PDA

View Full Version : How old Noah lived - 979 years? / Dinosaurs



Pages : [1] 2

antichrist
24-07-2005, 12:42 PM
Frosty and Igor have been argueing in the "Does God Exist" thread that people lived as long a period as stated in the Bible. In one case even having children around the 700 year mark.

When I have questioned other Christians about this, they state that it was possible due to lack of pollutants etc - in spite of my objection that there was not much medicine etc in those days.

What is your opinion?

Do you believe in religion or science?

You may choose more than one option and the poll is confidential.

firegoat7
25-07-2005, 05:27 PM
Do you believe in religion or science?


"I" believe that all beliefs are mental, including yours. ;)

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
25-07-2005, 05:45 PM
"I" believe that all beliefs are mental, including yours. ;)

Cheers Fg7

Bet you can't convince me of that.

what a relief to get away from that st george thread

Where is that commentary of St George thread that Starter promised you would send. Maybe we are not in the final stanza yet?

Spiny Norman
25-07-2005, 06:34 PM
Do you believe in religion or science?

No.

I believe in religion AND science.

antichrist
26-07-2005, 05:23 PM
No.

I believe in religion AND science.

Listen Frosty, I can't concentrate on this side issues whilst the stake of nations is in the balance.

But let me fill you in an embarrassing secret!

JC come from the Holy Land right?
A/C comes from the Holy Land right (up the road actually)?

So what does A/C think of many people who come from the Holy Land - the biggest bullsh.. artists on this earth!!

So when someone says that Joe Bloe lived till 900 years old - that is a typical Lebo bullsh.. story.

You must understand the context.

Spiny Norman
26-07-2005, 06:20 PM
You must understand the context.

Yeah, but I wouldn't go tarring them all with your brush. ;)

bergil
27-07-2005, 10:11 PM
Second greatest work of fiction after The Lord of the Rings, lacks direction as so many put their two cents worth in.

antichrist
27-07-2005, 11:47 PM
Second greatest work of fiction after The Lord of the Rings, lacks direction as so many put their two cents worth in.

I found it impossible to read more than about two chapters.

Rincewind
28-07-2005, 12:10 AM
I found it impossible to read more than about two chapters.

Obviously why you got the flood and the exodus mixed up. ;)

antichrist
28-07-2005, 12:24 AM
Obviously why you got the flood and the exodus mixed up. ;)

You mean the "breaking" of the waters, the parting of the waters or the bullrushes one- they just bore different types of children.

antichrist
29-07-2005, 11:31 AM
In 950 years Noah would have worn his choppers down to the gums!

Kaitlin
29-07-2005, 04:11 PM
..as Sofie will outlive Hilda :)

antichrist
29-07-2005, 04:20 PM
If Noah lived to 950 years he would great, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great, grand children - he would even beat Ro for being long in tooth.

Kaitlin, imagine having to kiss all your grandfathers with their hard whiskers and pongy pants.

antichrist
29-07-2005, 06:09 PM
ON BEHALF OF KAITLIN

hmmm this is going to be hard to explain.. you shouldnt have fall en asleep during Sofie Choice and I wont have too - tv would have educated you for me ... but here goes:-

Sophies Choices was about philosopy stuff, like a journey through all guys starting with the first guy Socrates.. so you had all that..but then there was this other guy The Major who was like able to do all this stuff like send Sofie and Alberto back in time to see the philosopy guys in action. He could do that as Sofie found out cause he was writting a book for his daugther Hilda and Sofie found out she and Alberto were just characters in the book (the same girl played Sofie and Hilda in the show but they looked heeps different). The Major told Sofie and Alberto that they only had untill the last page to work out all the philosopy stuff.. so they tried to trick him so they had longer - and at the end the Major told Hilda that because Sofie and Alberto characters in a book (I think that really should have been subtitled to "ideas") in a book that they will out live them.

So in conclusion like to the Noah stuff... he might of lived to 97.9 years just someone forgot to put the decimal place in the book... but still Noah has out live the guy Noah cause heaps of people still know about him today....

Rhubarb
29-07-2005, 07:35 PM
If Noah lived to 950 years he would great, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great,, great, great, great great, great, great,great, great, great, grand children - he would even beat Ro for being long in tooth.
This sentence, more than any other, gives us our greatest insight yet into the dysfunctional miasma that is antichrist's mind.

antichrist
29-07-2005, 09:43 PM
This sentence, more than any other, gives us our greatest insight yet into the dysfunctional miasma that is antichrist's mind.

Now Kg, you should give me credit for raising the stakes.

You must realise the mentality of the people I am attempting to influence - they are limited. You must show the absurbity as a lay-down misere - "keep it simple stupid". The last thing you do is try to do is high-reason with them - that is how KB has got it wrong and wastes his precious talent and time.

That is why I am such a good chess teacher because I know what level to aim my argument.

You don't realise it takes a talent to produce that sentence.

At least I know how to run comps and not get into trouble with FIDE.

Rhubarb
29-07-2005, 10:25 PM
You know, that's what I really like about you: you always come back for more.


Now Kg, you should give me credit for raising the stakes. I should give you credit for raising the stakes down to your level? Huh?


You must realise the mentality of the people I am attempting to influence - they are limited.Leave them be in their fantasy world. It's only when they rise to positions of power and influence that it becomes disturbing. Viz, that *ucktard Dubya.


You must show the absurbity as a lay-down misere - "keep it simple stupid". The last thing you do is try to do is high-reason with them - that is how KB has got it wrong and wastes his precious talent and time.With perhaps a few exceptions, I would suggest that the vast majority of religious types on this board are of the spiritual, allegorical type, rather than the fundamentalist dimwits you and I so delight in ridiculing. This means that all your ravings are largely wasted, unless of course your id has quite different aims.


That is why I am such a good chess teacher because I know what level to aim my argument.This is one of many, many skills that a good teacher has.

You don't realise it takes a talent to produce that sentence.I don't quite know what it takes to produce that sentence (perhaps, dumbass learns buffer control keys, repeats errrors ad infinitum, repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum...


At least I know how to run comps and not get into trouble with FIDE. So you've been fixing tournaments without the knowledge of FIDE? Here's the news: we're onto you now.

antichrist
30-07-2005, 01:20 PM
..........
Leave them be in their fantasy world. It's only when they rise to positions of power and influence that it becomes disturbing. Viz, that *ucktard Dubya.

A/C
Then it is too late, look at Hillsong, they get fortunes in govt. handouts, have the pollies kow-towing to them etc etc. I (dare I say) have been fighting these idiots for 20 years. The lower intellect are in the majority so non-intellectual religion has a head start over us and can rule unless kept in their place. It happens in the Islamic world.

KG:
With perhaps a few exceptions, I would suggest that the vast majority of religious types on this board are of the spiritual, allegorical type, rather than the fundamentalist dimwits you and I so delight in ridiculing. This means that all your ravings are largely wasted, unless of course your id has quite different aims.

A/C: of course. But recently one top player has gone soft - have you noticed? A tragedy.

KG:
I don't quite know what it takes to produce that sentence (perhaps, dumbass learns buffer control keys, repeats errrors ad infinitum, repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum), repeats errrors ad infinitum...

AC: it is calculated on my granddma's age at marriage (14 years) and the age when had first child repeat ad infinitum.

So you've been fixing tournaments without the knowledge of FIDE? Here's the news: we're onto you now.

Well judging by the Assoc.'s public response to St G fiasco, anyone could drive a speeding semi full of broken FIDE rules down the ratings highway and not lose any demerit points.

Dozy
30-07-2005, 04:11 PM
ON BEHALF OF KAITLIN
So in conclusion like to the Noah stuff... he might of lived to 97.9 years just someone forgot to put the decimal place in the book... but still Noah has out live the guy Noah cause heaps of people still know about him today....

I don't know about Noah or Methuselah ... they were before my time ... but I did get an Email from St. Peter the other day. He said they recently welcomed a lawyer into heaven (that'd be a first!) who had lived longer than either of those ancient gents. Unfortunately, when they double checked the computer they realised they had calculated his longevity on the amount of time he had billed his clients...

Rincewind
30-07-2005, 05:33 PM
Nice one Dozy. Speaking of longevity. People could do worse than read the Sci Fi classic Time Enough for Love by Robert Heinlein. At around 600 pages it's a tad longer than the average Heinlein novel but it packs a lot into the pages, including some Neitzschesque intermissions with such classics as

A fake fortuneteller can be tolerated. But an authentic soothsayer should be shot on sight. Cassandra did not get half the kicking around she deserved.

History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.

