So earnest in belittling God they'll make up anything.
Posted on 11/07/2014 2:43:53 PM PST by Alter Kaker
Researchers report that they've found the missing link between an ancient aquatic predator and its ancestors on land. Ichthyosaurs, the dolphin-like reptiles that lived in the sea during the time of the dinosaurs, evolved from terrestrial creatures that made their way back into the water over time.
But the fossil record for the lineage has been spotty, without a clear link between land-based reptiles and the aquatic ichthyosaurs scientists know came after. Now, researchers report in Nature that they've found that link — an amphibious ancestor of the swimming ichthyosaurs named Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.
"Many creationists have tried to portray ichthyosaurs as being contrary to evolution," said lead author Ryosuke Motani, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California Davis. "We knew based on their bone structure that they were reptiles, and that their ancestors lived on land at some time, but they were fully adapted to life in the water. So creationists would say, well, they couldn't have evolved from those reptiles, because where's the link?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I see. The allegory of Genesis over turns all the observations of the last 200 years which support evolution. Okay, I’ve got your position.
It is good to know that now we have someone who has solved the direct contradictions between classical physics theory and quantum mechanics. I see a Nobel prize in your future.
Bottom line is you know nothing about science. You are probably a lawyer but most likely a political hack.
Sett;ed “Science”...?? Gee more “Settled Fabrication”
“So earnest in belittling God they’ll make up anything.”
The lengths and depths ....that these people go to is truly astounding.
There is a difference between saying that some scientific questions have been settled and saying that all scientific questions have been settled. The germ theory of disease has been settled for instance. As has the existence of gravity, the heliocentric model and the existence of evolution.
There's plenty of stuff we still don't know, but pretending that we know nothing is idiotic.
Reading is fundamental. The article doesn't claim that ichthyosaurs are newly discovered, it states that we've discovered a transitional fossil that helps show how they evolved. Try again!
Thank you, well stated! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they would take their circular blinders off long enough to see reasonable points. Many have no idea that the basis for their reasoning is circular. They haven’t exercised reasonable doubt or any kind of questioning attitude about the theory that they seem to be so deeply invested in.
The first group and the majority (including a good portion of the non-scientific general public) fall under the fallacy of argumentum ad populum: "Every scientist believes it so it must be true". This is problematic from a number of standpoints. Firstly, there are plenty of scientists who reject the GToE in both its classical Darwinian slow-and-gradual form and the newer punctuated equilibrium ("hopeful moster") variety on grounds of plausibility, ergo, "part of an eye confers no benefit, and the probability of all of its constituent parts coming together all at once through purely random processes bends credulity to its breaking point." Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was among them. He didn't accept special creation but just punted by positing aliens as the source of life, which begs an obvious question. Secondly, most mainstream scientists come out of the current system, one which not only favors GToE but insists upon it. Young scientists cannot graduate without accepting established orthodoxy, at least outwardly.
The second group are the "lifers", those whose entire careers and reputations - indeed, the very core of their worldviews - are staked upon the naturalistic premise. They will not consider a supernatural origin because the supernatural component itself lies outside the bounds of observable science. In debates I have watched over the years, I have occasionally heard such proponents come to admit that, at the core, their belief is emotionally-grounded. They simply cannot have God in the equation and thus cloak themselves in what they call "science" as a sort of pseudo-religion with which to inoculate them. The one constant that they must retain is that of purely naturalistic origins. That must stand at any cost, even if it means accepting tautology, circular reasoning, logical fallacies.
Please don't ever be intimidated by their dazzling vernacular. At the core, it is still a lie built upon a false premise at the foundation.
You two guys! Your replies were as I expected. Minutes after I posted I noticed the error in my assumption since every mention on this thread was in regards to Ichthyosaurs and not even one mention of Cartorhynchus lenticarpus.
But I still stand by all of my statements that followed and you two, true to form, defend evolution by ‘straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel’ - iow evolutionists will often attack what ever they can find wrong or even create a strawman argument before they will ever entertain the debate of the main idea or focal point of the post [hint: in this case it was the theory of information put forth by Shannon].
So please by all means carry on swatting at the gnats while failing to notice all of the logical holes in your silly evolutionary assumptions - why it’s only the mere chance of a blissful blessed life eternal in paradise which hangs in the balance for you.
JimSEA you once previously encourage me to enroll in some beginner courses for geology and biology. Now would you please consider returning to you English fundamentals and show me where the language of Genesis presents as an allegory?
Better yet show me any other written text that even begins to compete with the uniqueness of the Holy Bible [hint: you can’t]. Even when taken as a purely history text it’s accuracy is without equal and I assure you it is much much more than a mere history text.
You two may like the idea of being a monkey’s uncle but I’d rather accept God’s Word as true and all of the promises that accompany this belief. After all to paraphrase Pascal what have I got to lose?
Amphibious=”relating to, living in, or suited for both land and water.”
That’s why we are called Marines, Soldiers of the SEA.
Ooorah!
Do you agree with them that the supernatural component lies outside the bounds of observable science? Or do you think that the supernatural can somehow be observed and tested?
Other than thanking you for your service I have no idea where to go with that :)
You’re welcome I’m sure.
Just doing my duty.
Teas brillig..
So define *supernatural*.
If it's dependent on being observable, then what do you do with the thought processes that you use to arrive at your conclusions?
Who's observed a thought lately?
What about emotions? Are they supernatural because they can't be observed?
Gravity waves?
Light waves?
Electrons?
Who's seen those lately?
Teach the controversy? I think that Genisis is allegorical because there is no factual basis to it. There is a great deal of factual evidence to the theory of evolution. There is indisputable evidence for the geological theories of gradualism, deep time and plate tectonics.
Your own particular version of a supernatural component, I imagine. But whatever you mean by it: let's say scientists do presuppose that. What are they supposed to do with that presupposition? How does it change their practice of science, or their reporting of their findings? Should they stop looking for an all-natural explanation at some point? How do they know where? Or do they keep looking and reporting but just make sure to mention God at some point in their papers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.