Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep

New Dinosaur Species Found in India
2 hours, 55 minutes ago
Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM, Associated Press Writer

BOMBAY, India - U.S. and Indian scientists said Wednesday they have discovered a new carnivorous dinosaur species in India after finding bones in the western part of the country.

Photo
AP Photo


Missed Tech Tuesday?
Check out the powerful new PDA crop, plus the best buys for any budget


The new dinosaur species was named Rajasaurus narmadensis, or "Regal reptile from the Narmada," after the Narmada River region where the bones were found.

The dinosaurs were between 25-30 feet long, had a horn above their skulls, were relatively heavy and walked on two legs, scientists said. They preyed on long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs on the Indian subcontinent during the Cretaceous Period at the end of the dinosaur age, 65 million years ago.

"It's fabulous to be able to see this dinosaur which lived as the age of dinosaurs came to a close," said Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. "It was a significant predator that was related to species on continental Africa, Madagascar and South America."

Working with Indian scientists, Sereno and paleontologist Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan reconstructed the dinosaur skull in a project funded partly by the National Geographic (news - web sites) Society.

A model of the assembled skull was presented Wednesday by the American scientists to their counterparts from Punjab University in northern India and the Geological Survey of India during a Bombay news conference.

Scientists said they hope the discovery will help explain the extinction of the dinosaurs and the shifting of the continents — how India separated from Africa, Madagascar, Australia and Antarctica and collided with Asia.

The dinosaur bones were discovered during the past 18 years by Indian scientists Suresh Srivastava of the Geological Survey of India and Ashok Sahni, a paleontologist at Punjab University.

When the bones were examined, "we realized we had a partial skeleton of an undiscovered species," Sereno said.

The scientists said they believe the Rajasaurus roamed the Southern Hemisphere land masses of present-day Madagascar, Africa and South America.

"People don't realize dinosaurs are the only large-bodied animal that lived, evolved and died at a time when all continents were united," Sereno said.

The cause of the dinosaurs' extinction is still debated by scientists. The Rajasaurus discovery may provide crucial clues, Sereno said.

India has seen quite a few paleontological discoveries recently.

In 1997, villagers discovered about 300 fossilized dinosaur eggs in Pisdura, 440 miles northeast of Bombay, that Indian scientists said were laid by four-legged, long-necked vegetarian creatures.

Indian scientists said the dinosaur embryos in the eggs may have suffocated during volcanic eruptions.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acanthostega; antarctica; australia; catastrophism; crevolist; dino; dinosaurs; godsgravesglyphs; ichthyostega; india; madagascar; narmadabasin; narmadensis; paleontology; rajasaurus; rino
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,701-1,7501,751-1,8001,801-1,850 ... 3,101-3,129 next last
To: DittoJed2
Archie is classified as a bird. It wasn't my idea he be called a bird. Something about the feathers and lungs and lack of an embyonic thumbs, wishbone, and littletuff like that made him a bird.

Fallacy of argument from semantics. You have a scoop on Archy's lungs. Such soft tissue has not been preserved anywhere among the seven or so specimens. You also have a scoop on his embryonic development. At least, I've encountered no commentary on any such. You seem tired, cranky, and need to go to bed.

Yes, Archy is mostly classified as a bird. It nevertheless has far, far more reptilian features than any modern bird, including the hoatzin, ostrich, and penguin combined.

Dromaeosaurid Archaeopteryx.

It's meaningless to try to make this go away by screaming "It was classified as a BIRD!"

That's mainly a historical accident. At the time it was found, feathers were considered diagnostic of birds. That has since proved indefensible and has been abandoned, another instance of science "changing its story."

Again and again, you see things not-so-related now looking more and more related as you go back in time (down in the sediments). Birds and dinos are just one example.

This web page gives more such and explains the fallacy of arguing from arbitrary classification schemes back to reality.

Here, for instance:

Thus, the different perissodactyl groups can be traced back to a group of very similar small generalized ungulates (Radinsky, 1979; Prothero, et al., 1989; Prothero & Schoch, 1989) (Fig. 8). But this is not all; the most primitive ungulates (hoofed mammals) are the condylarths, which are assemblages of forms transitional in character between the insectivores and true ungulates (Fig. 9). Some genera and families of the condylarths had been previously assigned to the Insectivora, Carnivora, and even Primates (Romer, 1966). Thus, the farther you go back in the fossil record, the more difficult it is to place species in their "correct" higher taxonomic group. The boundaries of taxa become blurred.
And here:

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.
The kind of thing you're wishing away here is all over the place. All over!

Creation Science is the science of "You can't make me see!" It's the science of "Maybe we can get the evidence thrown out!"

1,751 posted on 08/20/2003 8:09:54 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1747 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Well, I wouldn't say tr*ll. (Consider your wrist slapped.)

Just the latest seminar cutter-paster. We'll have the entire AiG site linked in before much longer.

1,752 posted on 08/20/2003 8:17:17 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1749 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
And why run a sewer through a recreational area?
1,753 posted on 08/20/2003 8:18:40 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1729 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You seem tired, cranky, and need to go to bed.
I'm not cranky. I'm amused.
1,754 posted on 08/20/2003 8:34:03 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1751 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Archie's lungs are discussed http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp
1,755 posted on 08/20/2003 8:41:22 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1751 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
and I can't believe she is casting her pearls before swine. I guess maybe it's because she cares, which is more than you do I'd wager.
1,756 posted on 08/20/2003 8:41:28 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1749 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1357.asp
This is about embryonic thumbs. I remembered it wrong as relating to Archie, but not as to dino-bird transitions.
1,757 posted on 08/20/2003 8:44:46 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1751 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
I'm enjoying the debate tonight. How did you like my P. Rex? (post 1743)
1,758 posted on 08/20/2003 8:46:48 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1756 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I loved it. I got a good chuckle.
1,759 posted on 08/20/2003 8:48:02 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1758 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
Thank you! Gave it a latin sounding name too. That makes it sound authoritative!
1,760 posted on 08/20/2003 8:49:22 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1759 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
LOL the latin nailed it.
1,761 posted on 08/20/2003 8:50:20 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (returned) (If history has shown us anything, labeling ignorance science, proves scripture correct)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1760 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Why isn't it a dinosaur with a bit of a bird?

