Atheism

[jayfox]

You can't provide a credible retort to my arguments so you state that I am resorting to bullying tactics? Where? If the points I make are not valid I would like you to point them out, specifically.

This line sums up my entire point about your arrogance. By bullying tactics I meant that, to me, you act like you're in the schoolyard by big talking yourself and downplaying any opinions that down reflect your own.

Okay, two questions.

Can you unequivocally prove without any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is a "work of fiction", "fable", "story", or "myth"?

Taking your incredibly pro-scientific hat off for a moment, can you see any areas for debate, causes of concern, gaps in the evidence etc. in the theory of evolution or do you think it is 100% reliable fact? If you so see concerns, gaps in the evidence then what are they specifically?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This line sums up my entire point about your arrogance. By bullying tactics I meant that, to me, you act like you're in the schoolyard by big talking yourself and downplaying any opinions that down reflect your own.

Okay, two questions.

Can you unequivocally prove without any shadow of a doubt that the Bible is a "work of fiction", "fable", "story", or "myth"?

Taking your incredibly pro-scientific hat off for a moment, can you see any areas for debate, causes of concern, gaps in the evidence etc. in the theory of evolution or do you think it is 100% reliable fact? If you so see concerns, gaps in the evidence then what are they specifically?

Can you demonstrate where I was 'big talking myself' or 'downplaying any opinions that don't reflect my own'? I was merely disagreeing with your POV and providing the rationale for my disagreement. I asked you to specifically point out where I was bullying. If that is the limit of your retort then why are we bothering to discuss these matters?

Can I unequivocally prove the bible is not true, no, but I can't unequivocally prove that the koran, the talmud, beowulf, the odyssey, or any historic fiction for that matter is false with 100% certainty, and I would argue that you couldn't either. Does that mean I subscribe to a belief in them...of course not and nor do I believe in the bible for the same reason.

'Incredibly pro-scientific hat'? What is the problem with science? It is just a rational approach for understanding the world around us that attempts to control for the limitations of human perception. At the same time it makes a concerted effort to be self-critical to correct any errors that will undoubtedly be accepted from time to time. Do I believe that evolution has occured...yes, with 100% certainty, given the many lines of evidence that we have available to us. Are there questions as to how evolution occurs and the relative importance of these natural forces...yes...and that is where scientific enquiry will continue to play a role.

 

[Djevv]

Yeah,because the REAL story is that men used to live to 700 years and grow to nine feet tall :-X

OK, but if we keep growing like you say, well, we'll get there eventually (or do you think there might be limits ).

And also, life expectantcy is also increasing, doubtless another evolutionary change, we will certainly get there eventually.

So, using evolution I just proved the Bible is correct ;D.

 

[Djevv]

The theory was postulated to explained the apparent bursts of speciation in the fossil record. It doesn't replace gradualism as an explanation, nor does it detract from natural selection, genetic drift etc. etc. as driving forces in evolution.

This is a great example of the scientific process in action. The fossil record did not exactly fit what the gradualist model proposed and thus punctuated equilibrium was postulated to explain these patterns. Now the debate centres on the relative importance of these forces, punk-eek and gradualism to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

Do you have a better explanation? Creationism certainly doesn't fit the pattern.

In what way did the fossil record not match the gradualist model? (Hint: there were lots of GAPS where transitional forms should have been!)

I explained how creationism fit the pattern a few pages back!

 

[Disco08]

Pantera, I haven't read a lot about PE but is it fair to say that one fairly obvious reason there are gaps is that the conditions required to begin fossilisation are actually extremely rare and that most of the evidence simply decomposed?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Pantera, I haven't read a lot about PE but is it fair to say that one fairly obvious reason there are gaps is that the conditions required to begin fossilisation are actually extremely rare and that most of the evidence simply decomposed?

Yes, Darwin discussed this in the Origin of the Species. That is why I asked Djevv what would you expect to see in the fossil record given the current theories describing evolutionary change. I also asked him to point out the evidence that disproves this theory.

 

[evo]

http://www.satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

In what way did the fossil record not match the gradualist model? (Hint: there were lots of GAPS where transitional forms should have been!)

I explained how creationism fit the pattern a few pages back!

No, punk-eek was not devised to explain GAPS in the record, but the pattern of stasis and 'bursts' of speciation that appeared in geological strata. The link I posted before has a nice simple explanation of the theory. The species identified in the fossil record are still clearly related (ie transitionary) it just doesn't have the resolution to pick up every little change due to the scale and pace of these changes (as described in PE). This theory fits nicely with population genetics and the power (and rate) of genetic drift in small, reproductively isolated populations.

Firstly most species arise suddenly in the fossil record, persist for a while, then disappear with no precursor or transition to other species apparent. These gaps are such a feature of the fossil record that the 'punctuated equilibrium' (evolution works quickly, geologically speaking, and stasis of form is the rule) model of evolution was invented to explain them. Now if all the animals in the fossil record were contemporaries, then this is exactly what you would expect.

