|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Death of Darwinism
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I would think carefully before trying to 'debate' or 'stump' one of these pseuds as an amateur. Their strength actually lies in their use of rhetoric
debating creationists
It's much harder to refute nonsense than you think. I often deal with their historical equivalents who spraff nonsense about templars and holy grails. They can throw out pieces of nonsense off the cuff which would take a specialist hours of research to refute, because they don't care about making claims which have little or no evidential basis. The key seems to be to familiarise youself with what they are likely to come out with beforehand. I'm not sure what to recommend - have you thought of PM-ing Alan Cresswell to see if he has any ideas?
cheers,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
For practice, review the 25 Questions and Answers About the Atom Bomb to see what can be done with truth, half-truth, and slippery wording. Be prepared for this!
Explore his qualifications in geology - the key science in question. Can he explain how different kinds of rocks form? Igneous and metamorphic in particular.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I have all sorts of problems with the concept of debating publically with AiG type people. The last time I went to such an event I spent a couple of hours over lunch with one of the speakers discussing one particular issue in detail (that was about one aspect of 14C dating) and followed it up with an email exchange. In the public meeting there simply wouldn't have been a chance to do that.
I would go in with one point to make, and one point only. Don't go in to try and prove his science wrong (he'll almost certainly have ready answers for anything you can throw at him). I would go in with the intent of getting him (and, more importantly others) to recognise that YEC can't be held as a test of orthodox belief. Do some research, find some big name evangelicals (stick to them, you don't want to get sidetracked into are non-Evangelicals orthodox believers) who don't accept the YEC theory and ask if he thinks they are true believers.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do some research, find some big name evangelicals (stick to them, you don't want to get sidetracked into are non-Evangelicals orthodox believers) who don't accept the YEC theory and ask if he thinks they are true believers.
FWIW most Sydney Anglican evangelicals, Abp Peter Jensen included, are not YEC.
I consider most of the debate a sidetrack from talking about the gospel.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Louise has it. AiG are as slippery as an eel. Some professional creationists, like Kent Hovind, are even worse, firing out a series of quick soundbites that they claim disprove mainstream science, each taking a couple of seconds:
"Did you know that human blood proteins are closer to those of the butter bean than of the chimpanzee?"
and which would take several minutes - and documentary evidence - to refute. The trick here is that the creationists always do their talks to home audiences - who will accept their claims without any supporting evidence (because (a) they trust a fellow Christian and (b) they want to believe what he's telling them) but be extremely sceptical of evidence pointing the other way.
Case in point - I seem to recall that both Duane Gish and Kent Hovind have spouted the above piece of bullshit. Neither of them have ever managed to quote a source for it - hardly surprising, given that butter beans tend not to have blood at all. But how does the mainstream scientist, suddenly presented with a supposed fact like that, convince a hostile audience? He can't, and the creationist grins smugly.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The trick here is that the creationists always do their talks to home audiences - who will accept their claims without any supporting evidence (because (a) they trust a fellow Christian and (b) they want to believe what he's telling them) but be extremely sceptical of evidence pointing the other way.
Which is why I find it useless to argue science with them. If they presented their stuff at a scientific meeting they'd never get away with it - repeated "can you provide a reference for that?" without an adequate answer will ensure what little respect they may have started out with will quickly disappear. In most church environments there are simply not enough trained scientists to follow up adequately on such things, and most people would be simply bamboozled by scientific sounding language and reference to papers in the "Technical Journal". In that situation a single scientist tackling an issue of, relatively obscure, scientific data will appear as a lone crusader and most people will turn off as the conversation goes over their heads - that's why the last time I was at such a meeting I waited around after the morning session to tackle the speaker privately.
