₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to credit Richard Dawkins with any degree of intelligent insight whatsoever.

Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

There are some of what you've written with which I agree or don't think need addressing, so I've done some snipping.

This is so starkly devoid of reasoning or depth, I would be astonished, if not already acquainted with the shallow quality of the mind of Richard Dawkins. I state this for –


1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.

Reading back on what Dawkins wrote, I think you misunderstood what he meant. He was strictly speaking about life as we know it. Which is why he was speaking solely, at the point you're critiquing, about "apparent purposefulness of the living world": Biosphere. At least that's how I interpreted it.

3. The basic laws of cause and effect state most clearly that you cannot have effects without causes. This is corroborated within the standard laws of motion. The fact thus remains that it remains ridiculous to commence an argument seeking to render a creator non-existent, from the point of view of living things only, when the super-question remains the existence of all things – living and non living – and the articulated source of all things. To frame the question the timelessly simple philosophical fashion – why something instead of nothing?

We've discussed it before, and we may have to agree to disagree, but you're wrong on basing the philosophy or science of why there's something on the argument of a "law" of cause and effect. Actually, thinking about it, maybe it's a problem of language, as one could argue that all effects have causes. However, not all phenomena necessarily need causes.

4. Even as an argument built up from the point of view of living things, it is very well documented from the experiments of the French Scientist Louis Pasteur and several others that life is known to emerge from pre-existing life. It is thus a staggering claim from Dawkins to state that science now confirms that the wonders of life may emerge through odd  chance in a pre-biotic soup. [snip]

He's right.

What he needs to address to himself in this instance is the riddle posed by design elements such as those found within the human eye and human brain, and address the functionalities of those organs vis-a-vis the design contained therein.

What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?



I am inclined to rest my argument on this admission by the writer, which essentially makes nonsense of his entire write-up.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable.

Just read it. This fellow ends his own comments by alluding to the very same inconceivability of the emergence of the eye which Darwin himself noted.


Ridiculous, plain ridiculous. The painful thing is just how many shallow minds read this c.rap and feel on top of the world in their ill-considered atheistic world-view on account of this baloney.

This may surprise you, but he's actually right when it comes to eyes - particularly in "less complicated" (to use a somewhat vague term) creatures. Also, Darwin goes on to give an idea of how an eye can emerge naturally in the same paragraph of that book of his.

Ha ha ha. Those are from Landover Baptist, aren't they? Very good. Carry on.

That writer (Muda Oyeniran) is clearly not a very smart individual. Not only are the posers incredibly silly for the most part; Wole Soyinka isn't even an atheist. I could have sworn he was some kind of pagan animist.

debosky:
No one knows definitively when the earth was created - those insisting it was exactly 6,000 years ago are as wrong as those insisting it was exactly 200 million years ago.

I'm not saying the current methodologies are infallible, but it is a bit disingenuous to point out the inaccuracies in them without pointing out the accurate results that have been produced using these same sources time and time again. Geologists use these same dating methodologies to determine oil and gas deposits for example.

That's actually a flawed assumption. To quote Asimov: '". . . when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.'

Of course, I acknowledge that your argument isn't necessarily that anyone says that the Earth is exactly so and so years old (well except for the Young Eartj Creationists of the Bishop Ussher mould). However, the data currently available, acquired through several, in some cases, independent methods suggest that the Earth is certainly much older than thousands of years - probably at least 4.3 billion years old.

I'm not saying the current methodologies are infallible, but it is a bit disingenuous to point out the inaccuracies in them without pointing out the accurate results that have been produced using these same sources time and time again. Geologists use these same dating methodologies to determine oil and gas deposits for example.

Some methods suggest a young earth, some suggest an old earth - the crux is that we don't know.

What methods suggest a young earth?

Good shout on the geocentric interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I know of a group of literal Bible believers who argue much like Olaadegbu, except they insist that the apotasy began, not with Darwin, but when "True Science" from the Bible was abadoned in favour of the devil's science of the Earth moving around the Sun.

Only if the adherent of the religion declares that the holy book(s) containing the individual(s) is entirely factual, and a single error is an indication that the deity of the religion doesn't exist. Otherwise, no, it shouldn't matter. I personally believe David, Solomon and the Buddha existed as historical figures, but their non-existence shouldn't matter to anyone but the strict literalist.

OLAADEGBU:

The conclusion you have made in your statement does not follow from the initial section of said statement. There's nothing particularly big about pointing out that evolution does occur. Even if it were a "big claim", it still doesn't follow that one would need to have thousands and millions of proto-archosaur fossils to understand the evolution of dinosaurs.

The first fraud is that the particle to human evolution does not occur as this shows in the fossil record.  What is the evidence that an amoeba can change into a man over millions of years?

Your little habit of throwing out red herrings and ignoring the content of one's post with obscure rants is disingenuous at best. In any case, what the fossil records do show is the shared homology between animals and the possible path taken to the evolution of currently living animals (including humans).

Having said that, the best - in my opinion - evidence for the theory of evolution isn't to be found in the fossil records, but in the study of genes. I have mentioned these two examples several times on this forum: the presence of chromosome No.2 in humans, and the findings linked to endogenous retroviral insertions.     

The onus is on you to tell us where all the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers are?

What do the Precambrian and Cambrian layers have to do with dinosaurs? You really don't know anything about this topic you're trying to argue against, do you? It would certainly explain your manic reliance on copy/pastes.

Where are "all the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers"? Probably in the same place that the millions of dodo fossils are to be found? I take it that because we haven't found millions of those, dodos didn't exist, either. That's Creationist logic for you. Anyway, there are thousands of fossils from those eras.

If you cannot show us where the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers are then show us examples of such intermediate fossils in museums.

For some examples see: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Precambrian-Fossils.htm
and: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

Speculations and assumptions are now your evidence that dinosaurs were the descendants of Proterosuchus, did you see it happening or was it Darwin that observed it?  What has speculation and guess work got to do with science.

It's forensic science, not a religious dogma.

Picture of a fossil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protorosaurus
Picture of another: http://fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_tri/r37.html

Are you saying that these are the intermediate forms in the Cambrian explosion if not can they be found in any of the museums?

Wait, what? What does anything I posted have to do with Cambrian explosion? I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to ask. Look, mate, stop wallowing in ignorance and actually learn what the Cambrian explosion means. And, no, neither of the fossils are from the Cambrian explosion. They are precursors to dinosaurs.

I don't know what you mean by "in the process of evolving", but to forestall any misconceptions, you should know that evolution is not saltation. All animals are "in [their] complete form(s)".

The Cambrian Explosion and the lack of transitional forms shows that Darwinism evolution did not occur.

How do you figure? With your red herring?

I have posted quotes from reputable evolutionists who have attested to the contrary why should I trust you and your dodgy skeptical links?

No you haven't. What you've done, instead, has been to chop the words of several people out of context so as to dishonestly give a false impression. What's that about false testimonies again?

The quotes of those reputable evolutionists are self explanatory, they don't need your twist to be understood.

Yes, they are self explanatory in context. However, dishonest Creationists have taken to removing contexts and pretending those quote-mined meant differently from what was originally written.

Take, for example, this quote mine:

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology, " (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, ["]Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984)

Tackled in quote 48, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

'One wonders what is after the word "paleontology". Lets find out:

Without undertaking the detail morphological comparisons that are necessary to evaluate ancestor-descendent hypotheses, creationists dogmatically assert that these transitional forms do not exist, that there are gaps in the fossil record. From this they make the disingenuous conclusion that the fossil record supports creation and not evolution. If evolution were true, they imply, there could not be gaps in the fossil record. Now either the creationists are deliberately distorting science in an attempt to persuade a public not familiar with scientific arguments, or they are simply ignorant of the findings of modern paleontology. For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep dark secret of paleontology, when just the opposite is the case. I have already noted one of the reasons for the gaps--the low probability of species being fossilized and then discovered. Correlated with this is the growing realization that most species probably arise very rapidly geologically speaking; morphology sometimes does not take as much time to transform as paleontologists once thought. Therefore, if morphological transformations take place over short periods of time (in a geological sense), then the probability of preserving that time interval in the sedimentary record is greatly diminished.