Money is a powerful aphrodisiac. But flowers work almost as well.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

That'll do for now. What has this to do with Noah and Methuselah? You'll have to read the book for that. ;)

Dozy
30-07-2005, 07:14 PM
That'll do for now. What has this to do with Noah and Methuselah? You'll have to read the book for that. ;)
It's a great yarn but you're one book too late. Time Enough for Love was the sequel to Methuselah's Children - but in this case the sequel far surpassed the original story.

EGOR
01-08-2005, 11:53 AM
Frosty and Igor have been argueing in the "Does God Exist" thread that people lived as long a period as stated in the Bible. In one case even having children around the 700 year mark.
I'm don't think that I've yet argued that people actually lived over 900 years as the Bible stated. But, I'll put the question to rest. Yes, I believe the bible to be historically accurate, include the long life spands found in the first part of Genesis.


Do you believe in religion or science?
Religion and science are not opposed or are they mutually exclusive.

antichrist
30-07-2006, 08:35 PM
I'm don't think that I've yet argued that people actually lived over 900 years as the Bible stated. But, I'll put the question to rest. Yes, I believe the bible to be historically accurate, include the long life spands found in the first part of Genesis.


Religion and science are not opposed or are they mutually exclusive.

If the world was created only about 6,000 years ago as per Bible, and people lived for a thousand years, how come in only about 6 generations their life-span has shortened by 90%?

EGOR
30-07-2006, 08:55 PM
If the world was created only about 6,000 years ago as per Bible, and people lived for a thousand years, how come in only about 6 generations their life-span has shortened by 90%?
Now this is a blast from the past.
Your numbers are a little out, but the short answer is sin.:)

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2006, 08:58 PM
Now this is a blast from the past.
Your numbers are a little out, but the short answer is sin.:)

Now, what was that quote about answers that are simple, elegant and wrong? :eek:

EGOR
30-07-2006, 09:00 PM
Now, what was that quote about answers that are simple, elegant and wrong? :eek:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

antichrist
28-05-2010, 05:58 PM
I'm don't think that I've yet argued that people actually lived over 900 years as the Bible stated. But, I'll put the question to rest. Yes, I believe the bible to be historically accurate, include the long life spands found in the first part of Genesis.


Religion and science are not opposed or are they mutually exclusive.

Egor, do you stand by this that these folk lived until almost a thousand years old?

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2010, 06:14 AM
If the world was created only about 6,000 years ago as per Bible, and people lived for a thousand years, how come in only about 6 generations their life-span has shortened by 90%?
See Living for 900 years (http://creation.com/living-for-900-years).

In any case, Noah lived only 950 years; the longest recorded human lifespan was Methuselah's of 969 years (see Biblical chronogenealogies (http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies)).

Rincewind
29-05-2010, 10:43 AM
See Living for 900 years (http://creation.com/living-for-900-years).

From caption to graph of lifespans...


The lifespans recorded in the Bible, beginning with the pre-Flood patriarchs (plotted at date of birth). Notice the pronounced drop in lifetimes following the Flood. This is evidence for something very dramatic happening in world history.

Yes when you started talking about historical people it becomes harder to make stuff up.

antichrist
29-05-2010, 03:30 PM
And Jono, I suppose you also have an answer to the universe being only 6000 years old but light from stars millions of light years away has already reached us.

Oh, that is right, the speed of light - about the only constant we have - was a lot faster before.

And Garratt has a go at me for being silly - I better refer him over here.

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2010, 03:57 PM
And Jono, I suppose you also have an answer to the universe being only 6000 years old but light from stars millions of light years away has already reached us.
Easy; already answered on this post (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=156052&postcount=156).


Oh, that is right, the speed of light - about the only constant we have - was a lot faster before.
No, you have confused me with someone else.

antichrist
29-05-2010, 06:07 PM
JOno:
First, it's important to note that there is a problem with light travel time for the big bangers, as explained by a Ph.D. astrophysicist here.

Second, when you ask about time frames, I ask, "according to what clocks?" General Relativity (GR) shows that gravity distorts time. The 6000 years is according to Earth clocks. My co-authored Answers Book chapter explains this somewhat (and explains why "light in transit" is not a viable option).

Third: a rigorous application of GR had to wait till Dr John Hartnett, a physicist at Uni of Western Australia, who is coming out with a book on how the space-time-velocity metric of Moshe Carmeli solves this problem completely. Meanwhile, check his bio for how he has applied this metric -- in papers published in secular astrophysics journals, Windy -- to solve galaxy rotation curves and cosmic expansion and eliminate the need for the fudge factors of dark matter and dark energy. For a layman's explanation of how dark matter is a fudge factor (cf. the proposed planet Vulcan and the new physics of GR which got rid of that fudge), see [ULR="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4626"]Has ‘dark matter’ really been proven?[/url]

AC Come on JOno what gobblegork are you trying to get away with here?

Has the speed of light slowed down by thousands of times to fit Genesis time or it hasn't?Don't keep sending me to someone's codswallop - I want to know in your words. And not on some other site either - open your gob yourself or shut up - it is disrespectful just fobbing off to other sites

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2010, 07:22 AM
Has the speed of light slowed down by thousands of times to fit Genesis time or it hasn't?
When have I claimed it has? As I said, that's someone else, not me.


Don't keep sending me to someone's codswallop - I want to know in your words.
That post WAS my own words, duh.


And not on some other site either - open your gob yourself or shut up - it is disrespectful just fobbing off to other sitesv
It's a site I work on.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 10:34 AM
Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 10:41 AM
Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.

:lol: Was that meant for the joke thread?

Desmond
31-05-2010, 11:30 AM
Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.
I'm speechless.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm speechless.

I know. Talk about flushing any and all scientific credibility down the toilet in one fell swoop.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 12:20 PM
Are you so narrow minded to tolerate existence of different hypothesis?

Desmond
31-05-2010, 01:10 PM
Are you so narrow minded to tolerate existence of different hypothesis?Yeah but that doesn't mean that's OK to believe that the moon is made of cheese. There has to be a line somewhere and the deomnstrably wrong stuff must be on the wrong side of it.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if your hypothesis were on Jono's site as one of the dumber-than-your-average-creationist-argument arguments that creationists should not use.

morebeer
31-05-2010, 01:33 PM
Reading this thread has given me cerebral atrophy.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 01:48 PM
Yeah but that doesn't mean that's OK to believe that the moon is made of cheese. There has to be a line somewhere and the deomnstrably wrong stuff must be on the wrong side of it.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if your hypothesis were on Jono's site as one of the dumber-than-your-average-creationist-argument arguments that creationists should not use.
What does it have to do with creation theory? Is it the old "commies under the bed" syndrome?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 02:02 PM
There has to be a line somewhere and the deomnstrably wrong stuff must be on the wrong side of it.


This hypothesis could very well be wrong. But what is "demonstrably wrong"?
That reptiles grow until they die?
Or that dinosaurs were gigantic reptiles?

TheJoker
31-05-2010, 02:32 PM
Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.

Why don't you test that hypothesis, by putting a lizard under some shade cloth and see if it turns into a dinosaur:lol:

Desmond
31-05-2010, 03:12 PM
What does it have to do with creation theory? Is it the old "commies under the bed" syndrome?Go ask them if they think creationism is a theory.

This hypothesis could very well be wrong.which one? the moon is cheese hypothesis?

But what is "demonstrably wrong"?
That reptiles grow until they die?
Or that dinosaurs were gigantic reptiles?Well perhaps someone with more knowledge of reptile growth rates than me could work out exactly how long it would take for a penny lizard to grown into a t-rex. I don't know, somehow it all seems rather far fetched to me but then I guess I'm not the type to believe fairy tales.

Or I guess you could just look at evidence like preserved embroys.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 04:24 PM
Jono,

Just to save us all some time. I thought you would like to add "dinosaurs are just overgrown lizards" to your list

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use)

I'm sure if you say it is silly, Igor will give it up. It is certainly no more ridiculous than ‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 04:31 PM
Well perhaps someone with more knowledge of reptile growth rates than me could work out exactly how long it would take for a penny lizard to grown into a t-rex.

I'm no lizard expert but I know enough to say there is no lizard alive today which is anatomically anything like a T-Rex. There are some similarities between earlier "dinosaurs" like iguanadons and modern iguanas but the closest think alive today to most theropods (the group in which many dinosaurs are classified) are not lizards but birds.

I also strongly suspect most lizards do not keep growing linearly throughout their entire life. Even if they did, then Igor's theory would still only make sense if lizards were dying from skin cancer or some other UV related disorder. Again, no expert, but I'm pretty confident that that is not the case.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 04:37 PM
This hypothesis could very well be wrong. But what is "demonstrably wrong"?