In a church environment I would be much more comfortable confronting them on theological issues. Which is why I suggested asking them why YEC is vital for Christian belief - you'll then be discussing Biblical texts and Christian doctrine which even though it won't change the speakers mind will at least be intelligable to a large number of others there. And, generally, AiG tends strongly towards YEC being an essential Christian belief; their site contains numerous "relevance of Creation" or "how to convince a Christian of the truth of Creation" type articles. On this issue, at least, I agree with Gordon, it's no more than a sidetrack, a peripheral issue on which Christians disagree (with the vast majority of Christians rejecting YEC).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Interestingly when I first became a Christian it was in the sort of environment where I thought I had to be a YEC to be a good Christian.
What changed my mind was going to one of those show debates. I came expecting to cheer the creationist (Gish or one of those), and ended up coming away thinking what an uncharitable bastard he was, and how slanted and indeed twisted his presentation was. That got me doing a little more research on the whole issue, which resulted in me ending up where I am today, firmly in the old earth evolutionist camp. The creationist, of course, "won" the debate -- there was no way he couldn't, as Alan has pointed out -- but lost the war!
So for any evolutionist thinking of doing such a debate: it's not as hopeless as it seems!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
A large part of the reason I stopped being a YECist was that so much of the evidence they presented was poor physics. Some wasn't and isn't. I'm still officially agnostic on YEC...
I had an e-mail debate recently with a YECist who is a lecturer in physics at a red brick British university, about radioactive dating and the nature of the Flood as described in Genesis, as it so happens.
It's a much better forum for doing stuff than up front - allows you to go away and try a few calculations for one thing. In this case, to demonstrate that the gaseous argon inclusions in the lava, while they might produce huge errors in recent rocks, made virtually no difference to the dating of older rocks. Simply seeing a prominent (and physics literate) YECist use an argument that was that easily dismantled made me doubt their position even more.
It's like those people who say the Bible is full of errors, and half the things they come up with are obviously not errors (like which women were are the cross). The fact they use such arguments strongly suggests they don't have better ones.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It's like those people who say the Bible is full of errors, and half the things they come up with are obviously not errors...
That means half the things they come up are errors, right. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Just out of curiosity, which are "obviously" biblical errors?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Just out of curiosity, which are "obviously" biblical errors?
Deuteronomy 14:7
quote:
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney.
Rabbits don't chew the cud. Nor do they have split hooves, so the error is interesting because it make no difference.
[ 16. May 2005, 18:43: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It simply means that the Jews meant something slightly different by "chewing the cud".
It is not necessarily immediately obvious that the others are spurious, but it usually becomes clear after a bit of reading of the relevant passages.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
It simply means that the Jews meant something slightly different by "chewing the cud".
Inerrancy is another Dead Horse...
But then, maybe Deuteronomy means something different by "hoof", too or any of these:
quote:
These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.
If the words don't mean what the words usually mean, the meaning of the passage is purely subjective.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The celebrated NT example (which caused Calvin, of all people, a certain amount of wry amusement) is the passage where St Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a prophecy made by Zechariah.
That's not fatal for the more nuanced form of inerrancy ("in matters of faith and morals") but it kills stone dead the view of inspiration that says the writers of sacred scripture were unfaillingly right about everything.
Which is a bit of a tangent from YEC vs Darwin debates which are essentially about genre. YEC says that Genesis is essentially the same sort of thing as a science text book. Those of us who accept the theory of evolution say that it is the same sort of thing as a parable or, more grandly, the Divine Comedy. The question is not: "Is Genesis true?" to which both sides baldly answer "yes". The question is: "Is Genesis a literal and factual account of the creation of the world" to which YECs answer "yes" and the rest of us say "no".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
And for those who are not sure, the passage is Matt 27 v 7-9 and its prophetic parallel is not in Jeremiah, but in Zec 11 v 12-13.
And, for good measure, there is a similar error in Mark 1 v 2-3. He attributes both verses to Isaiah, but verse 2 is Malachi 3 v 1.