In summary, creationists have characterized the evolutionary process as being slow, gradual, and uniform, whereas virtually all modern evolutionary biologists recognize the fact that rates of evolution can be highly variable. Some evolutionary events are apparently extremely rapid so that frequent gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Nevertheless, numerous examples of morphologically intermediate taxa--transitional forms--have been described from the fossil record, and that record indisputably falsifies the creationist view of the history of life.

So we see that the gaps in the fossil record aren't a deep dark secret. That while there are gaps, there aren't as many as the creationists believe, and are in some cases to be expected.

- Jon (Augray) Barber'

Do you see?

Feel free to address and denounce the apparent dishonesty of your ilk in your own time.

Here is what some of the reputable and established evolutionists had to say when trying to answer where dinosaurs came from:

What, like the ones you posted previously who were either Creationists or ID'ists? I can't find the contexts for the quote-mines here, so a cursory response will have to suffice

"The question of the origin of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years."

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Dr. David Norman, 1985, p. 186. (Dr Norman is a lecturer in Zoology)

However, findings, prior to, and after 1985 have shed light on their possible origins.

This is another quote from an authoritative book in the field of the evolution: The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, 1998, p.12

"Where did dinosaurs come from?  That apparently simple question has been the subject of intense debate amongst scientists for over 150 years, . . ."

Yes, it has been a subject of intense debate amongst scientists. What's wrong with that?

What book or journal have you published that would make anyone take you serious?

The Bible.
 

The cartoons illustrate how the Word of God is certain and surer than your evolution that has no foundation.

They do no such thing.

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (2 Peter 3:5).

The Bible says here that people like you "deliberately forget" that God created the universe from nothing, you forget that God spoke it all into existence and the reason you guys forget is sin and that you don't want to admit that a powerful, Infinite uncreated God created you.  It is because you don't want to admit that God is in control of all things including yourselves is the reason why you persist on propagating this satanic indoctrination of evolution as an alternative to the creation account.  You will rather believe that you evolved from slime over million of years than to obey God.

There are more theists - many, Christians - that accept the theory of evolution than atheistic ones

OLAADEGBU:
It is you who have failed to answer where dinosaurs came from that is guilty of fraud.

Posts I made in this thread on the origins of dinosaurs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.32.html#msg9087792
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.64.html#msg9099977

What's more you can't claim that you didn't see those posts because you wrote:

OLAADEGBU "I was about to log off, infact I had already logged off before I saw your post."

So, which one of us has been fraudulent? Then again, I suppose it's easy to justify if you believe you're lying for Jesus.

You claim to know more than all your evolutionary masters that I quoted who said that there were gaps in the fossil record.  There are no intermediate forms between the cambrian and the precambrian fossils, how do you explain that?

My evolutionary masters? Good heavens, man, just because Christians, like yourself, need masters in the shape of pastors and popes to direct their every move should not be any reason to project your lifestyle on to me.

On the subject of your quote-mines. I addressed that here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.64.html#msg9100320

You'll also notice - if you bothered to take the time to read - that when the quotes aren't taken out of context, they're are more or less fabricated. Again, it's the business of lying for Jesus. It's these strange Creationist's poor attempts at sleight of hand, that makes one wonder how they can claim to be witnesses for a god-man that they assure us is the lord of truths.

All you have to show are the alleged forms which cannot be found in museums when there ought to be thousands and millions of the intermediate forms in the fossil record.  Big claims require real evidence.

"As I explained previously, fossilisation is indeed a very rare occurrence. If you don't think it is, I'll challenge you to find hundreds (not thousands) of dodo fossils. They only went extinct a few centuries ago."

OLAADEGBU:
It was Morton that has been exposed as being inaccurate here. He has not been carefully observant to details as he is quick to attack Christians. Check out the link below where this has been trashed out.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2002/02/06/whos-misrepresenting-history

Um, did you read what you posted? Where in that article is the subject of pollen order in varves addressed? Did . . . did you just do a search on AIG for G. R. Morton, and then posted the first thing that came up?

OLAADEGBU:
You asked for it.  Here are more quotes from scientists, most of whom are evolutionists admitting that evolution is a joke, a game carried too far.  They are at a loss when it comes to the foundational questions.  Let me entertain you with a few of them here.

The word evolution normally means change as Obama puts it but the culture today has now taken it to mean what Charles Darwin has made it to be, and that is the goo to you via the zoo hypothesis over millions of years.

Well, colour me surprised. Not only didn't you address my post or admit the inherent deceit apparent in copy/pasted quote-mines, you've gone and done even more. Put simply: You are lying for Jesus. You continue to show yourself a fraudulent proponent of your faith but your strange insistence in promoting quote-mines, and copy/pasting fallacies and misrepresentations.

 

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

From the preface of the book from which the below quotes are taken:

   "Cosmos, Bios, Theos makes no pretension of being a statistically significant survey of the religious beliefs of modern scientists. The scientists interviewed for this anthology are, for the most part, known to be theistic or at least sympathetic to a religious view of reality." (xiii)

First of all, the page number is wrong; this quote appears on p.163

Second, his 1963 Nobel was in Physiology/Medicine.

Third, he believes in a strong version of the Anthropic principle, that the universe "was wonderfully organized and planned to give the immensity, to give the size, to give the opportunity for the Darwinist evolutionary process that give rise to us." (p.162) He believes that ", brain and body are in the evolutionary process but not yet fully explained in this way. But the conscious self is not in the Darwinian evolutionary process at all. I think it is a divine creation." (p.164) It appears that he does not doubt evolution at all, but reserves the "ensoulment of humanity" to the work of providence.

- Hier05ant

   "Scientists have to be humble. We have not said the last word. It is the best story we have got but it has to be amended all the time. It should be regarded not as a doctrine but as a scientific hypothesis. We have to look at it all the time to see its weak points and point them out and not try to cover up the weak points. One of its weak points is that it does not have any way in which conscious life could have emerged, in which living organisms could become conscious in the evolutionary process and how in the end they could become self-conscious as we are." page 163 [sic!]

- Tom (TomS) Scharle

 

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

[Note the above quote from the preface of the book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, regarding quote number 63.]

First, he is a Professor of Mathematics, specializing in aerodynamics problems. (p.111)

Second, he is not an evolutionist. The sentence immediately preceding the quoted material is "I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps." That's right folks: he denies speciation entirely, and thinks that even God Himself cannot account for the origin of species (someone call the [Discovery Institute], )

- Hier05ant

   "I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."

- Tom (TomS) Scharle

The context for the other hatchet jobs can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

OLAADEGBU:
@KAG,

I was about to log off, infact I had already logged off before I saw your post.  Anyway I'll leave you with the appeal to authority but these are authorities in the field of the evolution theory whose ideologies you follow.  This is what they say about the gaps in the fossil record that they cannot deny exist.

Then you should have stayed logged off, instead of posting only to knowingly commit a fallacy and copy/pasting quote-mines. You didn't even respond to my post, despite the fact you were addressing me.

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

We have another false capital letter.

The overall context is the "tempo and mode" of evolution and Simpson's pre-punctuated equilibria views of quantum evolution. It is in a section called "The Synthesis and the Fossil Record." The paragraph with the quote reads:

It is the gaps in the fossil record which, perhaps more than any other facet of the natural world, are dearly beloved by creationists. As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate "transitional" forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there [p. 65 | pg 66 ] seem to be. For example, Peripatus a lobe-legged, wormlike creature that haunts rotting logs in the Southern-Hemisphere, appears intermediate in many respects between tow of the major phyla on earth today -- the segmented worms and the arthropods. But few other phyla have such intermediates with other phyla, and when we scan the fossil record for them we find some, but basically little, help. Extinction has surely weeded out of the intermediate species, but on the other hand, the fossil record is not exactly teeming with their remains.