Demonstrably wrong means it is able to be shown it is wrong. That is, we are in possession of enough facts that the hypothesis can't possibly be true to as much certainty as science is capable of showing.


That reptiles grow until they die?

I strongly suspect this is not true. Yes certain features like tails are able to be lost and grown back (to a certain extent) but I don't believe reptiles in general keep growing ad infinitum even in their normal lifespans


Or that dinosaurs were gigantic reptiles?

This too. There are dinosaurs which are anatomically nothing like any modern lizard. Hip structure alone of theropods is enough to distinguish those dinosaurs from all modern reptiles.

Still if you think the hypothesis is defensible then present the evidence for both central claims (infinite growth and anatomical similarities between dinosaurs and modern reptiles).

antichrist
31-05-2010, 05:58 PM
Today I read how all mammals and whales (also mammals when I think of it) all have seven ribs. And if whales were whales when Noah and Jonah were around when were they cows? And maybe repeating I seen a doco on a whale being disected the other night and lo and behold there were it's redundant legs on inside. And Creationists will try and tell us that they did not come from mammals???

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 07:18 PM
Igor,

One thing you will have to demonstrate with regard the "lizards continue growing" claim is that this growth is not asymptotic to some smaller than dinosaur limit. For example you might have a lizard which has length 0.5 metres after one year and then grows 0.25 metres in its second year, 0.125 metres in this third year and so on.

Now I don't claim such a lizard exists but if it did then it would theoretically keep growing throughout its life but it would never get to more than one metre long, even if it lived for 10,000 years. So that sort of continuous growth does not support your hypothesis.

Earlier I used the words "linear growth" to describe the sort of growth you would need to demonstrate, however that may be too much. You would just need to demonstrate growth such that it is non-asymptotic, or at the very least would lead to apatosaurus sized lizards with a relatively short time frame (say 1,000 years).

Good luck.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-05-2010, 10:52 PM
Demonstrably wrong means it is able to be shown it is wrong. That is, we are in possession of enough facts that the hypothesis can't possibly be true to as much certainty as science is capable of showing.

Demonstrably wrong means you can prove it wrong.
Everything else falls into categories from "very likely" to "very unlikely".



I strongly suspect this is not true. Yes certain features like tails are able to be lost and grown back (to a certain extent) but I don't believe reptiles in general keep growing ad infinitum even in their normal lifespans

It is actually true. Those that stop growing in length keep bulking up.




This too. There are dinosaurs which are anatomically nothing like any modern lizard. Hip structure alone of theropods is enough to distinguish those dinosaurs from all modern reptiles.

There are many types of reptiles (and not all of them are lizards). Dinosaurs are also reptiles. Obviously those types don't exist because they are extinct.

Rincewind
31-05-2010, 11:13 PM
Demonstrably wrong means you can prove it wrong.
Everything else falls into categories from "very likely" to "very unlikely".

I think you are confusing what is right and wrong and what what is believed to be right or wrong. Demonstrably just means able to be demonstrated. What you think that word means personally is up to you.


It is actually true. Those that stop growing in length keep bulking up.

Now I think you are confusing growth with obesity. Reptiles will not keep "bulking up" for ever. They will eventually die. And in any regard an apatosaurus is not just really fat, it is really long like 23 metres long.


There are many types of reptiles (and not all of them are lizards). Dinosaurs are also reptiles. Obviously those types don't exist because they are extinct.

So if they are are now extinct the novel part of you post is what?

That the huge sizes were only possible in the pre-flood climate.

or

That if were to somehow reinstate the pre-flood climate that modern reptiles would grow until they were the size of the dinosaurs.

or

The whole Dinosauria superorder is a mistake and the dinosaurs are simply super-sized extinct species of modern extant orders. (That is either Crocodilia; Sphenodontia (2 species); Squamata or Testudines).

Desmond
01-06-2010, 09:24 AM
If you are saying that they are now extinct doesn't that just completely contradict the hypothesis that today's reptiles can grow into dinosaurs given the (supposed) conditions from a few thousand years ago.

TheJoker
01-06-2010, 12:52 PM
Don't want to comment on human longevity, but there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.

I am no herpetologist, but I thought a lack of UV light inhibits a reptiles ability to produce calcium and therefore stunts their growth.

antichrist
01-06-2010, 01:00 PM
I have accidentially deleted my post asking Jono if he believes the speed of light has slowed down by a very large factor to its present speed - because Creationists argue that to allow for light from very distant stars millions of light years away to already reach Earth that the speed of light was much faster then.

Jono, I am waiting?

antichrist
01-06-2010, 03:01 PM
I am not into science or maths much. Could someone work out what would have to have been the speed of light so that 6,000 years ago those most distance stars' light would have already reached earth?

As ancient Greeks etc chartered the stars we know that they were already in place.

I am still waiting Jono - mop and bucket required

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:04 PM
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if your hypothesis were on Jono's site as one of the dumber-than-your-average-creationist-argument arguments that creationists should not use.

Jono,
Just to save us all some time. I thought you would like to add "dinosaurs are just overgrown lizards" to your list


What does it have to do with evolutionism/creation debate?
How this hypothesis, whether it's right or wrong, strengthen or weakens any position?

You guys seem to be easily disturbed by any idea that does not conform to your orthodoxy, even though very little is actually known about past flora and fauna, including the time of dinosaurs.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 12:15 PM
... even though very little is actually known about past flora and fauna, including the time of dinosaurs.

You shouldn't generalise your level of understanding to others.

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 12:18 PM
As a matter of interest (to me anyway), given that Stegosaurus is believed by scientists to have lived (and died out) approximately 150M years ago, what is the scientific explanation for carvings of a stegosaurus appearing on the temple at Angkor?

I don't see how one can reasonably claim that the builders of Angkor used fossils as the basis of their drawing.

The most obvious answer is that the builders of Angkor and a stegosaurus co-existed.

Comments?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:22 PM
You shouldn't generalise your level of understanding to others.
The difference between an idiot and an intelligent human being is that idiot thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent person understands how little he knows.
I prefer to think of majority to be intelligent. If you don't belong to this majority - please accept my condolences.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:24 PM
As a matter of interest (to me anyway), given that Stegosaurus is believed by scientists to have lived (and died out) approximately 150M years ago, what is the scientific explanation for carvings of a stegosaurus appearing on the temple at Angkor?

I don't see how one can reasonably claim that the builders of Angkor used fossils as the basis of their drawing.

The most obvious answer is that the builders of Angkor and a stegosaurus co-existed.

Comments?
Another question:
What is the origin of dragon stories? And why dragons are so similar to dinosaurs?

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 12:34 PM
Another question:
What is the origin of dragon stories? And why dragons are so similar to dinosaurs?
Stories of dragons are interesting. Carvings of dragons also. However it is very hard to separate the fantasy from the fact. Whilst I think that it is possible that dragon stories have at least some basis in fact, I doubt that its ever likely to be clear-cut one way or the other.

Native Americans have interesting stories to tell about Thunderbirds. Some have drawn a link from that to Pterodactyls. Probably another case of inconclusive evidence.

The Angkor carving is different. Firstly because the carving is instantly recognisable as a Stegosaurus. Secondly, because stegosaurs were only 'discovered' in the late 1800's from their fossils. There is no reason to think, as far as I know, that the carving was based on some kind of legend, as all the other animals carved in the same part of the temple are of known species.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:40 PM
Stories of dragons are interesting. Carvings of dragons also. However it is very hard to separate the fantasy from the fact. Whilst I think that it is possible that dragon stories have at least some basis in fact, I doubt that its ever likely to be clear-cut one way or the other.

Sure it's not clear-cut, but something must've sparked the fantasy. If we accept that dinosaurs disappeared 150M years ago and human only appeared 100K years, how could they even have an idea of a dragon?

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 12:47 PM
... something must've sparked the fantasy.
I would replace "must've" with "may have". There are many other legends. One-eyed cyclops. Women with snakes for hair (medusa). Even RW's "fairies at the bottom of the garden".

I don't treat all legends as necessarily either founded in some fact or as necessarily pure fantasy. I'm happy to consider evidence for an against and assign probability.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-06-2010, 12:55 PM
I would replace "must've" with "may have". There are many other legends. One-eyed cyclops. Women with snakes for hair (medusa). Even RW's "fairies at the bottom of the garden".

I don't treat all legends as necessarily either founded in some fact or as necessarily pure fantasy. I'm happy to consider evidence for an against and assign probability.
Fair enough.
In the absence of any creature resembling one-eyed Cyclops it's more likely to be pure pure fantasy. But if the fossil is found, it would be tilted to the other side.

