|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2003 : 08:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Johnny Cash was a pious fraud??
I'm going to put forth another pro-ID argument so I can see it get shot down and find out why it's wrong:
Bats and echolocation. Echolocation requires specialized vocal organs to produce high-pitched sounds, specialized ears to hear these sounds, and specialized brains to interpret the echoes of these sounds.
Without all of these things happening simultaneously, there's no advantage. Natural selection wouldn't allow these to evolve separately. |
 |
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 09:38:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Echolocation requires specialized vocal organs to produce high-pitched sounds, specialized ears to hear these sounds, and specialized brains to interpret the echoes of these sounds.
No, no and no.
QED
Specialized vocal organs, ears and brains will make the echolocation better, but it is possible even for a human to receive knowledge of her surroundings by making sounds and listen to the echo.
Echolocation has also evolved in some birds and whales.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 16:39:32 [Permalink]
|
Infamous,
Starman has highlighted the key points, but also let me add some more. First echolocation varies among bats quite dramatically with at least two key different ways of doing and various levels ranging from no echolocation to very good echolocation. The modern variation shows us that #1) echolocation evolved after flight #2) and highlights what some of the intermediate links may have been like.
A couple of things to consider about what an early flying proto bat without echolocation might have been like:
1. It would have been a small most likely diurnal flying insectivore
2. It would have had large movable ears to help detect predators.
3. It could already make some sort of sounds for communication and possibly to startle would be predators.
As birds and mammals continued to expand after the demise of the dinosaurs it would have found its current niche more and more crowded and more and more dangerous. Any movement to a new less crowded niche would have been a highly advantageous bonus.
Two such niches may have well presented themselves. Eating the juice out of big juicy fruits in the tropics and eating insects later and later in the day as the sun set.
Now for those that moved on to those insects at dusk any advantage that allowed them to be better at hunting, avoiding predators, mating/socializing, navigating, etc. would have been highly selected for. This would include improvement of hearing ability and sound producing ability. At some point bats could quite easily have developed a good enough echolocation ability from simple parts that they could start picking off big slow fat and juicy bugs. From there the sky or the echo would be the limit as a positive feedback loop would develop with bats becoming 1) ever and ever more reliant on echolocation and 2) better and better at the same.
quote:
Without all of these things happening simultaneously, there's no advantage. Natural selection wouldn't allow these to evolve separately.
If you read the link at the bottom you will notice that one genus of fruit bats (no other fruit bats have echolocation at all) has a primitive form of echolocation without all the whistles and bells. This is a perfect example of where we can falsify an ID claim by simply looking at modern diversity and this is often the case such as with eyes, flagellums, etc.
A decent link with an overview of bats:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/chordata/mammalia/chiroptera.html
Also R. Dawkins gives a great example of a scenario of the evolution of bat echolocation in The Blind Watchmaker (I think). |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 17:19:55 [Permalink]
|
| Infamous, the falacy of irreducible complexity is explained at great length in Dawkins newer book Climbing Mount Improbable which might be easier to find. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 07:21:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Infamous, the falacy of irreducible complexity is explained at great length in Dawkins newer book Climbing Mount Improbable which might be easier to find.
Outstanding book. Great recommendation. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 20:58:44 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to put forth another pro-ID argument so I can see it get shot down and find out why it's wrong:
Your argument is exactly correct. No need to assume it should be shot down. Regardless of the detail of evolutionist argument, it is simply smoke and mirrors. An evolutionist uses detailed biological or geological information about whatever subject of question you might bring forth. There is obviously truth in their information, but it is always coupled with their assumptions for the reason such a thing occurs. It is stated as if fact, though unproven. Their ability to mix true facts with subjective beliefs without designating the difference is evidence of their confused and unscientific thinking. A true scientist is much more objective when placing facts with supposition, as he or she is interested in finding the truth, not simply supporting a pet theory. That is not to say, it is wrong to hold to a particular theory, or even strongly believe it. It is, however, wrong to deny your belief when using it to interpret the facts, and then state that such supposition is fact, though unproven.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 21:43:03 [Permalink]
|
| Fine, put up or shut up...prove God exists. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2003 : 01:09:29 [Permalink]
|
The creationists' ability to mix subjective belief with subjective belief is evidence of their confused and unscientific thinking. A true scientist knows he/she most go beyond a relatively short message-board post to find the basis for the postulates used by other posters (or scientists), as he or she is interested in finding the truth, not simply supporting a pet theory.
Didn't you quit on page 8?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 02:06:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I'm going to put forth another pro-ID argument so I can see it get shot down and find out why it's wrong:
Your argument is exactly correct. No need to assume it should be shot down. Regardless of the detail of evolutionist argument, it is simply smoke and mirrors. An evolutionist uses detailed biological or geological information about whatever subject of question you might bring forth. There is obviously truth in their information, but it is always coupled with their assumptions for the reason such a thing occurs. It is stated as if fact, though unproven. Their ability to mix true facts with subjective beliefs without designating the difference is evidence of their confused and unscientific thinking. A true scientist is much more objective when placing facts with supposition, as he or she is interested in finding the truth, not simply supporting a pet theory. That is not to say, it is wrong to hold to a particular theory, or even strongly believe it. It is, however, wrong to deny your belief when using it to interpret the facts, and then state that such supposition is fact, though unproven.