Skipping a paragraph:

Simpson thought that most of the fossil record amply supported Darwin's view. There was plenty of evidence, he felt, to show that ninety percent of evolution involved the gradual transition from one species to the [p. 66 | p. 67] next through time. When there were gaps between closely related species and genera [what creations often call "microevolution"] -- in other words when new species appeared abruptly in the fossil record with no smoothly intergradational intermediates between them and their ancestors -- he was content to blame it on the vagaries of preservation inherent in the fossil record, [Eldredge goes on to disagree with that.]

Later on in that rather long paragraph:

. . . Simpson pointed out, the transitions between major groups would typically take millions of years, and we should expect to find some fossil evidence of transitional forms. Not finding them very often, he deduced, implied that evolution sometimes went on rather quickly -- in brief, intense spurts. The presence of some intermediates (such as Archaeopteryx, the proto-bird) falsified Schindewolf's saltational notations. But the relative scarcity of such intermediates bespoke a major mode of evolution producing truly rapid change -- a mode Simpson called "quantum evolution."

Skipping to the very end of the section on page 69:

. . . Hence, today's controversy -- whch [sic] should chill, rather than gladden, creationists' hearts. And at the center of today's evolutionary wranglings, we have the by-now familiar "force": natural selection.

Eldredge deals with gaps again in the section "Oh, Those Gaps!" (pp. 120-128) in the chapter "Creationists Attack: II." In it he makes it very clear that there are transitions in the fossil record and gives several examples.

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

- J. (catshark) Pieret

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

[Following right after]

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

[Snip discussion of boid snakes, pocket gophers, kangaroo rats and pocket mice]

"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .

[Snip discussion of non-Darwinian theories of discontinuous change in species.]

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

A more correct citation would be:

Gould, Stephen J. 1980. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

The rest of the contexts for that sorry copy/paste hatchet job may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

OLAADEGBU:
GEOLOGY:

The Bible claims that God destroyed the earth and the creatures inhabiting it in the worldwide Flood.  Nineteenth-century geologists argued that rock layers and the fossils found in them were formed as sediments were deposited slowly, but today geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours.

So if the Bible wins hands down in every earthly thing we can test, why don’t people trust what it says? The issue is not the truth of Scripture, but vain reasoning and “willful ignorance” (Romans 1:21; 2 Peter 3:5).

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers in Genesis–USA.

Half-truth. What those nineteenth century geologists (many of whom were Christians) discovered was that many catastrophes, and not a worldwide flood, contributed to the formation of rock layers and fossils. One of the things I want to know is how the YECs and global flood proponents account for what G. R. Morton calls "Pollen Order in Varves" and the lack of disturbance that should have been apparent if a global, catastophic flood occurred.

OLAADEGBU:
There are reason to expect to see thousands if not millions of fossils of these missing links because big claims calls for big evidence!

The conclusion you have made in your statement does not follow from the initial section of said statement. There's nothing particularly big about pointing out that evolution does occur. Even if it were a "big claim", it still doesn't follow that one would need to have thousands and millions of proto-archosaur fossils to understand the evolution of dinosaurs.

As I explained previously, fossilisation is indeed a very rare occurrence. If you don't think it is, I'll challenge you to find hundreds (not thousands) of dodo fossils. They only went extinct a few centuries ago.

Can you please tell us what the common ancestors of dinosaurs was, Cambrian period or not?

Cambrian period or not? What do you mean by that? Is that a way of skirting around the ignorance you displayed by putting the immediate forebears of dinosaurs in the Cambrian explosion? Jesus, man, don't do that,

Anyway, what is know is that dinosaurs probably evolved from tetrapods (dinosaurs are tetrapods) and possible ancestors include the likes of the Proterosuchus and the Protorosaurus.

Can you tell us a non-dinosaur animal that the dinosaur supposedly evolved from instead of speculating where they are likely to come from, and can you show us the evidence of the fossils that shows them in the process of evolving? for instance when they are not in their complete form but in the transitional form?

Picture of a fossil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protorosaurus
Picture of another: http://fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_tri/r37.html

I don't know what you mean by "in the process of evolving", but to forestall any misconceptions, you should know that evolution is not saltation. All animals are "in [their] complete form(s)".

Is the copy/pasting you did on talkorgins.org the real evidence you want me to see, or does it answer the question at hand? My cartoons have the real McCoy embedded in them.

It answers the question at hand, as it gives a list of fossils of transitional animals found that shed light on the possible evolution of dinosaurs.

When I say copy/paste, I mean just going to a arandomwebsite and copying everything someone else has written - often without reading or understanding the content - and pasting, wholesale, said content.

No, your cartoons really don't have any substance, especially when they are used to spam discussions, debates and arguments on a forum.

OLAADEGBU: 1. How could a small reptile evolve into a large dinosaur?
2. Shouldn’t there be thousands (millions) of intermediate fossils in the cambrian explosion?
3. Why don’t we see intermediate dinosaur forms in museums?

There's no reason to expect to see "thousands or millions" of fossils, as fossilisation is a rare occurence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find thousands and millions of fossils of the many species that have gone extinct in the last few decades.

Further, on the cambrian explosion? Really? While a vast array of fossils of species that thrived during the cambrian explosion have been found, I'm not sure I understand why you - or anyone - would have reason to link the immediate ancestors of dinosaurs to the cambrian period. Let's chalk the presence of the cambrian explosion in your questions to a misunderstanding.

Finally, there are some fossils that give some idea of what proto-archosaurs were like and indicate the probable evolution of dinosaurs. From TalkOrigins:

Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
   
Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
   
Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
   
Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.

Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.


Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

Great claims require real evidence.

Indeed. So when are you going to present some real evidence? Or are you under the impression that copy/pasting Points Refuted a Thousand Times (PRATTs) from Creationist websites, and posting cutesy cartoons suffice as evidence?

I don't know A. C. Grayling's reasons for not wanting to debate, but, if I remember correctly, Dawkins doesn't do debates anymore. There's a reason he hasn't done one for years. As far as I know, he declared himself out of debating theists even before Craig's current clarion call for a head to head debate. If anyone knows better, I'm open to being corrected.

drrionelli:
Before this "discussion" gets angry and out of hand, perhaps cooler heads should, indeed, prevail.

We each come to an acceptance of things through various ways of understanding. Some through replicative means (i.e., being able to recreate a situation or circumstance), and some through acceptance by faith (i.e., non-provable means). The two methods are not nearly as antithetical as might be assumed on first glance.

Consider, for example, that there was a time when a solar eclipse was thought to be a manifestation of a divine "anger" (e.g., a punishment by taking away the sun). Well, we view things a bit differently, now. We now know that the world is not flat, but rather, spheroid. The examples are endless.

So it is with our respective beliefs in a diety. As we learn more--and we should always strive to learn more--then we should more ably view not only our own ideas, but also those of others. Let's not allow our views to divide us. Let's allow them to bring us together, so that we might forge a common understanding for all.

I agree with your sentiment. Having said that, couldn't it be argued that the increase in knowledge that has helped humans understand the shape of the Earth, etc. has also led us away from the existence - or, in fact, necessity - of gods? I would say discourse on gods have shown the gods less likely to exist.

imhotep:
Only . . . we were not talking about dinosaurs. . . remember?

No, we are talking about inconsitent logic. Actually, that's an understatement.

Stick to God. . .don't introduce dinosaurs or unicorns . . .

Why? Unicorns, gods and purple dinosaurs operate on the same general principle in your illogical syllogism (or what you tried to pass off as one).

imhotep:
[. . .this is old . . .]

1) DISBELIEF ALONE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOD. (Same with belief . . .)

2) Atheism's belief [/b]in the [b]non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

3) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

I believe purple dinosaurs don't exist in your back garden; therefore, my apurpledinosaursinihmotep'sgarden is my religion. Exciting logic. We must all be religioused out with the amount of things we believe are non-existent.