FYI. Most creationists would argue with you since there are no transitional forms.

1,762 posted on 08/20/2003 8:53:00 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1701 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Then perhaps we'd better believe Him, if that's what He's trying to make us believe.

Good point!

1,763 posted on 08/20/2003 8:57:15 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1732 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
ROFL! They are in the BEAR family.

I see. So when the Bible says, "each according to its kind", the word "kind" refers to taxonomic families, rather than orders or genera?

It would not surprise me to see different types of bear mating and having offspring. It would surpise me to see a dog and a cat mating and having offspring. Would probably surpise them too!

Would it surprise you if their mongrel offspring were viable?

1,764 posted on 08/20/2003 9:09:26 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1737 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I was replying to another post. I agree, there are no transitional forms.
1,765 posted on 08/20/2003 9:16:18 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1762 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
David Plaisted does a pretty good job on the link you gave me.

Did you read the rebuttal to Plaisted?

The Bible says the animals suffered under the same curse.

This answer doesn't explain much. Why are the only animals which have a broken Vitamin C gene are the ones which are closest to humans? Why is the destructive change identical in all primates? If conditions were degenerating, why would the mutations be so specific?

Besides the vast majority of errors the essay refers to for the most part are neutral ones. The endogenous retroviral DNA and processed pseudogenes are just DNA fossils, not really interacting with much or doing any harm...not much of a molecular punishment! Why would these things be shared only within related species?

1,766 posted on 08/20/2003 9:21:44 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1739 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
People have bred different kinds of dogs different kinds of cats different kinds of horses, etc., Noah was not told to bring everything on the ark, it was two of each KIND of animal. Micro-evolution can take care of the rest.

Why do genetic mutations seem to have a limit? I mean, animals are bred for specific purposes, like thoroughbreds, but there seems to be a limit as to how fast genetics can make a thoroughbred horse. All sorts of mutations seem to have limits within the species and they stop and go no further. Severe mutations usually render a creature not viable. Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animal, but that during this process of mutation the animal will remain viable, find other animals just like it to mate with, and produce viable offspring.

Contrary to your assertions. You may have similar genetics on a lot of levels, but the key genetics that make humans human are not present in apes and it isn't something that a mutation would cause them to suddenly possess. Apes dont' become human, and pies (no matter if they contain flour, sugar, butter, vanilla, etc.,) don't suddenly become cakes.
1,767 posted on 08/20/2003 9:23:40 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1764 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Of course, to enjoy this, You have to acknowledge Him as God the Savior.

In fact I do. But I also think He left it for us to discover all the details how the world around us came to be. There is nothing in the Good Book about Gravity, Electricity or Quantum Mechanics either.

1,768 posted on 08/20/2003 9:28:02 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1740 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
But there IS about creation. Very SPECIFIC information.
1,769 posted on 08/20/2003 9:32:59 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1768 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
But there IS about creation. Very SPECIFIC information.

There is very little information. Also it was given to men who lived thousands of years ago who would not have been capable of comprehending what we know today.

1,770 posted on 08/20/2003 9:38:59 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1769 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
What an elitist assumption regarding the intelligence of early man. They built the pyramids, moved stones that engineers of today can't, apparently had electricity, knew how to work well with metal, made musical instruments, had all sorts of medical innovations, and learned quickly how to write. Yet, they had to be given a weeeelly weeeely simple story of creation because they just couldn't undoostand it. In fact, God even lied to them by telling them that He created them from the dust of the ground, took Eve from Adam's side, put them in a garden, etc., Somehow even tricked them into buying a bogus genealogy back to Adam and some goofy story about an Ark. Too bad when He started Evolution He couldn't just make intelligent creatures that would understand the deeper mysteries of the joys of coming from primodial soup.
1,771 posted on 08/20/2003 9:54:59 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1770 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
...moved stones that engineers of today can't...

Why do you think that? More that 35 years ago, I watched (on TV) some people move a 121 ton object a long distance. Then they shot it all the way to the Moon.

1,772 posted on 08/20/2003 10:01:05 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1771 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
What an elitist assumption regarding the intelligence of early man.

They had just as much natural intelligence as we do today, but the background knowledge to understand certain concepts was just not there. Men 2000 years in the future would similarly have a lot of work to do with us.

Could it have been explained to them? Sure, but the Bible would have been a million pages long and the moral and spiritual message would have been lost.

1,773 posted on 08/20/2003 10:02:25 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1771 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
He created them from the dust of the ground....

....coming from primodial soup

Is there such a difference between these two humble origins?

1,774 posted on 08/20/2003 10:07:02 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1771 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
As I said you can discuss whatever you wish. You do not need, nor will you receive, my approval to go along with your proposal.

But it will most likely be a waste of time if you ignore it or decline to present arguments from your side.

You have several times accused us of being unwilling to look at the evidence, of being dogmatic, blind, arrogant, etc., but when given an invitation to seriously discuss the evidence pro-and-con, you decline to participate. I'm looking forward to having an in-depth test of the arguments on both sides, and you're unwilling to. At the very least, might this lead you to reconsider your preconceptions about our alleged closed-mindedness?

Now sure, I'm confident that my side would win in such a head-to-head comparison. But that doesn't make me closed-minded, since you feel a similar confidence about your evidence. But I'm open-minded because I'm willing to look closely at what you choose to offer for scrutiny, and confident enough to let you examine mine (which goes against the common creationist charge that evolutionists "know" that their field is some kind of rotten shell which wouldn't withstand close examination).

Are you open-minded enough to do the same?

This decision is based upon several elements:

1) I have observed a strong bias against any creationist or non-evolution source of information on this thread.

I can't disagree there, but that in itself is no reason not to "show us the light" by presenting your best evidence and letting us flounder against its unassailability, if you're confident of its strength.

Furthermore, a "strong bias" against something is not in itself proof of closed-mindedness. Tell me, do you have a "strong bias" against any "flat-Earth or non-spherical-Earth source of information"? Why or why not?

