Why don't we have fur?

[Deamiter]

All these discussion started from that LucasPa insists that the modern science could disprove YE. I am only given a tiny tiny biological example to show the difference. In my field (geology), there are also a bunch similar cases. But I have not seen a qualified person here to discuss that.

All these fur explanations are nothing but GUESSES. That is how good our science is right now. Needless to say disprove YE. Deameter said that I went to issue of too much detail. Well, that is where the real meat is in this whole debate. I would say 95% of what people argued about on this issue is built on sand.

But, how serious people could be when they talk on Internet forums?

I said you went into too much detail? I love details!

You're right, if somebody asks "how did our optic nerve evolve in front of the rods and cones whereas it's back out of the way in squids" can we ever be 100% sure of any potential explanation? To do so we'd need detailed records of every mutation in every generation and details of every aspect of the environment.

The amount of hair on human bodies has NEVER been presented as evidence against a young earth. It was proposed as something that evolution could not explain, and we have shown how it could have happened via evolution.

You need to distinguish between evidence that is presented for a theory and hypotheses that are presented in response to a challenge of the theory. If you claim some evidence (say, light hair on humans) disproves evolution one must only show that light hair is POSSIBLE via evolution to show that you are wrong. Similarly, if we examine the evidence in your field of geology and wonder how extensive termite mounds (that take decades to build) are found in the middle of proposed flood layers, you must build a plausable explanation based on the mechanisms of a global flood to explain such a find.

The problem with YEC 'science' is that it utterly refuses to get into the details and claim which layers were laid down by a proposed global flood. If it were to do so in one or more places around the world, it could no longer rely on "the flood was complicated and we don't understand it yet" as an answer to any challenge.

You like details and you're into geology. I'll readily admit that as a physics grad student, I'm a bit out of my field in geology, but I'm not THAT unfamiliar. Why not pick one or two geological columns and explain exactly how each layer was (or could have been) formed and where the flood started and ended? Until you make some predictions and allow your hypothesis to be falsifiable nobody is going to take you seriously for good reason!

 

[Deamiter]

How about other claims? Could any one disprove all of their claims as positive as the dating argument?

Provided that they did give "scientific" argument about the dating technique. I don't even have time to fully understand what they said in there. I doubt 200% you did. If you did not, how could you say they are wrong on the dating argument?

It is not the problem how other people said about the argument. It is YOUR problem. Because it is related to YOUR eternal reward.

I'm having some trouble understanding some of your statements -- perhaps English is not your primary language? In particular the following two sentences don't parse well:

Could any one disprove all of their claims as positive as the dating argument?

It is not the problem how other people said about the argument.

I'm honestly not trying to point out errors, but I really am quite confused about what you're trying to say so perhaps you could clarify these statements? I could guess at your points, but these are muddled enough that I wouldn't feel confident that I was correct.

I believe (200% ?) that I understand radiometric dating well enough to be able to identify when claims are accurate and when conclusions are justified. It'd obviously be a subject for a different thread, but if you're interested in going over radiometric dating (with a masters physics student -- not an expert but well qualified compared to the general public) I'd be more than happy to respond in detail in another thread to whatever questions you might have.

 

[Deamiter]

If somebody can give 10 such examples, then people would take your guess more seriously.

Are you serious? If you saw ten examples of hairy people you'd take evolution (or even a proposal of this particular evolutionary path) more seriously?

Well it's known as Hypertrichosis and you can find more than ten pictures via google pictures.
http://images.google.com/images?q=h...S:official&hs=lF&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Wikipedia claims that 19 people with the condition are alive today (without citation unfortunately).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

 

[Assyrian]

If somebody can give 10 such examples, then people would take your guess more seriously.

He comes from a family of 19. Do a Google search for hypertrichosis. Or better still do a Google image search - just ignore the Wookies.

It is not the problem how other people said about the argument. It is YOUR problem. Because it is related to YOUR eternal reward.

Here we go again, another YEC who thinks our salvation depends on believing in a young earth rather faith in Christ.

 

[juvenissun]

If you claim some evidence (say, light hair on humans) disproves evolution one must only show that light hair is POSSIBLE via evolution to show that you are wrong.

So far, I do not see any study which shows the possibility.

You like details and you're into geology. I'll readily admit that as a physics grad student, I'm a bit out of my field in geology, but I'm not THAT unfamiliar.

Well, we can talk about physics. Does YE theory violate any principle of physics?

Why not pick one or two geological columns and explain exactly how each layer was (or could have been) formed and where the flood started and ended? Until you make some predictions and allow your hypothesis to be falsifiable nobody is going to take you seriously for good reason!