Look, if the topic is that old, then stop making the same basic mistakes.

zataxs:
@KAG
What you have is not just a problem of definitions but a problem of understanding.
So when we are busy trying to define things for you, you are not getting it because you are not after the dictionary explanation of terms.
That's why you think the analogy of footballers is wrong ha ha ha

Really? Perhaps it's more likely that you aren't reading my posts. That's clear based on little facts like you repeating my arguments back to me in different words. And, no, the football analogy is not wrong because of my supposed lack of understanding. It just doesn't make sense when compared to religious beliefs.

So let me clarify this for you and the many religious people out there
1. in the strictest sense of the definitions of these words, atheism is not a religion the same way theism is not a religion. this are properties of a bigger component. the same way red is not a car, it is just the colour of the car. so the assertion being brought forward here is wrong.

Yes, I said as much. Thanks for repeating my earlier point: "atheism is no more a religion than theism." Was I too subtle?

2. so let's try to define what these people who call themselves atheists. I think to help you advance your case let's pick an exciting bunch, who we will for now call freethinkers, here are some common things you are likely to find about them.
a) a belief in empirical evidence that are tabled and open for examination like evolution
b) a lack of belief in Gods, god, or any other supernatural thing or being, sitting on top the sky dictating terms. no evidence of such a being exists, therefore this is just a reinforcement of point 1.
c) a good understanding of all major modern religions and a good number of little known or ancient ones. It is well known that atheists tend to spring up as sections of the society get a better understanding of "their" religions.
d) a lack of affinity to cultural practices sometimes intertwined with religion that don't make sense. like believe in existence and need to kill child witches. This really again is in point a.
e) tendency to be irreligious. therefore back to point a.

Nonsense: the only thing that defines atheists is your point "b". The other points are not necessary for atheism, nor, indeed, are they exclusive to atheists. Before you set out to point out that you haven't said any of those things are necessarily exclusive to atheists, merely, I would advise that you remember your point "b". Further, without really going into anymore trouble than you have to make utterances, I disagree that many atheists necessarily adhere to point "a", have point "c" and do point "d". The reverse is that many theists are defined by those points and are freethinkers in their own rights.

3. humanism is not a religion. It can be better defined as a view or way of life or philosophy.

Religious humanism is a religion. In the same way I disregard Christians who claim Christianity is not a religion, I disregard yours. That the founders of religious humanism called their "way of life" a religion is good enough for me to accept their word over yours.

4. a religion MUST have the following attributes
a) the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods .e.g. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Jesus, Muhammed
b) Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times e.g. Cross, Mecca, Shroud of Jesus
c) encouragement of feeling like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural e.g. Amadioha the snake, holy water, etc
d) communicating to the supernatural, usu, through prayer or other ritual .e.g sacrificing,

How don't religious humanism and atheistic Buddhism meet that criteria?

There seem to be this desire to justify doing certain things.
maybe you want some false sense of confidence. That hey, we are all in it. We are all practicing religion or something like that.

sadly. not everyone is. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Good to know. I'll be sure to spread the news. . . and, of course, I must smell said coffee.

zataxs:
What is atheism?

@KAG, You can be an avid football fan. But not everyone likes football. If someone else does not a fan of soccer is it right to say she a type of of football fan who does not like soccer?
She is simply *not* a fan.

The two - beliefs and football fanaticism - are not necessarily or so easily analogous. That is, your analogy doesn't quite suit the subject.

It is important to remember that being an atheist does not mean you *believe* in evolution. it does not mean you believe in the big bang or that you believe that you must arrive an conclusions based on empirical evidence. No, it simply mean you are an not a christian, muslim, buddhist, or follower of any other religion.

You're right about everything else but your conclusion. There are theists that aren't religious. In the same way, there are religious atheists and atheistic religions. I'll give the examplesI gave previously: Humanism (the religion) and atheistic Buddhism.

Uyi Iredia:
then materialistism and a worldview that is hinged on the fringes of science and technology (i.e it appeals to science as it's adjudicate) >>>

So calling atheism a religion doesn't really change anything? It's just a game of semantics and generalisations, I take it.

you did not deal comprehensively with my essay

I did it the justice it deserved. Was there something I missed that you wanted me to address? I'm also assuming that you agree with everything else I wrote.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but I'll type it again, just in case it hasn't: atheism is no more a religion than theism. They both describe positions. However, there are atheistic religions and religious atheists. Think humanism (the religion) and atheistic Buddhism for examples. So there's a big difference that isn't even nuanced in saying there are religious atheists and atheism is a religion.

Uyi Iredia:
Uyi Iredia

• My reckoning of Atheism as religion without consideration of Theism holds because I understand that Atheism has evolved into a position that affects the lifestyle of adherents.

Like theism. It doesn't make theism - no indeed atheism - a religion.
  

It has (generally) assumed the capacity of the appellation for a person who supposes that no God exists. Theism,  on the other hand, is predicated on the notion of God which has extensive variances; it assuredly develops multiple conclusions expressed as the different religions which adorn it. Simply put, Theism is not a religion because of the variegated notions of God. The ante to this, naturally, is Atheism which has a relatively consonant notion (i.e that the concept of God is false). I hypothesise that if the notion of God were uniform across board Theism will tend to religion.

Nonsense. As descriptors, atheism and theism are no different. Theism is simply a belief in the existence of at least one god. Any variation from that simple description is no different from that found in atheism and is informed by the inclination to religion that, in this instance, is theistic.

Finally, your hypothesis is wrong and built on a flimsy premise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, let's for one moment assume that you are in fact right and atheism is a religion. What then? It has neither unravelled the thorny issue of the gods being largely absent except in the recitations of faithful theists. More, it is neither evidence for gods nor does it encourage atheists to believe gods exist.

So, what then if as you argue atheism is a religion? To what does the argument lead? Idealogy is still ideology and people still disbedisbelieve

vescucci:
Are you a woman or not?

Does it change anything?

Dude is an asexual term nowadays though. I wasn't only not being facetious, I meant a space station that wasn't 'made' by anything. One that was just a results of random asteroids hitting each other or whatever.

Oh, I see what you mean. That wasn't clear earlier. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification before answering the question. To answer the question again given the clarification, then, no, I don't believe that there is a space station that arose unmade, etc somewhere in the universe.

I'd surprised you think the universe is finite.

Why?

I'm still undecided about this but if the big bang is to be thoroughly believed, I guess it has to be. Infinity cannot get bigger.

Not necessarily right. While I never did understand the argument that infinity and the Big Bang are somehow exclusive, it's somewhat wrong to presume that infinity can't get bigger. This is particularly true in mathematics which deals with sets of infinity, including "infinite cardinals" and "large cardinals".

This raises another question. I'm no scientist, bear with me. If space is increasing and matter with which it is contained doesn't, what fills the extra space?

Particles: both real and virtual.

What do you think of dark matter?

I'm torn on it. On the one hand, to some extent, it makes sense. On the other, because of its conception, it needs more physical evidence to be convincing and topple competing theories and ideas.

Deep Sight:
(snip)
So KAG's argument that virtual particles are uncaused simply cannot fly once it is shown that they do not emerge from nothingness, but from something.

What causes virtual particles? As in what - physical something - causes them? By they way, virtual particles emerge into something from nothing.

Deep Sight:
Indeed Beneli had also had the following to say -

To which I responded with:

"I disagree. What part of my understanding of the uncertainty principle is flawed?


Yet again, findings show otherwise. This is your turn to show me a reliable source that shows that virtual particles don't emerge from nothing.

I suspect you've missed something while reading up on the function of virtual particles. I could be wrong, but it seems you've mistaken what can possibly happen to virtual particles with a statement on their emergence. The subject of parallel universes and virtual particles is an interesting one - and one I have considered myself a few years ago. However, so far there's simply no evidence for it, while there is evidence for what I have proposed otherwise. I wouldn't put much stock in virtual particles being gravitons. Then again, this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that virtual particles could be gravitons, so I could be biased against it."

Linky: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.192.html#msg6148163

For whatever reason, there was no response from beneli nor provided with a reliable source that "shows that virtual particles don't emerge from nothing." Even after I posted one such source (NewScientist) showing exactly what I had stated.

