The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Masquerouge]

(It seems like there are at least ten times the number of evolutionists in this thread than creationists.)

I believe CFC is an anomaly in that it has a high number of creationist members - the only creationists that I "know" are on CFC.
There's a reason why creationism is not more popular - that's because it's wrong.

 

[jafink]

@Perfection I understand that, but when you say "but i cant force you to agree" my y question is what would make you want me to agree?

@Warpus, You being after the truth when you have clearly accepted one belief already, has nothing to do with convincing others to believe what you believe. If anything, I would understand alot better if a religious person had started a thread like this, because then they would have a reason to try to convince people that their belief is true. To help them go to Heaven.

Anyways, Perfection made a very good point, this thread is about scientifically proovingyour belief, so I will try not to post anymore unscientific stuff here anymore. I'm sorry.

 

[ironduck]

Anyways, if I live my life believing that there is something better after death, and that there is an omnipotent God who loves and cares about me, even if it isn't true, I think I will have had a much more peaceful and happy existence than if I didn't. And because of that I would like to ask you this; if the Earth was not created, then there certainly won't be an Afterlife, so why are you wasting your valuable time trying to prove the beliefs of others are incorrect? Especially when those beliefs give them hope (in what is sometimes a pretty troubled world). I am sure I will instantly be pounced upon by people with "Scientific Proof" that my beliefs are wrong, but I had to stand up for what I belive in.

It's my impression that most people who believe in an afterlife do not think the earth was 'created' the way the literal Genesis stories go. In other words, being interested in science doesn't mean you cannot believe in god - there's plenty of room for both. In fact, if god in any way or form created the universe then he also helped create what we can study using scientific methods, and therefore there is no conflict between god and science.

 

[Cheetah]

@Perfection I understand that, but when you say "but i cant force you to agree" my y question is what would make you want me to agree?

@Warpus, You being after the truth when you have clearly accepted one belief already, has nothing to do with convincing others to believe what you believe. If anything, I would understand alot better if a religious person had started a thread like this, because then they would have a reason to try to convince people that their belief is true. To help them go to Heaven.

I guess you can say that we want people to understand more science, so that they will understand more of the world around them, and help society progress.

Anyways, Perfection made a very good point, this thread is about scientifically proovingyour belief, so I will try not to post anymore unscientific stuff here anymore. I'm sorry.

You can always stick around and read and ask questions, I'm sure you will learn a lot from it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I like truth. I believe in God, and such a belief makes me happier. I also believe that evolution is valid, and this is because the science behind it is solid.

 

[warpus]

@Warpus, You being after the truth when you have clearly accepted one belief already, has nothing to do with convincing others to believe what you believe. If anything, I would understand alot better if a religious person had started a thread like this, because then they would have a reason to try to convince people that their belief is true. To help them go to Heaven.

I accept the TOE because it is the best theory out there to explain the diversity of life on this planet. If somebody came up with a theory to rival TOE, I woule examine it. I have not accepted TOE in the sense that I am fanatical about it. It is simply the best theory we have to explain what we can see.

A part of science is the debunking of theories that are wrong, so that we may move forward. Creationism isn't even a scientific theory, but debunking it is important. If a belief in a flat Earth was more widespread than it is, you'd see more people trying to debunk it.

 

[jafink]

All of those were excellent points. I think I will "hang around" to see what you guys are saying.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I believe CFC is an anomaly in that it has a high number of creationist members - the only creationists that I "know" are on CFC.
There's a reason why creationism is not more popular - that's because it's wrong.

The chief reason you know no creationists offline is that you're from western Europe, which is one of the not too many parts of the world where creationism is politically and socially marginalized.

Most Europeans who reject creationism don't do it because they understand why it's wrong, but because they've been brought up to trust scientists over iron age myths* on such issues.


* There's a widespread belief that the Bible contains "bronze age myths". This is wrong - while some of the stuff may go back to the later bronze age, all of it found its present form during the iron age.

 

[carlosMM]

Whale evolution?
Have a read of this.


A.This is the reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming’, by Thewissen et al.
B. These are the actual bones that we have of this creature The stippled bones were all that were found. And the bones coloured red were found 5 m above the rest. With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn’t much left of Ambulocetus!

