Australopithecines aren't "just" apes

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ unsubscribes........

 

[brinny]

me too.

 

[lucaspa]

interesting response. Are you basing that on what is written in God's Word, or basing it on something else?

It is ultimately based both on scripture and the Holy Spirit. Ever hear of the First Commandment?

It's obvious from John 1:1, Hebrews 4:12, and Rev 19:13 that Jesus is divine but scripture is not. It's also obvious that the Holy Spirit guided the first translators to use "Word" with a capital to distinguish between the divine Jesus and the not divine scripture. Or are you saying that all the Church Fathers were not guided by the Holy Spirit?

You see, brinny, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you are guided by the Holy Spirit to try to make scripture divine (in violation of the First Commandment) but deny that all those Christians ahead of you were devoid of the Holy Spirit when they made their interpretation of "God's word".

So, when faced with the evidence of a consensus among Christians (who are experiencing the Holy Spirit) over centuries as opposed to a few individuals who only started using "Word of God" to refer to scripture since about 1900, which am I going to choose as really being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Do you seriously want me to believe that God failed to guide Christians for 1800 years or guided them wrong? Or is it more likely that the few since 1900 have made a mistake and have not been guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Chesterton]

And it's been demonstrated that at least one early Cretaceous Theropod had red feathers, as my link shows.

First, I did not dispute that one early Cretaceous Theropod may have had some red feathers. There are animals flying around my backyard with red feathers, so there's nothing (scientifically) remarkable about that. But, based on your link, I would still say that that is an interpretation based on suppositions, not a "demonstration" Here's an excerpt from your link:

Specifically, Benton and his colleagues found remains of melanosomes,...which are tiny structures enclosing pigments that are embedded within the structure of feathers. Melanosomes are responsible, in part, for the colors exhibited by the feathers of some modern-day birds, such as zebra finch feathers.

The team looked at melanosomes from remains of theropods and primitive birds using a scanning electron microscope, finding melanosomes for reddish-brown to yellow pigment and those for black-grey pigment. While the remains didn't include actual pigments, the researchers matched the shapes of these melanosomes with those found in the feathers of today's birds to figure out the color.
​

But okay, I won't blame you or any real scientist for whatever paragraphs the Discovery Channel might choose to up and run wild with.

Usually there is none. Documentaries aren't made to spread scientific knowledge, they're made to garner viewership. My advisor, his other grad students, and I sometimes get together with the paleontologists at Brown, watch paleo documentaries with them, and laugh at the inaccuracies and lies they spread. Not all documentaries are bad, but very few are any good.

There are useful reconstructions that can be helpful for the sake of comparative anatomy, but they're found in journal articles and books written by actual scientists. That's where real science can be found.

Okay, that's a reasonable answer.

 

[Chesterton]

You can't "interpret" fossils like you can "interpret" Shakespeare or even the Bible.

Of course you can. That's what science does: interpret evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

Of course you can. That's what science does: interpret evidence.

Talk about taking a quote out of context! The rest of the post was about why my statement was true. In order to argue against the statement, you are going to have to show why my arguments are not valid.

You use the term as "there are any number of valid interpretations". I explained why that is not true in science. Please go back and read the rest of my post. If you find flaws in the argument, we can discuss that.

 

[Chesterton]

You can't "interpret" fossils like you can "interpret" Shakespeare or even the Bible. Each "interpretation" is really a hypothesis about the fossil, and those hypotheses are then tested against the fossil to see if the interpretation is false or supported.

So you can't get a dozen equally valid "interpretations" of a fossil. For a while you can have scientists arguing over hypotheses about the fossil, but eventually the fossil (data) will eliminate all the hypotheses but one.

Putting muscle on the bones gives some idea of the physiology and lifestyle of the organism.

Okay, here's your full quote. You're saying that an interpretation (for example, an artist's drawing of a living alleged "Lucy", which no man has ever seen, or ever will see) is a hypothesis which can be tested. Did you really mean to say that?

 

[troodon]

First, I did not dispute that one early Cretaceous Theropod may have had some red feathers. There are animals flying around my backyard with red feathers, so there's nothing (scientifically) remarkable about that. But, based on your link, I would still say that that is an interpretation based on suppositions, not a "demonstration"

Alright, I'll play it safe. They demonstrated that one species of early Cretaceous Theropod and one species of early Cretaceous bird had colorful feathers. They inferred, based on the shape of the melanosomes, that some of the Theropod's feathers were reddish. Based on the fact that birds these days can have very colorful feathers, it seems a safe inferrence that at least some of the other feathered theropods (there are many more than just Sinosauropteryx) were also colorful.

Because of this, it seems fairly reasonable for CGI artists to portray avian Theropods as having colorful feathers.

