Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion.
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 180 (4929)
02-18-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Peter
02-18-2002 9:14 AM


And of course let us not forget the pre-Harrappian Kot-Diji culture of the Upper Indus (3300-2800 bce) or the Dawenkou (5000-3000 bce) and Longshan (3000-2000 bce) cultures of China. Needless to say, none of these cultures mention any floods. 'Course, that was because they were completely wiped out, right? Obviously they couldn't leave any records...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 9:14 AM Peter has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 137 of 180 (20559)
10-23-2002 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Karl
10-22-2002 12:35 PM


Well said, Karl. My only quibble would be that, whereas I concur that such things as "faith" are not amenable to scientific analysis - being unique, purely subjective and individual affects - the social, cultural, and biological basis for the capacity to "believe" IS amenable to scientific analysis - and can even be examined in it's evolutionary context (at least to a point).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Karl, posted 10-22-2002 12:35 PM Karl has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 157 of 180 (20693)
10-24-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by blitz77
10-24-2002 8:08 AM


Hi Blitz,
You should be careful taking Creation ex Nihilo as "gospel" (if you'll pardon the intentional play on words).
quote:
It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal.
This is, unfortunately, somewhat out of date.
Here's a nice article - in a peer-reviewed journal - that discusses the particular "bone of contention" published in 2001, Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. And, just to clear up a bit on the whale transitional, here's another peer-reviewed article concerning an even older transitional artiodactyl/whale fossil find than Pakicetus (Himalayacetus subathuensis) from 1998: A new Eocene archaeocete (Mammalia, Cetacea) from India and the time of origin of whales.
You might want to suggest to the author of the TJ article you quoted that s/he check out the most recent research. After all, otherwise the folks at AnswersInGenesis might find themselves looking foolish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:08 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:58 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 160 of 180 (20702)
10-24-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by blitz77
10-24-2002 8:58 AM


Okay, I see you edited out the part I quoted.
Anyway, Himalayacetis IS an archeocetacean. I'm not sure you can call it a "true whale" - it's really more representative of a transitional. It was found in correlation with marine molluscs, so it was definately at least partly aquatic (hence considering it cetacea), but oxygenation analysis of the dentition indicates a possible fresh-water and marine origin. Also, the dental pattern is closer to earlier Artiodactyls like Diacodexis than anything else. It's definately a pakicetid, however. Just about 3.5 my older. The divergeance of whales from artiodactyls based on molecular comparisons indicates that the node took place somewhere around 62 mya. That makes Himalayacetis the oldest whale at about 55-56 mya. It's not a species-to-species transitional, but does add one more link in the land-to-water chain. It IS, without question, a transitional organism. How much time it spent on land vs how much in water is still open. As usual with paleontology, we'll have to wait for more fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by blitz77, posted 10-24-2002 8:58 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 178 of 180 (96474)
03-31-2004 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by LoganGator
03-31-2004 6:31 PM


Sorry to burst your bubble there, pal, but the guy you're cheering on hasn't been around for about, oh, two years. I think your support is a tad late.
Oh, btw, welcome to the forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by LoganGator, posted 03-31-2004 6:31 PM LoganGator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024