IDCers see evolution's willingness to learn and constant progress as a sign of weakness, flipfloppery and intellectual bankruptcy.
I have, quite recently, observed a creationist state that humans should not attempt to learn how the universe works, and that God did not give humans brains for that purpose.
Having viewed your posting history, I now recognize you as a frequent poster to Evolution discussions. You have made a habit of posting demonstratably false information, and then refusing to respond when your claims are exposed as ill-informed or total fabrications. This does not speak well of your credibility.
So are you trying to say that eyewitness accounts cannot be scientific, or are you trying to say that eyewitness accounts cannot be true?
I am saying that eyewitness accounts cannot be scientific, nor can they be considered as reliable as empirical observations that can be reproduced by any individual.
No - exactly like religion, and they have a book of eye witness accounts to back up their answers.
Eyewitness accounts -- or unsubstantiated claims of eyewitness accounts -- cannot be objectively evaluated. Empirical observations can be objectively evaluated. There is a key difference.
It would appear that the creationist site to which you linked -- like many other creationists sites that I have seen with commentary on the subject -- has taken selective phrases from various articles wherein similarities to currently existing waterfowl are described, and using those out-of-context partial descriptions to claim that the find is identical to that of a contemporary duck.
It appears to be another case of creationist quote-mining.
The article throws out a date of 110 million years. It should be noted that carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and should be fully decayed in ancient fossils. However small quantities of C-14 that has not fully decayed are still found in ancient fossils.
Where is it stated that Carbon-14 dating was used to derive the age of the fossil? The article makes no mention of it; presumably a different dating technique was used that does not have the same limitations as Carbon-14 dating. It would appear that your commentary is a non-sequitur.
Often evolutionists choose the dating technique that fits the picture they have in their minds. For example, 200 year old lava flows have been dated to be 3 billion years old by the potassium-argon dating method.
Making your theory fit with recorded data is a good way to come up with it, but at some point you need to make a prediction about an unknown outcome and see if that matches.
Evolution has already met this criteria. Evolution has been used to make successful predictions regarding findings in the fossil record and in DNA fragments spread across related species. The search that yeilded Tikilak was based upon a prediction from the theory of evolution; scientists predicted the geographic region in which the specimen was located before it was found.
While I disagree with the content of this article, I request that it be modded down not for content, but for plagarism. The poster if this article has copied it verbatim from an article written by Gene Edward Veith. Note that that Jay9333 offers no attribution to the author of this article. This level of dishonesty and intellectual theft does not deserve further mod points.
You mean how pretty much every pc I've seen that comes with windows on it is by default and how XP home installs and sets up the first (and usually only) user by default, meaning that pretty much every windows user with no technical knowledge or concern will be really adversely affected?
I never claimed that Microsoft's default setup options were intelligent or consistent with their security model.
Is this an exploit that somehow grants malicious code access privledges even beyond the user's access level, or does this simply allow execution of arbitrary code at the access level of the user who is running Word?
If it is the former, then it's a very serious flaw. If it's the latter, then it's a serious flaw, but one that will only really adversely affect people stupid enough to run as Administrator all the time, despite Microsoft's own warning against such idiotic practices.
If it is the latter, then I have further justification to use against the users who have complained about using their Administrator privledges.
The Intelligent Design concept of irreducible complexity would be how you falsify Darwinism. But that isn't science, so Darwinism must not be either.
This is a false dichotomy. There exist falsification criteria for common descent that are not dependent upon Intelligent Design being scientific. Locating Precambrian mammal fossils would falsify evolution. Discovering a transposon that exists in whales and cows but not in hippos would falsify intelligent design.
You had a situation where you could do five minutes of work and be paid $240 for it, but you cut people off because they did not space their support calls in such a way so that you would do more work for the same money?
That's what channel surfing is for, just hope around to different stations until the ad is over, unless the lack of control functionality prevents this.
Actually, the article indicates that inhibiting channel switching during advertisements is covered by the patent.
I believe that the distinction is implied in their claims. "Micro-evolution" refers to any extent of evolution that has been observed thus far. "Macro-evolution" refers to an extent of evolution thus far not observed.