Don't forget, some of us have spent *decades* looking over each new creationist argument or "find" as they have been introduced. Speaking for myself in all honesty (although you've disbelieved many things I've said and probably will discard this one as well), I have a "strong bias" against creationist sites *not* because I've never looked at them and simply presume they "must" be wrong because they contradict what I already believe -- instead I have a "strong bias" against them because almost every time I've looked at something from them, it's been full of obvious errors, misstatements, false claims, logical fallacies, and misunderstandings of what evolution actually does and does not encompass.

When you know enough science, reading a creationist site trying to "debunk" science is like reading a liberal website trying to discredit conservatives -- the amount of disinformation and misunderstanding and misrepresentation is just mind-boggling (and irritating). On the liberal sites you read that conservatives want to starve schoolchildren, poison the air, throw granny out in the streets, and install a Christian theocracy. These are, of course, all gross distortions of the actual conservative position, and either reveal a complete failure to understand, or willful dishonesty. And that's what it feels like when someone with a strong science background reads creationist literature. It's not the fact that the creationists come to differing conclusions, it's that every other sentence we go, "say what?!?" at the number of things that are either misrepresentations of science/evolution, or distorted attacks on its actual positions.

I don't expect you to just take my word for it, of course. I'd be happy to show you -- but you have to be willing to look. If not, all I can do is say, "well, believe what you want, no evidence will change your mind, it would be a waste of my time to show any to you."

2) The proposal assumes that if you can knock the legs out from underneath one argument, that must mean the rest of the science is bad across the board and all of the sources are flawed. There is no basis for that assumption whatsoever.

First, that's not what I said. I tried to be pretty clear, please reread my previous post and maybe it'll improve on second reading. My point(s) were:

1. We weren't going to look at just any argument, we were going to look at what you considered some of the *best* arguments. And more than one most likely, although a small enough number that we wouldn't take all year to cover them.

2. If the *best* arguments turned out to be actual duds, that of course would not prove that *all* arguments had to be, but that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it would provide supporting evidence to the concept that a) the person picking the "best" arguments wasn't as good at recognizing valid arguments as he thought he was, and b) the people who predicted they'd be flawed might not be as incompetent as the argument-picker kept thinking they were, and finally c) the source of the arguments are capable of putting their names and reputations on some bogus claims.

If you dispute these points, I ask you to consider what you would conclude about evolutionists if the top N "best" evidences for evolution were proven to be invalid after all. Would you agree that that would cast doubt on the field as a whole, even if it didn't automatically "disprove" the rest? Wouldn't you expect evolutionists to reconsider their confidence in the theory? Wouldn't you use it as a reason that evolutionists should take the naysayers more seriously next time? If so, why is it wrong for me to ask if the same would apply in reverse if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm asking if you would apply the same standards to our position as you would to yours?

3)There is a fundamental level of unfairness about what you propose. I have been for 1500 or so replies largely standing alone against a team of evolutionists, some of whom are claimed to be scientists.

I can sympathize. But remember that you chose this mission yourself. :-)

And by challenging the majority view in biology (accepted by over 98% of biologists, according to at least one poll), you're facing off indirectly against a few hundred thousand more scientists. So if you feel outnumbered, it's because you set out to claim that you're right and they (along with all their millions of pieces of evidence and millions of studies) are all wrong. That's a big job you've taken on.

Sooner or later, many creationists make some form of the complaint about how they're being outnumbered, or outmatched, or buried in rebuttals, and how it's not fair. There's an obvious lesson in that, but most usually don't see it. Please do me the courtesy of reading this essay, "The Mirage", which explains why this is a common occurrence. (Note, there are three essays on that page -- all are informative, but the one I'm talking about is the first one).

Even if I had a PhD. in physics, I would personally not be an expert in all of the fields of science represented here on Free Republic and would not be able to tell if the arguments presented to me are valid or not.

This raises the question, then why do you feel qualified to proclaim that millions of scientists around the world are flat wrong on everything from evolution to dating methods to geology to plate tectonics and more...?

You can't have it both ways -- you can't be proficient enough to claim to have more correct knowledge of their fields than they do and know where they are all wrong, but not knowledgeable enough to be able to recognize a valid argument from an invalid one...

In short, if you can't distinguish a valid argument from an invalid one, how can you say that mainstream science's arguments are invalid?

Nonetheless, I have more faith in you than you may have. I think you'll be able to hold up your end, you strike me as a very bright woman. As for the science, science may be "big", but most of it's not complicated, at least not when taken little bites at a time. And if we argue anything which isn't clear or which you think needs to be broken down more or demonstrated to be true, we'll be glad to go into more detail. Feel free to challenge anything, or ask why there can't be alternative explanations, etc.

I have gone to sources that are more well trained than I in the area of science, but those sources are rejected outright.

Not outright. It may look that way to you because you just got here, but many of us have looked those over in detail *long* ago -- often multiple times, since they keep getting brought up again and again. So it's not a matter of "we don't care to look at that", it's a matter of "been there, done that".

Also, while I understand your desire to present arguments from people you feel are more qualified than yourself, the problem is that in the end it just comes down to a matter of "my expert can beat up your expert". But that works both ways, of course, and no one will convince anyone. Plus, you're at a disadvantage again -- we've got a *lot* more experts on our side (98+% of biologists, remember).

That's why I never present a link to a study or argument that I don't understand myself and can personally verify as consistent with the known evidence and logically sound. I don't just present it as, "I really don't know, but maybe this guy's right because he has a degree". If that's what you're doing, that's yet another reason why I think it would be valuable to "dissect" one of them for you and show whether it actually passes a reality-check.

And if you can't personally validate a study or argument, are you picking them (and rejecting them) solely on whether their conclusion matches your expectations or the author is "ideologically correct"? If so, isn't that the same as what you accuse us of doing?

In all this time, I have never seen proof that my sources are wrong,

Now wait a minute... For example, one of your sources claimed that the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon was formed underwater, and that any apparent reptile tracks found in it were caused by amphibians. I showed actual photographs of those sandstones with tracks of terrestrial insects (spiders and scorpions) and terrestrial mammal tracks, along with raindrop impressions, along with links to other indications that those sands were actually laid down by wind-blown processes and not water. That seems like pretty good "proof" that your source was wrong.

And that's just one example from this thread out of several. Don't claim that there have been no refutations of your sources when there certainly have been. You can't make opposing evidence go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

just blanket accusations that when they question the dating scenarios (which is the heart of the matter) of the evolutionists they are defying the laws of physics or something to that affect.

