Why don't we have fur?

[gluadys]

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

By the same token, the rest of the general public is far more easily fooled by bad science.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

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.

Again, you are using the same methods used to sell coke to peddle your theology.

Instead of using evidence and truth, fundamentalism has turned to slogans and lies to peddle theology.

Can you not see that this is a bad thing?

 

[juvenissun]

Is there a coherent set of "YE theory?" Claims of a decaying speed of light have been repeatedly shown to be false.

I do not know much about physics. But I know physics has some basic difficulties, particularly related to cosmology. Would questions around the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy make physicist think again what is the real nature of this universe? I could not give a meaningful thread to talk about physics which is related to creation. I thought you can.

There is absolutely no "global flood theory" beyond "a global flood would be complex" so as it makes no predictions, it cannot be falsified.

As trained by secular scientific world, I am ponding on one question: what is the origin of water/ocean on the earth? No geologist tackled this question except assuming it was gradually accumulated through volcanic process (count comet factor into it). But the case of Venus says it was definitely not that simple. No, YE people do not have any model for the global flood. So didn't for OE people. But just like the origin of the ocean problem, it could have many hypotheses. I guess some of them could be related to the global flood.

 

[juvenissun]

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

However, research scientists are also hoplessly poor. Who care to convince them?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

However, research scientists are also hoplessly poor. Who care to convince them?

Wait... What???

What are you trying to say here?

Are you saying that your theology is not to be wasted on the poor? That only rich people are good enough to spend time talking to?

I cannot believe I read this right, so please clarify...

 

[juvenissun]

Again, you are using the same methods used to sell coke to peddle your theology.

Instead of using evidence and truth, fundamentalism has turned to slogans and lies to peddle theology.

Can you not see that this is a bad thing?

Not really.

If you call Fundamentalist "lies" about science, then we all do the same. Just like historical people, none of us knows anything about science.

If we use the current undestanding of science (you may call it dumb) to convince people about the scripture. I think it is a very good thing. Evolution Christians are doing a (very) bad job on this regard. Have you asked yourself why is that? Do you promote evolution in your Church?

 

[juvenissun]

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?

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

But Nicodemus and Disciples did not try to "argue with", "interpret", or even "falsify" Jesus either. They just keep the question in their mind.

I don't know how to "interpret" Genesis 1 literally. I don't have a "right way" to read it. I just read it. Did you memorize some articles in your youth? Did you understand the meaning then? Do you benefit from doing that now?

 

[Deamiter]

I do not know much about physics. But I know physics has some basic difficulties, particularly related to cosmology. Would questions around the Dark Matter and the Dark Energy make physicist think again what is the real nature of this universe? I could not give a meaningful thread to talk about physics which is related to creation. I thought you can.

Dark matter has recently been observed -- it's a couple years from being confirmed and verified by the larger scientific community, but it's not a fabricated fudge factor as some have claimed.

As trained by secular scientific world, I am ponding on one question: what is the origin of water/ocean on the earth? No geologist tackled this question except assuming it was gradually accumulated through volcanic process (count comet factor into it). But the case of Venus says it was definitely not that simple. No, YE people do not have any model for the global flood. So didn't for OE people. But just like the origin of the ocean problem, it could have many hypotheses. I guess some of them could be related to the global flood.

It seems you've based your entire acceptance of a young earth on things that neither YE nor OE models can currently explain. As you've been trained in science, why don't you focus on the evidence we DO have and explanations of this evidence?

Usually scientists will build a hypothesis around evidence and test it with further evidence. If it is able to account for all current evidence and predicts future finds, it is considered a valid theory and is accepted over untested (or failed) hypotheses.

Instead you seem to ignore all current evidence and the scientific theories that explain all the evidence we have now and because you want your pet interpretation of scriptures to be correct, you point to areas where we do not have evidence and thus cannot make strong conclusions. The problem is that you then claim that the lack of information in these areas validates your interpretation of Genesis when it does no such thing!

The funny thing is that your version of creationism stands in every way on this type of ignorance. Your hypotheses make no predictions whatsoever about what we should find in astronomy, geology, paleontology etc... When the big bang theory predicted ripples in cosmic background radiation, many scientists thought that BB theory would be disproven because the ripples had not yet been observed. When they were observed a few decades later (or just a few years?) it was a dramatic verification of the theory. What observations would you expect to see that have not yet been observed if the earth were young and a global flood happened? What predictions are you (or any creationist) willing to make that could allow creationism to be falsified (or verified) in the future?

If you're not willing to step up and make predictions based on your 'model' don't claim it has equal footing with scientific understanding of the universe!

 

[Assyrian]

But Nicodemus and Disciples did not try to "argue with", "interpret", or even "falsify" Jesus either. They just keep the question in their mind.

I don't know how to "interpret" Genesis 1 literally. I don't have a "right way" to read it. I just read it. Did you memorize some articles in your youth? Did you understand the meaning then? Do you benefit from doing that now?

You may not think you know how to interpret Genesis literally, but that is what you are doing. Not only are you automatically interpreting Genesis literally, you are assuming that is the only way it should be interpreted and that any other interpretation is wrong and offends God.

Nicodemus questioned Jesus when his literal interpretation did not make sense. The disciples regularly questioned Jesus about things they could not understand. Why should they have questioned Jesus about the parable of the sower? The literal interpretation made plenty of sense, it just did not seem to have any point to it. But they understood enough about Jesus to know he was not giving an agricultural bulletin.

Jesus taught his disciples to understand the real meaning parables and how to interpret the OT. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Presumably that included things like the the real meaning of the passover lamb and Jesus being the seed who would bruise the serpent's head, not a literal snake either but Satan (Rev 12:9).

 

[juvenissun]

Are you saying that your theology is not to be wasted on the poor? That only rich people are good enough to spend time talking to?

No, no. Not "my theology". Not "theology". Not "the poor" you implied. Not ... Not...

May be I did not make it clear. But you are totally off.

Sorry.

 

[susanann]

The first is that less fur allows more efficient cooling through sweating.

Horses sweat and dont seem to be bothered by hot days.

 

[Deamiter]

Horses sweat and dont seem to be bothered by hot days.

Indeed they do, but they have to sweat more to get the same effect and if they stop moving suddenly after running, they will overheat as the air around their hair will stay saturated for much longer than humans.

The point was not that less hair is somehow objectively better or that sweating doesn't work to cool animals with more hair. The point is that less hair can be an advantage because it allows for more efficient cooling (in other words, it takes less energy to cool the body).

 

[susanann]

Indeed they do, but they have to sweat more to get the same effect and if they stop moving suddenly after running, they will overheat as the air around their hair will stay saturated for much longer than humans.

The point was not that less hair is somehow objectively better or that sweating doesn't work to cool animals with more hair. The point is that less hair can be an advantage because it allows for more efficient cooling (in other words, it takes less energy to cool the body).

My horses are definitely "bothered" less by hot weather, and less by cold weather, than I am. Their covering is much more efficient than mine.

 

[Citanul]

My horses are definitely "bothered" less by hot weather, and less by cold weather, than I am. Their covering is much more efficient than mine.

That may be the case wherever you live, but humans and horses originated from different parts of the world. The covering of humans (or their ancestors) was definitely efficient for the climate in which they lived. However, the spread of humanity across the globe has resulted in people living in conditions which they're not adapted for, hence the need for artificial items such as clothing.

 

[Deamiter]

My horses are definitely "bothered" less by hot weather, and less by cold weather, than I am. Their covering is much more efficient than mine.

As Citanul said, I'm pretty confident that you aren't living on the African Savannah or a similar environment. Also, the hair your horse has isn't particularly horrible for cooling (and is definitely much better in cold weather that existed where horses originated). It's silly to claim that their mane is more efficient at cooling than your skin though.

You should be aware when you're arguing from anecdotal evidence like this. ANY human or animal who spends their entire life outside with little clothing on (in a warm or hot environment of course) will be more comfortable in the heat than you when you step outside. We have a remarkable ability to adapt (not evolution here -- I'm talking about individuals, not populations) and be comfortable at different temperatures. Perhaps you've noticed this if you live toward the south and have met Canadians who find the heat oppressive or live toward the north and have met southerners who find the cold unbearable.

Your horses probably evolved in a very similar climate to where you keep them (though I couldn't be certain without knowing where you live) and are further acclimated to the weather where they spend all their time. You, on the other hand, are poorly 'designed' to live in cold weather and must wear clothes to be comfortable. In the heat, you probably spend a good deal of time indoors with air conditioning and I'm SURE you wear clothing in the heat even when it makes you very uncomfortable. Given these factors wouldn't you EXPECT a horse to be more comfortable in heat and cold even if their cooling system was not as efficient as yours?

 

[Assyrian]

How would your horse do in the Kalihari or on a hot African Savannah being chased by a Bushman? I don't know anything about taking care of horses, apart from what I see in cowboy films

but isn't there something about not running them too hard for too long? On a long journey you get off and walk the horse? The bushmen hunting the eland were not so considerate.

 

[susanann]

Your horses probably evolved in a very similar climate to where you keep them ........

My horses didn't evolve, they were created.

 

[Citanul]

My horses didn't evolve, they were created.

It still doesn't change the fact that your horses probably originated from a different region to humans.

 

[shernren]

Let me throw a few "sociology of science" punches back at the creationist community.

However, research scientists are also hoplessly poor. Who care to convince them?

Research scientists aren't hopelessly poor, not when they get grants. But the reason creationism should consider convincing scientists is because the boundary working of science is done by scientists, not by the general public. The general public can voice disagreements with what they think science is, but even the most vehement public normally accepts the scientific authority of scientists setting boundaries around science, even if they don't like it.

If ten thousand men from the street believed that astrology was true, that wouldn't get the scientific community to make astrology scientific, nor would it get astrology into school curricula and university textbooks.
But if ten thousand scientists believed that astrology was true, they would at least require the recognition of the scientific community, as well as a footnote in school curricula and serious discussion in university textbooks.

From an entirely pragmatic viewpoint, skipping entirely over the validity of creationism itself, converting ten thousand scientists is going to accomplish the creationist manifesto much faster than converting ten thousand public people, especially if any of those public deconvert the moment they enter the scientific sphere where they would have a say in boundary working. Even if it was marginally harder to convince scientists (and towards even most conventional theories, scientists are a lot more skeptical than other people), it would still be worth the effort.

Unless, of course, creationism can't actually get past the people in the know.

 

[Mallon]

If we were not descended from furry apes, we would not have goosebumps.
There is no creationist explanation for goosebumps.