It's people like so many here on slashdot that take every evolutionary discovery and try to use to beat Christians over the head saying, "See, ID people are stoopid".
How is an attack against promoters of ID an attack on Christians? ID proponents have repeatedly stated that ID is not Christianity.
The fossil "Nebraska Man" is found. Scientifically built up from a single tooth, 44 years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a pig.
You are obviously misinformed regarding the history of the Nebraska Man find. It was located in 1922, but even the man who found it and originally believed it to be a hominid tooth expressed doubts by 1925, and it was well-known to be a pig's tooth in 1928. That is not a 44-year time span, as you claim. That you are so misinformed on the subject suggests that you have not done any serious research in the study of human origins and the related hominid fossil finds.
News flash 1912: Missing Link Found
The fossil "Piltdown Man" is found. Remains claimed to be 500,000 years old. Cited for decades as proof of evolution. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written. In 1956 the hoax was revealed. Scientifically built up from a jawbone, it was found that the jawbone belonged to a modem ape.
This again demonstrates a lack of research. It is true that Piltdown Man was a hoax, and it did take some time to expose it, but that is because very few scientists were allowed to examine the find until the mid 1950s. Moreover, it appears as though you are drawing research from known creationist falsehoods. I have attempted to locate even a fraction of the "over 500 doctoral dissertations" written on Piltdown man, yet not one creationist who has made the claim has been able to reference a single one. In fact, I have discovered that there were very likely no dissertations written on the subject at all (please feel free to correct me if you have a reference to an actual doctoral dissertation).
News flash ~1900: Missing Link Found
The fossil "Neanderthal Man" is found. Over 40 years later it was discovered that the skeleton was from an old man that suffered from severe arthritis.
This claim is also false. It appears that you are obtaining information from either Kent Hovind or Jack Chick. Neither are a reliable source of information on the subject of evolution.
"New Guinea Man" turned out to be from 1970
New Guinea Man is approximately 5000 years old, and was never believed to be anything other than a modern human. It has never been presented as a transitional form.
"Peking Man" claimed to be 500,00 years old and all evidence disappeared
It appears obvious now that you have taken your information from Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract. You should be aware that Big Daddy is filled with factual errors and blatant misrepresentations, and constructing an argument based upon the information found in that tract will not yeild a convincing case. Information based upon Peking Man that is not a complete fabrication can be found here.
I have heard at least one creationist claim that such mutation is not an example of evolution. Their reasoning is that evolution requires beneficial mutations, and that mutations of pathogens that enable them to better infect humans are not beneficial to us.
Because your post was a reply to me and it said...
No, it was a reply to another who asked what relevance the existence of one or two frauds has to the vast amounts of real, non-fraudulent evidence. I was providing an anecdotal explanation from a situation where another creationist claimed that the existence of even one fraud conclusively disproved evolution.
You want references to textbook and articles that taught Nebraska Man? One textbook is "Fossil Men: A Textbook of Human Palaeontology" 1957.
Why do you believe that this reference is a source that supports your claim? It does not. The textbook that you reference published a story about how Nebraska Man was a mistaken find based upon a pig's tooth. It did not, as you claim, present Nebraska Man as a legitimate find with pictures of what Nebraska Man looked like.
The truth be told, it was in *all* the textbooks at the time of the Scopes trial and the judge was even questioned as to whether or not it should be admitted as evidence. He declined because the trial was not supposed to be about whether evolution was true or not, but what a particular teacher has taught in a particular classroom.
Articles were published in Scientific American, The NY Times, and the French L'Anthropologie.
You claimed that articles were written describing "how Nebraska man lived". These articles did nothing of the sort. The articles in the respective publications specifically stated that the find was a pig tooth. This contradicts your previous claim.
Simply denying that fraud was perpetrated by evolutionists does not make it go away.