Desmond
02-06-2010, 01:00 PM
What does it have to do with evolutionism/creation debate?
How this hypothesis, whether it's right or wrong, strengthen or weakens any position?

You guys seem to be easily disturbed by any idea that does not conform to your orthodoxy, even though very little is actually known about past flora and fauna, including the time of dinosaurs.
Disturbed? I think it's hilarious.

I mean there are just so many ways to demolish your hypothesis that one is really spoilt for choice. At the moment I haven't bothered much because you appear to be self-contradictory in that
1. contemporary reptiles can grown into dinosaurs given correct light and atmoshpere attributes as they were in that time.
2. dinosaurs are extinct.

I think that if you do a little reading you will probably find that actually quite a lot is known about flora and fauna from that time (BTW what is your definition of that time; a few thousand years ago or closer to a few dozen million years?). Such as the size of eggs embroys and infants, growth rates, sexual maturity ages and so on and so on. All of which just completely flies against your bald assertions.

What does it have to do with Creationism? Well usually when wackies come out with outlandish ideas that fly against what we know, they at least group together and have a fairly comprehensive set of beliefs, even if they are a bit weird. For instance if this were Jono pushing this barrow he would not be talking about extinction, he would (I think; he doesn't appear to have your back on this one) be talking about different kinds and penny lizard laying eggs that hatch into t-rexs and approaching it from that angle. You seem to be going it alone on this one.

arosar
02-06-2010, 01:01 PM
THis thread is picking up!

Anyways, here's a quick link (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2009/03/12/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-hoax/) to Stegosaur at Angkor Wat. It's sure not an overgrown lizard, but it's an overgrown something else. I don't know what.

As for what sparks a fantasy, I tell youse what, I'm still fantasising over Linda Carter after all these years.

AR

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 01:23 PM
Interesting link. I find the following paragraph most illuminating:


Even so, the sculpture only vaguely looks like a rhino or boar. We can be certain that it is not a representation of a living Stegosaurus, but could it be a more recent attempt at depicting a dinosaur? Indeed, it is quite possible that this carving has been fabricated.

-- so it doesn't really look like a rhino or boar (I agree, it looks like a stylised Stegosaurus)

-- "we can be certain that it is not a representation of a living Stegosaurus" (wrong, that's just bluster)

-- "could it be a more recent attempt" ... "quite possible that this carving has been fabricated" (yes, its possible, but no evidence is presented that in fact it was fabricated, so that's very much what's being debated)

In short, shore up one's position with a combination of bluster and unsupported allegations. Hardly a scientific response.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 01:53 PM
-- so it doesn't really look like a rhino or boar (I agree, it looks like a stylised Stegosaurus)

Ok lets go with that word "stylised"


-- "we can be certain that it is not a representation of a living Stegosaurus" (wrong, that's just bluster)

No we are pretty sure that a living stegosaurus could never have been seen by a human. There is copious scientific evidence for that. Furthermore above you said stylised and if you are sticking with that than not a realisitic carving and so a living subject is not necessary. The stylisation also included certain anatomical anomolies regarding horns and ears so again a living subject is unlikely.


-- "could it be a more recent attempt" ... "quite possible that this carving has been fabricated" (yes, its possible, but no evidence is presented that in fact it was fabricated, so that's very much what's being debated)

You will notice this was just commenting on the possibility not the probability. I assume this is because this part of the temple is not well documented and so this could be a recent addition.


In short, shore up one's position with a combination of bluster and unsupported allegations. Hardly a scientific response.

No just pointing out there are anatomical difference between the carving and a real stegosaurus and the age of the carving cannot be guaranteed this is no evidence that humans ever witnessed a live stegosaurus.

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 01:58 PM
... we are pretty sure that a living stegosaurus could never have been seen by a human.
"pretty sure" which you used (and which, given your views on age of the earth, you are well entitled to use) expresses a reasonable view.

The article, on the other hand, said "certain". That means 100% sure, no possibility of being wrong. Sounds like faith to me, not science.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:30 PM
Another question:
What is the origin of dragon stories? And why dragons are so similar to dinosaurs?
That is a fair question indeed. It would be much easier to answer if certain types were not so dogmatic that no human could have seen a dinosaur. If they had, it would not be surprising that legends have dino-like creatures. And as they died out, the legends would grow in the telling, with no live creature around to disprove the story. For instance, you catch a fish that's 10 cm long; you tell your mates at the pub it was 1 m long; then your grandkids that it was 10 m long. Also, with dinos, there is the possibility that different features of dinos (and other extinct reptiles) were combined into one dragon (foot claw of Deinonychus, horns of Triceratops, dagger teeth of T. rex, wings of pterodactyls, huge size of Brachiosaurus. It's interesting that the Chinese Calendar has 12 animals, and all but the dragon are known animals--yet the dragon is treated as just another animal. This suggests that it was a real creature known to the ancient Chinese.

FWIW, my take on dino sizes and kinds (http://creation.com/how-did-dinosaurs-grow-so-big).

Desmond
02-06-2010, 02:39 PM
"pretty sure" which you used (and which, given your views on age of the earth, you are well entitled to use) expresses a reasonable view.

The article, on the other hand, said "certain". That means 100% sure, no possibility of being wrong. Sounds like faith to me, not science.
If you put certain at 100% then where do you put pretty sure? 80%, 90%? I'd say the certainty that man didn't coexist with Stegosaurus at over 99.9% quite easily. Certain sounds a lot closer to the mark than pretty sure.

TheJoker
02-06-2010, 02:46 PM
It's interesting that the Chinese Calendar has 12 animals, and all but the dragon are known animals--yet the dragon is treated as just another animal.

This is just plain wrong the Dragon holds a special significance in Chinese traditions (at least in the Cantonese traditions that I am familiar with)

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 02:46 PM
It's interesting that the Chinese Calendar has 12 animals, and all but the dragon are known animals--yet the dragon is treated as just another animal. This suggests that it was a real creature known to the ancient Chinese.
Pretty much the same reasoning I would use to assess the carving at Angkor ... if all the other animals represented in carvings on that particular section of the temple are known to exist contemporaneously withe the human builders, then why not the particular one in question.

None of these things can be considered in isolation though. People's "world view" significantly impacts things. If you're a creationist, then this evidence fits right in. If you're an evolutionist, then this evidence is problematic and must be explained away. In the end, neither party knows the truth; each party is left with their beliefs. It would take some truly stupendous evidence to cause one to question one's world view. Something absolutely shocking.

I would go so far to suggest that even if a live Stegosaurus was produced, this would be 'explained away' through some mechanism (e.g. "someone must have cloned it"). Just as non-fossilised red blood cells of a T-Rex have been 'explained away' by positing some kind of unknown chemical process that preserved them for 10's of millions of years. And yet 'they' criticise 'us' for a God-of-the-gaps mentality?!

Beliefs are a funny thing. Once you have a framework in place, everything else looks weird to you ... ;)

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2010, 02:56 PM
This is just plain wrong the Dragon holds a special significance in Chinese traditions (at least in the Cantonese traditions that I am familiar with)
I don't believe you, as much as I would like to being a Dragon-year myself. The Dragon is only 5th out of the 12 Chinese zodiac animals, and seems to be just another animal. The first animal trine comprises Rat, Dragon, and Monkey.

It might be that later traditions gave a special place to the dragon after they had died out.

Spiny Norman
02-06-2010, 02:58 PM
If you put certain at 100% then where do you put pretty sure? 80%, 90%? I'd say the certainty that man didn't coexist with Stegosaurus at over 99.9% quite easily. Certain sounds a lot closer to the mark than pretty sure.
"Almost certain" would have been acceptable language. "Certain" means 100%; and that's clearly something that they cannot be certain about. If I say that I am certain that 1+1=2, that is a defensible position. There is no situation which can be envisaged in which that statement would be false.

Look, maybe its just me, but I get really ticked off by people who either (a) deliberately overstate their position; or (b) misuse words and thereby inadvertantly overstate their position.

You put the certaintly of man's coexistence with a stegosaur at "over 99.9%" and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, given what I know about your other beliefs about things like evolution, age of the earth, and so on. But if you said 100%, I would doubt you, because I know enough about those topics to know that there are assumptions built in (e.g. about the constancy of the speed of light, about rates of radioactive decay over time, and so on) ... I know that someone who knew about these assumptions cannot be 100% sure ("certain") but only very sure, or almost certain, or 99.9 something percent. Not 100%; unless they're lying or just plain ignorant.