As has been shown, this is a blantant lie: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html

Here is, for your information, the complete list of all material pertaining to the holotype, none of which was found '5m above' - an nice littel creationist lie:

APPENDIX
Catalogue of the Holotype of Ambulocetus natans (H-GSP-18507).
This list complements Appendix 1 of Thewissen et al. (1996) to make a complete listing of all specimens constituting the holotype of Ambulocetus natans. In situ remains are mapped in Figure 1.
18507.801 T6.
18507.802 Sternebra.
18507.803 Sternebra.
18507.804 Rib fragment.
18507.805 Distal end of proximal phalanx, pedal third digit found in articulation with 18507.806.
18507.806 Proximal quarter of intermediate phalanx, pedal third digit found with 18507.805.
18507.810 Anterior Ca, approximately Ca4.
18507.811 Middle Ca, approximately Ca7.
18507.812 Middle Ca, in anatomical contact with 18507.811, approximately Ca8.
18507.813 Anterior Ca, approximately Ca3.
18507.821 T3.
18507.822 Distal half of left rib, found in association with 18507.823.
18507.823 Distal half of left rib.
18507.8301 T10, found articulated in sequence with 18507.8302–.8303. This is the diaphragmatic vertebra.
18507.8302 T11, found between 18507.8301 and .8303.
18507.8303 T12, found articulated with 18507.8302.
18507.8304 T9.
18507.8305 T14, articulated with 18507.8306.
18507.8306 T15, articulated with 18507.8305.
18507.8307 L3.
18507.8308 L8.
18507.8309 Vertebral epiphysis from T6, in articulation with 18507.8308.
18507.832 T16 (posteriormost thoracic).
18507.8331 L4, found in articulation with 18507.8332–.8334.
18507.8332 L5, found in articulation with 18507.8331 and .8333–.8334.
18507.8333 L6, found in articulation with 18507.8331–.8332 and .8334.
18507.8334 L7, found in articulation with18507.8331–.8333.
18507.8335 L8, found just proximal to the sacrum, 18507.834.
18507.834 Sacrum
18507.835 L2.
18507.8401 Right rib, likely sixth, lacking head. 18507.8401 through .8406 were found lying to the right of the thoracic vertebrae, preserving anatomical order.
18507.8402 Right rib, likely seventh, lacking rib head.
18507.8403 Middle third of right rib, likely eighth.
18507.8404 Middle third of right rib, likely ninth.
18507.8405 Complete right rib, likely tenth.
18507.8406 Complete right posterior rib, likely eleventh.
18507.8409 Left rib head, likely tenth. Positioned near 18507.8410 and .8411.
18507.8410 Left rib, likely sixth, lacking head.
18507.8411 Middle two-thirds of left midthoracic rib, likely seventh.
18507.8412 Right posterior rib, possibly twelfth; complete except for distal end.
18507.8413 Left posterior rib, possibly eleventh, lacking head.
18507.8414 Complete right posterior rib, possibly fourteenth.
18507.8415 Complete left second rib.
18507.8418 Rib fragment.
18507.8420 Complete left posterior rib, possibly thirteenth.
18507.8420 through .8424 were found lying to the left
of the thoracic vertebrae, preserving anatomical order.
18507.8421 Complete left posterior rib, likely fourteenth.
18507.8422 Complete left anterior rib, possibly third.
18507.8423 Complete left posterior rib, likely fifteenth.
18507.8424 Proximal half of sixteenth left rib.
18507.8430 Rib fragment.
18507.8431 Rib fragment.
18507.8432 Rib fragment.
18507.8433 Rib fragment.
18507.851 Complete left innominate.
18507.852 Right innominate, preserving the ilium, acetabulum
and proximal portions of the pubis and ischium.
18507.853 Co-ossified right ecto- and mesocuneiform.
18507.854 Possible astragalar head.
18507.8610 Complete zygomatic arch found as float.
18507.8611 Right MC5, found in articulation with 18507.8612– .8614. Found in block with zygomatic arch. Identification based on similarity to 18507.33, .3301–.3302.
18507.8612 Right fifth manual proximal phalanx.
18507.8613 Right fifth manual intermediate phalanx.
18507.8614 Fragmentary fifth manual terminal phalanx.
18507.8615 Left patella, found as float.
18507.8701 Fragmentary Ce4, found as float.
18507.8702 L1, found as float.
18507.8703 T2 centrum, found as float.

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0272-4634&volume=022&issue=02&page=0405
Anyone who wants the PDF, PM me.

Note how e.g. the last item is listed as 'found as float' - these are the elements that were disarticulated.


So much for 'incomplete', hu?

As you can see, that the evidence about what this creature was like is shakey for anyone to say exactly what it did with so much missing. We are missing the pevlic bone, most of it's spine and we are missing the shoulder bone, so we cannot know if the front leg has not more bones in it.

So, simply false.

Also about Pakicetus.

So are you trying to convince me that the Pakietus are some sort "whale" predicessor? If so, then the next bit is relevant, if not then the alst bit is not needed. The last bit of that is very confusing.

Hm, you quote my questions, but you do not answer a single one of them? WHy?

Here they are again, for your convenience, so that you can finally answer them:

You were asked, specifically, how many whale skeltons you had studied, how many fossil whales you had studied, what your training and experience in comparative vertebrate anatomy was in general, and which adaptations on the fossil whales (originally I was asking about Ambuloceutes, now let me broaden that to the second whale you also posted, too) make you convinced they were no less effective at terrestrial locomotion than their next kin, whom scientist regard as pure landlubbers.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413277a0.html

So from you expert opinion you basically disagree with the person who first discovered the fossil and had way more time to look at them than anyone would. Plus this quote would go against any supposed whale features, because these creatures are mainly land based, which whales are not and they share very little in common to even make them an ancestor of the whale, which is why it is a whale of a tale.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp

[/quote]

Tsk tsk, classical_hero, but have you actually [read the paper you cite? If you have, why did you miss that it deal with pakicetids, to which Ambulocetes does not belong?