Because they *are* defying the laws of physics. That's the sort of thing we'd be glad to get into in detail if you agreed to honestly look at some of the evidence and arguments. But it'd be a waste of our time if you declared in advance, "that wouldn't prove anything, my mind is made up". Thus my earlier questions about whether you're open to having your mind changed.

If they lay down a plausible scenario about how it could have occurred another way, they are either ignorred or scoffed at.

Again, the problem here is that the scenarios they lay down are *not* "plausible". Not once you know enough science and the evidence underlying it to realize just how badly the creationist scenarios would clash with just about everything else. For example, the creationist ad hoc scenario of "accelerated nuclear decay" would have killed Noah and his family through both intense radiation *and* enough heat to boil the oceans into steam. Even if by some miracle they managed not to be flash-fried, such accelerated decay would leave *countless* tell-tale pieces of evidence all over the Earth (an inevitable result of the verified laws of physics which even creationists do not dispute) which would be unambiguous and impossible to miss. But, it turns out, the tell-tale signs that would have been left by "accelerated decay" simply aren't there. Every bit of evidence that would be one way if nuclear decay had been "uniformitarian" and another way if nuclear decay had varied more than a few tiny fractions of a percent turn out to be exactly as they'd be if nuclear decay had been (drumroll please) uniformitarian.

*That* is just one example (out of countless) why almost everyone with a significant science education looks at the creationist scenarios, boggles, and declares them to be *im*plausible.

This brings up another problem with many creationist scenarios... They postulate all sorts of never-before-suspected enormous variations from well-established principles (established by the evidence, not just by tradition) which clash with a great deal of existing evidence, often piling one giant "what if" on top of another (e.g. accelerated decay *plus* an instant ice age *plus* continents colliding like bumper cars *plus* changes in the speed of light, etc. etc.)... Then as if that's not bad enough, after they've invoked all these "watch me pull a revolutionary idea out of my hat" ideas to "resolve" *one* thing they'd like to "explain", they completely fail to address what effect their explanation has on anything *else*.

A minor but instructive example is the way they invoked a certain exact sequence of behavior by the Flood waters to lay down the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon, including "waning" flood waters topping off the sandstone with dune-like hillocks on top... BUT UTTERLY FAILED to address how exactly these "waning" flood waters would then deposit another 600 feet of a different kind of rock on top of the sandstone (*and* not disturb the pretty dunes). Oops.

This is, shall we say, not "plausible". I pointed out several other very implausible features of that scenario, but I didn't see that you addressed them.

If they "lay down a plausible scenario", we'll be glad to think it over. But if we reject something, it's because we've found it to be *im*plausible, for several good reasons.

4) I distrust your evidence because I know that it is based upon several presuppositions which I do not trust to be true.

Actually, one of the reasons I wanted to do the "test cases" was because if you dug deeply enough into any scientific argument, including challenging the evidence, etc., you'd see that scientific principles are *not* based on "presuppositions". Each accepted principle is based on evidence, and the reasons for interpreting the evidence in a given manner is based on more evidence, and so on. To update an old science joke, "it's evidence all the way down".

Feel free to challenge what you see as our "presuppositions". We've got nothing to hide, and are confident that science can stand up to close examination (and that creation science can't). And yet that's not what some of the creationist websites tell you about us, is it?

One of these presuppositions is that the geological column is dated correctly.

We can show you why it is.

I present evidence that dinosaurs could have lived much more recently and rather than even consider the fact that the dating could be wrong in the evolutionary scheme, the evolutionist response has been "gee, isn't it amazing that a dinosaur cold have survived 65 million years." I never said that such evidence negated the 65 million year claim, but there is an absolute REFUSAL to even so much as HINT at the idea that the dating of the column could be wrong.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or maybe I'm missing your point.

Why would a few "survivor" dinosaur species in any way raise questions about fossil dating methods? What's wrong with this scenario: 65+ millions of years ago zillions of dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but something (probably a meteor strike) killed off 99+% of them 65 million years ago. Nonetheless, a few tiny populations of 1-4 different species survived the disaster, and lived in remote (or underwater) areas and had baby dinosaurs and so on until present day, remaining undiscovered (albeit spotted on rare occasions) by mankind. So... Why would this raise any questions about dating methods? In this view, dinosaur fossils date to 65+ million years because all the ones found have been from the the pool of zillions of dinosaurs from 65+ million years ago, and no bones have been found from the relatively tiny population of "survivor" dinosaurs, which are so remote or few that we haven't even found a *live* specimen, much less a fossilized one.

Again, even if the Loch Ness Monster greeted tourists tomorrow and turned out to be a modern-day descendant of ancient pleisosaurs, how would that call into question any dating tests on genuinely ancient dino fossils? Please be more specific.

Hince, there is a blindness, based upon your presuppositions, that will not allow you to learn anything different than that which has been drilled into your head.

Uh huh...

Once again -- which side has announced that they would indeed change their beliefs if sufficient evidence or better theories were presented, and who has announced that he doesn't want to look at the arguments in detail and that it wouldn't prove anything to him anyway?

I present that there are unconformities in the radiometric dating system, but it is still proclaimed to be sound.

Because a) you have declared uncomformities but not presented any to be examined (unless I missed them), and b) we are familiar with 100+ previous examples of creationists declaring "uncomformities", and under examination they have been found to be making mountains out of molehills.

I could present evidence of humans living in just about every era where they weren't supposed to be found,

Please do.

but that would be explained away as well.

If they *can* be explained away, then they weren't very good to start with, were they?

Arguments for a flat Earth can be explained away -- does that prove that people are closed-minded... Or that the arguments are invalid?

In other words, I will not be taking you up on your proposal, because a)it is set up deliberately to try to make me look inflexible (which I will at least admit as opposed to this group),

Wait a minute, I thought you said that *we're* the inflexible ones...

gullible, and just plain stupid.

Not at all. It's an honest proposal to take a hard look at the evidence and arguments. If I may say so, I think it reflects worse on you that you're refusing to put your ideas (and ours) to the test.

b)It assumes that evolutionary science is just "good science" and that all of its presuppositions which help it to come up with its conclusions are valid.

