Tiktaalik: was the discovery of tiktaalik exclusive only to Evolution?

Gus Bovona said:
Not backing up what you offer with data or information, and making your interlocutor do find your information, is not part of the scientific attitude.
Click to expand...
Oh well then Gus.

I've posted you information....why not tell me what's wrong with the GPR images. Was it faked?
 
CrowCross said:
Oh well then Gus.

I've posted you information....why not tell me what's wrong with the GPR images. Was it faked?
Click to expand...
No, it was not faked. It is not a boat either, it is a rock formation that is vaguely shaped like a boat. See here for a lot more details.
 
rossum said:
No, it was not faked. It is not a boat either, it is a rock formation that is vaguely shaped like a boat. See here for a lot more details.
Click to expand...
You do know a rock formation will not using GPR....echo back those anomalies. Did you not see the GPR results? I did.

You do know the "vaguely" boat shaped "formation"....was the expected biblically mentioned size of the ark.

Your anti-bible source said..."The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide."....Actually? Is this a guess, speculation...or did they actually test the iron brackets that were discovered exactly where they were suppose to be for a boat?

I've been looking for the video that actually showed the team using the GPR...as I watch it once...but have not found it. I put up a post a little while back and searched CARM for it but forget if it was before the crash.

When I do find it I'll post it again...starting a new thread....but I also expect nothing more than non-scientific ridicule from the anti-bible, anti-God sect that post here.
I do understand that the discovery of the ark completely ruins your current religious faith. Which should be a good thing as then maybe you'll see the need for Jesus Christ and the great salvation He as to offer.
 
CrowCross said:
Oh well then Gus.

I've posted you information....why not tell me what's wrong with the GPR images. Was it faked?
Click to expand...
You did *not* post the information I was talking about: the paper they published, and the name of the archeologist.

Can you please do so, or at least say that you don't have that information?
 
CrowCross said:
You do know the "vaguely" boat shaped "formation"....was the expected biblically mentioned size of the ark.
Click to expand...
I know that it was not the Biblically mentioned size, it is wider than the dimensions given in Genesis. This is not the Ark you are looking for.

CrowCross said:
Your anti-bible source said..."The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide."
Click to expand...
Which is again evidence that this is not the Ark. The Ark was made of gopher wood, no iron is mentioned. This is not the Ark you are looking for.
 
Gus Bovona said:
You did *not* post the information I was talking about: the paper they published, and the name of the archeologist.

Can you please do so, or at least say that you don't have that information?
Click to expand...
I've said I don't have the information stored on my computer.
 
rossum said:
Not my problem. If you do not have a satisfactory definition of intelligence, then your idea of "New Intelligent Design" includes a word that you do not know the meaning of: "Intelligent". If you are unable to define that word, then you are unable to say what your own theory is about.

Instead of providing an explanation of the origin of intelligence, all you appear to be able to do is to ask for a definition, To me that indicates that your idea probably doesn't explain the origin of intelligence. That does not surprise me, since the standard Intelligent Design theory does not provide such an explanation either.
Click to expand...
You must define your term scientifically
 
The Pixie said:
I already gave you two predictions of evolution. I am not claiming evolution can predict everything - if you want to know next week's lottery numbers, you will have to look elsewhere I am afraid. But that is alright; science does not require that a theory can everything.

So where is your prediction, MrID?

You stated that your pet theory predicts Tiktaalik, and we are clear that this prediction is a necessary consequence of the theory. Why can you not show why Tiktaalik is a necessary consequence of your pet theory?

Because it is not - and you know it is not.

You made the claim, but when challenged to support it, you know you cannot, so you will spend a few posts trying to distract, before disappearing again for three months. This, ladies and gentleman, is creationism.
Click to expand...
Neil Shubin had claimed that he traced Tiktaalik by following a forensic-typed investigation, based on how an intelligent agent traced a crime. Thus, Neil Shubin did not use Evolution to trace Tiktaalik. He used intelligence.