Desmond
02-06-2010, 03:08 PM
"Almost certain" would have been acceptable language. "Certain" means 100%; and that's clearly something that they cannot be certain about. If I say that I am certain that 1+1=2, that is a defensible position. There is no situation which can be envisaged in which that statement would be false.

Look, maybe its just me, but I get really ticked off by people who either (a) deliberately overstate their position; or (b) misuse words and thereby inadvertantly overstate their position.I get ticked off everytime you guys try to bring the "you can only be 99.999999% sure therefore the last .000000001% is faith therefore your method is the same as our method" crap.


You put the certaintly of man's coexistence with a stegosaur at "over 99.9%" and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, given what I know about your other beliefs about things like evolution, age of the earth, and so on. But if you said 100%, I would doubt you, because I know enough about those topics to know that there are assumptions built in (e.g. about the constancy of the speed of light, about rates of radioactive decay over time, and so on) ... I know that someone who knew about these assumptions cannot be 100% sure ("certain") but only very sure, or almost certain, or 99.9 something percent. Not 100%; unless they're lying or just plain ignorant.Dating methods have nothing to do with it (although they are another way to verify the information). Even if you do not accept the dating methods there is no way for you to get around the fact that the fossil record shows man and dinosaurs in different layers. Even if you believed that all those layers were layed in a few thousand years there is no crossover which would strongly seem to imply no coexistence.

Kevin Bonham
02-06-2010, 04:05 PM
The alleged stegosaur looks absolutely nothing like one except for having four legs and the supposed row of plates (of which it doesn't have nearly enough anyway). It isn't even a stylised stegosaur, just something else that happens to look coincidentally like one.

Further debunking here (http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-stegosaurus-carving-that-isn-t). Look at the surrounding carvings on that link and it's obvious that embellishment behind the animal is common in the images and the supposed row of plates are probably just that and the animal is most likely a rhino, with the very very distant resemblance to a stegosaur as a result of confusing the background with part of the animal being simply a coincidence.

I don't rule out a hoax to make it look more like a stegosaur but I see no reason to even assume that. It's a rhino in front of vegetation. Zzzzzzzzzz.

The gullibility/desperation of creationists in jumping on this kind of thing as evidence is a worry.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 05:28 PM
"pretty sure" which you used (and which, given your views on age of the earth, you are well entitled to use) expresses a reasonable view.

The article, on the other hand, said "certain". That means 100% sure, no possibility of being wrong. Sounds like faith to me, not science.

This is just a silly semantic point, science makes no absolute truth statements. By pretty sure I was saying there is more chance the moon is made of green cheese.

More interesting is the point that the carving only looks superficially like a stegosaurus. As you say yourself it is a stylised representation. I prefer the author's phrase, it looks like what a preschooler would make with playdoh. Anyone with real experience of what a stegosaurus actually looked like (or had bothered to do a little research) would not have produced something like that. The horns and ears are misplaced, the head is far too big (by several times), the neck is too short and key features like the tail length and spikes on the tail are absent. So either the carver clearly either had another animal in mind or did not have much idea what one actually looked like. Therefore the recency of the carving is moot.

Rincewind
02-06-2010, 05:37 PM
The difference between an idiot and an intelligent human being is that idiot thinks he knows everything, and an intelligent person understands how little he knows./QUOTE]

That is not a very good definition. Some unintelligent people like yourself seem to foster illusions of adequacy but it by no means a distinguishing trait.

[QUOTE=Igor_Goldenberg]I prefer to think of majority to be intelligent. If you don't belong to this majority - please accept my condolences.

I understand that in your position you would like the definition of intelligent to be a wide as possible as it gives you the best chance of being included. I regret to inform you that I take a definition which sets the bar a little higher and sadly you miss out on making the team.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 05:50 PM
1. contemporary reptiles can grown into dinosaurs given correct light and atmoshpere attributes as they were in that time.

Did I say anywhere contemporary?



What does it have to do with Creationism? Well usually when wackies come out with outlandish ideas that fly against what we know, they at least group together and have a fairly comprehensive set of beliefs, even if they are a bit weird. For instance if this were Jono pushing this barrow he would not be talking about extinction, he would (I think; he doesn't appear to have your back on this one) be talking about different kinds and penny lizard laying eggs that hatch into t-rexs and approaching it from that angle. You seem to be going it alone on this one.
No I get it. Anything that either:
- out of the dogma
- you don't understand
- you are disturbed with
- you don't agree with
must be part of Creationism.
Thanks for enlightening:hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 05:52 PM
I understand that in your position you would like the definition of intelligent to be a wide as possible as it gives you the best chance of being included. I regret to inform you that I take a definition which sets the bar a little higher and sadly you miss out on making the team.
Thanks. I am glad to know that not to be in your team is a prerequisite to be intelligent.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 06:00 PM
If Tiger Woods also lived to 979 years imagine the tally he could notch up - forget 4 scores etc but more like numbers equating with the speed of light

Rincewind
03-06-2010, 06:20 PM
Thanks. I am glad to know that not to be in your team is a prerequisite to be intelligent.

Igorance is bliss.

antichrist
03-06-2010, 06:47 PM
Come on Garrat, let fly on how stupid the idea of Noah living to 979 years is!

It may have been him as well who had kids at age of 750 years - Tiger could not do that.

Desmond
03-06-2010, 07:59 PM
Did I say anywhere contemporary?OK if we are not talking about contemporary reptiles then what is the point of your hypothesis? That there used to exist:

1. dinosaurs that layed eggs proportionate to their size than hatched and grew into dinosaurs, and
2. there also existed smaller reptiles that layed proportionate eggs that grew disproportionately into dinosaurs.

What is the point of this hypothesis? What evidence is it based on? What problem does it solve that is not more simply solved by only 1 being true?



No I get it. Anything that either:
- out of the dogma
- you don't understand
- you are disturbed with
- you don't agree with
must be part of Creationism.
Thanks for enlightening:hand:This is just a stupid response that in no way addresses any of the points I raised. I already agreed that your views are not part of creationism. I initially thought you were going down that road. I realised that they are a separate stream that so far:

1. makes no sense
2. does not have any evidence to support it
3. is an opinion shared by apparently nobody but you.

But hey, where do I sign up?

I mean, Igor, c'mon. You are a smart man. I respect your religion even if I don't agree with it. But this is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 08:18 PM
OK if we are not talking about contemporary reptiles then what is the point of your hypothesis? That there used to exist:

1. dinosaurs that layed eggs proportionate to their size than hatched and grew into dinosaurs, and
2. there also existed smaller reptiles that layed proportionate eggs that grew disproportionately into dinosaurs.

What is the point of this hypothesis? What evidence is it based on? What problem does it solve that is not more simply solved by only 1 being true?

That dinosaurs possibly had a longer lifespan due to a different environment. That environment could have been completely different (thus making modelling based on current environment inapplicable) is mostly ignored by majority of scientists.


This is just a stupid response that in no way addresses any of the points I raised.
Stupid response to stupid statement?
It was you who decided to lump everything you don't like in one bag, not me.


I mean, Igor, c'mon. You are a smart man. I respect your religion even if I don't agree with it. But this is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.
That's refreshing. I didn't realise you know my religious views, whilst I am not sure about it myself.

Desmond
03-06-2010, 08:21 PM
That dinosaurs possibly had a longer lifespan due to a different environment. That environment could have been completely different (thus making modelling based on current environment inapplicable) is mostly ignored by majority of scientists.

Stupid response to stupid statement?
It was you who decided to lump everything you don't like in one bag, not me.

That's refreshing. I didn't realise you know my religious views, whilst I am not sure about it myself.
Igor you are avoiding the hard questions and the substance of the discussion. I'll make it easy for you:

What evidence is there to support your hypothesis?

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 08:35 PM
Igor you are avoiding the hard questions and the substance of the discussion. I'll make it easy for you:

What evidence is there to support your hypothesis?
You (and Rincy) tries to ridicule it as "demonstrateably" wrong, but failed to put any evidence. Saying that you fail to see any evidence (or asking to provide them) is not the same as demonstrating it's wrong.
It's not my hypothesis, I have no idea whether it's right or wrong, but so far it looks valid.
Funny that it caused such a heated and nervous reaction (combined with personal attack) from the local atheists. My apologies if this heresy hurt your religious feeling.

