Message 307 of 385 (565194)
06-15-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by BobTHJ
06-14-2010 2:57 PM
Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
|There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority.|
No, that isn't a scientific argument, nor is it the argument I was making. You have the wrong end of the stick.
I am not arguing that evolution is true by making an argument from popularity. What I am saying is that the vast majority of professional biologists and palaeontologists, those best qualified to understand the data, think that life looks evolved. I'm only talking about appearance here.
Now I understand that you do not think that evolution/universal common ancestry is real. So effectively, what you are suggesting is that an entire body of scientists has got it wrong. Not only that, your ideas demand that these scientists are so stupid, so breathtakingly incompetent, that they believe in evolution even though it doesn't even look true.
Is that really what you think? Isn't it more likely that evolution - even if false - does look rather convincing? Even you have admitted that "Darwinism" as you call it, looks good from a distance; all I am saying is that the view from close-up is pretty convincing too. Whether it is true or not, evolution holds out as a hypothesis beyond a mere superficial examination. In fact, it is convincing enough to have fooled almost every biologist on Earth.
One of the tasks a new scientific hypothesis must perform is to explain why any previous (mistaken) hypothesis looked so convincing. YEC fails this test. The failure is especially glaring given that you refuse to accept an omphalist god.
|I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true.|
With all due respect, that is because you are deeply ignorant of the (amongst other things) the evidence of the fossil record. Your comments make this obvious.
|I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past.|
There is no such thing as "mainstream creationism". There is no consensus within creationism that can compare to the consensus that exists within the sciences regarding the reality of evolution and an old Earth.
|YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.|
You are wrong about this. The arguments that people like AiG put forward on the starlight issue are just as omphalist as ever, they just lie about it, to hide the unfortunate ramifications. The idea that the speed of starlight has speeded up for instance, is just as much an omphalist argument as the "created in transit" one. It means that God must have set up the universe in such a way that it should look older than it really is - omphalism.
|Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:|
* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either)
Right, You are not an expert on identifying fossils. Your opinion is not worth much here. Also, you chided me for making what you thought was an argument from popularity a moment ago; now you are content to make an argument from incredulity? Come now. That is not a scientific argument either.
The fact of the matter is that dinosaur feathers have the same structure as modern bird down. They have two lines of filaments extending from a central rachis, just like bird feathers. They closely resemble the feathers of some modern birds, such as the kiwi. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation? There is no assumption here. There is only a hypothesis which provides a reasonable explanation for the facts.
|* The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes|
This is not assumed, it is the hypothesis of the paper in question. Can you think of a more parsimonious explanation for the presence of these structures? And if your god is so unfailingly honest, why would he create a structure that so closely resembles evidence for bird/dinosaur transition?
|* the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes).|
This is not assumed. The presence of melanosomes is strong evidence that the structures are feathers. It is also incompatible with the idea that the structures are non-feather filaments. If you want to make this sort of accusation, then I suggest that you go back to the original paper and point out the "assumptions". Your examples are all false.
And yes, other organisms contain melanosomes. But the melanosomes in Sinosauropterix and Sinornithosaurus were identical to modern bird melanosomes, not any other kind.
So, to recap, you believe that God put structures identical to bird melanosomes into a dinosaur, in fact, into the same type of dinosaur that is suspected to be an evolutionary link between avians and non-avian dinosaurs. But this does not in any way resemble the appearance of evolution. Hmm...
|As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement.|
I have told you, I am not going to address bare links. Please stop it. Doing it at all is bad enough; doing it when you have been asked dozens of times to stop is simply childish. It makes you look dishonest and thus tarnishes your argument.
|Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.|
Of course it doesn't. As I have said, the idea of the baramin is infinitely flexible. It makes no predictions and is thus unfalsifiable. You can just use post hoc reasoning to place the baramin's limits wherever you like. Unfortunately, that makes it completely useless as a scientific tool. It even makes it pretty poor as an apologetic.