Thus, intelligence is exclusively being used in tracing fossils, not Evolution.
 
rossum said:
It is you who need to define your terms if you want your ideas to be accepted as science. I am not putting forward a new paradigm; you are. Hence, it is up to you to define what it is you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I define terms correctly and realistically in science, that is why I am correct. How about you, what is intelligence?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I define terms correctly and realistically in science, that is why I am correct. How about you, what is intelligence?
Click to expand...
What is the origin of intelligence in your theory? The intelligent designer is, obviously, intelligent. What is the origin of that intelligence inherent in the Intelligent Designer?

Can a complex property, such as intelligence, form in the absence of design?

Consider your answer carefully, bearing in mind the basic premise of ID theory, that certain complex properties require design.

Remember, this is your theory, not mine, so you are the one who needs to define intelligence for your theory, not me. If I want to define intelligence I consult a dictionary.
 
rossum said:
What is the origin of intelligence in your theory? The intelligent designer is, obviously, intelligent. What is the origin of that intelligence inherent in the Intelligent Designer?

Can a complex property, such as intelligence, form in the absence of design?

Consider your answer carefully, bearing in mind the basic premise of ID theory, that certain complex properties require design.

Remember, this is your theory, not mine, so you are the one who needs to define intelligence for your theory, not me. If I want to define intelligence I consult a dictionary.
Click to expand...
My goodness, did I post about that there is no time? What time are you talking about?
 
rossum said:
What is the origin of intelligence in your theory? The intelligent designer is, obviously, intelligent. What is the origin of that intelligence inherent in the Intelligent Designer?

Can a complex property, such as intelligence, form in the absence of design?

Consider your answer carefully, bearing in mind the basic premise of ID theory, that certain complex properties require design.

Remember, this is your theory, not mine, so you are the one who needs to define intelligence for your theory, not me. If I want to define intelligence I consult a dictionary.
Click to expand...
It is not the scope of the new ID to know the origin of intelligence, since intelligence creates existence. Probably, at the same time with existence of reality.

No, complex is when non-intelligence is being used.
Again, complex design is for dumb or non-intel person/agent, for example, playing guitar is complex. But to those who plays guitar, it is not.

If you cannot define intelligence, stop or refrain from using that term.

(The other post is for the other thread.)
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
It is not the scope of the new ID to know the origin of intelligence, since intelligence creates existence.
Click to expand...
Ludicrous. If "intelligence creates existence" then you are in effect saying that intelligence exists before existence exists. That is obviously a very major logical error.

How can intelligence exist before existence?

Again, you are confirming that the scientific journals were correct to reject your ideas.
 
rossum said:
Tiktaalik was predicted. Early fish were known, and dated, with stumpy bone-stiffened fins. Dated later were very primitive amphibians with legs resembling those earlier stumpy fins.

Evolution predicted that some time between the date of the earlier fish and the date of the later amphibians we could find something transitional between the two. Ecology predicted that such a transitional would live in shallow water or low-lying waterlogged land.

Geology provided maps of rocks formed in shallow waters at about the predicted date. After a few years searching Tiktaalik fossils were found.

If Intelligent Design had predicted what rocks Tiktaalik or similar would be found in, I have not seen that prediction. If you have a reference to such a prediction, then could you please share it.
Click to expand...
But the legs and the fins were not transitional. What it is saying is the legs and fins were fully formed intentionally and not by random chance.
 
Nathan P said:
But the legs and the fins were not transitional.
Click to expand...
A particular group of fish have those stumpy fins. That same group of fish also contains lungfish. The group already has both bony stumps and lungs.

Nathan P said:
What it is saying is the legs and fins were fully formed intentionally and not by random chance.
Click to expand...
Have a look at a Coelacanth swimming. Specifically look at the front pair of fins. Those are fins, but those fins are on stumps. Those stumps have the equivalent of our humerus/femur where they meet the fish's body.

I await your evidence of any designer directly influencing the DNA of primitive fish at around the relevant time.
 
Nathan P said:
But the legs and the fins were not transitional. What it is saying is the legs and fins were fully formed intentionally and not by random chance.
Click to expand...
What would the characteristics of legs/fins - in terms of structure, genetics, geographical distribution, dating, what-have-you - have to be in order to qualify them as transitional?

ETA: Note that, if you accept the ID claim, we would *not* see those characteristics, but we would still be able to identify those characteristics, such that if we saw them, we'd know we had a transitional on our hands (even if we never see them). A bit like, if we saw a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rock, we'd know we had a problem with evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top