And I entirely agree with Callan that although this strictly belongs in the Inerrancy Dead Horse, there is a close link to Death of Darwin thinking. It is the same mode of thinking which "must" devalue Darwin, which also "must" protect scripture from any accusation of inerrancy. Evidence points one way - belief another - so which wins? Depends on how much you really value truth.
Calling Londonderry for a view ......
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And then there's "He shall be called a Nazarene" which isn't in anything.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The proper tactic is, as was said, to attack on their theology. Don't get sidetracked in to science - and if they do, simply take a leaf out of their book & resort to gutter debating tactics. Role-play George Galloway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Making it clear what I meant by that. There's nothign wrong with seriously talking about science - but in the context of what sounds like a staged presentation to convince the half-convinced, where scientists are assumed to either be absent or, in a "debate", just present in order to be held up for mockery, there is probably little chance of any serious talking being heard.
It would be like trying to sell Pepsi at a convention of Coke salesmen.
So talk about Jesus, not butter-beans.
Though if someone does bring up butter-beans you could always point aout as condescendingly as possible that they don't have blood.
(They do have something very like haemoglobin though - just like all the other beans do - in their root nodules - part of the wonderfully complex nitrogen-fixing symbiosis which involves plant and bacteria genetically engineering each other...)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Omigod, I am surprised that I am surprised. It's so sad. What is this country coming to? It's nice to know that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon. Holy crap. (this is itself not a very intelligent post)
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Don't forget, this museum due to open in Cincinnati in 2007 ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Well, I'm back in one piece from the Answers in Genesis seminar. The speaker was taking up a 2 p.m. - 5 p.m. block of time this afternoon and about 7 - 9 p.m. this evening; I was only able (or willing) to be there from about 3:30 - 5:00, which was plenty. I got his presentation on the Flood and dinosaurs, and the Q&A session, where I asked two Q's.
At one point during his presentation he made the comment that no-one is unbiased, everyone looks through some pair of "glasses" (true enough) and that there are only two pairs of glasses -- the belief that God created everything just as it says in Genesis, and the evolutionary belief that excludes God. At least, I thought that was what he said. I tried to repeat it back to him during question time, adding that as I understood it there were lots of Christians who believed in God but also in evolution. He said that wasn't what he'd said exactly: when he rephrased his point this time, it came out that you could either believe in a worldview in which God was the Creator, or one in which there was no God. He admitted that if you believed God was the Creator, you could then believe in young-earth creationism or an old earth, but that he thinks that Christians who don't believe in YEC are not being logically consistent in their views. He also believes that such Christians' "compromise" with secular science is responsible for the fact that 75% of youth raised in evangelical homes and churches end up leaving the church (because the science they are taught in public school conflicts with the faith they are taught in church; he believes Creation Science can remedy this bit of cognitive dissonance and keep our kids in church). He did, however, say (without my specifically asking the question) that he does not believe that Christians who believe in evolution will be eternally lost. (Whew!)
Later, I asked him if he believed that just this planet had been created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, or did he believe our whole solar system, or the entire universe, was also created then? He said everything, the universe, the whole she-bang. I asked about the distance light travels, etc., and he responded with some technobabble I didn't understand. But I thought it was interesting that he was presenting this view in an SDA church in front of an audience that was just lapping it up, because while SDAs have traditionally been YECs, our theology has also always assumed the existence of the rest of the universe and of inhabited, unfallen worlds long before ours was created ... so I wonder if my asking that question created any questions in anyone's minds. Apparently AiG takes the same position as ICR ... no other life in the universe at all. He also said earth was the centre of the universe and he was going to demonstrate that in tonight's presentation -- not sure if he meant literally or metaphorically.
As always when I'm exposed to Creation Science, I find some of the theories and explanations (re the Flood etc) intriguing to my non-scientific mind, but the dogmaticism (and the attitude of contempt and ridicule for scientists who believe in evolution ... did not realize how bad that was until I saw it live) made me even less of a YEC than I was when I went in there.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Trudy, included in the many things I dont know is the meaning of SDA. I'm sure this must seem very ignorant but will you enlighten me please? (Or someone else).