Nebraska Man was not a fraud. It was speculation on a find that did not pan out. There was never any deliberate attempt at deception involved. Even the man who found the tooth acknowledged skepticism regarding whether or not it was a hominid. Repeatedly claiming that Nebraska Man was a fraud only demonstrates that you are not only not misinformed regarding the situation, but that you are willfully passing on misinformation even after you have been corrected on the subject.
Nor that it has been perpetrated again and again in order to promote a *belief* that is as much as religion as any other.
Evolution is a theory supported by evidence. Citing one mistaken find and inaccurately calling it fraud does not make it a religious belief.
There's Orce Man, the Piltdown Skull, and Java man to name just a few.
Piltdown Man was a hoax that made no sense in light of legitimate hominid finds. It represents fraud committed by one individual or a small group of individuals, not of researches of evolution as a whole. Java Man was not a fraud, and only creationists claim that it was. Ocre Man is not a fraud.
Evolutionists have never had a problem with fraud so long as it gets them to the conclusion they want.
Thus far you have cited exactly one incident of fraud. Nebraska Man was not fraud, and was of no significance. Only creationists claim that Nebraska Man is anything more than a footnote in the history of homonid research. Thus far all actual frauds -- two -- have been exposed by other researchers working in the field, not by creation scientists.
I asked you to provide references to textbooks and articles that made the claims you attributed regarding Nebraska Man, and thus far you have not done so. The "Missing Day" reference relates to an earlier discussion with a different individual on a different forum. I do not see how you could possibly have thought that I was referring to you when I related that incident.
That's evident by looking dogs, or horses, etc... I think what I'm looking for is an actual instance where we can show that a species mutated in such way that we would begin to classify it differently.
Slashdot Mirror
There exists absolutely no information that I can find that corroborates your claim.
IDCers see evolution's willingness to learn and constant progress as a sign of weakness, flipfloppery and intellectual bankruptcy.
I have, quite recently, observed a creationist state that humans should not attempt to learn how the universe works, and that God did not give humans brains for that purpose.
In fact, the creationist's exact quote is "God didn't give us brains to bother about how the world works; he told us all we need to know about how the world works and we venture into that area on our own, and often to our great detriment."
I believe that this statement reveals a great deal regarding the educational values and motives of creationists.
Having viewed your posting history, I now recognize you as a frequent poster to Evolution discussions. You have made a habit of posting demonstratably false information, and then refusing to respond when your claims are exposed as ill-informed or total fabrications. This does not speak well of your credibility.
So are you trying to say that eyewitness accounts cannot be scientific, or are you trying to say that eyewitness accounts cannot be true?
I am saying that eyewitness accounts cannot be scientific, nor can they be considered as reliable as empirical observations that can be reproduced by any individual.
No - exactly like religion, and they have a book of eye witness accounts to back up their answers.
Eyewitness accounts -- or unsubstantiated claims of eyewitness accounts -- cannot be objectively evaluated. Empirical observations can be objectively evaluated. There is a key difference.
It would appear that the creationist site to which you linked -- like many other creationists sites that I have seen with commentary on the subject -- has taken selective phrases from various articles wherein similarities to currently existing waterfowl are described, and using those out-of-context partial descriptions to claim that the find is identical to that of a contemporary duck.
It appears to be another case of creationist quote-mining.
The article throws out a date of 110 million years. It should be noted that carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and should be fully decayed in ancient fossils. However small quantities of C-14 that has not fully decayed are still found in ancient fossils.
Where is it stated that Carbon-14 dating was used to derive the age of the fossil? The article makes no mention of it; presumably a different dating technique was used that does not have the same limitations as Carbon-14 dating. It would appear that your commentary is a non-sequitur.
Often evolutionists choose the dating technique that fits the picture they have in their minds. For example, 200 year old lava flows have been dated to be 3 billion years old by the potassium-argon dating method.
This is another example of creationists distorting facts
Making your theory fit with recorded data is a good way to come up with it, but at some point you need to make a prediction about an unknown outcome and see if that matches.
Evolution has already met this criteria. Evolution has been used to make successful predictions regarding findings in the fossil record and in DNA fragments spread across related species. The search that yeilded Tikilak was based upon a prediction from the theory of evolution; scientists predicted the geographic region in which the specimen was located before it was found.