Desmond
03-06-2010, 08:43 PM
You (and Rincy) tries to ridicule it as "demonstrateably" wrong, but failed to put any evidence. Saying that you fail to see any evidence (or asking to provide them) is not the same as demonstrating it's wrong.
It's not my hypothesis, I have no idea whether it's right or wrong, but so far it looks valid.
Funny that it caused such a heated and nervous reaction (combined with personal attack) from the local atheists. My apologies if this heresy hurt your religious feeling.Igor I am no scientist but my understanding is that the term hypothesis is mean to be a proposal that attempts to explain evidence. I repeat, if you have no evidence that this hypothesis is attempting to explain what is the point of it?

By the way, who's hypothesis is it?

arosar
03-06-2010, 08:48 PM
I have the evidence! Spotted in, of all places, Chicago!

Gertie (http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/gertie/).

AR

Desmond
03-06-2010, 09:09 PM
OK Igor I have some evidence for you, even though the onus is really on you, but I'll be nice and go first. Actually I mentioned it before and you didn't respond, but here is a source for you.

So far you don't appear to be disputing my point that if we have dinosaurs laying proportionately sized eggs then there is no need to introduce this idea of distinct, disproportionately growing ones.

Dinosaur egg sizes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_egg) Eggs more than 2 feet long. No need to introduce a hypothesis about small reptiles growing into large dinosaurs when we have evidence that they are hatched big.

Desmond
03-06-2010, 09:19 PM
There is also an interesting article about maturity ages and growth rates. Dunno if you will agree if that's demostrable but it does seem pretty comprehensive to me.

Sexual maturity in growing dinosaurs does not fit reptilian growth models (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/582.long).


Discussion and Conclusions
Our results have several important implications. First, the large body size of many dinosaurs precludes the slow growth rates and long generation times suggested by the reptilian models of growth. To grow like living reptiles scaled to equivalent size and to reach skeletochronological estimates of RM [reproductive maturity] requires that individuals of these taxa (i) started growth as relatively massive neonates, (ii) reached RM at unreasonably low body masses (≪one-tenth asymptotic size), and (iii) grew potentially for 50–100 years. No evidence exists to support any of these requirements, and conservative mass estimates (25) and histological data (refs. 7, 12, 22, and 23 and Fig. 2, curves labeled 1) refute them.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-06-2010, 09:55 PM
That's much more serious argument, I'll read about it.

Rincewind
03-06-2010, 10:17 PM
That's much more serious argument, I'll read about it.

Well that is one wacko theory put to bed. Now about this one. In the same post you said...


Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher

What do you mean by this statement? Do you mean 'humidity' or was this water magically suspended in a canopy? Whatever you meant what evidence do you have any evidence to support it? It is sounding very much like creationist pseudo-science called the water canopy theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Vapor.2Fwater_canopy) which is so fringe even Jono recommends avoiding it.

Kevin Bonham
03-06-2010, 11:06 PM
Funny that it caused such a heated and nervous reaction (combined with personal attack) from the local atheists.

Heated and nervous? Hardly. Those responding were laughing their heads off at how ludicrous it was.


FWIW, my take on dino sizes and kinds.

Hmmm. Can't say I'm that convinced that two genera of dinosaurs having morphologically similar skulls alone shows they are likely to have been closely enough related to meet the criteria for being the same supposedly created "kind" (taxonomically useless as that category is anyway). Especially not when a recently published cladogram indicates them as belonging to different subfamilies.

Spiny Norman
04-06-2010, 07:04 AM
... a recently published cladogram indicates them as belonging to different subfamilies.
Wouldn't rely too heavily on cladistics. It can change like the wind; one day it supports a particular p.o.v.; the next it is against it.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2010, 07:57 AM
Wouldn't rely too heavily on cladistics. It can change like the wind; one day it supports a particular p.o.v.; the next it is against it.
And we would probably regard the created kind to be as broad as the "family" when it comes to extinct creatures. Apatosaurus and Diplodocus both belong to the Diplodocidae family; I think that the latter is just a long and skinny variety.

Kevin Bonham
04-06-2010, 12:15 PM
Wouldn't rely too heavily on cladistics. It can change like the wind; one day it supports a particular p.o.v.; the next it is against it.

Cladistic assessments can change, especially when new information becomes available; for instance cladistic assessments based purely on morphological characters are often reworked once genetic assessments are included.

But in this case that is irrelevant because we won't be getting the DNA any time soon and so a thorough cladistic assessment is likely to be more informative than just saying that the skulls look similar.


And we would probably regard the created kind to be as broad as the "family" when it comes to extinct creatures

Why should extinct creatures be any different from living ones in this regard?

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2010, 12:51 PM
But in this case that is irrelevant because we won't be getting the DNA any time soon and so a thorough cladistic assessment is likely to be more informative than just saying that the skulls look similar.
They look practically identical.


Why should extinct creatures be any different from living ones in this regard?
Because you can't test them for reproductive isolation, there is less to check the tendency of discoverers to give specimens a new classification. A recent analysis of the 1,401 scientific names given to dinosaurs from 1824 to 2004 shows that about 16% of names were duplicates, and 32% embodied other sorts of errors (Dalton, R., In search of Thingummyjigosaurus—There are errors in almost half the names given to dinosaurs (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/news.2008.1111.html), Nature, 17 September 2008.

Rincewind
05-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Because you can't test them for reproductive isolation, there is less to check the tendency of discoverers to give specimens a new classification. A recent analysis of the 1,401 scientific names given to dinosaurs from 1824 to 2004 shows that about 16% of names were duplicates, and 32% embodied other sorts of errors (Dalton, R., In search of Thingummyjigosaurus—There are errors in almost half the names given to dinosaurs (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/news.2008.1111.html), Nature, 17 September 2008.

The fact that science works is evidence that the 16% of duplicates (pretty low considering the likes of Othniel Marsh who worked in the are in the late 19th century) are known and corrected. Likewise the 32% of other errors not relating to duplication.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 06:29 PM
They look practically identical.

Not to me. Indeed beyond having the same kinds of cavities and a broadly similar shape I can see numerous differences. The cavities vary in shape, in cases in size, in cases in alignment, the bone surrounding the lower left cavity looks more or less straight in the blue one and clearly curved in the yellow one, there are longer and sharper protrusions in two places on the yellow one and the ridging on the bill seems far more pronounced on the blue one. Not being a dinosaur taxonomist I can't say what level these differences are significant at but "practically identical" no way. They look similar enough to incline you to investigate a relationship but from that kind of superficial assessment you might as well say a thylacine looks practically identical to a dog.


Because you can't test them for reproductive isolation, there is less to check the tendency of discoverers to give specimens a new classification.

That is just not even remotely relevant.

Firstly there are plenty of cases involving living species where species are generally classified as belonging to different genera in spite of known capacity for fertile interbreeding in rare and sometimes artificial circumstances. Despite this, in the great majority of cases there is no known evidence that your "created kind" concept operates at family level, and even where there is intergeneric interbreeding involving some members of a family, that does not necessarily show that all species in a family would count as one of your "created kinds". So even if it did turn out that now and then a dinosaur that looked quite different from another could sometimes interbreed with it (which sometimes would be the case), that is no basis for a blanket assertion that families of extinct species tended to match your concept of "created kind". Indeed it would be very surprising if they did, since it would require that crossbreeding among morphologically distinctive dinosaurs happened much more readily than among morphologically distinctive extant species.

If anything, lack of full knowledge of the reproductive biology of extinct species creates a risk of underestimating their taxonomic diversity. Species distinct from each other at genus level and incapable of interbreeding may be morphologically similar enough that it is difficult to tell them apart from hard remains only. With living species this kind of thing is often spotted based on ecological or behavioural differences and then tested using soft tissues and DNA. With extinct species that option often doesn't exist.

Secondly, I doubt that inability to test for interbreeding has much to do with the proliferation of names in dinosaur literature, since so much taxonomic correction with living species doesn't require it either. Other obvious causes include the incompleteness of specimens, the widespread nature of distributions making getting on top of all available material difficult, the sheer lack of material in some cases, and also the impetus for new descriptions in the 19th century when taxonomic standards were poor. There are errors in most of the names given in pretty much any taxonomic field in the 19th century with proliferation of unnecessary species names a common problem even when standards at genus and family level were often too conservative. I don't need to be able to test my snails for reproductive isolation to say that about 60% of the names given by Legrand (1871) were not even remotely justified, for example.

antichrist
05-06-2010, 10:29 PM
But you are not blaming Legrand are you? He appears to be a know-all who was more wrong than right but at that stage of scientific development he had an excuse. I can't think of an excuse that the Creationists have. It seems deliberate ignorance and misrepresentation.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 10:38 PM
At that stage of taxonomy it was quite common for authors to simply get a random specimen from somewhere new and call it a new species because it supposedly differed from those already known. Things like juvenile/adult specimens, colour forms, variation etc just weren't on the radar and a lot of the descriptions were so badly written it was hard to know whether you were actually dealing with the same thing or not.