Most technobabble by YEC about universal creation 6000 years ago is a variation on the "Adam's navel" argument. Adam didn't need a navel because of the way he was made, but most artists show him as having one, otherwise he would be a funny looking human being. So, the argument goes, the universe could have been created with an apparent history, based on natural appearances, because in God's creativity, it would have been incomplete without that appearance - just like a non-navelled Adam would have been incomplete. Throw in a bit of stuff about variations in the speed of light and there you go.
No one ever seems to tackle the issue of why God should have made such an apparently deceptive universe, not accessible to "plain meaning" interpretation, and still called it "good". "Ah, God's thoughts are not our thoughts" is as good as it gets. If you get another chance, try taking the moral highground on the deception issue! IME it has disconcerting effects.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
That's why Creation Science can't be science in any modern meaning of the word. If God can and does do things arbitrarily without apparent system then nothing can be deduced from scientific evidence. Things may work in one way now, but worked in another 6,000 years ago. The speed of light could have been faster, slower, or instantaneous at God's whim. He might have thought it a lark to put stones in the ground that looked like bones of animals that never existed. Whatever. God's mind is not our mind, so that should cover most bases. Why bother to think it out? In the Creationist's world pre-history is bunk.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trudy, included in the many things I dont know is the meaning of SDA.
Seventh Day Adventist
quote:
Most technobabble by YEC about universal creation 6000 years ago is a variation on the "Adam's navel" argument ... So, the argument goes, the universe could have been created with an apparent history, based on natural appearances, because in God's creativity, it would have been incomplete without that appearance
That is a valid argument. Scientifically it's not open to dispute. As you point out it does raise a number of theological questions about whether God would do something so deceptive and the like.
But, "Creation Science" doesn't hold such a position. All the "technobabble" about changing speed of light, radioactive decay rates etc. isn't saying "God created the universe with an appearance of age, and science is correct in how it describes the universe except that it can't tell the difference between an apparent age placed there by a perfect omnipotent Creator and an actual age", but that "God created the universe without an appearance of age, but that science has got it wrong in ascribing a great age to the universe on the basis of the evidence. Look at the evidence closely enough and you'll see that actually it points to a young universe"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Alan, thanks for the update. Your information is scary. So this is how creationist views have "developed" since I read them in detail a few years ago (and despaired). I'd better have a closer look at the more modern arguments then - at least the old "Adam's navel" variations had a little integrity, as you point out.
Trudy - two apologies. Firstly for not spotting SDA - its obvious now I see it. Secondly for misleading over the underlying basis for "creation science" today. Alan is (nearly) always right on these things.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
...Things may work in one way now, but worked in another 6,000 years ago. The speed of light could have been faster, slower, or instantaneous at God's whim....
Of course, in trashing science, they also trample theology ... how could a sane person worship such a capricious Diety?
But, this implicit theology usually conflicts with their official theology.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Of course, in trashing science, they also trample theology ... how could a sane person worship such a capricious Diety?
Clearly you haven't been reading the Calvinism thread in Purg?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Of course, in trashing science, they also trample theology ... how could a sane person worship such a capricious Diety?
Clearly you haven't been reading the Calvinism thread in Purg?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Just so agree, MT. I dont know whether to laugh or to cry, to scream or to pray. It's like nothing ever gets through.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
This is fascinating. Just thought I would serve it up for grist. Birds and Dinos are damn similar, folks.
Damn similar.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Birds and Dinos are damn similar, folks.
Um, yeah. That's been pretty much standard fare for at least 10 years now. Next you'll tell us Pluto isn't really a planet but a Kuiper body.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Birds and Dinos are damn similar, folks.
Um, yeah. That's been pretty much standard fare for at least 10 years now.