No, it assumes that we will be able to demonstrate to you that it is good science, and that what you see as our "presuppositions" are actually arrived at by following the evidence. Or if we're wrong about that, it allows you to demonstrate that to us.

c)And, three, it assumes that if you can "demolish" one or more creationist's arguments that you can declare victory for the debate and with a broadbrush paint all creation scientists with the label of incompetency, lack of understanding of "true" science, and unreliability.

As I explained above, that's not what I'm saying. If I may be flippant for a moment, I'm just asking that if we could "demolish" some of what you thought were the strongest arguments for a young earth (or against evolution), whether you'd be able to admit, "gee, I guess some of this creationist stuff isn't as good as I thought it was, and I'll consider that maybe the rest of it may not be infallible either, and I guess you guys aren't quite as stupid and blind as I first thought you were".

Again, nice try.

I always try to demonstrate the evidence for what I claim. I'm disappointed that you choose not to look at it.

However, I may not be a highly decorated scientist, but I am not stupid.

I never thought that you were. Indeed, I'd never make such an offer and promise to devote my time to it if I didn't think you were up to it. Stupid people are a waste of time.

1,775 posted on 08/20/2003 10:08:39 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
First, I don't know that they didn't have the background knowledge. I believe (from the creationist perspective) that pre-flood man was probably pretty technologically advanced. Noah had no problem building an ark that would float for a year and hold all those animals and his family. People lived much longer then as well, and very well could have had much greater understanding of a lot of things. They may not have understood DNA and the like, but I bet they were a lot more advanced than the cave dwellers who just had to survive until the situation could become more stabilized. (Noah's progeny moved all over the place and had to populate many different uninhabited regions. I'm sure the technogical advances of the previous 1,500 or so years took a back seat to survival).

Second, this discussion is assuming that the Bible was supposed to be a book about science. God is God. He can choose to reveal to us what He wants us to know. He also has this tendency to get us to trust Him by faith on some things which we don't understand. He did leave evidence that what He said about creation was true, but there is no reason to believe that if He had caused it to happen some other way that He wouldn't have let man write down, in the beginning I created an amoeba...and from that amoeba....
1,776 posted on 08/20/2003 10:09:15 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1773 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
He wouldn't have let man write down, in the beginning I created an amoeba...and from that amoeba....

We take the word "Ameoba" and the concept of unicellular creatures for granted. The ancient scribes would have had no clue where to begin with this information. First you would have to describe what a cell is, and a microscope and...(get the idea?)

I am off to bed. I would like to continue this tommorrow. Have a good night.

1,777 posted on 08/20/2003 10:13:36 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1776 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
And why run a sewer through a recreational area?

Eeets vary frrrench, no?

1,778 posted on 08/20/2003 10:22:12 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1753 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Ichneumon,
Your camp dismisses almost every source I post, so why do you think that I would be willing to let you all pontificate about why the answers I post are incorrect, knowing that without the sources I have I am not qualified to answer your rebuttals? You (meaning your group) have dismissed my sources outright. I seriously doubt that even you have read EVERYTHING on the creationist websites and the evolutionists on this thread have a baby bathwater approach.

Nevertheless, if you insist on focusing on something, please explain for me 1)the probability of abiogenesis in light of what is known about what it takes for life to exist even in the simplest forms. 2)Where did the dinosaurs come from. 3)How evolutionary scientists can continue to claim that species develop into new and completely different types of species (I'm talking the big leaps over large amounts of time from say ape to human), when this kind of mutation of genetic material has never been observed, evidence refuting this kind of mutation existing is strong, and no indisputed transitional species have been found. And 4)The Cambrian Explosion and the sudden appearance of all sorts of things without any hint of something before them from which they evolved. For me, those would be strong negative arguments against evolution that would help to support at least consideration of the creation model. Dating methods and methologies are another sore spot, but I suspect we will be discussing them at a later posting.

As far as the Answers in Genesis posting I posted earlier, I will let them defend their own work. The Dr. that wrote these evidences has addressed some of the objections to his work, particular on the Helium issue, but you all can ferret that out. To me, the scientific evidences which are completely lacking are the idea that something came from essentially nothing by pure chance. That genetic mutations do not work the way evolution says they should. That the fossil record is full of millions of dead things but no indisputable transitional forms. And, that the fossil record itself does not back up evolution.
1,779 posted on 08/20/2003 11:54:02 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1775 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Incidentally, one disclosure you should know. As I have claimed all along, I am not impartial to this particular argument. Even if you come up with answers to these questions which I am unable to refute, it does not mean I'm suddenly going to say "oh, creationists are bad scientists." throw up my hands and admit evolution to be true. The reason for this is that my authority is higher than that of modern science. It is the Word of God. I believe it literally to be true (except in cases where it clearly is to be taken figuratively [parables, certain visions such as in Revelation which have literal import, etc.] Because I believe what the Word says, I believe the Genesis account of creation and not Darwin or any other man's theory of evolution. In good faith, thought I'd make that disclosure beforehand.
1,780 posted on 08/21/2003 12:25:45 AM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1775 | View Replies]

To: concisetraveler
and I can't believe she is casting her pearls before swine.

Could you please tell me what that phrase means? I've seen it all my life and I still don't know what the heck it's supposed to mean. (Let alone where it came from.)

1,781 posted on 08/21/2003 1:38:22 AM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1756 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
It does not matter what I post, your group will either scream "bad science" or "bad credentials" or "bad source".

If the shoe fits... :-)

But since you mention "bad credentials", I don't remember any "evos" on this thread making a big deal about credentials, either way. In my experience creationists put a much heavier emphasis on credentials than "evos" do -- probably for the reason you alluded to earlier, having to do with "I can't analyze this myself, so I'll rely on someone who seems to be an authority".

In science, actually, credentials will help you get a job (since they indicate that you've at least had enough education to be exposed to a lot of information), but pretty much don't mean squat when it comes to getting your ideas accepted or not. And since PhD's are a dime a dozen in the science community, degrees lose a lot of their ability to impress. This is especially true when you've met enough PhD's to learn that having gone to school long enough to get an advanced degree doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't a real idiot or kook. And even the non-idiot, non-kook variety can make mistakes like anyone else.