So, back to the thread?

Which is why I am surprised that KAG will still revert months later deploying the same argument in proof of decontextualized existences - which are in themselves illogical and inconceivable within a finite universe.

Que?

vescucci:
@KAG. Your certitude that there's a space station somewhere in the universe, just existing makes me do a rethink. This singular reason makes almost all other questions irrelevant. You're succinct. I like that. Let me ask this though: do you think the universe is finite or infinite? Bear in mind the big bang theory when answering.

When you asked about a space station somewhere in the universe, did you mean other than those made by humans? I thought you were being facetious. Hmm, if you weren't, that changes everything. Do I think the Universe is finite? Yes, personally I do.

Deep Sight:
Before I respond to anything else that you have written, let me just express my shock that you could write this YET AGAIN.

You shouldn't be.

You and I have been over the virtual particles argument very thoroughly and it was conclusively shown to you that virtual particles DO NOT arise from nothing - contrary to what you claimed. Indeed I recall showing you - and you agreed with apologies - that quantum vacuums within which virtual particles emerge ARE NOT nothing - and that indeed there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum that has ever been observed.

Actually, read the thread again (here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.160.html), you'll see that nothing of the sort was shown. Instead, the discussion lead to a discussion on the Casimir effect, and laboratory experiments showing the reality of virtual particles.

Further, yes, I agreed that quantum vacuums are not "nothingness", to which I explained to you that they are not nothing because of quantum fluctuations - that is, the emergence of virtual particles into what would be a vacuum. Unfortunately, for some reason, you decided that saying something emerges from nothing (see: having no cause) into space was somehow the same as saying virtual particles had a cause or something.

By the way, my apology was for being sloppy in my definition  of a vacuum and presuming that they could be recreated on earth. Link: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445085.128.html#msg6100059 Towards the end of the post. I have no problem admitting a mistake or conceding a point when it's shown to be wrong - it's not a character flaw nor grounds for what is starting to look like the onset of a fallacy. It has to be shown to be wrong or that I've made a mistake, first, though.

It is therefore beyond bizzare that you would yet revert with this argument.

When the evidence shows something . . . Feel free to address the rest of post in your time.

Deep Sight:
I am afraid you have made a statement without supporting it in the least - you term this a weak argument - and yet you do not show why it is so.

Okay, that's fair enough. Here are the reasons it's poor logic:

1. Ignoring the paucity of life in the Universe (as far as can be told, life is a rare phenomenon in the universe), you claim the will to survive is evidence of a god, without any internally consistent or following argument to support the conclusion. This, in turn, ensures that the conclusion involves special pleading.

2. You ignore parsimony. While on the surface reaching for a god might seemingly simplify things, it actually is an extra, complicated element in the argument. There are more sensible logical answers that don't require that extra step

3. The personification of nature means that rather than building an argument to reach a conclusion, you were using your conclusion to pretend there was a disinterested syllogism being presented. Essentially, your a priori - that nature has a goal and interests - means that your argument is based on unfounded ideas and predictably leads to a fallacy of necessity.

4. If life is evidence of a god, then non-life is evidence of . . .? Well, you can see where that could go, especially if one remembers there are non-living things capable of reproduction. Is that rudimentary continuance of non-life evidence of anything other than replication?

There could be more, but that's as far as I got.

What you need to demonstrate is this -

Why do creatures develop traits that enable them to survive?

What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this - even if it occurs only in some creatures?

Self replication. More specifically, for the most successful replicators: imperfect replication.

Is there any reaosn why the material universe should be concerned about survival?

There is no reason that you can proffer for this phenomenon if you work with the concept of a strictly material universe.

It isn't. Only beings are consciously concerned about survival.

Perhaps I should also ask you the more subtle and fundamental question: what do you consider the universe to be? It is this vast system of various energies in constant motion and expansion. Do you think that this vast system contains any energies or elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure? Following on this - what is the relevance of the energies of living things within the overall super structure.

The Universe is perhaps all there is. It holds both energy, motion, time, space, length, depth and matter. I wouldn't know if it contains elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure. No one can say that with any certainty, either. Anyone claiming to have that knowledge is peddling religion or bunkum (is there a difference?).

Are living things relevant to the universe? If a tree falls in a forest would its fall be notable if no one observes it? Depends I suppose. In any case, living organisms needn't be useful to the universe to exist, any more than a pebble on Uranus be relevant to the biscuit I ate a moment ago.

I positively assert to you that within your materialist world-view, you can advance no possible logical relevance of living things to the universe's superstructure: and this presents you with an unavoidable incongruity - to wit - if the universe does not contain energies or systems irrelevant to its super structure, why then does it contain living things.

And worse - sentient living things.

And worst: sentient living beings that developed their bodies through a process of adaptation that gradually ensured that they remain able to survive within the superstructure.

Again with the bad logic. Urrgh! A priori[/i]s and personifications do not an argument make. So, I take it that when you ask questions, it's just a formality as you're going to answer them in the same post containing the question, yes?

In any case, how would you possibly know that the universe doesn't contain things that are irrelevant, etc?

Yet again, I ask - [i]"What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this."

Yet again, self replication.

In assessing the bolded in red within this post, please take a moment to reflect on this with regard to the universe:

1. It is absolutely impossible for a pure illogicality to exist.

Why? What makes the irrelevance of something(s) in the universe illogical?

2. Within the super structure that the universe is, every element therefore has its cause and consequence - which defines its relevance.

Really? What causes virtual particles?

3. What is the relevance of living things to the universe?

See above.

Sorry for the delay.

vescucci:
Lol, KAG. You're certainly a man of few words. I'm afraid I do not like quoting.

That's fair enough.

Well selection presupposes extinction, no?

Not necessarily. Selection presupposes fitter organisms and sometimes, especially with isolation, speciation

What I meant about it getting more bizarre is that we make the mistake of treating evolution as an arithmetic progression whereas to me, it's more like a geometric progression. What I mean is we get more suited to evolving as we get more complex. We have more tools to create more tools for survival. Working backwards, such feats as the development of a nervous system would seem more bizarre than say humans developing faculties to see IR and UV light. I'll come back to this later.

I see what you mean. I'd say, though, that it's not quite right to think of evolution as a geometric progression either. Better to think of it as bush with many entangled branches and parts, than something that shows a clear progression. Also, I don't think organisms get more suited to evolving the more complex they get. "Simpler" organisms evolve quicker and easier than humans, for instance, will.

The odds I speak of, though I may be out of my depth, are too high. It is estimated that there are about a thousand billion billion or so planets. And this is supposed to be conservative and I agree. In fact, I do not really dispute the emergence of life as much as I dispute the sustenance of it. Lemme just ask something else, hypothetically, instead of making too many key strokes. Do you believe there is space station somewhere in the universe just existing because the odds are mathematically viable?

Yes. I know there's a space station somewhere in the universe just existing. The odds for it are, again, 1.

I don't know what the most basic and uncomplicated living organism is on earth but I'm pretty sure it will be some sort of plankton. Do you realise how complex even that is? How many atoms make up the cell?

Yes, I can imagine how complex even the most basic of plankton must be, but that's understandable when one considers the huge amount of time in which the species, genus, family, has evolved. I'm not sure the number of atoms are an indication of anything other than a testament to the atoms contained in the ecology and atmosphere in their habitat.

I'm glad you said that I jumped whole swarthes of evolution to make a point. That only shows I'm oversimplifying things which sort of makes my point. Anyways, most of all I say is uneducated speculation and I'm still studying the whole thing. But I don't think I can be convinced of life just spontaneously desiring anything let alone simply being. Think of the multitude of organisms just going thru life consuming fuel, making waste continuously just so that they can do it all over again tomorrow.

I see what you mean. But, while, you may have thought you were simplifying things by jumping a big chunk of evolution, I think you ended up making it more complicated that it was. It's easier to understand the progress of consumption and nutrition if it is viewed in lieu of a series of small changes and the advantages organisms derive from preying.