I know it is a problem. However, I feel the YE people are not asking the right question about the sedimentary record. I also do not agree with them on that they insist ALL sedimentary rocks were created during the Flood. We do not understand the nature of a global flood, if it ever happened. No serious geologist ever investigate this problem. YE people are so busy in engaging the public relation fight, I don't think they even have a full-time sedimentary geologist to do any real research.

So, if we do not understand the nature of the global flood, it is simply useless to talk about the record of the flood. A lot of "water" running back and forth on the surface of the earth is not the right picture.

 

[juvenissun]

so perhaps you could clarify these statements? I could guess at your points, but these are muddled enough that I wouldn't feel confident that I was correct.

Thank you. Let me try again: The first one should be" Could any one disprove all of their other claims as positively as the dating argument?" I mean that they DO HAVE good evidence to argue either for the YE idea or against the OE idea.

I believe (200% ?) that I understand radiometric dating well enough to be able to identify when claims are accurate and when conclusions are justified. It'd obviously be a subject for a different thread, but if you're interested in going over radiometric dating (with a masters physics student -- not an expert but well qualified compared to the general public) I'd be more than happy to respond in detail in another thread to whatever questions you might have.

It is great. However, I have to make it clear that I do not have time to study the physics in YE's argument related to the principle of dating. So if you want to do that, you would have to bear with me on some basic questions. I know they said the decay constant was changing dramatically. But I did not spend time to understand how did they show that.

 

[Deamiter]

So far, I do not see any study which shows the possibility.

You're asking for a study? We've given some ways that less hair could be selected for in a given environment based on observation of similar selection in nature today. Are you saying you won't believe it's possible unless we CAN show exactly how it happened?

Well, we can talk about physics. Does YE theory violate any principle of physics?

Is there a coherent set of "YE theory?" Claims of a decaying speed of light have been repeatedly shown to be false. I'm one of those who loves to go over the basics and would love to show exactly why it doesn't make sense, but I similarly have a ton of sympathy for people who try to avoid math and wouldn't think less of anybody who didn't want to spend hours and days trying to understand why experts find Setterfield unconvincing (though I do have a huge problem with people who refuse to try to understand a proposal and then fall back on their ignorance whenever the details of their beliefs are challenged). We already have a long thread on decaying constants, but if you started a new thread with honest questions, I'm sure we could go through the topic again.

There is absolutely no "global flood theory" beyond "a global flood would be complex" so as it makes no predictions, it cannot be falsified. A hydrogen canopy as a source of water for the flood would cook the earth to thousands of degrees as it fell so we can conclude that that has been falsified, but many YECs don't even know it has been proposed and many others don't know it has been challenged.

Build a coherent set of hypotheses and they can be tested. Make any solid claim and it can be tested. But asking me if a nonexistant "YE theory" violates a principle of physics just doesn't make sense.

I know it is a problem. However, I feel the YE people are not asking the right question about the sedimentary record. I also do not agree with them on that they insist ALL sedimentary rocks were created during the Flood. We do not understand the nature of a global flood, if it ever happened. No serious geologist ever investigate this problem. YE people are so busy in engaging the public relation fight, I don't think they even have a full-time sedimentary geologist to do any real research.

So, if we do not understand the nature of the global flood, it is simply useless to talk about the record of the flood. A lot of "water" running back and forth on the surface of the earth is not the right picture.

If I'm not horribly mistaken, you believe in a young earth do you not? You are also a professional in geology (again, judging from your comments). Geologiests of many faiths (certainly Christianity and Atheism) have repeatedly challenged YE and flood advocates like you to defend your claims based on the rocks we can all observe today. Whyever do the vast majority of you simply say, "we don't have a clue how it happened" and expect anybody to take you seriously?

We have a ton of evidence of how different rocks in different areas were laid down. Scientists have been working for two hundred years to catalogue and explain different features worldwide. In fact the whole field of geology was born when Christian scientists went looking for evidence of a global flood (and found that it did not exist). Then when we look at something that is NOT well evidenced (there are often hundreds and thousands of generations between early hominid fossils) you demand evidence of how it DID happen and use the fact that evidence is sparser as evidence that it could not have happened as evolution predicts it could?

Let me restate that -- you're using an absense of evidence as evidence that evolution could not have happened! Either our lack of hair is explainABLE via evolution or it is not -- now if we found evidence that showed evolution was not a factor in the loss of hair (i.e. if our loss of hair could not have resulted from mutation and selection) then scientists worldwide would reject evolution immediately. It's just silly to bring up something nobody knows for sure and try to use it as a cudgel against a theory that is built on evidence we DO have.

