Jump to content


Photo

Not All Science Is The Same


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:40 AM

 
 
Cheeseburger: Such a comment is a misrepresentation of hypotheses within natural history. The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model nor expectation that they might ever be empirically falsifiable. Wibble's suggestion above is a progression rooted in obscerved naturalistic phenomena, accepted naturalistic processes and potentially leaving naturalistic traces. The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story. 

 
Look that won't change the fact you have an appallingly weak case, logically speaking. Can you show me an elephant in nature right now that is born without ivory since they are nearly extinct because of humans hunting them? No? So if evolution can't even come up with a lack of ivory tusk, why should I ever believe it has the power to give various flight apparatus in bats, pterosaurs and birds? For it to happen once would be staggering beyond words, but when we look at the sophistication of those designs, intelligent design of the most immense proportion, is the only logical cause.
 

 
 
Cheeseburger: The creation of Eve from Adam's rib in Genesis (to explain the long-held, erroneous belief that men had one less rib bone) is an authentic example of an origins' just-so story.

 
The problem with that argument is that you have no way to verify what you are saying. How can you know how long this was a belief? Do you know when that long held belief began? Do you know that belief preceded the Genesis account?
 
So to just say that was a story invented to explain the belief in one less rib bone, is just an assertion. 
 
Prove it.
 

 
 
Cheeseburger: The just-so stories were devised by Kipling without reference to a pre-existing scientific model

 
Oh forgive me then I shall correct myself, Wibble offered a story. A story that an isolated population can sprout wings because they would be, "useful" and not leave a trace, the same as everything else in history, that also left no trace.
 
Meanwhile in reality-land, all we find littered in the fossils is complete fliers, completely designed, without any hint that evolution created them, meaning parsimoniously I am afraid that favours a designer immensely more than any evolution story, and studying population genetics in micro evolution, I am afraid doesn't give an ounce of credibility to this macro story.

Ivory:
Who's to say that a mutation wouldn't emerge in time? It's possible that it may already have done so but happened not to fix due to S@xual selection.

Adam' rib:
Given that men are more prone to abdominal muscularity that could obscure the floating ribs it seems plausible that the missing rib would be perennial fallacy.

Those portions of genesis with an apparent Babylonian influence (compare genesis 2-3 with Ezekiel 28, the latter acknowledged to have been written during the captivity) often serve as explanations of phenomena - the Tower of Babel explains diversity of language, Noah explains rainbows and the origins of meat and alcohol consumption etc. In scholarly terms such passages would be associated with the punning jahwist author.

Design as more parsimonious:
Really? Wouldn't it double the cause of biological diversity to naturalistic evolution at a micro level plus the intercession of a designer at macro?

#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 12:15 PM

Cheeseburger there's too many assumptions in your last post I'm afraid.

 

For example, I don't believe Genesis originated at the time of Babylonian captivity, because for example the evidence of Joshua's altar on Mt Ebel. (If I remember the name correctly which I probably haven't.) We also have about twenty names from the book of Jeremiah that have been found on inscriptions, and much more archaeological evidence that the bible's history is true, including the fossil record which contains fossils instantly buried many in the suffocation position, eating, digesting, fighting, giving birth, it all speaks of catastrophe.

 

So all of your evolutionist assumptions are based on your philosophy. Like when you say the "intercession" of a designer, when that isn't even close to the creationist position which says God created ex nihilo at the beginning, and designed all species to reproduce after their kinds. There was no macro.



#43 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:00 PM

I accept that the creationist position is of a designer intervening at the beginning to create distinct kinds but that would still entail a separate second round of diversification through naturalistic (micro)evolution - hardly more parsimonious than evolution alone.

The standard case for a mid-first millennium BCE Genesis:
Babylonian references such as cherubim and anachronisms such as the Euphrates flowing out of Eden,
Aramaic place names creeping into the text,
The overall themes of the Torah pertain to the issues of post-exile politics - i.e. justification for the landowners (through the precedent of Abraham and Jacob) and for the priestly class (through Moses).

#44 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:31 PM

It would be useful right now in the world, if elephants were born without ivory since wicked men are close to making them extinct. Do you see it happening?
 
