Dinosors are fayk!

[Mallon]

More evidence that dinosaurs, like the theory of evolution, are just fabrications in the minds of atheists intent on denying the clear meaning of Scripture:

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

"This article will discuss the possibility that there may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur "discoveries" to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called the dinosaur."

"Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie and media industries may cause sufficient motivation for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation."

 

[Mallon]

More crackpot conspiracy theories here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/i_get_email_1.php#more

 

[laptoppop]

And bringing up fringe elements as opposed to dealing with the most mature expression of YEC helps the debate how? Makes you feel superior? Lets TEs laugh at their brethren?

Should I look around for fringe evolutionists? I've heard of some pretty crazy ones. Nah, I don't see how it does anything but increase antagonism.

 

[Mallon]

Feel free to have a laugh yourself, pop. I never said you denied the extistence of dinosaurs.

You do believe that evolution is so well entrenched among scientists because of their propopensity for denying the teachings of the Bible, though, right? You believe that it has nothing to do with the evidence in favour of evolution, and more to do with the atheist agenda, right? I've have heard many a YEC argue along these lines. And if that's the case, then I suppose your arguments do sound mighty similar to the dinosaurs conspiracy arguments I've linked to above. So I guess the question that inevitably arises is: What makes your arguments different from theirs?

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, I believe evolution is entrenched because of people working theory upon theory, enlargement upon enlargement. Every new piece of evidence is evaluated in terms of the conventional framework, and so naturally much new evidence "supports" the conventional framework. It is not a conspiracy, it is normal working of knowledge building upon knowledge. YEC is a radical paradigm shift - and that is always more difficult than adjusting the current model to accommodate new findings. For example, Darwin expected that over time many many more fossils would be found that would provide a continuous transitional picture. Various people have modified the original theory to adjust it to the evidence found.

I do have concern when such results give no significant difference than atheistic results, especially as I see it being contrary to the Scriptures. It bugs me when people accept the consensus scientific view and then modify their view of Scripture to handle it.

I do not reject any evidence. I freely admit my bias toward interpreting history in accordance with Scripture - but if there really were an irreconcilable issue, I would be willing to admit it and would have to deal with it.

However, you still haven't answered why you think it good and proper to bring up fringe elements and laugh at brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, I believe evolution is entrenched because of people working theory upon theory, enlargement upon enlargement. Every new piece of evidence is evaluated in terms of the conventional framework, and so naturally much new evidence "supports" the conventional framework.

But the fact that we can link theories and build up the evolutionary framework is testament to the fact that it is robust and well-supported. If it were not, evolutionary theory would crumble with every new find. Lies built upon lies do not make for a stable framework. Evolutionary theory is strong because its constituents (heritability, game theory, natural selection, etc.) are strong.

For example, Darwin expected that over time many many more fossils would be found that would provide a continuous transitional picture. Various people have modified the original theory to adjust it to the evidence found.

For what it's worth, Darwin was both right and wrong. Darwin assumed that evolution worked according to the principles of gradual anagenesis, accounting for his expectations of gradual morphological change in the fossil record. We now know, however, that cladogenesis plays an equally important role in evolution, and throws a wrench into our hopes of ever identifying specific common ancestors. That said, it can and has been done. In fact, I've got a paper coming out in the latest issue of the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences that describes a new species of transitional marine reptile.

However, you still haven't answered why you think it good and proper to bring up fringe elements and laugh at brothers and sisters in Christ.

I never said it was good to laugh at Christian extremists. I have no problem laughing at their insane apologetics, though.

 

[laptoppop]

I never said it was good to laugh at Christian extremists. I have no problem laughing at their insane apologetics, though.

Sorry, Mallon. From where I'm sitting your actions are speaking louder than your words. Again, I see no reason to bring up fringe evolutionists - it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, Mallon. From where I'm sitting your actions are speaking louder than your words. Again, I see no reason to bring up fringe evolutionists - it adds nothing to the discussion.

It may not from your POV, but as you have admitted here, you do not think that evolution is so well entrenched in science because of some 'evil atheist conspiracy.' Many (most?) YECs do. Ham and Aig do. So my reason for bringing up this zany idea that dinosaurs never existed is to intimate the question: Does the appeal to an 'evil atheist conspiracy' carry any more weight for evolution-deniers than it does for dinosaur-deniers? You might feel that this question does not apply to you, but I suppose that it applies to many other YECs.

 

[Assyrian]

In fact, I've got a paper coming out in the latest issue of the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences that describes a new species of transitional marine reptile.

I wanna see it I wanna see it I wanna see it

 

[KerrMetric]

More evidence that dinosaurs, like the theory of evolution, are just fabrications in the minds of atheists intent on denying the clear meaning of Scripture:

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

"This article will discuss the possibility that there may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur "discoveries" to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called the dinosaur."

"Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie and media industries may cause sufficient motivation for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation."

David Wozney is a relatively well known internet crank on several topics. He's a big time NASA conspiracy theorist as well as a Rapture nut in addition to his best known crankdom of the nonexistence of dinosaurs.

Why do cranks often suffer multiple afflictions of cranky things?

 

[theIdi0t]

And bringing up fringe elements as opposed to dealing with the most mature expression of YEC helps the debate how? Makes you feel superior? Lets TEs laugh at their brethren?

Should I look around for fringe evolutionists? I've heard of some pretty crazy ones. Nah, I don't see how it does anything but increase antagonism.

I think fringe evolutionists post would be quite welcome.

Who are we if we can't even laugh at ourselves? It's all in good fun pop, so I don't think you should take it so serously. I think after the last few threads in this forum from individuals accusing TEs of selling out, and being of a weak faith, some thing to laugh about is quite welcome.

 

[shernren]

Actually, I believe evolution is entrenched because of people working theory upon theory, enlargement upon enlargement. Every new piece of evidence is evaluated in terms of the conventional framework, and so naturally much new evidence "supports" the conventional framework. It is not a conspiracy, it is normal working of knowledge building upon knowledge. YEC is a radical paradigm shift - and that is always more difficult than adjusting the current model to accommodate new findings. For example, Darwin expected that over time many many more fossils would be found that would provide a continuous transitional picture. Various people have modified the original theory to adjust it to the evidence found.

(emphasis added) Now that's an interesting statement. To rephrase what you said, as it sounds to me: It's a lot harder to explain many things within a YEC framework than within an evolutionary framework.

Why should that be so?

In a real scientific paradigm shift the argument is never about how well the model can accommodate new findings. For a rival theory to be even considerable, it must at least accommodate every single finding that the old theory accommodates, and then some more. That's how science works. If there is any sign of a misfit between data and theory for the rival, then it simply isn't worth considering. There's no scientific reason to replace a theory that fits with one that doesn't fit ... no matter what the non-scientific reasons are.

You said it yourself: people work theory upon theory, entrenchment upon entrenchment. Think about it. If evolution was false, how could it possibly have held up for 150 years without any signs of serious conceptual strain? Why can we fit new data into it at all? How does phylogenetic analysis still work? After all, that's how we know theories are false: when they no longer work with the data.

If the data can be explained by evolutionary theory, what scientific reason do you have to believe that it is wrong?

 

[laptoppop]

(emphasis added) Now that's an interesting statement. To rephrase what you said, as it sounds to me: It's a lot harder to explain many things within a YEC framework than within an evolutionary framework.

Why should that be so?

In a real scientific paradigm shift the argument is never about how well the model can accommodate new findings. For a rival theory to be even considerable, it must at least accommodate every single finding that the old theory accommodates, and then some more. That's how science works. If there is any sign of a misfit between data and theory for the rival, then it simply isn't worth considering. There's no scientific reason to replace a theory that fits with one that doesn't fit ... no matter what the non-scientific reasons are.

You said it yourself: people work theory upon theory, entrenchment upon entrenchment. Think about it. If evolution was false, how could it possibly have held up for 150 years without any signs of serious conceptual strain? Why can we fit new data into it at all? How does phylogenetic analysis still work? After all, that's how we know theories are false: when they no longer work with the data.

If the data can be explained by evolutionary theory, what scientific reason do you have to believe that it is wrong?

No, I reject your rephrasing. I do NOT say it is harder to explain things within a creationist framework. I believe just the opposite -- that the YEC / Global flood framework explains things much much better and easier than the evolutionary model.

I cannot answer about the "why" -- although I do have a personal theory that a big part of it is specifically because it explains everything without involving God. It appeals to the hubris of man.

As I've talked about before, and need to do more of - I do have several scientific objections to the consensus view. As a Christian, I also have huge problems with what to me is not conforming to the revelation of an all-knowing loving Creator.

 

[shernren]

No, I reject your rephrasing. I do NOT say it is harder to explain things within a creationist framework. I believe just the opposite -- that the YEC / Global flood framework explains things much much better and easier than the evolutionary model.

Well, you are free to say what you will. Just get back to us when the creationists have explained Jurassic termite mounds, paleogeographical correlation, phylogenetically correct distributions of pseudogenes like GULOP, the absence of major bottlenecks in any given terrestrial genus and absence of greater genetic diversity in comparable marine genera, the immense size of the universe, the improbable absence of short-lived radionuclides without continuing origins in the solar system, evolution of novel adaptive features which are not degenerations of previous features, how "irreducibly complex" systems have plausible reducible origins, a criterion for quantitatively measuring information or design, and the immense similarity between the philosophies and theologies of the geocentrists of Galileo's time to yours.

Then we take creationism seriously. Not a moment beforehand.

 

[Concetta]

ROFLLLL @ the crackpot theories