 

[hithesh]

YE people are so busy in engaging the public relation fight, I don't think they even have a full-time sedimentary geologist to do any real research.

Public relations fight?

SO YE have "megachurches", "financial consultants", "energy drinks", a multimillion dollar creationist museum, multiple well funded websites, can pay Kent Hovind close to a million a year, but they can't afford a full time sedimentary geologist?

Are you serous?

 

[juvenissun]

Public relations fight?

SO YE have "megachurches", "financial consultants", "energy drinks", a multimillion dollar creationist museum, multiple well funded websites, can pay Kent Hovind close to a million a year, but they can't afford a full time sedimentary geologist?

Are you serous?

Your description should be taken as distortion and exaggeration. However, what I said is my impression. If they hired a new Ph.D. on sedimentology, then the poor fellow would work to death to promote creation, rather than to study sedimentology. Those rich guys you mentioned knows nothing about science. Those know science are not that rich and has to fight for survival. Very unfortunate.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you serious? If you saw ten examples of hairy people you'd take evolution (or even a proposal of this particular evolutionary path) more seriously?

Well it's known as Hypertrichosis and you can find more than ten pictures via google pictures.
http://images.google.com/images?q=h...S:official&hs=lF&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Wikipedia claims that 19 people with the condition are alive today (without citation unfortunately).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

OK, my ignorance.

Did people study why are they so hairy? (see, the study should be in reverse: why are we so clean? But it is obvious that we treated them as "abnormal" and think we are normal. According to evolution, they should be more normal than us. )

 

[juvenissun]

He comes from a family of 19. Do a Google search for hypertrichosis. Or better still do a Google image search - just ignore the Wookies.


Here we go again, another YEC who thinks our salvation depends on believing in a young earth rather faith in Christ.

I think you can read, can't you.
I did not say salvation. I say "reward". In this forum, I assume everyone is saved.

OE has people like you, no wonder they can not see the truth in Genesis. That is fine. You are saved. You just won't get very rich in heaven.

 

[Deamiter]

OK, my ignorance.

Did people study why are they so hairy? (see, the study should be in reverse: why are we so clean? But it is obvious that we treated them as "abnormal" and think we are normal. According to evolution, they should be more normal than us. )

... They ARE abnormal in the current human population just as humans with tails are abnormal.

You might do a bit of research yourself as the genetic basis for hypertrichosis has been well established (though I don't have time to go searching through journals to satisfy your curiosity about whether the precise mutation has been identified). Either way, google (and scirus) is your friend -- it took less than 5 minutes for me to research hairy people, find dozens of pictures, hundreds of articles and know that it's genetic not environmental.

Back to whether it's normal, why would we use previous norms when we have current norms? Claiming that we should consider hairy people normal is like claiming that 'thee' and 'thou' are still proper grammar in modern English. We're certainly classified biologically (as mammals I think?) in part because we have full-body covering of hair. We're also identified as human in part because our hair falls out quickly over most of our bodies. (No people with hypertrichosis are not classified as subhuman, though if they split off into an isolated population they would eventually be classified as a seperate species).

If you're really interested in how species are classified we could certainly talk about that, but at the moment it seems more like you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks. If you're truly interested in hypertrichosis, do a quick google search. I love to learn myself and I have access to online resources that many people do not, but for such basic questions you might do me the courtesy of a quick google search instead of asking me to summarize my own google search on your behalf. If after you've done 5-10 minutes of research, you have serious questions about how it relates to evolution (or really on any related topic) your questions will be immeasurably more informed and our discussion will move on quicker.

Similarly, when I question a particular YEC claim (or wonder whether an explanation of XYZ phenomenon has been proposed) I almost always do a quick search of ICR and AIG to see what pops up. Often laptoppop will still find me a buried applicable article, but at least I'm not wasting his time by asking him to do the initial legwork for every question that pops into my head.

Sorry for the rant -- no offense intended, I did see a bit of humor in your asking why we don't consider our common ancestors with apes to be the norm, I'm just not in the mood to go over something I know you're smart enough to quickly look up yourself.

On a related note, we've about beat this hair thing to death (though a bit more discussion wouldn't hurt anybody). Would you be interested in starting a thread on another one or two of your multitude of questions -- perhaps on something more closely related to your field of geology or even my field of physics?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Your description should be taken as distortion and exaggeration. However, what I said is my impression. If they hired a new Ph.D. on sedimentology, then the poor fellow would work to death to promote creation, rather than to study sedimentology. Those rich guys you mentioned knows nothing about science. Those know science are not that rich and has to fight for survival. Very unfortunate.