I can understand not wanting to think of life as just living for it's own sake. I appreciate that

Perhaps, evolution is God

It is to some. On the other hand, perhaps evolution made gods. Or not.

vescucci:
Arghh, I'm reluctant to read up the whole thread. I'm just wondering what the point of the exercise was by the scientists. Do they believe that some people crossed the red sea like that once upon a time? Do they disbelieve it but seek to convince those who do that if indeed it did happen, here's how? I don't get. Plus, how do you figure such strong winds that can consistently keep the waters in a wall like fashion not strong enough to blow the hapless Israelites fleeing for their lives? Am I the only one who's confused at the point of it all? It's like proving how Santa would have powered his sled with star dust. Merde!

From what I understand, Carl Drews, if not the others, believes, as a Christian, that the Red Sea crossing did happen. The point of the exercise was to see if there was way it could have occurred. Basically, showing that it may not be impossible.

nuclearboy:
@Kag:

You produced another load of skillfully crafted nonsense and confirm your position as a true believer.

A true believer of what exactly? If it's nonsense you shouldn't have any problems disproving what I've written. Let's see if you do anything of the sort here.

You must have been very manipulative as a kid - totally amoral.

Ad hom duly noted. It does not an argument make, though.

First, most any dolt knows wikipedia is not the most credible source for information. Stop quoting Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously. Plus now, its persons you attack. Why didn't you apply same criteria to the persons I named earlier? You walk in and choose who to point fingers at and of course, its those who have affiliations to Christianity that you can critique.

Wikipedia is okay when it is properly referenced. The ones I quoted are. Also, don't you think you're being hypocritical? You quoted wiki.answers. It's worse that wikipedia.

Finally, I haven't attacked anyone. I didn't bother trying to find out the religious affiliation of the people you mentioned because your appeal to authority argument was neither cogent nor relevant.

Yes, I did make a mistake about the Kenyon dating. I noticed it earlier but didn't want to look like I was hastily clearing mistakes and I wanted to see if you'd jump on it. Of course, seeing as you require a crutch, you jumped head first.

Interesting excuse.

That would be ammunition for such as you whist the NY Times article is mentioned by your august self ONLY to shift focus to persons you can batter. How intellectual!  

Please bother to actually engage with what I wrote at your pace.

BTW, could you please inform as to the religious leanings of Kenyon and your other sources and state why that is not significant to her choice of claims when that of Christians is?

As far as I'm aware, Kenyon was a Christian and Dr Isaac a Jew.

Which goes to show what I said earlier - you have a target with Christianity and thus remain formless, amorphous, coming out to engage in guerrilla warfare and thus seeming well armed.

Yes, yes, anybody that disagrees with your exegesis and loose grasp of history is against your religion. I get it.

Read what I say - Baal etc worship was VERIFIED not "made known to us" by the Elba material. Why are you taking a bit of this and a bit of that losing the meat along the way - what does that statement which you turn to make yourself seem knowledgeable add or take away EVEN IF it said "made known to us"? Talk about misplaced priorities.

The Ebla tablets verified the worship of pagan gods such as Baal, Dagan and Asherah “known previously only from the Bible.” [emphasis mine]

The part I've emphasised shows what I was addressing. Read what I wrote again. I responded to the bait and switch ploy and relevant portions of a long cut/paste.

Yet you use a language to make yourself seem intellectual and ask for information to disprove postulations. Which ones? Wikipedia? For all I know, you could have edited the pages there. People do so, you know, and that tells the extent of your scholastic desires

You know that anyone - including you - can check the history of a wikepedia entry to see if/when something has been edited or added to an article. Once again, engage with the things I've written.

I won't bother to continue with this conversation- its disgusting. My only point here was to show there could be other explanations to what you would wish away and this type of reasoning shows your lack of truthfulness and knowledge. You're just picking randomly from all over trying to sound "hype". Reminds me of a friend who said of another dude - His knowledge of the subject matter could be acquired posthumously. Go educate yourself and find truth

But then, you'll yawn again seeing as you already made up your mind and facts don't matter. Its time for bed and there's no point me coming against an unarmed civilian. Please yourself with your folly

Yawn.

nuclearboy:
^^^ Batman? No but likely Spider-man!

Do you have evidence to support the case for Spiderman and not Batman?

What then, do you make of the following?

Kenyon is the greatest proponent of "Jericho was down before Joshua" crossed the waters. Her work has been critiqued and guess what - bull!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Battle_of_Wall_of_Jericho_historical and http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html offer new insight on Kenyon's "theories" which were based on

[1] the dating of the building of the wall rather than when they went down
[2] Evidence found by other Archeological parties AFTER her dismissive yet shallow search. Page 2 of the New York times site link states the shallowness of her study.

Yet you insist and would take the view of a study from 1906 over that of continuing study. Did your world of learning end in 1906? Or is the NY times a Christian fundamentalist organization?

Urghh! You barely engage with what is written - mine or otherwise - nor does it appear you do any more research than the cursory google hit. Let's start from the bottom up.

First, the NY Times isn't a Christian fundamentalist organisation. To ask the rhetorical question you posed shows you have chosen to block your mind to the point I made in my first post here. It isn't the organisation, but the person doing the research or making the claim. Now, the point isn't that the person's religious background discredits what their saying, but it helps us to understand why a claim is being made. So, for instance, Drews, a Christian scientist, may feel obliged to offer a plausible naturalistic grounding for an event reported in the Bible. You'll note I didn't say that the BBC or other news outlets that reported on Drews and his team are "Christian fundamentalist organization[s]".

This brings us to your NY times link. Woods, the guy making the claim on Jericho is . . . wait for it . . . a Young Earth Creationist. That doesn't necessarily invalidate his claims, though. What does is the evidence and the seeming lack in his work that prompted this response:

"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected" [emphasis mine] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood)

More: 'In 1995 fresh evidence became available in the form of charred cereal grains from the City IV destruction layer. Radiocarbon dating of these grains showed that Jericho City IV was destroyed "during the late 17th or the 16th century BC", in line with Kenyon's findings, and that "the fortified Bronze Age city at Tell es-Sultan [Jericho] was not destroyed by ca.1400 BC, as Wood (1990) suggested"' (Ibid.)

Second, I don't know from whom you got your information, but Kenyon's excavation was in the late 1950s and not 1906. The consensus and the evidence support Kenyon's findings.

On historicity of the Bible, there are "authoritative" sources that deny Biblical history but just because "authoritative" sources declare a thing to be so, doesn’t mean it is so. Below is some information. Tell me then - which study, which authority is right…?

I agree that some sources deny Biblical history. That's not my position. My position is that some parts of the Bible represent history (replete with historical context and proper recording), while several other parts of the Bible are mythical. This doesn't mean characters and instances in the Bible were made up, but that, often, real people and local - sometimes, low scale - events have been wound into a large scale allegory and pseudo-history. Which authority is right? The one with the evidence, I suppose.

Professor William F. Albright, archeologist and head of Palestine’s American School of Oriental Research, observed, “The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools… has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”

"There is no doubt that a good deal of information found in the Bible has a grain of truth in it . . . However, we should be careful in trying to correlate biblical stories and archeological data.'' (Dr Issac, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html?pagewanted=2).

1. Written records from over 4,000 years ago. Dr. Paolo Matthiae, Director of the Italian Archeological Mission in Syria, “hit an archeological jackpot” in 1975. He discovered “the greatest third-millennium [B.C.] archive ever unearthed.” It included “more than 15,000 cuneiform tablets and fragments” and unveiled a Semitic empire that dominated the Middle East more than four thousand years ago. Its hub was Ebla, where educated scribes filled ancient libraries with written records of history, people, places and commerce.

“These early tablets display an ease of expression, an elegance that indicates complete mastery of the cuneiform system by the scribes,” said Dr. Giovanni Pettinato, former epigraphist of the Italian Mission, who worked closely with Dr. Matthiae. “One can only conclude that writing had been in use at Ebla for a long time before 2500 B.C.”