No. In the real world, nature doesn't send new anatomical plans to a species just because those features would be useful, because nature isn't a designer. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it will be magically given by evolution. Evolution has no prescience, if it did, it would have abolished ivory in elephants, an isolated population without tusks should have been born to fight the hunters of elephants that seek their ivory.[/font]
 
Wibble, if nature can't even provide an elephant without ivory why should I accept it sprouted wings for pterosaurs and bats? Because it's "useful"?
 
Get real, there just isn't any reality to it.


Being a CMI guru, I'm surprised you didn't know about the observed reduction in African elephant tusk size due to poaching. Of course, they don't cite it as evidence for evolution.
http://creation.com/...ts-losing-tusks

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...rica/180301.stm
Evidence of a trend in tuskless elephants has been reported elsewhere.

Mark and Delia Owens recorded an unusual number of such elephants in 1997 while carrying out research in Zambia's North Luangwa National Park.

Published on the National Wildlife Federation's Website, they write: "Our research indicates that more than 38% of Luangwa elephants carry no tusks.

"Other researchers have reported that in natural, unstressed populations, only 2% of the animals are tuskless."

 

What's that sound ? Oh it's Mikey falling flat on his face again ;)

 

(Wibbly mischief complete)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#45 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 04:00 PM

Although I would still say the elephants will likely keep the tusks overall. 1997 is 20 years ago now, I wonder how long it will take for all tusks to go? Between 1979 and 1989 there was high levels of poaching I read, and it seems the threat is continual.

 

I would bet elephants will continue to grow tusks. The history of poaching no doubt precedes the 1970s by a long way, yet they still have tusks. It shows how evolution isn't coming to the rescue.

 

How many other animals have went extinct easily? We know of many. I still say this isn't a good example of evolution. It seems like a contradiction, on one hand we are expected to give evolution abilities similar to an omniscient designer, on the other hand species go extinct easily.

 

Apparently humans have caused 322 animal extinctions in the last 500 years. That's 322 animals evolution couldn't save yet we are supposed to believe it came up with many types of different wing apparatus, feathers and contraflow lungs because of selection pressure for flight not even necessarily needed for survival?

 

Seems like a contradiction. Be honest, you think so too.



#46 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 July 2017 - 12:21 AM

 

It would be useful right now in the world, if elephants were born without ivory since wicked men are close to making them extinct. Do you see it happening?
 
No. In the real world, nature doesn't send new anatomical plans to a species just because those features would be useful, because nature isn't a designer. Just because something is useful doesn't mean it will be magically given by evolution. Evolution has no prescience, if it did, it would have abolished ivory in elephants, an isolated population without tusks should have been born to fight the hunters of elephants that seek their ivory.[/font]
 
Wibble, if nature can't even provide an elephant without ivory why should I accept it sprouted wings for pterosaurs and bats? Because it's "useful"?
 
Get real, there just isn't any reality to it.


Being a CMI guru, I'm surprised you didn't know about the observed reduction in African elephant tusk size due to poaching. Of course, they don't cite it as evidence for evolution.
http://creation.com/...ts-losing-tusks

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...rica/180301.stm
Evidence of a trend in tuskless elephants has been reported elsewhere.

Mark and Delia Owens recorded an unusual number of such elephants in 1997 while carrying out research in Zambia's North Luangwa National Park.

Published on the National Wildlife Federation's Website, they write: "Our research indicates that more than 38% of Luangwa elephants carry no tusks.

"Other researchers have reported that in natural, unstressed populations, only 2% of the animals are tuskless."

 

What's that sound ? Oh it's Mikey falling flat on his face again ;)

 

(Wibbly mischief complete)

 

 

"Being a CMI guru, I'm surprised you didn't know about the observed reduction in African elephant tusk size due to poaching. Of course, they don't cite it as evidence for evolution.

http://creation.com/...ts-losing-tusks"

 

 

 

Yes, and since it is only evidence for Variation,  Adaptation or even DE volution.. Why on EARTH would they insanely cite it as "Evidence" for evolution???  :think: 

 

Let me wager that, as soon as the poaching stops, the tusks revert back to pre poaching sizes like the finches beaks in the Galapagos..  No Evolution..

 

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.

But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users