Sir JD Hooker (whose lost orchid I rediscovered!) reckoned people doing this really were to blame and wrote that the scientist "who has the true interests of science at heart, not only feels that the thrusting of an uncalled for synonym into the nomenclature of science is an exposure of his own ignorance, and deserves censure; but that a wider range of knowledge and a greater depth of study are required to prove these dissimilar forms to be identical, which any superficial observer can separate by words and a name."

But I reckon those who claim previously named species to be identical when they are not are the worst of the lot.

antichrist
05-06-2010, 10:45 PM
Where was the orchid by the way. The greenies conveniently discovered a yellow Byron Bay orchid to halt a development - then Carr stepped in with the money to buy the lot and make part of the national park. Right near my place. A beautiful spot and well worth saving. I can see the surf of every beach from that hill - the only spot in all Byron that can do that.

Kevin Bonham
05-06-2010, 10:53 PM
Where was the orchid by the way.

About five minutes' walk out of South Hobart suburbia on a mix of council and private land. :lol:

antichrist
06-06-2010, 01:15 PM
About five minutes' walk out of South Hobart suburbia on a mix of council and private land. :lol:

Did the private land owners want to kill you?

Rincewind
06-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Did the private land owners want to kill you?

Surely Kevin wouldn't be able to tell. Although I'd be surprised if any tried to kill him.

antichrist
06-06-2010, 01:30 PM
Surely Kevin wouldn't be able to tell. Although I'd be surprised if any tried to kill him.

He would have to be pretty dense if he didn't know if they wanted to kill him??

If the state declares that land undevelopable due to orchid, and developers lose millions and happen to be Lebos I would not want to be in KB's shoes

antichrist
06-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Someone said: that intellectuals discuss ideas, that the middle mob discuss events and the lowest individuals discuss people - haven't got it exactly correct of course.

But I can't fit in where people fit in this equasion who don't discuss any of these - they discuss non-existent entities i.e. gods???

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2010, 04:51 PM
Did the private land owners want to kill you?

There is only one private land owner and if they killed me they'd be losing a drinker of their products. :lol:


If the state declares that land undevelopable due to orchid

Undevelopable anyway I think. Threatened forest type.

Rincewind
08-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher

What do you mean by this statement? Do you mean 'humidity' or was this water magically suspended in a canopy? Whatever you meant what evidence do you have any evidence to support it? It is sounding very much like creationist pseudo-science called the water canopy theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Vapor.2Fwater_canopy) which is so fringe even Jono recommends avoiding it.

No comment?

antichrist
09-06-2010, 12:59 PM
Well have we settled on how old Noah lived? It is a shame he does not have growth rings like some trees do, we could just count them.

Rincewind
09-06-2010, 02:36 PM
Well have we settled on how old Noah lived? It is a shame he does not have growth rings like some trees do, we could just count them.

Dating from tree rings (dendrochronology) is science not just for determining the age of trees but also for dating wooden artefacts, etc. There is a consolidated tree-ring history for central Europe based on oak and pine tree rings from Hohenheim University which stretches back 12,460 years.

antichrist
09-06-2010, 06:42 PM
Dating from tree rings (dendrochronology) is science not just for determining the age of trees but also for dating wooden artefacts, etc. There is a consolidated tree-ring history for central Europe based on oak and pine tree rings from Hohenheim University which stretches back 12,460 years.

How dare you say 12,46o years when we know that the Earth is not that old!

That is a pretty good argument against 6,000 years. They can just count the rings - no dispute there that they argue with and impress the ignorant man with their perversion of science.

I suppose coal deposits are also old trees and they are miles down but that is too complicated for the Creationists.

Desmond
09-06-2010, 07:11 PM
Well have we settled on how old Noah lived? It is a shame he does not have growth rings like some trees do, we could just count them.
I don't remember who but someone mentioned earlier that, unlike humans, reptiles continue to grow until their death.

AFAIK human ears and noses continue to grow up until their death. At 979 years Noah would be a cross between Pinocchio and Dumbo.

Spiny Norman
09-06-2010, 07:17 PM
AFAIK human ears and noses continue to grow up until their death. At 979 years Noah would be a cross between Pinocchio and Dumbo.
Don't know about ears, but you're right about noses. Brow ridges (above the eyes) also. Neandertals may be a relevant point of discussion in relation to these things.

Rincewind
09-06-2010, 08:09 PM
I don't remember who but someone mentioned earlier that, unlike humans, reptiles continue to grow until their death.

AFAIK human ears and noses continue to grow up until their death. At 979 years Noah would be a cross between Pinocchio and Dumbo.

As far as I know this is contentious. Refer

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Mar2003/1048719208.Dv.r.html

Net effect is 2.2 mm per year which may be just the lob drooping. and no guarantee the 2.2 mm per year linear relationship is valid beyond 93 years old.

Rincewind
09-06-2010, 08:15 PM
Don't know about ears, but you're right about noses. Brow ridges (above the eyes) also. Neandertals may be a relevant point of discussion in relation to these things.

Are you hypothesising that Neanderthals are just long lived anatomically modern humans with enlarged brows due to the brow ridge continuing to grow as you claim it does in anatomically modern humans?

Desmond
10-06-2010, 10:19 AM
As far as I know this is contentious. Refer

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Mar2003/1048719208.Dv.r.html

Net effect is 2.2 mm per year which may be just the lob drooping. and no guarantee the 2.2 mm per year linear relationship is valid beyond 93 years old.Yeah fair enough, I've looked at a few articles and I agree it's contentious.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 03:29 PM
I don't remember who but someone mentioned earlier that, unlike humans, reptiles continue to grow until their death.

AFAIK human ears and noses continue to grow up until their death. At 979 years Noah would be a cross between Pinocchio and Dumbo.

Boris, this is a classic, can someone please calc how long Noah's nose will be at age 979 years please? Imagine in the winter he would have to put a sock around it or something? If Mrs Noah was the same imagine trying to kiss each other. And as we know he may have made her ******* when about 750 years old when kissing it would have been like a sword fight.

Desmond
10-06-2010, 03:38 PM
Boris, this is a classic, can someone please calc how long Noah's nose will be at age 979 years please? Imagine in the winter he would have to put a sock around it or something? If Mrs Noah was the same imagine trying to kiss each other. And as we know he may have made her ******* when about 750 years old when kissing it would have been like a sword fight.
well using RW's figure of 2.2mm/year I put 979 years' growth at over 2 meters.

antichrist
10-06-2010, 03:42 PM
well using RW's figure of 2.2mm/year I put 979 years' growth at over 2 meters.

Brilliant, I wonder what the creationists have to say about this? Now it is their onus to find a skeleton (missing link) whatever that shows a nose 2 metres long - if they can't their Bible is wrecked! also we don't see any such noses in holy pics in the Vatican. And remember all those coffins of the saints they were not 2 metres deep were they!!!!!

Talk about the Creationists getting their noses out of joint!

(Boris, we can be a tag team here, I will punch them in the stomach, and when they bend over in pain you head butt them)

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 03:59 PM
well using RW's figure of 2.2mm/year I put 979 years' growth at over 2 meters.
By that logic from 20 to 40 years your nose would grow 4.4cm, and by another 8.8cm (13.2cm in total) till you reach 80.
I should ask some old men what was in the place of their nose when they were 20.:doh:

Desmond
10-06-2010, 04:16 PM
By that logic from 20 to 40 years your nose would grow 4.4cm, and by another 8.8cm (13.2cm in total) till you reach 80.
I should ask some old men what was in the place of their nose when they were 20.:doh:Yes good point, I'm not sure where that figure came from.



That's much more serious argument, I'll read about it.

Did you have a chance to read that article yet?

antichrist
10-06-2010, 04:32 PM
Well we know that Noah could not be a Catholic, coz if became a pope could not kiss the tarmac where ever he went.

Also Noah could not be a Muslim because would not be able to bend over and almost kiss the floor like they do during prayers.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-06-2010, 04:54 PM
Did you have a chance to read that article yet?
Yes I did. Interesting, but a bit difficult for me.

1. Egg size 60cm - is it in the same proportion to the the dinosaur size as modern reptile?

2. The article argues against reptilian growth model:
"Efforts to understand the growth strategies of dinosaurs have been controversial, and some studies suggest that nonavian dinosaurs grew like living reptiles scaled to equivalent size (1, 2)."
The study 2) was dated 2006.

I won't be surprised if the latest study is correct. I won't be surprised if it refuted. I won't be surprised if the discussion between scientists continues for a long time.