The Ebla tablets verified the worship of pagan gods such as Baal, Dagan and Asherah “known previously only from the Bible.” They mention the name “Abraham” and “your of Chaldees” (the Biblical Abraham’s birthplace) as well as other familiar cities and places:

Bit of falsehood here. The worship of gods like Baal, Asherah, et al. were known long before the Elba tablet was found. It's untrue to claim that it was previously only known from the Bible. You do realise that there's some debate as to whether Abraham is the correct translation. Also, is there evidence that the refernence ot the Chaldees is even linked to the name that has been claimed to be Abraham?

(snip)

“…there were about 400 cuneiform tablets discovered at this site which were part of the royal archives of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) who reigned about 1400 BC. Among them were letters written in Babylonian cuneiform script to these Pharaohs of Egypt by various kings dwelling in the land of Canaan and Syria… written during the time of Moses [and Joshua]. They provide the first evidence of the Hebrew tribes entering into the land of Canaan in ancient times.”

That last sentence points to the completion of the Biblical Exodus — the Israelite journey, led by Moses, out of bondage in Egypt toward the land God had promised them.

Actually, the last quoted sentence does nothing of the sort. Letters written to kings in Canaan and Syria do not evidence for the exodus of the Jews make.

But your “scholars” simply choose to ignore the evidence, as do you. After all, politically correct deceptions are far more acceptable than facts to a world that no longer tolerates Truth. Other examples of archeological finds opposed to "SCIENCE"

Untrue.

2. The Hittite Empire: The Hittites are mentioned dozens of times in the Old Testament. A century ago, "critics" of Biblical historicity argued that the Bible’s descriptions of the Hittite Empire were later insertions, since they were certain the Hittite Empire didn’t exist…. But also in 1906, archaeologists unearthed the Hittite capital and in the years following excavated what is now known to have been a massive and very prominent Hittite civilization…

"[T]he Anatolian Hittites have nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical ones, there is no relationship at all between the biblical Hittites and the huge find in modern day Turkey.

To claim that the biblical Hittites are the same Hittites that were found at Boghazkoy in Turkey is simply untrue, they are NOT the same people, and why this keeps being circulated suggests to me that either no one has investigated this or they have investigated it and decided to turn a blind eye. I choose to believe the former, I wouldn’t like to think that scholars would deliberately try to mislead people, but it is about time that ‘biblical archaeologists’ admitted the truth about the Hittites. "

More here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=151&m=1

(snip)
however, scholars also claimed that the Torah could not have been written at that time because alphabetic writing did not exist … and then archaeologists dug up 4000 year old samples of alphabetic writing….

Nonsense, the Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered centuries ago. Through it, if nothing else, archeologists et al. knew of alphabetic writing that may have predated the Torah.

however, it is worth noting that scholars also questioned the existence of Babylonia and Troy… until archaeologists found them…

This is true. You should take note of it, as finding Troy, for instance, is not evidence for the Iliad as a text detailing literal history.

Basically then, there are other "scientific" sources, equally authoritative, that would, also using archaeology, disprove your postulations.

Then bring them out. Don't be coy. When or if they disprove my postulations then I will accept them - I have no problem doing that. Can you say the same?

It appears that you seem quite happy to have found a source that speaks with “authority” claiming to disprove much of the Old Testament’s writings and that is fine by you. But there is as much evidence to the opposite…that the Bible is accurate, provable, and true.

Be honest in what you write or better still, be informed before you write. Do your research. Attempts to rip apart someone’s faith, by quoting one specific “authority” when there are other equally trustworthy "authorities" over an issue that is STILL BEING STUDIED is obviously manipulative, deluded and totally unwarranted especially when newer findings indicate foot in mouth tactics.

Yawn.

nuclearboy:
^^ Standard operating procedure - cast aspersions to sound educated but when information is shown or/and your tactics are used against you, become belligerent and defensive.

Your red herring is duly noted. Feel free to engage with what I've written at your own pace.

Fact - there was a crossing. Your task - explain it. You could say 25, 000 men, women and children swam across! Thats a better explanation than a miracle, ain't it?

Just because you put "fact" before a statement doesn't make the sentence factual. No, it isn't a fact that there was a crossing. Instead, what we have is a myth related to the history of the Jews. Whether any of it actually happened is debatable.

Fact - I brought evidence FROM YOUR SIDE OF THE DIVIDE. Your task - bring your incontrovertible evidence. I didn't point to evidence I couldn't show

No, you didn't bring any evidence. To claim you did suggests one of two things: you don't know what is meant by evidence or you're making false claims. Besides, what, exactly is my "side of the divide"? For what would you like me to bring incontrovertible evidence? Your strawman? If it's for the Jericho issue. I can go further in explaining why if the Bible's account is read literally then it isn't history. It boils down to this: the evidence suggests that the walls of Jericho were down even before Joshua was born.

"[I]f you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there." - Bill Dever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho)

Fact - I am speaking specifics and so were you prior to now. Why are you going "generally speaking" now? Cat got your tongue?

Okay, at this point it's clear you've mistaken me for someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Fact - I know the pedigree of the "The Aeneid". Don't compare myth with reality. Thats the pitiful fallacy here- start with white and end with black jumping the divide with a shove by bitter ungrounded disbelief.

Sadly for you, the "Red" or "Reed" sea crossing was not mythical. The "scientists" I named believe the Biblical explanations to be absurd and wish to explain it away. Which is their problem. But they have educated themselves enough to be able to separate fact from fiction. So they are not explaining "Atlantis". Take the hint. Appeal to authority the right () way so we see your point! right now, its just a load of "I refuse to accept because I don't want to"

Actually both the Aeneid and the Bible have mythical properties. You're making the mistake of assuming that calling something in classical literature mythical means the work precludes reality. Not so. Having said that, there's no evidence to support the idea that the Israelites crossed The Red Sea, or wandered in a desert for decades. I don't know why the scientists you mentioned need to explain it if it's absurd, but it's besides the point really.

The point being: if your argument is that people trying to find a way to crouch mythical reports in natural explanations is evidence that they are truly historical, then the Iliad and the reports of the happenings Atlantis are all true. After all, we know Odysseus was real, and there was a battle of Troy. It, therefore, stands to reason that when your line of argument is used, that because there have been attempts to explain how the Trojan horse may have been used, the Greek gods are the true living deities, etc. . . blah blah.

Finally, I don't think you understood what I meant by your appeal to authority fallacy. Let me use an analogy:

I can easily google and give you the names of some Christians - some with PHDs, and some eminent pastors - who hold that the Earth is stationary. That doesn't make what they say true. If I then chuck the names at you, and my argument is more or less "see they believe it, so should you" or something similarly inane, then you would be in a position to point out that I was committing a fallacy.

If I carry a chip having a religion and being in a religious discussion, I wonder what you carry insisting on not believing what even your mentors have accepted yet hanging around religious discussions. Hint - I'm not offering or looking for a job - what would I be doing haunting the forum job section? You sure the pangs of doubt are not biting deeper than is comfortable?

No, being religious isn't the chip on your shoulder. Thinking this: "not carry your big stick around thinking all Christians are unaware of truth or non-desirous of it. Some of us are not in it for the money or the emotional comfort." is the chip on your shoulder. No where have I claimed that Christians are unaware of truth or lack a desire for it. The chip on your shoulder is what has made you bring that up as an argument. Further, I haven't suggested anyone was in "it" for money or emotional comfort. That, again, is the chip on your shoulder whispering in your ear.

By the way, what mentors of mine? I also hang around comic book websites. I guess that means I have doubts and secretly believe superman is real, and batman is the holy begotten son or something.

nuclearboy:
For someone seeking a prop, I grant it COULD be a desire to find plausible explanations for these events. However, you might be better served actually bothering to search and find out what other experts believe. Currently the consensus is that these events happened but that the supernatural portions "may" be explained differently.