While I disagree with the content of this article, I request that it be modded down not for content, but for plagarism. The poster if this article has copied it verbatim from an article written by Gene Edward Veith. Note that that Jay9333 offers no attribution to the author of this article. This level of dishonesty and intellectual theft does not deserve further mod points.
If we save 100 lives and your dad can't shoot deer, then tough shit, he should deal with it and get another hobby.
Indeed. Of course, you will need to justify your "100 lives" statistic for your statement to have any real meaning.
What is the relevance of your question to the original statement?
You mean how pretty much every pc I've seen that comes with windows on it is by default and how XP home installs and sets up the first (and usually only) user by default, meaning that pretty much every windows user with no technical knowledge or concern will be really adversely affected?
I never claimed that Microsoft's default setup options were intelligent or consistent with their security model.
Is this an exploit that somehow grants malicious code access privledges even beyond the user's access level, or does this simply allow execution of arbitrary code at the access level of the user who is running Word?
If it is the former, then it's a very serious flaw. If it's the latter, then it's a serious flaw, but one that will only really adversely affect people stupid enough to run as Administrator all the time, despite Microsoft's own warning against such idiotic practices.
If it is the latter, then I have further justification to use against the users who have complained about using their Administrator privledges.
The Intelligent Design concept of irreducible complexity would be how you falsify Darwinism. But that isn't science, so Darwinism must not be either.
This is a false dichotomy. There exist falsification criteria for common descent that are not dependent upon Intelligent Design being scientific. Locating Precambrian mammal fossils would falsify evolution. Discovering a transposon that exists in whales and cows but not in hippos would falsify intelligent design.
Diebold will of course now hem, haw, blame others, attack the media and anti-electronic voting groups, and reluctantly fix the problem.
You are optimistic in believing that they will fix the problem.
You had a situation where you could do five minutes of work and be paid $240 for it, but you cut people off because they did not space their support calls in such a way so that you would do more work for the same money?
That's what channel surfing is for, just hope around to different stations until the ad is over, unless the lack of control functionality prevents this.
Actually, the article indicates that inhibiting channel switching during advertisements is covered by the patent.
Whoever thought up this idea should be killed.
I believe that the distinction is implied in their claims. "Micro-evolution" refers to any extent of evolution that has been observed thus far. "Macro-evolution" refers to an extent of evolution thus far not observed.
It's people like so many here on slashdot that take every evolutionary discovery and try to use to beat Christians over the head saying, "See, ID people are stoopid".
How is an attack against promoters of ID an attack on Christians? ID proponents have repeatedly stated that ID is not Christianity.
The fossil "Nebraska Man" is found. Scientifically built up from a single tooth, 44 years later it was found that the tooth belonged to a pig.
You are obviously misinformed regarding the history of the Nebraska Man find. It was located in 1922, but even the man who found it and originally believed it to be a hominid tooth expressed doubts by 1925, and it was well-known to be a pig's tooth in 1928. That is not a 44-year time span, as you claim. That you are so misinformed on the subject suggests that you have not done any serious research in the study of human origins and the related hominid fossil finds.
News flash 1912: Missing Link Found
The fossil "Piltdown Man" is found. Remains claimed to be 500,000 years old. Cited for decades as proof of evolution. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written. In 1956 the hoax was revealed. Scientifically built up from a jawbone, it was found that the jawbone belonged to a modem ape.
This again demonstrates a lack of research. It is true that Piltdown Man was a hoax, and it did take some time to expose it, but that is because very few scientists were allowed to examine the find until the mid 1950s. Moreover, it appears as though you are drawing research from known creationist falsehoods. I have attempted to locate even a fraction of the "over 500 doctoral dissertations" written on Piltdown man, yet not one creationist who has made the claim has been able to reference a single one. In fact, I have discovered that there were very likely no dissertations written on the subject at all (please feel free to correct me if you have a reference to an actual doctoral dissertation).
News flash ~1900: Missing Link Found
The fossil "Neanderthal Man" is found. Over 40 years later it was discovered that the skeleton was from an old man that suffered from severe arthritis.