The fact that scientists seriously considered reptilian growth model means that the ridicule from some posters was completely unwarranted.

PS. Scientists still at odds at dinosaur life span.

TheJoker
10-06-2010, 06:17 PM
The fact that scientists seriously considered reptilian growth model means that the ridicule from some posters was completely unwarranted.

I think there is a big difference between saying Dinosaurs may have grown at similar rate to modern reptiles, and modern repitles are dinosaurs that didn't grow as big due them living a shorter lifespan due to a higher exposure to UV light.

1. A lack of UV prohibits reptile growth and shortens lifespan not vice versa.

2. Most Dinosuars eggs where bigger than a modern repitle so it's infeasible that dinosuars started out the size of a modern reptile and grew to a huge size because of an extended lifespan.

3. As for the theory about why their was less UV light, if Jono says its Creationist mumbo jumbo, then by jingo it must be!!!

Spiny Norman
10-06-2010, 07:01 PM
Are you hypothesising that Neanderthals are just long lived anatomically modern humans with enlarged brows due to the brow ridge continuing to grow as you claim it does in anatomically modern humans?
I'm not sure. Best I could answer is to say "possibly". I know virtually nothing about Neanderthals. But its an idea that I find interesting.

Rincewind
10-06-2010, 08:26 PM
I'm not sure. Best I could answer is to say "possibly". I know virtually nothing about Neanderthals. But its an idea that I find interesting.

I must say I had never heard of it before you mentioned it. I have since found that there is I believe a retired orthodontist by the name of Jack Cuozzo who published a book something along those lines - Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man.

It did not receive very positive reviews regarding its conclusions (at least outside of creationist circles) but it wasn't entirely without merit according to one reviewer (Colin Groves)...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzo_cg.html

Also linked there are Cuozzo's response and some additional points raised by Chris Stringer. The short story is that Cuozzo does well at debunking other unscientific hypothesis but then just special pleads his case in the end. But I guess that is par for the course for pseudoscience. Data can only take you so far - to get to the preordained endpoint something has to go under the rug.

Rincewind
10-06-2010, 08:36 PM
well using RW's figure of 2.2mm/year I put 979 years' growth at over 2 meters.

That was fitted using a linear correlation and as such the end points are dodgy. Going beyond the endpoints is anyone's guess. Additionally that was not a longitudinal study and they just measured the ears of various men and correlated to age. Other possibilities include, large ears lead to longer life, ears on the whole becoming smaller in younger generations, different genetic make up of the age groupings, etc.

Anyway, the growth of cartilage is one thing, the growth of bony tissue (like the brow ridge) is quite another. Has any got some data on brow growth?

Rincewind
10-06-2010, 08:59 PM
The fact that scientists seriously considered reptilian growth model means that the ridicule from some posters was completely unwarranted.

Not at all because that isn't what you suggested. What you said was


...there is an interesting hypothesis explaining the extinction of dinosaurs:
Before some catastrophe (known as Flood in Bible and under different name in almost other folklore) the density of water in the atmosphere was much higher, blocking UV and allowing reptiles to live much longer.
Reptiles are known to grow as long as they live, hence dinosaurs grew to a gigantic size.

First you would have to give some evidence that a world wide catastrophe occurred which affected the density of water in the air. But suspending this for the moment, you clearly are making the link between the age they lived for and the size to which they grew. The implication is that if dinosaurs were alive today they would be the size of regular reptiles because without the water magically suspended in the air, they would not live so long.

You are yet to say what you mean by the crazy water density statement.

You are yet to give a reliable link to evidence that is modern reptiles were to continue to grow for (say) 900 years they would be anything more than a slightly thicker version of the full grown sizes seen today.

There are other problems which would need to be addressed like the longevity of teeth, etc. But you "hypothesis" is looking more like crackpot conjecture and not worth too much more time unless you can spend some time establishing the foundations.

How this explains the extinction of the dinosaurs I can only hazard a guess that you believe that with the extra UV light they stopped growing to adult sizes and therefore died out due to the lack of the ability to procreate. Now that really is funny.

You don't actually believe that the Noah's Ark thing happened and was worldwide in affect, do you?

Desmond
10-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Yes I did. Interesting, but a bit difficult for me.

1. Egg size 60cm - is it in the same proportion to the the dinosaur size as modern reptile?Don't understand the significance of this question. The point is that they didn't just get big because they lived a long time; they started big and grew quickly.

2. The article argues against reptilian growth model:
"Efforts to understand the growth strategies of dinosaurs have been controversial, and some studies suggest that nonavian dinosaurs grew like living reptiles scaled to equivalent size (1, 2)."
The study 2) was dated 2006.

I won't be surprised if the latest study is correct. Which one are you referring to? The article I linked or (2)? Obviously the article we are discussing was written after (2), or otherwise how could it cite it?


I won't be surprised if it refuted. I won't be surprised if the discussion between scientists continues for a long time.Well of course scientists will continue to do research and publish it; that's what they do. That doesn't mean that there are any credible scientist out there even considering your theory. (By the way you never told me who's theory it was if not your own.)

The fact that scientists seriously considered reptilian growth model means that the ridicule from some posters was completely unwarranted. Do I take this as admission that your theory is wrong and now you are just arguing the toss over how people reacted to it.

What they considered is that dinosaurs start big, then grow, and the question was the rate of growth. Not that they start small and grow big over very long periods of time.

Modelling growth rates for sauropod dinosaurs (http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/264)

Sauropod dinosaurs were the largest terrestrial animals and their growth rates remain a subject of debate. By counting growth lines in histologic sections and relating bone length to body mass, it has been estimated that Apatosaurus attained its adult body mass of about 25,000 kg in as little as 15 years, with a maximum growth rate over 5000 kg/yr. This rate exceeds that projected for a precocial bird or eutherian mammal of comparable estimated body mass. An alternative method of estimating limb length and body mass for each growth line, and fitting the resulting age/ mass data to the von Bertalanffy growth equation, yields a revised growth curve suggesting that Apatosaurus adult mass was reached by 70 years with a maximum growth rate of 520 kg/yr. This alternative method for growth rate determination can also be applied to histological studies of other sauropods. At only about half the mass of Apatosaurus, Janenschia took between 20 and 30 years to attain its adult size (over 14,000 kg). This result is supported by independent evidence of estimated bone apposition rates. Despite having an adult body mass greater than Apatosaurus, the titanosaurid Alamosaurus attained a mass over 32,000 kg within 45 years and a maximum growth rate of 1000 kg/yr.
So yes there are still some small difference of opinion over how long it took to reach maturity but perhaps not enough to support the penny lizard to t-rex transformation due to perennial growth and longevity. Perhaps also noteworthy is that this is actually based on observable evidence not what some bloke once told you down the pub.

Anyway hopefully reading an artiicle or two has opened your eyes to the naiveity of your statement that we know little of fauna from this time.


PS. Scientists still at odds at dinosaur life span.So what? Show me an article that puts the range of possible lift spans close to where it would have be to suppoort your theory. The article I gave you said there is no evidence to support a long enough lifespan; if you disagree prove it.

Spiny Norman
11-06-2010, 06:41 AM
I must say I had never heard of it before you mentioned it. I have since found that there is I believe a retired orthodontist by the name of Jack Cuozzo who published a book something along those lines - Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man.

It did not receive very positive reviews regarding its conclusions (at least outside of creationist circles) but it wasn't entirely without merit according to one reviewer (Colin Groves)...
Yes, I've read his book. The information I gleaned from that would closely approximate the sum of my knowledge about Neanderthals. Cuozzo has enough science in his book to make it sound plausible, however he's also a bit of a conspiracy theorist which sounds a warning note for me. I've read the criticisms/rebuttals as well, along with Cuozzo's responses to those criticisms.

If there is some truth in his claims (and I have no reason to think all of his claims to be completely false), then there is something of interest to follow up. Long-lived humans, according to a creationist view, were not just pre-flood but also for a relatively short period post-flood. I assume that most of the pre-flood evidence would have been destroyed. So there could only be a limited amount of evidence for long-lived humans that would still be available to science today. Limited, but perhaps not "none".

Rincewind
11-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Yes, I've read his book. The information I gleaned from that would closely approximate the sum of my knowledge about Neanderthals. Cuozzo has enough science in his book to make it sound plausible, however he's also a bit of a conspiracy theorist which sounds a warning note for me. I've read the criticisms/rebuttals as well, along with Cuozzo's responses to those criticisms.

If there is some truth in his claims (and I have no reason to think all of his claims to be completely false), then there is something of interest to follow up. