Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Assyrian]

That's not how I feel -- evolution can take a hike.

So you don't feel that "For every success story in the evolution paradigm, there's a chain of death and decay left behind; not to mention on-going fights for survival -- scratching, clawing and fighting one's way to the top."?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you don't feel that "For every success story in the evolution paradigm, there's a chain of death and decay left behind; not to mention on-going fights for survival -- scratching, clawing and fighting one's way to the top."?

I sure don't -- it's your philosophy, not mine.

 

[Assyrian]

I sure don't -- it's your philosophy, not mine.

You are the one who came up with the argument. It is one thing to abandon your argument when you are shown how unscriptural it is, it is quite another to try to blame it on me,

 

[Belk]

Stretch on over to Ezekiel and compare spiritual things to spiritual:

Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

God created Lucifer perfect, but then the entire rest of His creation sub-perfect?

So Lucifier acted perfectly (until he rebelled). Why would that imply that everything else was perfect? Why not use the word "Perfect" instead of "Very Good" if it was perfect at creation?

Even if 'perfect' isn't the word -- (and it is) -- the fact that God did it would leave no room for improvement.

Unless God specifically created it to be imperfect so that there would be room for improvement.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The "second bible", LTTF -- know what I mean by that?

I keep getting it shoved in my face all the time and told to read it.

Now now AV, no need to be so dramatic here. No need to play the martyr. You can turn your computer off and go for a walk if you ever feel you're getting the "second bible shoved in your face all the time." Seriously.

 

[Febble]

Really?

How odd.

Lots of living things reproduce asexually and manage to evolve just fine.

 

[Febble]

Embryology is one of my favorite subjects. I hate when the uneducated swoop in and say "those guys just fabricate everything".

Open a book and actually read what embryologists say these days. No one uses Haeckel's drawings. Embryology has progressed so much from the days of Haeckel. So PLEASE stop using Haeckel's drawings as an argument.

Although interestingly, of course, Haeckel had a point - to some extent ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny, as evo-devo studies are showing. But I was a little surprised to see the drawings cited to make an anti-evolution point.

 

[Febble]

LTTF is correct, the analogy is wrong because it is not comparing like with like. The Paley's watchmaker and the Boeing 747 forming in a scrapyard analogies are both false because they are describing inanimate objects. They don't reproduce, mutate, they are not subject to natural selection and the analogies don't allow for millions of years within which for it to happen.

I know of no good analogies to describe evolution and always cringe whenever I hear preachers using the ones mentioned above.

I'm not quite sure whether you were assuming I was disagreeing. I agree entirely. I was just pointing out that reproduction doesn't have to be sexual for evolution to work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although interestingly, of course, Haeckel had a point - to some extent ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny, as evo-devo studies are showing. But I was a little surprised to see the drawings cited to make an anti-evolution point.

I wasn't citing Haeckel's drawings to make an anti-evolution point.

Please go back and read my main point here: 121

This is why I don't like to answer questions after I make a point, people get hung up on side issues because they don't want to address the main one.

(And I'm guilty of it too.)

 

[Febble]

I wasn't citing Haeckel's drawings to make an anti-evolution point.

Please go back and read my main point here: 121

This is why I don't like to answer questions after I make a point, people get hung up on side issues because they don't want to address the main one.

(And I'm guilty of it too.)

Cool.

Still not quite sure of your main point though Is it that you think that paleontologists make things up? They do, of course, in a sense, like all scientists - they build models. Science is a very creative activity. The big difference between scientists and artists, though, is that scientists test their models against new data, and if the model doesn't fit, out goes the model.

I used to be an artist (a musician) and now I'm a scientist, and that difference is a big one! You can have the most beautiful model in the world, but if it doesn't fit the data, tough.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

With a little help from artists too, I imagine?

Find a tooth and a skull cap and next thing you know -- voila:

Do you think it's possible to derive a close approximation of what an animal would have looked like from one tooth?

 

[Febble]

Do you think it's possible to derive a close approximation of what an animal would have looked like from one tooth?

Well, you can tell quite a lot, of course. And from several teeth in a jaw, considerably more.

I'm reading Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, for the first time. It's a lovely book.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can have the most beautiful model in the world, but if it doesn't fit the data, tough.

And let me guess; the Bible is treated as a model, not data?

After all, models are reduced to software and fed into electronic prophets, and the Bible would make these [false] prophets go 404 -- right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think it's possible to derive a close approximation of what an animal would have looked like from one tooth?

Ask Amédée Forestier.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ask Amedee Forestier.

Who?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who?

The person Nebraska Man sat for.

 

[Febble]

And let me guess; the Bible is treated as a model, not data?

After all, models are reduced to software and fed into electronic prophets, and the Bible would make these [false] prophets go 404 -- right?

Well, in one sense it's a model - it's a story, and scientific models are, essentially stories. But in another sense it's data, as any historical document is data. I think it's important to distinguish the two approaches.

As a model, it can be fairly trivially falsified (or at least shown to be massively unparsimonious, as we don't, contrary to common belief, actually falsify, in science). However, as data, it's hugely valuable, and tells us a lot about the time in which it was written, and how a group of people understood God.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The person Nebraska Man sat for.

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[AV1611VET]

And let me guess; the Bible is treated as a model, not data?

Well, in one sense it's a model - it's a story, and scientific models are, essentially stories. But in another sense it's data, as any historical document is data. I think it's important to distinguish the two approaches.

As a model, it can be fairly trivially falsified (or at least shown to be massively unparsimonious, as we don't, contrary to common belief, actually falsify, in science). However, as data, it's hugely valuable, and tells us a lot about the time in which it was written, and how a group of people understood God.

Yup -- you're a scientist --

 

[AV1611VET]

You still haven't answered my question.

-- Have I ever?