So when you list two pages of someone's credentials, don't be surprised if we all say, "So? That doesn't prove he must be right." In science, the quality of the evidence and the argument are everything -- not the reputation of the guy presenting them. Einstein was working as a patent clerk when he developed the theory of Relativity. That was no hurdle for the acceptance of his theory, because it was solid. Meanwhile, the guys who published the "cold fusion" paper were PhD's, and their work quickly fell apart under scrutiny.

Credentials are *no* measure of correctness.

Here are some examples of the latter (incidentally, not all are young earth creationists, they just disagree with the prevailing "knowledge" of evolution):

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe: [snip long paragraph of credentials]

Again, credentials really don't matter, but I would like to point out one amusing bit of "resume puffery" in Behe's credentials: "Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by [...] over one hundred other periodicals." Um, okay... First, the number of periodicals a book has been "reviewed by" is less a measure of its value than its publicity. Second, this fails to point out that a large number of those reviews were negative, characterizing DBB's core thesis as fundamentally flawed (and identifying many of Behe's claims as simply false).

RESPONSE TO BEHE ON THIS THREAD:

First, let's look at how you originally introduced Behe into the thread: "They are also irreducibly complex, which Michael Behe deals with extensively in Darwin's Black Box." It's not like you presented much evidence or argument, you just made a claim (that some [unspecified] "things" were irreducibly complex) and waved Behe's book as your sole support. That wasn't much of an argument, you didn't even bother to describe Behe's thesis, and you rested your claim entirely on the fact that a book "deals with" the subject. I could point out that a lot of books "deal with" evolution, but that doesn't really say or prove or add much to the discussion either, does it? So before you imply that we rejected your evidence or argument by rejecting the source, let me point out that you didn't actually *present* any. The fact that Behe wrote a book is not an argument.

Now on to the replies:

Post 1157:Most scientists look at Behe as a joke, and I have to say that I agree with them. Irreducibly Complex? Come on, give me a fricking break. When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness. Behe was lazy, pure and simple, or ignorant, take your pick.

This may be blunt, but it's an example of the "been there done that" attitude I mentioned in an earlier post. Behe's work has been out for several years now, and has been hashed over extensively. He's saying that Behe's thesis has been thoroughly examined already, and has been found wanting. I would agree. He even gives you a condensed version of the core flaw in Behe's thesis when he writes, "When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness." The point that Behe's central thesis is, basically, if Behe can't figure out how something could have evolved, then it must have been designed. This is an example of the "fallacy of the appeal to ignorance", which is the class of logical errors of the form, "if we can't think of how X could happen, it must be impossible." There are many more specific objections to Behe's book, but that's the central one in a nutshell.

From Post 1167: Then lonely little Behe doesn't help you with his credentials or his tiny little handful of ID brothers.

That was not a point against Behe, it was a response to a different point you made.

Post 1200:I've attended one of Behe's presentations on ID. Behe may or may not be a joke, but his presentation was.

This wasn't a response or rebuttal to any claim you made, it was a response to the comment in #1157 about Behe being a "joke". The poster in #1200 was agreeing by relating his personal experience.

So again, you didn't really present an argument, but you did mention Behe, so a few people were prompted to talk about him. This is not a good example of where you allegedly presented an argument or evidence and it was dismissed merely by bashing the source.

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton

[snip resume again]

Strangely, though I have mentioned him several times, there is hardly any commentary at all (if any) about the work presented by Menton on this thread.

I'm sorry, weren't you trying to present this as an example of evolutionists discounting evidence using an excuse of "bad source"? How exactly does the fact that no one got around to discussing Menton support your claim?

Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:

You implied that Damadian single-handedly invented the MRI. People pointed out that there was a lot of ongoing dispute about that. What does any of that have to do with evolution?

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority.

*Where* have we allegedly done what you describe? Your above three examples don't fit your allegation.

I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

We'll accept it if it makes a good case. If you think we have unfairly dismissed an actual argument or evidence, please point it out. But mentioning that Behe wrote a book, or that Damadian was involved in the the MRI, isn't an argument or evidence. And failure to address Menton's links is no kind of dismissal, it seems to have just gotten lost in the flood of posts and dozen+ links that were flying around. We can't address everything if there's too much to focus on, which is exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.

1,782 posted on 08/21/2003 2:01:24 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1604 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; DittoJed2
exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.

How about taking the Grand Canyon as a 'project'? I know stuff has been posted already, but it's been pretty fragmented and lost amonst all the other posts. Creationists have written a fair amount on the subject, so literature shouldn't be a problem from that side.

1,783 posted on 08/21/2003 2:54:49 AM PDT by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1782 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
For those who are listening. If you want a list (that purports to be pretty accurate, and to my knowledge is darn close if not completely accurate) of those who doubt Darwinism (not all creationists mind you) then peruse the credentials of some of those found Here

Ahem. It's nice that you seem pretty confident of it, but I'm troubled by the fact that as I glanced down the list looking for names I recognized, the VERY FIRST one that jumped out at me was bogus. It was:

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).
This is a well-known example of dishonest quoting (2) (3) by creationists. Patterson was quoted out of context and then cited it to "show" that Patterson was "admitting" a lack of evidence for evolution. But when asked about the context of the quote, Patterson confirmed that he was not denying evolution and that "the creationists' [interpretation] is false".

Here's a quote from one of Patterson's books -- does this sound like an evolution-denier to you?

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
That doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the list, especially since the Patterson misquote was debunked in 1993. It also doesn't bode well that many creationist websites are still using it...

This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.

A list of a few hundred people who have expressed some kind of question about evolution is hardly proof that it's widely rejected. And that web page is engaging in a huge straw man when it claims:

"The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of Intelligent Design of life or the universe."
Horse manure. No such overblown claim is "often made" that "few or no" scientists have doubts about evolution, etc. Everyone knows that there are quite a few such people. But they are still a small minority.

Meanwhile, in a winking parody of such "people who reject evolution" lists, there's the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which includes *only* scientists by the name of Steve or some variation of Steve (Stephanie, etc.) who have voluntarily signed onto this specific statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
The "list of Steves" is currently at 375 and growing. So the number of scientists named Steve who support evolution is nearly as large as the creationist list of EVERYONE they could dig up who question it. And like the Patterson example, I'm not sure the creationist list is all that accurate, and it includes people who accept most of evolution but have expressed concerns only about certain parts, like Behe.