I have bothered to search and find out what archeologists and, I suppose, experts think and believe. The general consensus is that several of the events reported in the Bible did occur and have evidence to support their happening. And, on the other hand, some other events not only have no corroborating evidence but are countered by findings. Then there's the "it may have happened" group of events. The subject of the OP falls in the "it may have happened" group, which is why someone has gone to the trouble of trying to find a way of explaining how it would be seen to have happened if it did occur.

An example - The fall of the walls of Jericho.

A scientific study wonders why Rahab the love-peddler tied a red scarf "OUTSIDE" the walls (since a war INSIDE wouldn't see a rope OUTSIDE.
Science thus states that whist Israel walked around the wall for 7 days, Joshua sent up 10 men at a time up the rope Rahab had used to let down the spies. The march around distracted the watchers since they just kept their eyes on the marching army. By the seventh day, a sizable force was in her apartment and their appearance inside figuratively "sent" the walls down. It is noteworthy that science refused to accept this battle took place as it did until presented with incontrovertible evidence.

First, "science" didn't state any of that. That's a suggestion by someone, not science nor a scientific view. It is a plausible concept, but let's not make it any more than it is.

Second, there is no incontrovertible evidence supporting Joshua and his army doing what the Bible suggests. What there's evidence for is that an earthquake toppled the walls and city of Jericho. However, the time of the earthquake and that of when the Bible places Joshua and his army don't coincide. More, the city wasn't razed to the ground at the time of the earthquake, nor is there anything to suggest the land is cursed.

Same with the incidence at the Red Sea where science postulates that it was the "Reed" sea and that what Moses did was put the fire heading the column "BEHIND" his people so whist Egypt thought they were coming towards them and were blinded by the brazier fires, low tide allowed Israel to cross the Sea. By morning when Pharaoh realised they'd crossed, tide was coming in and the swamp couldn't support the weight of Iron chariots hence the sinking of Pharaoh's ordinance.

Why do you personify science? Generally speaking, it is Christians that try to give physical explanations for the events that appear in the Bible. I don't buy the Reed sea thing either.

Do you seek explanations for what did not happen? Or why postulate theories for what didn't happen? Which tells you what?

I don't go out of my way to explain the adventures of Odysseus nor try to find Atlantis. There are people who do.

The desire to find "logical" explanations comes only because findinds are showing these things happened. We (Christians) have an explanation. Science is trying to understand but with foot already in mouth prior to now, the desire is to explain away or water down!

Nonsense, there have been, for centuries, attempts to ground the miraculous happenings in the Bible in natural explanations. And, no, findings aren't showing "these things" (which things?) happened. That's not why people try to explain mystical stories.

But do not believe me - The "History Channel" broadcast a series called "Battles BC" and you can download the programs free if you have a torrent downloader at thepirateorg.bay. If you would like the exact URL to download, let me know.

The program is moderated by amongst others,

David George Ph.D
Director, Institute of Mediterranean Archeology
Professor of Classics, St. Anselm College and author of over 40 books

Steven Weingartner
Author, Chariots like a whirlwind,
The Saga of Chariotry and Chariot Warfare

Richard A. Gabriel Ph. D
Distinguished Professor
Royal Military college of Canada

Mark Schwartz, Ph.D
Department of Anthropology
Grand Valley State University

I'd like to see you put your credibility against the above or that of the History Channel. Google will show you the background of the men named above so you can quickly bury your "Christian Scientist" theory.

Um, are you disagreeing that Drews is a Christian? I'm not sure I see what any of this has to do with that. I can look this guys up, but I doubt I'll know their religious backgrounds or how it matters here.

By the way, the way you've used appeal to authority is a fallacy.

As "Davidylan" is wont to say - "There is something to attack in Faith/belief which is why you guys seem to have points" - doubt and questions always sound enlightened, non-compromising and "hype" .

That's nice.

But remember, just as I will not call you wrong for what someone else said, you ought not carry your big stick around thinking all Christians are unaware of truth or non-desirous of it. Some of us are not in it for the money or the emotional comfort.

You have a chip on your shoulder. That's your problem. I have neither said nor intimated any of that.

vescucci:
I don't think there's anything philosophically wrong with his logic, scientifically maybe, but definitely not philosophically.

There was plenty wrong philosophically with his logic.

Most extinctions, cuz I have a feeling that's what you're alluding to, occur as a result of one species adapting so well at the expense of another or simply because the other species failed to properly adapt to some other new stimuli.

I wasn't referring to extinctions, I was referring to selection in general.

But their success or failure is not the point. The point is why do they try at all. If the dynamics that sparked life were so random, it ought to equally randomly fall apart. I believe in evolution in the sense that species hone their skills and shed unnecessary attributes to better cope in a habitat. Mind you, evolution, natural selection etc are the best explanations we have for everything but they're not exhaustive or conclusive. It gets more bizarre as we go back in time and life gets more primitive.

Why do they try at all? Because surviving becomes a trait of its own that has gotten selected. Like I said previously, any organisms without the will to live and/or unable to reproduce, will be trumped by other organisms that can do those things. I don;t see why it would "randomly fall apart", as selection ends up minimising the random aspect.

What do you mean by it gets more bizarre? I'm not disagreeing on it being bizarre, just curious.

Here's another thing I'm thinking. So that I can be lucid I'll use an illustration. Imagine having to complete a jigsaw puzzle as big as a football field and the rules are that you have to pick the pieces from a box and place on the board correctly and in precisely ONE order from beginning to end and any mistake you make will cause you to start again AND you do not have the ability to learn from your mistakes so theoretically it is possible to make the same mistake again and again forever. This is a similar and I'm sure a vastly understated task with the unlikely event of life being brewed from the primordial soup that is always been proposed. This is where I find people like Dawkins, Hawkings and co. to believe in a 'truth' that is stranger than fiction. The odds are too long and mathematically non-additive. I even forgot to add the time factor for as the primordial soup is cooking variations in conditions suitable for life will occur. Imagine! These are just the odds for probably the first amino-acids occuring and it'll probably 'die' before another.

Except it's more like having thousands or millions of people all trying to solve the jigsaw puzzle and many of the pieces can fit or be made to fit in so many different ways. Oh, and I'd argue that contrary to what you've claimed, in the analogy, the jigsaw fitters can learn from their mistakes and even build on the mistakes making a complete picture of . . .well, something. The odds become better then.

Scientists like quote the sheer number of planets in the universe and the sheer amount of time that has elapsed since the big bang as probable evidence that anything could've happened since then. I actually agree with this somewhat but that's scientifically weak logic even though it appeals to one's romantic side.

You see, here, I disagree that it's weak logic. Some have even gone as far as to represent the argument analytically. More, there are some strong hypotheses to support the argument for a natural incidence of life on our planet.

In this sort of thing, I find atheistic romantism almost the same with a theist in defending God. Anyways, if I had the facility, I'd attempt to calculate the probability of life spontaneously occuring AND sustained within the time range of the birth of the universe and the amount of planets in the universes we have that have conditions suitable for life namely: a star or sun close enough and far enough, water, etc. I can bet my left foot that the odds will be exhausted.

The odds are 1.

It is common saying that there are more water molecules in a cup of water than there are cups of water on earth. In order words, atoms are damned small things. Another thing, almost certainly, the first forms of life would exist in the water and they'll be able to get their energy through inorganic means. Why would they evolve to start feeding on scarce resources (a carnivorous lifestlye) and not keep feeding on whatever it is they were feeding on before. It's like human beings abandoning unlimited sea water as fuel and opting for the limited fossil fuel.

From the bottom up: humans did abandon sea water as fuel and still use the proceeds of fossils for fuel. Why? Because the output - i.e. benefits - of one far outweighs the other, to the point that it's deemed a necessary risk to swap one for the other.

In any case, you've skipped whole swarthes of the evolution of life and competition between organisms by jumping from feeding on the inorganic to carnivores. However, consuming prey tends to provide more nutrients, etc therefore, more energy.

There are a lot of other reasons why I believe in what I believe (which is too little) and disbelieve in stuff I disbelieve (which is a lot)

Reasons are goof things to have.