Yeah, but now it's not just similarities in bone structure telling us that. Plus, just the fact that there was soft tissue preserved for so long in a dinosaur fossil is fascinating. Go read the article.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Oh, its an interesting article, it just doesn't tell us anything about birde being dinosaurs, because we knew that already.
The idea that birds are dinosaurs is over 150 years old - Robert Owen promoted it IIRC. It was widely accepted in the 1970s. I remember it from classes at both school and university - I particualry remember the A-level lesson when the teacher explained the difference between a clade and a grade and pointed out that birds are more closely related to crocodiles than either are to any other living group. IIRC it was in JZ Young, the standard zoology textbook of the 1960s and 70s. It was certainly the general view among paleontologists by the late 80s. Not that that makes it true of course, but it does mean its hardly news.
I did a short palaeontology course in 1999/2000 and read quite a lot of the recent literature on this. It was already quite standard for books and papers to refer to "non-bird dinosaurs". Baby dinosaurs were routinely called "chicks". (I even heard the phrase "fluffy Tryannosaur chick" once) There was speculation that T. rex and similar were possibly secondarily flightless - descended from things like ostriches.
The real fossil action these days is coming from China. Little dinosaurs that probably lived in trees. With feathers. Very plausible relatives to supposed ancestors of modern birds.
An interesting speculation about eggs - it seems that dinosaur eggs had chalky shells like modern birds eggs do. And this is important to their calcium metabolism. This has been suggested as a reason why (as far as we know) there have never been any fully marine dinosaurs. They can't go viviparous and so they have to go back to land to breed. Lizards and snakes have returned to the sea at least three times, and mammals once or twice, never needing to go back to land at all. But not dinosaurs, including birds. (Or crocodiles either - its an archosaur thing)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Birds and Dinos are damn similar, folks.
Um, yeah. That's been pretty much standard fare for at least 10 years now.
Yeah, but now it's not just similarities in bone structure telling us that. Plus, just the fact that there was soft tissue preserved for so long in a dinosaur fossil is fascinating. Go read the article.
As JJ Said.
This is the "strongest ever link" showing birds and dinos are very closely related. The medullary bone discovery is new and only found in birds, according to the article.
The soft tissue thing simply blew my mind when it came out. Unbelievable.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Birds are not closely related to dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Birds are not closely related to dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs.
Ken, with all due respect, that birds evolved from dinosaurs does not mean that birds are dinosaurs.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Does if you are a cladist, so there!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Since I am not a cladist, I will stick with the qualifiers, like the paleontologists and other scientists in the various articles I have read.
But thanks.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
ken, does this mean I can call you an amoeba?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
May I ask what a cladist is?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kepler's Puppet
Shipmate
# 4011
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The soft tissue thing simply blew my mind when it came out. Unbelievable.
Me too, but sadly I first read about it in the print version of this.
--------------------
Most Likely Lurking
Posts: 1447 | From: Dixie Land | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Lo: All you ever wanted to know about clade analysis, mousethief.
Possibly more. How to become a cladist overnight in several thousand words.
However, Ken, assigning things to the same clade doesn't make identity; strictly speaking, one now has a clade requiring a name (bird/dinosaur/whatever-type clade) of which birds and dinosaurs would be seperate.... er....groups, or taxa or something.
(May have left myself a bit open at the end there.)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kepler's Puppet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The soft tissue thing simply blew my mind when it came out. Unbelievable.
Me too, but sadly I first read about it in the print version of this.
What's sad is that the response of Answers In Genesis is just a lame argument from incredulity that soft tissue could survive that long.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by Kepler's Puppet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The soft tissue thing simply blew my mind when it came out. Unbelievable.
Me too, but sadly I first read about it in the print version of this.
What's sad is that the response of Answers In Genesis is just a lame argument from incredulity that soft tissue could survive that long.
Just how long is the previous "record"?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Several soft tissue samples have been recovered from dinosaurs in the past, so several tens of millions of years, SS.