Also, since the name Steve or some variation only makes up about 1% of the population according to Census statistics, the Project Steve list statistically represents 37,500 scientists who would sign on to support evolution if the name restriction were removed.

Furthermore, Project Steve has not been widely publicized, many more would surely join if they heard about it. Meanwhile, the creationist list appears to have been formed by straining to qualify as many as they possibly could find, including entire membership rosters of organizations presumed to be creationist, without actually having each member explicitly agree to their support of such a position.

Finally, about two thirds of the Steves supporting evolution are biologists. Biologists are much farther and fewer between on the creationist list.

1,784 posted on 08/21/2003 2:59:12 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1604 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
You see, the strongest absolute in your minds is that science can not be wrong. That the presuppositions which scientists use when examining the evidence can't be biased. That "evolutionary science" is infallible.

Please point out where you think we have actually said any of these things.

Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.

Please present your evidence.

There is evidence for a young earth and the creationist theories are valid.

Pick some and show us.

You all don't seem to be willing to admit, even to yourselves, that evolutionary presuppositions could be wrong.

Sure they could. Now show us some evidence that they are.

1,785 posted on 08/21/2003 3:04:31 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1616 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Others have been fired for teaching creation, even at the University level. The field is not open for ideas.

"The field" is open. Classrooms, however, are not "the field".

1,786 posted on 08/21/2003 3:06:39 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1624 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I can make the case that evolution presents its claims as infallible truths. It doesn't say "scientists believe (or even some scientists believe which is more accurate)" it says "such and such millions of years ago such and such happened."

Oh, come on... That's not a claim of "infallible truth", that's knowing that the reader will understand the claim to be "according to the best evidence and knowledge we currently have, unless and until something comes along to refine our knowledge, we have reason to believe that so many million years ago etc." Surely you understand that it would be unwieldy, to say the least, to put such a "disclaimer" the start of every declarative sentence which deals with any sort of scientific knowledge.

Evolution also never changes towards a younger planet,

Because there's no credible evidence that the Earth is younger, but plenty that it is as old as we believe it to be.

but molds its data to an older planet model

Because that's where the evidence leads us.

and explains away anything that doesn't fit that mold.

More accurately, it discards any suggested explanations that don't fit the data.

It rests on assumptions which it considers to be infallible, such as the ages in geological column

Please document that anyone considers the geologic column, or anything else in science, to be "infallible". As opposed, say, to extremely well supported by the evidence.

and won't even consider the possibility of alternate theories which do not support old ages.

Sure, we'll consider it. But it's going to have to explain *all* the evidence better than the current views. Good luck on that.

1,787 posted on 08/21/2003 3:15:14 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1626 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I complain that it is unfair to have my sources completely discounted at every turn because of their creationist leanings.

I don't see that that has happened here.

I have seen people express their opinions, learned through long experience, that creationist sources are often flawed, but that's a different thing than what you describe.

I admit I do not have the formal training to counter these "specialists" however, I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists,

So? I can't think of any concept that is "universally accepted", including "the Earth is not flat".

1,788 posted on 08/21/2003 3:17:33 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1628 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
I can't show those who are blind and deaf to the evidence a thing.

Funny, we feel the same way. :-)

I have presented many reasons for my arguments. You all choose to say that I have produced no evidence.

"Reasons" are not evidence. I've seen a lot of "this seems reasonable (or unreasonable) to me", which are "reasons", but not evidence.

The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

Hm?

The fossil record does NOT support evolution.

Yes, it does. Please explain why you think it does not.

Pangea is a fairy tail (why shrink Africa 40%

Africa has not shrunk 40%. The links you provided to show that it did were based on differing planar map projections, which cause different kinds of distortions.

and get rid of a lot of countries in between North and South America if Pangea were true.

Changing sea levels cause coastlines to change at different times, plus continental regions do stretch, compress, and bend. That's where mountains and other kinds of features come from.

It is a theory of what may have occurred and has been discredited).

Discredited in what way, by what evidence?

When mutation occurs, it is usually detrimental to the creature

Even so, natural selection quickly weeds detrimental mutations out of the population, while the less common beneficial mutations accumulate in the population over time.

and it certainly doesn't cause it to jump into an entirely different type of animal (reptile to bird, etc).

The fossils and DNA evidence contradict you on that.

1,789 posted on 08/21/2003 3:24:08 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1631 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
By the way, there are continental shelves surrounding the continents and land bridges that could explain how people got from point A to point B.

How (and why) did the kangaroos and other Australian marsupials walk from Noah's Ark to Australia, and why did they all go there and nowhere else?

How about the New Zealand fauna? It's way the heck out in the ocean by itself, that must have been an impressive land bridge.

1,790 posted on 08/21/2003 3:32:29 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1640 | View Replies]

To: general_re; DittoJed2
[Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless]

No fair, old chap - touchdown dances are for after you actually score ;)

Also be advised, the first sentence above appears to be an attempt to trollishly "poison the well" by trying to convince DittoJed2 that she shouldn't even bother actually discussing the evidence because it would be a waste of her time. It looks like a case of "pay no attention to the man [evidence] behind the curtain..."

"No, don't even talk to those evolutionists, I implore you" seems to be the subtext. One must wonder if someone is afraid that DittoJed2 might actually learn something, and is trying to prevent it.

1,791 posted on 08/21/2003 3:42:31 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
[and I can't believe she is casting her pearls before swine.]

Could you please tell me what that phrase means? I've seen it all my life and I still don't know what the heck it's supposed to mean. (Let alone where it came from.)

It's from the Bible:

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
The meaning is pretty clear, it's talking about the futility of presenting precious things to those entirely unable to appreciate them (like giving pearls to pigs).
1,792 posted on 08/21/2003 3:51:09 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1781 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
How (and why) did the kangaroos and other Australian marsupials walk from Noah's Ark to Australia, and why did they all go there and nowhere else?

How about the New Zealand fauna? It's way the heck out in the ocean by itself, that must have been an impressive land bridge.

LOL!! Remember, there's nothing more implausible than humans and apes sharing a common ancestor.
If you acknowledge this fact, coming up with "hydroplate" theories or scenarios where animals walk back to their original habitat from mount Ararat in a devastated world, is not really a problem.

