Originally Posted By jonvn "And you base this on what theory? That you just don't like how it sounds?" Ignorance is always so lovely. I base it on the fundamental principles of what science is. Now go read a stinking book and figure it out.
Originally Posted By jonvn " In the field of evolution, for example, there are several steps that have to be accepted as a matter of faith in order for the whole theory to hold. " Well, no. This is also wrong.
Originally Posted By thenurmis A great deal of science is based on theory, and by defination theory is based some what on faith. Faith that the calcutaions, the concept , and the ideals are solid , and conclusive on the beliefs we hold as truth today. Science and religion are not so far apart as you might think. Webster's words on theory; Main Entry: the·o·ry Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> and Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art> I guess that the point I am trying to make is that there is a small amount , an important amount of faith needed to follow path in science. E=mc2 is one of the most common used exsamples I could think of. but then again thats just math isn't it. ; )
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>In the field of evolution, for example, there are several steps that have to be accepted as a matter of faith in order for the whole theory to hold. " Well, no. This is also wrong.<< Fine. Then provide me with a single example of a transitional species. Since evolution claims that species develop from simpler species, there should be transitional examples. Otherwise, it is of necessity accepted by faith. So, go to your "stinking" books and provide an example.
Originally Posted By jonvn "A great deal of science is based on theory, and by defination theory is based some what on faith." Well, no. This is wrong. There is no faith. There are ideas as to why things work, you don't have "faith" in them. You believe things that evidence supports, only. If you find that evidence does not support your idea, you throw it out. That is not faith.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then provide me with a single example of a transitional species." Look in a mirror.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Jonvn's continued use of the "Well, No" phrase sort of proves our point I think. I seem to recall telling religious friends of mine that there are ways to read and interpret the Bible other than literally. And their response to me was, as I recall, "Well, no. You're wrong."
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jonvn's continued use of the "Well, No" phrase sort of proves our point I think." Well, no. You are making a series of false and illogical statements that have nothing to do with reality. I have explained why, and not simply said you are wrong.
Originally Posted By thenurmis well no? Jon are you sayin that there is not "faith" in science? That the acceptance of theory does not take some faith in the unknown? really? Not all science is solid, alot of it is built only on what we know is fact for the day, the rest is faith in the concept.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Actually, thenurmis, he doesn't have faith in science. Faced with a legitimate and respectful question, he resorts to techniques that redirect the conversation rather than make effort to respond in a manner which he seems to demand of others. Witness his remarks in post #43. >>>"Then provide me with a single example of a transitional species."<<< He dare not answer the question. Look in a mirror.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You believe things that evidence supports, only.<< Then "you" must dismiss evolution, since there is no evidence to support transitional species. Childish insults bring nothing to the conversation, and if you persist in responding with them, I will assume the conversation has reached a conclusion.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Sorry, Let me edit that so it reads as I meant it. >>>"Then provide me with a single example of a transitional species." Look in a mirror<<< He dare not answer the question.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I'm with you Dug. Jonvn has greatly diminished any credibility he had in scientific discussion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I understood where you were going, fodd. Thanks for the clarification. As I have said (on topic), I can never understand how people will make excessive demands on the veracity of other's evidence, then blithely maintain that their position is somehow above scrutiny.
Originally Posted By thenurmis "transitional species" I like that term, it sounds very skaterish. I like to skate pools there for I am a "transitional species". Back to the topic, the debate is far from finished. That is not to say that the truth is not known, but it is still debated here and on other forms world wide. mean while the climate continues it's path to a uncertain end. park your car and ride your skateboard to the bus stop, if you think it helps, I do.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I can't do skateboarding 'cause flowing blood is a hazardous material.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jon are you sayin that there is not "faith" in science?" If you are talking faith as in believing something is true regardless of evidence supporting or denying it, then no, there is not. "Faced with a legitimate and respectful question, he resorts to techniques that redirect the conversation" What exactly was your question again? You wanted a transitional species? Look in a mirror. You are a member of one. There is a great deal of information in the fossil record. So, you got your answer. "Then "you" must dismiss evolution, since there is no evidence to support transitional species." So I looked up this NONSENSE for you, and found this quote: "When Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and the claim that there was a lack of transitional fossils was perfectly reasonable; indeed, Darwin stressed in his work that this lack was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. However, the discovery of Archaeopteryx only two years later was seen as a triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown. It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight. Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species." So, yes, you have a great argument for the late 19th century. And it's not that I "dare not," it's that you got an answer. Look in a mirror. "Childish insults bring nothing to the conversation, and if you persist in responding with them, I will assume the conversation has reached a conclusion." The only thing childish is these ridiculous statements that science takes things on faith, or that evolution or global warming is a theory, or any other such idiocy. And idiocy it is. It shows a lack of understanding of science, and a lack of logical thought.
Originally Posted By jonvn OH, and here is more: A popular term to designate transitional forms with is "the missing link". The term is especially used in the regular media, but inaccurate and confusing. This is partly because it implies that there was a single link missing to complete the picture, which now has been discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil (more commonly known as "Lucy") is seen as a key transitional fossil. This information is all from wikipedia, which took 3 seconds to find. Here is more on the subject: This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. This is a very tentative list of vertebrate transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms. See the article on transitional fossils for an explanation of the difference with intermediate forms. Since all species are supposed to be in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. But the fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various vertebrate lines, and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase. Fish to Amphibians Tiktaalik roseae Osteolepis Eusthenopteron Panderichthys Elginerpeton Obruchevichthys Hynerpeton Tulerpeton Acanthostega Ichthyostega Pederpes finneyae Eryops Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles) Proterogyrinus Limnoscelis Tseajaia Solenodonsaurus Hylonomus Paleothyris Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals Protoclepsydrops Clepsydrops Dimetrodon Procynosuchus Diapsid reptiles to birds Yixianosaurus Pedopenna Archeopteryx Changchengornis Confuciusornis Ichthyornis Evolution of whales Pakicetus Ambulocetus Artiocetus Dorudon Basilosaurus Eurhinodelphis Mammalodon Evolution of the horse Hyracotherium Mesohippus Parahippus Merychippus Pliohippus Equus Non-human apes to modern humans Ardipithecus Australopithecus Homo rudolfensis Homo habilis Homo erectus OK? Take your nose out of your nitwit bible, and read something that has to do with reality.