That's the nice thing about ID arguments, they are easy to shoot down.
There is no need to prove how evolution of a trait happened. Just how it could have happened.
If you can't stand it...
...don't make the claim!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin [The Descent of Man]
(Edited to correct source of quote) |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 01/21/2003 08:46:33 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 11:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Fine, put up or shut up...prove God exists.
You mean to say you can prove He doesn't exist, Slater? That would mean you are claiming to have the attributes of God yourself, the ability to know all things, to see everywhere, to be everywhere. Somehow, I don't think you can prove that. Neither do I have to prove He does exist. I don't consider that is my job, nor do I think any one is capable of doing it. For you to believe there is no God simply makes you an atheist and believer in naturalism, it doesn't make you a scientist, nor lift you to any certain level of credibility. David, the Psalmist, did say, however, "The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one." Psalm 14
And Paul says in Romans 1:
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 11:17:03 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Starman
There is no need to prove how evolution of a trait happened. Just how it could have happened.
But when some scientists experiment on such supposition and consider the probabilities of such occurances, they conclude it could not have possibly happened...
This does not daunt evolutionist scientists, however, who don't hold to the outdated notion of the need to prove an idea. They just need to believe it.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 13:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
[quote]Originally posted by Starman
There is no need to prove how evolution of a trait happened. Just how it could have happened.
But when some scientists experiment on such supposition and consider the probabilities of such occurances, they conclude it could not have possibly happened...
This does not daunt evolutionist scientists, however, who don't hold to the outdated notion of the need to prove an idea. They just need to believe it.
Doomar your ability to try and drag the names of thousands of scientists through the mud is either outrageous or downright laughable. Also your ignorance of science and the fact that science never "proves" anything is extremely laughable. What an evolutionary biologists does is like any other scientists does, gather evidence, test hypothesis, validate theories by trying to falsify them, etc. Just because their findings go against your superstitions seems to have worked you up to the point of lying over and over again and never substantianting any of your claims.
Are you ever going to have anything of value to add to this discussion? Or are you simply going to continue to drag out the same old creationists quote after quote. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 13:26:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
David, the Psalmist, did say, however,
So what??? Who cares what some Hebrew wrote thousands of years ago other than in the interest of literature or history. People have wrote allot of things from the Quaran, to the Greek and Norse religions, to the Bible, to the I Ching. I see no reason to accept any of them as a sole guide to my life. I can however prove that good old David was wrong or a liar.quote:
There is none who does good.
I know of quite a few atheists who have done good.
So what it comes down to was David was a bigot full of hate and fear for those who didn't believe in his little fantasy of some sadistic god who would kill all of his enemies and reward him and his friends. You can quote verses all day from your perverse cult and all it will do to me is prove how foul some people can think.
Now back to the subject at hand, since you have decided not to quit this discussion, I am waiting for any examples of any hominid specimen proven false (other than Piltdown and Nebraska Man). Of the nearly 5,000 specimens of hominids ranging from Australopithecines to Homo sapiens back up your claim or admit your lie. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 13:59:52 [Permalink]
|
You mean to say you can prove He doesn't exist, Slater?
Sure, just bring him to my lab and we'll do tests that prove he's imaginary
That would mean you are claiming to have the attributes of God yourself, the ability to know all things, to see everywhere, to be everywhere.
I don't need them. You say that god is everywhere. It just so happens that I'm somewhere which is one of those somewheres that is part of everywhere. So if god is everywhere he must be here. Let me check, mmmm, no not under my desk, behind the computer? Aaaah…nope no gods back there…but I really must speak to the cleaning people. I'll check the coffee room, be right back.
No god in the coffee room either, but I put a fresh pot on.
So there is no god here which means, going by your own definition of god, there is no god.
By the bye, if as you claim that I need all these superpowers to know that there wasn't a god then you are admitting that you don't know that there is one. I certainly don't have to be Superman to know that anything else exists. And you aren't Superman either so you are admitting that you are lying about your knowing anything about any gods. Shame on you. You say there is a god so you are corrupt.
|
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 16:40:31 [Permalink]
|
Does anyone else think that this debate isn't going anywhere? Doomar though passinate about the topic, isn't really saying anything new. Jc is asking for evidence he knows he won't get, and Slater seems to be bored with this topic because he probably has heard it a million times. (To name a few)
It is just my opinion, but the creation vs evolution debate is in most parts useless. Is anyone going to change sides because of this debate? The two sides are just too far apart.
I guess the unsure readers might find it useful, but maybe it's time to agree to disagree. Any thoughts? |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