Now, here's the funny thing though. Back in the 80s artists (like Gregory Paul) were drawing dinosaurs as being feathered based solely on evolutionary relationships - we had yet to find any feathered dinosaurs. Quite curious that evolutionary theory was able to predict the discovery of feathered dinosaurs, eh?

 

[Smidlee]

But how does that life come from God. Does God have to "poof" it into existence? IOW, does God have to invoke miracle to get life from non-life?

Is it a miracle that a living cell takes raw materials and builds a copy of itself? If we see a miracle every single day would we recognize it as a miracle or will we as we do now tries to explain everything mechanical?

Shapiro is an atheistic evolutionist. You need to separate his atheism from the science. Shapiro, as an atheist, has the creed that "natural" = without God.

I never heard any mention of God in aboigenesis. In fact ID is hammered just by suggest life is intelligent design. (even by TE)

The irony here, Smidlee, is that you seem to have the same belief! But let's ask ourselves something: according to Christian theology, is "natural" = without God? Of course not! Everything in the universe depends on the will of God. This includes all the "natural" processes.[ /quote] It also warns strongly with the idea nature=God. They don't happen unless God wills it. If you take hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, the hydrogen and oxygen burns to form water. This depends on the will of God. Christians believe God always wills this to happen. So Christians believe that abiogenesis cannot happen without God. God sustains the chemical reactions that make life from non-living chemicals. But God does not directly make life from non-living chemicals.

a living cell taking raw resources to produce another living cell is not abiogenesis. If a small cell can take raw materials can produce life then I have no problem with God doing the exact same thing. I surely believe God can do better than a living cell and build a whole body from scratch. God is Life so producing whole living creatures shouldn't be that hard for Him just like man producing whole cars, computers, planes, etc. If man can be engineers in the natural world then why would I have any doubts God can engineer too.

Shapiro has mistaken this "not directly" for God not being involved at all. But you should not make the same mistake. ....

He is a scientist in OOL research which is why I point toward him and not because I agreed with him.

 

[Chesterton]

Now, here's the funny thing though. Back in the 80s artists (like Gregory Paul) were drawing dinosaurs as being feathered based solely on evolutionary relationships - we had yet to find any feathered dinosaurs. Quite curious that evolutionary theory was able to predict the discovery of feathered dinosaurs, eh?

Artists are wont to engage in weird flights of fancy, you know. I've seen drawings and animations of floating creatures supposed by some (including Carl Sagan) to live in the Jovian atmosphere. In order to answer the question scientifically, I'll need to know how many artists were not drawing dinosaurs with feathers. Then I might possibly be able to determine if a couple of artists just got lucky.

 

[Mallon]

Serious question: what is the scientific purpose of such historical reconstructions?

The purpose isn't so much scientific as popular. They help people to appreciate what these extinct animals might have looked like.
Kinda like this:

Do you find images of Christ misleading, too, Chesterton? After all, we don't even have a single bone from him to go by. That must really grind your gears.

 

[Chesterton]

The purpose isn't so much scientific as popular.

Well then scientists shouldn't be participating in it.

They help people to appreciate what these extinct animals might have looked like.

On the offhand chance that the animals didn't look like that, science is doing quite a disservice, isn't it?

Me, I couldn't care less what extinct animals looked like. I really don't care much what extant animals look like.

Do you find images of Christ misleading, too, Chesterton? After all, we don't even have a single bone from him to go by.

We all know what humans look like.

That must really grind your gears.

You know what really grinds my gears? This Lindsay Lohan. And people in the 19th century.

 

[Mallon]

Well then scientists shouldn't be participating in it.

Why not? If it's accuracy you want, why wouldn't you involve scientists?

On the offhand chance that the animals didn't look like that, science is doing quite a disservice, isn't it?

No. People should use their brains and realize that there's no way that we can possibly know exactly how an extinct animal once looked, and that all life restorations of fossil animals are educated guesses.

Me, I couldn't care less what extinct animals looked like. I really don't care much what extant animals look like.

Clearly you do care, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a mountain out of a molehill!

We all know what humans look like.

But we don't know what Jesus looked like. He certainly wasn't white, like most Americans assume. Why aren't you pulling your hair out about that?

You know what really grinds my gears? This Lindsay Lohan. And people in the 19th century.

It's called an automobile, folks!

 

[LightHorseman]

Are you saying God's Word, the Bible, was not God-breathed?

He's saying that not even the Bible claims that it is all "God's Word".

I am constantly at a loss as to why some people claim the entire Bible is "God's Word" since not even the Bible makes such a claim. Without fail, every time a literalist attempts to show the Bible claims to be the inerant word of God, they prove nothing more than that they have misunderstood or quote mined the Bible, John 1:1 case in point.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT ON

Good grief! Closing this thread for review and clean up.

MOD HAT OFF






​