evolution.
Thanks for your guy's links...when/if and when I get around to it I will check them out.
DB
lol yeah random people off the street, of course they are going to go ummm ahhhh hmmm that's why he picked them. Besides do you think he would leave the confident people in the video?
ReplyDeletewhy aren't the videos full of biology professors?
Seriously, at least just watch the stand up for real science video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Dad_GhkT4
It has my favourite transitional form, the 'Picasso Fish' transitional between normal fishes and flat fishes. And if you care the guy is a christian. (his whole series is great btw)
Did you catch the 2 new transitional dinosaurs announced recently?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Dad_GhkT4
ReplyDeleteJust watched this video. Interesting finds and predictions. Still many of the "transitional fossils" seemed so different/distant to the original "two" compared.
The link between the last two, the elephant and the "dugong" (I think it was called); I think that the animal link could easily be another animal and not a link, that is, it does not mean it came from or evolved into elephants. Looks more related to a hippo :)
The flat fish one was interesting and probably one of the best examples.
Cool that he is a Christian!
Um no, I didn't hear about the 2 new dinosour fossils.
Thanks for sharing.
A random question.
ReplyDeleteWho or what told the eye to migrate over to the other side on those fish? Did it decide to do it itself?
Well I thought most of them were great.
ReplyDeleteFrogamander was cool.
The half shelled turtle was practically perfect.
Snakes with legs, there are actually 4 known species he left one out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haasiophis
The bat seemed a good fit to me.
The flatfish is just damn strange. Here is an article on it.
http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/07/09/dawn-of-the-picasso-fish/
One thing that's interesting is the fossils themselves were dug up like 100 years ago, it's just better technology allowed better study, iirc.
The thing with the sirenians if he does mention a combination of morphology and genetics without getting into specifics (no time in the video). There will be unique features that are part of that family tree. For example the marsupials I mentioned before are easy detected by a specific tooth arrangement. A quick look here suggest tooth arangement is one way, toenails possibly too.
Hippos by the way are the closest cousins of Whales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracotheriidae for an early hippo.
Yeah the eye is a weird one, the only thing I can think of is that the eye moved slightly causing the fish to exploit a previously unexploited niche, similiar to the nice flatfish now inhabit.
ReplyDeleteGive the article a read.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteSurely you can't be this gullible?
"there is disagreement or uncertainty in language used about its topics".
As BathTub said; among students!
Not even biology students, just random kids walking around doing their grocery shopping! Why would you expect them to have an in-depth understanding of complex biological mechanisms?
Most people don't know how a car engine works and if you cornered them on the street and tried to get them to describe the internal combustion process you'd get a lot of umms and ahhs, wouldn't you?
Now what would happen if you went to see a car mechanic and asked the same questions?
So why doesn't Ray go to the biology department and ask them? Seriously. Really think about why Ray hasn't gone and asked a biology professor about evolution. What do you think?
On to transitionals...
"Still many of the "transitional fossils" seemed so different/distant to the original "two" compared".
What do you expect? You're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years between specimens. If fossilization was a more common occurrence then we'd be filling in those gaps and there would be transitionals in-between transitionals...of course, you could still say that there were gaps in-between those couldn't you?
The question is; why are we finding these 'potential' transitional forms in the exact places where evolutionary science predicts they will be? If life is the result of special creation, we shouldn't be able to use evolutionary science to find these individual species, should we?
Cheers,