The only people who think this means it's not really millions of years old are people who desperately need it to mean that, regardless of the inconveniences of reality.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...
The real fossil action these days is coming from China. Little dinosaurs that probably lived in trees. With feathers. Very plausible relatives to supposed ancestors of modern birds.
An interesting speculation about eggs - it seems that dinosaur eggs had chalky shells like modern birds eggs do. And this is important to their calcium metabolism. This has been suggested as a reason why (as far as we know) there have never been any fully marine dinosaurs. They can't go viviparous and so they have to go back to land to breed. Lizards and snakes have returned to the sea at least three times, and mammals once or twice, never needing to go back to land at all. But not dinosaurs, including birds. (Or crocodiles either - its an archosaur thing)
The feathered fossils indeed make it quite conclusive that birds are direct descendents of (other!) dinosaurs.
So are you saying that even Mesozoic sea-crocodiles (e.g. Geosuchus) had to come onto land to lay eggs?
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
strictly speaking, one now has a clade requiring a name (bird/dinosaur/whatever-type clade) of which birds and dinosaurs would be seperate.... er....groups, or taxa or something.
(May have left myself a bit open at the end there.)
Very open - the bird clade (or possibly clades) is entirely included in dinosaurs, so if Dinosauria is a valid name it applies to all birds.
(Hey, I've actually read the international code on zoological nomenclature! It's not as good as the botanical one)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
ken, does this mean I can call you an amoeba?
Not an amoeba - way off in a different lineage - but you could make an argument for us all being colonial choanoflagellates.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
So are you saying that even Mesozoic sea-crocodiles (e.g. Geosuchus) had to come onto land to lay eggs?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Oops, that should have been Geosarus and the picture sems to answer my question, in that it came out of the sea at times!
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Continued from the Creationism thread in Purgatory.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
However, out of that enormous prestige has developed a scientific priesthood in positions of power and influence, whose pronouncements are treated as truly prophetic and almost godlike. Like all privileged priesthoods, those in positions of power and influence wish to continue in office – the perks are good and the glory is addictive.
In reality that means keeping the faithful dependent on their every word and discrediting any contrary voices, even when those voices wish to argue on scientific grounds. Let’s parse Rex Monday’s recent post to see how it is done.
So, on the one hand scientists are an unassailable godlike elite and therefore bad. On the other hand ID is science and therefore good. Rather neatly Faithful Sheepdog has encapsulated the duality of ID which on the one hand taps into anti-scientific sentiment. On the other hand it wishes also to borrow such prestige as science posesses for its theories. Of course, if ID is a scientific theory its proponents are scientists and therefore as much prone to elitism and delusions of grandeur as Dawkins et. al. but I'm sure the fact that ID theorists are such good Christians defends them from that temptation.
quote:
quote:
Rex Monday said:
They [ID ideas] are only debated within the narrow scope of ID supporters (who frequently exclude input from their critics). ID is neither exceptionally broad, nor does it have any particular approach. That's one of the very annoying things about it - it claims to be scientific but lacks a theory, does no research and has no predicative power.
If you could find a theory if ID, suggest a theme that could be researched or say what predictions ID makes -- all aspects of science -- then you'll be doing better than other ID proponents.
Note the character assassination and the broad brush slur. Apparently, ID supporters do not engage with their critics. They are clearly disreputable people whose ideas contain nothing of merit. And they certainly don’t do research and produce predictive hypotheses.
It is unclear whether Rex Monday has ever heard of John Davison’s Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, or Walter Remine’s Biotic Message Theory, or the research on the subject of Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis (EAM). These people thought they were doing scientific research and producing falsifiable scientific hypotheses, but no, the high priests and their acolytes say otherwise.