So, to promote creationism, no science is needed at all?

Creationism is just another marketing ploy?

You would demote the church to a marketing agency?

And you don't see how this pimping of and by the church is a problem at all?

Didn't Jesus turn over tables and get a little mad at people doing this in the past?

 

[hithesh]

Your description should be taken as distortion and exaggeration. However, what I said is my impression. If they hired a new Ph.D. on sedimentology, then the poor fellow would work to death to promote creation, rather than to study sedimentology. Those rich guys you mentioned knows nothing about science. Those know science are not that rich and has to fight for survival. Very unfortunate.

Well instead of YE resources going in to fund such figures, why not allocate the resources differently, to obtain a person with a Ph. D. on sedimentology?

You and I both know, that Young Earthers have the money and resources to pay for such scientist if they were available.

You and I both know, that "scientist" who pursue such young-earthean endeavors, strike Gold. To assume that there is no money in being a YE scientist is a lie, Kent Hovind is living proof of this.

If you wanted a credible scientist with Ph. D. on sedimentology, you could just as well reward him, and reward him well, but unfortunately so few are willing to sell their souls.

(and the poor fellow would not be working to death, he wouldn't work at all, he'd just find you some slop, to sell you as science, because the gullible parishioners would know no better)

 

[jeffweeder]

Our entire bodies are covered with hair -- it just falls out more frequently than with other apes. Seriously -- look at your arms and legs and you'll see hair everywhere (to the horror of the women among us who shave).

And shave they do.

Have you seen the top of my head dreamiter?

Ive never seen a balding ape, although baboons seem pretty hairless around the backside.

Hell, even that hairy pic of a man, is still obviously a man.

Hey its my b'day, hope its not obvious that ive been forced to have a few ales.....

 

[Assyrian]

I think you can read, can't you.
I did not say salvation. I say "reward". In this forum, I assume everyone is saved.

OE has people like you, no wonder they can not see the truth in Genesis. That is fine. You are saved. You just won't get very rich in heaven.

If you are going to make spiritual threats you should be more clear. 'Your eternal reward' has a range of meanings throughout the various denominations, from the Catholic doctrine of merit, most commonly as a vague synonym for eternal destiny, to the different degree of reward for the justified.

If your understanding of scripture leads you to think people will be judged for not believing the world is 6000 years old, I am hardly going to assume the rest of your theology is any better.

 

[juvenissun]

If you are going to make spiritual threats you should be more clear. 'Your eternal reward' has a range of meanings throughout the various denominations, from the Catholic doctrine of merit, most commonly as a vague synonym for eternal destiny, to the different degree of reward for the justified.

If your understanding of scripture leads you to think people will be judged for not believing the world is 6000 years old, I am hardly going to assume the rest of your theology is any better.

God says something by words.
And you said: no no, it should be interpreted as ...
I don't think God would be happy about it.

I think there are many many things said in the Bible that we do not understand. But we should not voice against it.

 

[juvenissun]

So, to promote creationism, no science is needed at all?

Creationism is just another marketing ploy?

You would demote the church to a marketing agency?

And you don't see how this pimping of and by the church is a problem at all?

Didn't Jesus turn over tables and get a little mad at people doing this in the past?

Please do not take me wrong.

YEC organizaitons need first to let people know what is their stand. They have good science training and background which allow them to do so. However, what I am saying is that they are so busy in just doing that, so they do not have time to deal with criticism from non-YEC scientists. That is a far more difficult job than convincing the general church congregation.

 

[Assyrian]

God says something by words.
And you said: no no, it should be interpreted as ...
I don't think God would be happy about it.

You mean like Nicodemus took Jesus literally when he said we must be born again? You think that was the response God would be happy about? Or was Jesus teaching Nicodemus, and for three years the disciples, how to look for the real meaning of his words rather than interpret everything literally.

Is God more pleased with the Catholics who believe the bread and wine are really transformed into Jesus' flesh and blood? Is he displeased with Protestant sceptics who take it as a symbol? Do Protestants risk their eternal reward by not discerning the literal body of the Lord?

I think there are many many things said in the Bible that we do not understand. But we should not voice against it.

If you do not understand them, how do you know the literal interpretation is the right way to read them?

 

[shernren]

...they do not have time to deal with criticism from non-YEC scientists. That is a far more difficult job than convincing the general church congregation.

I wonder why. Normally scientists are far more easily convinced by good science than the rest of the general public.