Trust me, by the standards of this board, that was an example of a violation of forum rules. Please stop it.
|Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features.|
Your experiences on the bat/dolphin thread should have taught you that this is false. Organisms that are thought to be closely related show far more similarity that those with similar morphologies that are less closely related. There is no reason for this to be the case, unless God is fucking with us. Or of course, unless evolution is true.
|What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?|
There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.
So when you say that the Bible can help us with defining our baramins, you were only talking about a tiny handful of examples. There are millions of species out there; the Bible mentions... what? A score? Maybe two score? I think you are going to need some other objective way of identifying a baramin, because the Bible sounds useless in over 99% of cases.
|No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology.|
Fair enough. Although I must admit, if you are willing to acknowledge Biblical errors, I am at a loss as to why you would cling so stubbornly to something as false as creationism. The universe wasn't made in six days. that is an error. Admitting this would save you a lot of time and mental effort.
|I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?|
No. But then, I don't hold Darwin up as an infallible authority whose holy writ cannot be questioned. Indeed, in my experience, evolutionists are very comfortable criticising Darwin. It's only creationists who seem to think that criticising Darwin is relevant to modern biology.
Please don''t pretend that it is not normal practise for creationists to hold up the Bible as an infallible authority. You may not believe it, but for many YECs the mantra "God said it, I believe it, That settles it." is their bottom line. It is used by AiG and they are the largest creationist presence online. You are by no means a typical YEC (if there can be such a thing) if you reject biblical infallibility.
|I've answered this multiple times. |
No you haven't. You say that you've answered it, but you carry on making glaringly false statements, like "darwinistic evolution is inseparable from the origin of life". This is total bullshit. I just separated them, right in front of your eyes. The ToE is compatible with pretty much any origin story you like. Pretending otherwise just makes you look as though you are sticking your head in the sand - something that you intimated you would not do.
If you want to stop answering these points, stop saying untrue things about them.
|The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.|
Ooh, please treat me to the long answer some time. I would love to hear it. I am yet to see a creationist interpretation of the fossil record that wasn't hilariously wrong.
|Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.|
So it's just a co-incidence that supernatural explanations have a millennia-long history of failure, whereas naturalistic ones have a much more successful history? In fact, naturalistic explanations for things like disease, weather, cosmology etc, have a history of over-throwing supernatural explanations. But that is just a co-incidence. Along with the fact that the advent of modern evidence-based medicine ushered in a new era of cures and treatments at about the same time that methodological naturalism took hold. That's co-incidence too is it?
Supernaturalism had millennia to make progress and it failed dismally. Bringing it back is going to get us nowhere.
|Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.|
Don't let me stop you. I would love to see you explain the mechanics of the human and ape baramins.
|I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.|
I'm just making a point. If there is no objective means of identifying a baramin, how are we to know whether your version is correct, or someone else's - like the one I linked to - is correct? Without such objective measures, how can we even say that the baramin exists? I say it does not exist. Prove me wrong.
|Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously.|
Yes, you have said that. What I think you fail to realise is just how strongly this removes baraminology from the realm of science. Supernatural ideas are unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not science. In suggesting that we use baramins, you are essentially suggesting that we throw out the entire science of biology and replace it with vague, half-formed superstition.
|For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace.|
The term baramin gained its modern sense in the 1940s. Since then, there has been no serious advancement. We are no closer to seeing an objective method for identifying baramins. I would say that marks baraminology out as being a damn great waste of time.
In the meanwhile, real biologists have discovered genetics, millions of new fossils, tens of thousands of new living species, and generally refined and diversified their craft. There is no contest here. Evolutionary biology is the norm and it is thriving. Baraminology meanwhile his yet to offer us any new knowledge whatsoever.
Mutate and Survive
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 297 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 2:57 PM|| ||BobTHJ has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM|| ||Granny Magda has responded|