The three theses you cite sum up Rex's point admirably. Davison postulates that the evolutionary development of a species is somehow pre-ordained rather than determined by natural selection, an idea which can be simply dismissed by the two words "mass extinction". Remine's thesis is the subject of a laudatory review in Answers in Genesis. The final thesis, EAM appears to be nothing more than warmed over Lamarckism, a theory that has been consigned to the rubbish heap long ago.
quote:
quote:
Rex Monday said:
It's his consequent arguments, that this could therefore not have evolved, which are contentious - actually, plain wrong. But creationists (and I emphasise once again that IDers are indeed creationists, although you'll have to do better than I to find out whether they're YECs or another flavour. They *hate* answering that sort of question) either lack the wit to understand the fact that IC is not by itself creationism/ID, or deliberately confuse the two.
Here we just get vicious slurs against a whole class of people. Rex Monday cannot limit himself to saying that ID ideas are seriously mistaken. He has to confuse the whole ID issue with furthers ad hominem attacks on “creationists”. Note the standard tactic of guilt by association, not to mention a nice piece of emotional projection - it’s now “hate” when someone objects to misrepresentation.
The word 'hate' can be used in English with a variety of nuances from 'Hitler hated the Jews' to 'I hate Pumpkin soup'. I think Rex's use of the word in this context is as legitimate as the use of the phrase "vicious slurs against an entire class of people" which is rather more melodramatic than anything Rex has posted.
quote:
quote:
Rex Monday said:
You do know that Behe has said that the mechanism of ID is a puff-of-smoke miracle, don't you? And that Dembski has said that his maths is a distillation of the theology of John's gospel? "The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" (Touchstone, July/August 1999).
And here we get the pièce de resistance. It is the most blatant use of a double standards yet, and an excellent example of selective quote mining.
The YEC world has been rightly and heavily chastised for its use of selective quotations taken out of context. In this way an author can be made to appear to support a position to which he is in fact totally opposed. It is a widely condemned practice that is completely unethical, but not, it seems, in the hands of the high priesthood and their acolytes.
You’ll find that Behe’s comment about a “puff of smoke miracle” was made with a smile on his face and a twinkle in his eye. It was a deliberate wind-up of certain people, and he’s obviously succeeded. No doubt he was equally trying to wind people up when he wrote his book and the detailed scientific articles in response to his critics.
Dembski’s comment on logos theology reveals no more about the scientific merits of his ID work than did the comment of my A-level (British school exams at age 18) maths teacher, who termed a certain class of integrals as “Act of God” integrals. His religious viewpoint didn’t stop him teaching us the maths, nor me passing my A level. Dembski’s article about ID in the Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science makes his own position crystal clear.
Really, Neil, it is terribly disingenuous to complain that accusing Intelligent Design theorists of letting their religion drive their science is somehow the culmination of a vicious crescendo of hate. Intelligent Design is about putting God back into science, about arguing that the scientific method breaks down when we examine the mystery of life forcing us to acknowledge the existence of a creator. That is its central message, its raison d'etre. The Discovery Institute website, for example, contains all sorts of stuff about how Darwinism is ultimately subversive of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. This is another example of ID duality which wishes on the one hand to claim that it is objective and neutral science and, on the other, that it is protecting the morals of our children and servants from atheistic Darwinian evolutionists. Behe may have had a twinkle in his eye when he made his remark about a puff of smoke miracle but central to his thesis is the notion that there is a level of complexity which can only be explained by reference to supernatural intervention. I thought that was the point. The link you provided for Dembski comes courtesy of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The idea that ID is motivated by studied neutrality about religion is, frankly, rubbish. ID is a Christian enterprise designed (boom-boom) to get round American sentiments about the separation of Church and State and powered by anxiety about Darwinism being subversive of Christianity. Getting cross about it doesn't alter that fact in the slightest.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
Callan, I am frankly too ill to want to get heavily involved again on this subject, so I will limit myself to saying that you've clearly not understood anything about ID.
I'm not going to waste any more energy trying to educate you. Please feel free to remain in your ignorance.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