Sorry, I missed this one first time round.

The first sentence is patently false....no precursor or transition to other species? What do you base that on? Not the fossil record.

The fossil record also clearly contradicts the final sentence. Not all animals were contemporaries as attested to in the fossil record....the record supports both the PE model and the gradualism model of evolution.

 

[evo]

Heres another not bad movie for the doubting thomas'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2-jAp707EY&feature=related

 

[Disco08]

There's quite a few of those around now huh?

If I had to bet on it, I'd say that Jesus is mythical.

 

[Djevv]

Yes, Darwin discussed this in the Origin of the Species. That is why I asked Djevv what would you expect to see in the fossil record given the current theories describing evolutionary change. I also asked him to point out the evidence that disproves this theory.

You can fit any theory you fancy into a gap.

 

[Disco08]

It makes sense though doesn't it? Wouldn't most of history's skeletons decomposed rather than fossilised?

 

[Djevv]

No, punk-eek was not devised to explain GAPS in the record, but the pattern of stasis and 'bursts' of speciation that appeared in geological strata. The link I posted before has a nice simple explanation of the theory. The species identified in the fossil record are still clearly related (ie transitionary) it just doesn't have the resolution to pick up every little change due to the scale and pace of these changes (as described in PE). This theory fits nicely with population genetics and the power (and rate) of genetic drift in small, reproductively isolated populations.

Sorry, I missed this one first time round.

The first sentence is patently false....no precursor or transition to other species? What do you base that on? Not the fossil record.

The fossil record also clearly contradicts the final sentence. Not all animals were contemporaries as attested to in the fossil record....the record supports both the PE model and the gradualism model of evolution.

"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."
Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p. 3.

If cocked up again (as I always do in your view) then what on earth is this expert talking about here? Is there a context i have missed?

Have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Where are the precursors to these forms?

 

[Djevv]

It makes sense though doesn't it? Wouldn't most of history's skeletons decomposed rather than fossilised?

Wouldn't you see the same thing if they were all contemporaries?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."
Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p. 3.

If cocked up again (as I always do in your view) then what on earth is this expert talking about here? Is there a context i have missed?

This is an argument against gradualism! It is true that not every transitional form is documented in the fossil record, yet the connection between species is clear within the fossil record. If gradualism were the only driving force of evolution you would expect to see more transitional forms (as gradualism is a slow, steady process). In fact you often see bursts of speciation which can easily be explained by punctuated equilibrium. This does not mean that both processes aren't at work. I still don't understand how the fossil record fits with a single moment of creation?!? I am still waiting for you to point out the "rabbits in the pre-Cambrian".

Have you ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Where are the precursors to these forms?

Do you know much about the Cambrian explosion? Do you know what types of organisms existed during the Cambrian? How does this support your creation theory? If macroevolution does not occur (your contention) then how did we go from a diverse group of organisms in the Cambrian (now largely extinct, with the exception of the lineages that evolved into modern life) to the diversity of life, quite distinct from that during the Cambrian? As for the paucity of pre-Cambrian fossils, there are plenty of plausible explanations, including the massive time passed and the scarcity of pre-cambrian rocks suitable for fossilisation processes and the explosion of body plans during the Cambrian that included the evolution of chitin skeletons that are far more likely to be fossilised then the soft bodies that were the norm before this time. If the Burgess Shale had not been discovered you would be asking where the Cambrian fossils are! Why not point out the inconsistencies in the evidence supporting evolution, rather then pointing out the (expected) gaps in our incomplete fossil record.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Wouldn't you see the same thing if they were all contemporaries?

The Cambrian fossils were contemporaries! The interesting thing is that we don't see modern fauna in the Burgess shale. Why not?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You can fit any theory you fancy into a gap.

Yes, you can develop a hypothesis to explain a gap in our knowledge.

It doesn't become accepted as theory until evidence emerges to support it, such as predictions made by such theories are borne out by experimentation (including natural experiments).

What are the observations that support the 'God of the Gaps' hypothesis?

 

[Disco08]

Wouldn't you see the same thing if they were all contemporaries?

Would you? Aren't fossils found in all manner of situations? It seems highly unlikely all these events could happen simultaneously to me. Also, if it all occurred at once wouldn't all the specimens be jumbled together rather than sorted neatly into a progression from simple to complex?

 

[Djevv]

Yes, you can develop a hypothesis to explain a gap in our knowledge.

It doesn't become accepted as theory until evidence emerges to support it, such as predictions made by such theories are borne out by experimentation (including natural experiments).

What are the observations that support the 'God of the Gaps' hypothesis?

Hmm, I thought we were discussing the 'evolution of the gaps' theory.

 

[Djevv]

Would you? Aren't fossils found in all manner of situations? It seems highly unlikely all these events could happen simultaneously to me. Also, if it all occurred at once wouldn't all the specimens be jumbled together rather than sorted neatly into a progression from simple to complex?

I explained this a few pages ago