Huge and bold again, so that this time you will not miss it:
Ambulocetes is not a pakicetid, thus your quote does not refer to it.

The paper lists the members of the pakicetidae:

There are three genera of pakicetid cetaceans: Pakicetus, Nalacetus and Ichthyolestes. Pakicetus is the largest, followed by Nalacetus (approximately 5% smaller in linear dimensions), and Ichthyolestes (approximately 29% smaller).

Careful reading of trhe paper would have taught you that the pakicetids are a sister group to ambulocetids, a sister group that opposed to ambulocetids was terrestrial. This is why they are so interesting: the two taxa bracket the event where the fisrt animal went inot the water in this family!

Get your facts straight, before you post them! It makes you look bad if you misquote people so badly as you just did with Thewissen et al.! And it was even extremely easy to find your error: I just had to carefully read the source you gave - OUCH!


And please DO ANSWER the questions this time!

 

[Phlegmak]

Evolution demonstrated:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-lizard-evolution_2.html

A change in behavior of the anole lizards led to an evolutionary change. At first, they were running away from predators. That made the anoles with the longer legs the most likely to survive. Then, they started evading predators by going up trees. The shorter legged anoles were more likely to succeed doing that. After the change of behavior, the long legged anoles started disappearing.

This is just one illustration of evolution in action.

More evolution demonstrated:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html

 

[The Last Conformist]

Reminds me, c_h never answered whether his last cryptic remark about Ambulocetus natans vs marine otters should be taken as admission he was wrong about being able to tell whether the former was terrestrial. So, c_h do you or don't you claim to be able to identify tell-tale terrestrial traits in A. natans?

 

[ironduck]

Nice links Phlegmak, I hadn't seen the anole story before

 

[Masquerouge]

The chief reason you know no creationists offline is that you're from western Europe, which is one of the not too many parts of the world where creationism is politically and socially marginalized.

Now that I remember, I actually met a crea pastor on my "coming back to France" trip after my year in the US. At the time I had no idea that creationism actually existed, or that people would question ToE, and my reaction was part laugh, part amazement, that I was polite enough to hide.

 

[thescaryworker]

Evolution demonstrated:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061116-lizard-evolution_2.html

A change in behavior of the anole lizards led to an evolutionary change. At first, they were running away from predators. That made the anoles with the longer legs the most likely to survive. Then, they started evading predators by going up trees. The shorter legged anoles were more likely to succeed doing that. After the change of behavior, the long legged anoles started disappearing.

This is not the kind of evolution we are debating (we are debating macro-evolution, right?), as no new genetic information was made. This is merely a change in behavior. After reading the article, I see that they never said what the changes to the species were. Evolution, of course, occours physically, and over generations (the experiment was only over 6 months, the life span of anoles is 3-5 years). The article gives no record of this. The short-legged anoles survived, and the the longer-legged ones died off. How is that evolution?

 

[warpus]

The short-legged anoles survived, and the the longer-legged ones died off. How is that evolution?

Because that describes the process of natural selection, which drives evolution, perfectly

 

[puglover]

I believe CFC is an anomaly in that it has a high number of creationist members - the only creationists that I "know" are on CFC.

Most of the atheists I know are on CFC. That proves nothing.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is not the kind of evolution we are debating (we are debating macro-evolution, right?), as no new genetic information was made.

New genetic information is added (via mutation) very easily. While this is a common comment from those who don't really understand genetics, the idea of 'no new information' is so false that people don't even understand what it means.

Mutation easily adds new genetic information; there are hosts of mechanisms for it.

 

[ironduck]

Yeah, I would actually like to understand what 'no new information' means..

 

[Perfection]

@Perfection I understand that, but when you say "but i cant force you to agree" my y question is what would make you want me to agree?

Because I have stakes in what other people believe, it effects society.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I would actually like to understand what 'no new information' means..

I watched a couple Hovind articles, to get a sense for what it means.

I used to assume that it meant "no mutations lead to novel and new proteins", which makes sense as a statement (though it's wrong). It would be like saying "gravity only affects some types of mass" - false, but understandable.

What it seems to mean is that no novel organs results from mutation, any 'new' organ is merely a repeat of another organ. Classical Hero highlighted the mindset when he declared that the 'extra flippers' on the mutant dolphins wasn't evolution - because there was no new information. (Repeating 'fin genes' (lol) wasn't anything new).

Anybody who understands genetics deals with gene expression; so the idea of new genes being created is not the least bit distressing (it's so common that there are reams of causes). And then we take the step of "new gene -> natural selection applies"