This is completely false. No mainstream researcher has drawn such a conclusion.
"Lucy" turned out to be a chimpanzee
This claim is also false. It appears that you are obtaining information from either Kent Hovind or Jack Chick. Neither are a reliable source of information on the subject of evolution.
"New Guinea Man" turned out to be from 1970
New Guinea Man is approximately 5000 years old, and was never believed to be anything other than a modern human. It has never been presented as a transitional form.
"Peking Man" claimed to be 500,00 years old and all evidence disappeared
It appears obvious now that you have taken your information from Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract. You should be aware that Big Daddy is filled with factual errors and blatant misrepresentations, and constructing an argument based upon the information found in that tract will not yeild a convincing case. Information based upon Peking Man that is not a complete fabrication can be found here.
I have heard at least one creationist claim that such mutation is not an example of evolution. Their reasoning is that evolution requires beneficial mutations, and that mutations of pathogens that enable them to better infect humans are not beneficial to us.
Because your post was a reply to me and it said...
No, it was a reply to another who asked what relevance the existence of one or two frauds has to the vast amounts of real, non-fraudulent evidence. I was providing an anecdotal explanation from a situation where another creationist claimed that the existence of even one fraud conclusively disproved evolution.
You want references to textbook and articles that taught Nebraska Man? One textbook is "Fossil Men: A Textbook of Human Palaeontology" 1957.
Why do you believe that this reference is a source that supports your claim? It does not. The textbook that you reference published a story about how Nebraska Man was a mistaken find based upon a pig's tooth. It did not, as you claim, present Nebraska Man as a legitimate find with pictures of what Nebraska Man looked like.
The truth be told, it was in *all* the textbooks at the time of the Scopes trial and the judge was even questioned as to whether or not it should be admitted as evidence. He declined because the trial was not supposed to be about whether evolution was true or not, but what a particular teacher has taught in a particular classroom.
You again appear misinformed regarding the facts.
Articles were published in Scientific American, The NY Times, and the French L'Anthropologie.
You claimed that articles were written describing "how Nebraska man lived". These articles did nothing of the sort. The articles in the respective publications specifically stated that the find was a pig tooth. This contradicts your previous claim.
Simply denying that fraud was perpetrated by evolutionists does not make it go away.
Nebraska Man was not a fraud. It was speculation on a find that did not pan out. There was never any deliberate attempt at deception involved. Even the man who found the tooth acknowledged skepticism regarding whether or not it was a hominid. Repeatedly claiming that Nebraska Man was a fraud only demonstrates that you are not only not misinformed regarding the situation, but that you are willfully passing on misinformation even after you have been corrected on the subject.
Nor that it has been perpetrated again and again in order to promote a *belief* that is as much as religion as any other.
Evolution is a theory supported by evidence. Citing one mistaken find and inaccurately calling it fraud does not make it a religious belief.
There's Orce Man, the Piltdown Skull, and Java man to name just a few.
Piltdown Man was a hoax that made no sense in light of legitimate hominid finds. It represents fraud committed by one individual or a small group of individuals, not of researches of evolution as a whole. Java Man was not a fraud, and only creationists claim that it was. Ocre Man is not a fraud.
Evolutionists have never had a problem with fraud so long as it gets them to the conclusion they want.
Thus far you have cited exactly one incident of fraud. Nebraska Man was not fraud, and was of no significance. Only creationists claim that Nebraska Man is anything more than a footnote in the history of homonid research. Thus far all actual frauds -- two -- have been exposed by other researchers working in the field, not by creation scientists.
I asked you to provide references to textbooks and articles that made the claims you attributed regarding Nebraska Man, and thus far you have not done so. The "Missing Day" reference relates to an earlier discussion with a different individual on a different forum. I do not see how you could possibly have thought that I was referring to you when I related that incident.
That's evident by looking dogs, or horses, etc... I think what I'm looking for is an actual instance where we can show that a species mutated in such way that we would begin to classify it differently.
So you are seeking Observed Instances of Speciation?