1,793 posted on 08/21/2003 4:04:34 AM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1790 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
All sorts of mutations seem to have limits within the species and they stop and go no further.

From post 1779:
3)How evolutionary scientists can continue to claim that species develop into new and completely different types of species (I'm talking the big leaps over large amounts of time from say ape to human), when this kind of mutation of genetic material has never been observed ...

Two posts of yours discuss the same issue ... the presumed limit on the mutation process (a blocking mechanism) which confines all of nature to mirco-evolution while preventing macro-evolution. This is a rebuttal of that notion I posted nearly 2 years ago:

One might argue that the fossil record, starting with simple forms and progressing over time to apparently related yet ever-more mutated variations, powerfully illustrates the non-existence of such a "blocking mechanism." But even though it seems not to exist, we should keep an open mind. If such a blocking mechanism actually does exist, let's not worry too much that it hasn't been found yet, because these things take time. Yet, if we are ever to actually find such a mechanism, it's still necessary to propose an hypothesis as to what it might be, so that we know what to search for.

Think about it. The blocking mechanism has to be something that strictly limits the number of mutations in all of a creature's genes that might otherwise occur over time. The mechanism would need to keep track of how many variations had already occured (from some "standard model" which is memorized somehow) and then guard against any more. What is the nature of this mechanism? Is it a radiation shield to prevent background radiation from altering the DNA? Is it a "perfect copy" mechanism that suddenly prevents DNA from faulty replications? How would it work? How could we test for it? Do we find some "already maximum mutated" creature and zap them with radiation to discover the "DNA shield" that has suddenly manifested itself to make the creature "mutation proof"? Does such a mechanism make any sense, now that I've discussed a very few of its problems?

1,794 posted on 08/21/2003 4:18:56 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1767 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animal

Can you give me an example of this? Humans aren't a very good example; we do not differ very much from chimpanzees, either in a genetic sense or in a morphological sense. It's easy to find ants that are more different from each other than humans are from chimps, and yet I'm sure you have no trouble saying that all ants are of the same "kind".

What does nature use as the boundary between different "kinds"? How can we define it objectively? I am not trying to play "gotcha", here: I really am trying to understand what you mean. Clearly, "primates" are not a "kind", in your estimation, let alone "mammals", "vertebrates", "animals", or "eukaryotes". You said something about "families" before, but surely these are artificial definitions made for human convenience, and not natural boundaries.

1,795 posted on 08/21/2003 4:53:58 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1767 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Okay, I think I see where some of your misconceptions are originating. It helps to think of a species as a cloud of dots clustered around a central point we'll call "Norm." Those dots closer to the center (and there will be more of them -- the cloud gets denser toward the center) are closer to Norm. Those toward the outer edge are not as close to Norm, and have a bit more genetic differences (mutations) than the folks toward the center. Life in the fringes is pretty rough, but it does exist. Now, shift Norm either right or left. The folks on the fringes in that direction are now closer to Norm than they were. The folks on the opposite end are really far away from Norm now, and will most likely disappear quickly. The folks that were once in the center are now on the fringe. Within a few generations however, the cloud will reform with Norm at its center.

Okay, now take a line and draw it straight through the middle of Norm so that half the cloud is on one side and half the cloud is on the other. You now have two Norms. Move the right hand Norm to the right a hair and move the left hand Norm to the left a hair. Wait for the populations to cluster around them again. Repeat the process. After a bit, there will be no members of either cloud capable of hooking up (overlapping) with any members of the other cloud. Ta Da, you have speciation. Continue farther, splitting up the new clouds every so often and you'll discover the farthest right-hand cloud has very little in common with the farthest left-hand cloud (think dogs and bears).

Speciation doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations.

1,796 posted on 08/21/2003 5:45:11 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1767 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Not intelligence... knowledge. There is a major difference.
1,797 posted on 08/21/2003 5:47:26 AM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1771 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Noli Illegitimi Carborundum.
Mechanisms exist within cells that correct various mutations. This can be demonstrated by a stretch of DNA associated with Vitamin C and used as an argument for the common descent of humans and other primates. The peculiar thing about this DNA stretch is that there are regions within it that have absolutely no mutations amongst animals that have been separated by over 50 million years(or 100 million both way years). That range of time is nearly 10 percent of the time since "complex" animals first appeared on the earth. This indicates that whatever causes the fidelity of those regions is a reliable process. The point being there is a reliable process that limits change.
1,798 posted on 08/21/2003 6:47:53 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1780 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; DittoJed2
And by challenging the majority view in biology (accepted by over 98% of biologists, according to at least one poll), you're facing off indirectly against a few hundred thousand more scientists. So if you feel outnumbered, it's because you set out to claim that you're right and they (along with all their millions of pieces of evidence and millions of studies) are all wrong. That's a big job you've taken on.

Yes, it's the YECs against the world, and it's not just in biology. The YECs have trouble with the rest of the world's geology, astronomy, paleontology, cosmology, nuclear chemistry (so far as it supports an old universe), etc. One need only look at the list of issues presented in 1375. None of its points address anything Darwin ever said or thought in his life or much of anything in biology.

There is no astounding discovery to rescue the YECs from this hopeless position. Something that overturns all of biology won't do it. Something that overturns all of astronomy won't do it. Something that revolutionizes cosmology won't do it. Something that revolutionizes geology won't do it.

They have to pull the impossible revolution in biology, then they have to do it in geology, then they have to do it in astronomy, then they have to do it in nuclear chemistry, then they have to do it in cosmology ...

1,799 posted on 08/21/2003 7:27:31 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1775 | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2
Incidentally, one disclosure you should know. As I have claimed all along, I am not impartial to this particular argument. Even if you come up with answers to these questions which I am unable to refute, it does not mean I'm suddenly going to say "oh, creationists are bad scientists." throw up my hands and admit evolution to be true. The reason for this is that my authority is higher than that of modern science. It is the Word of God.

Gee! I'd have never guessed this was going on! </sarcasm>

1,800 posted on 08/21/2003 7:29:07 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1780 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,701-1,7501,751-1,8001,801-1,850 ... 3,101-3,129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson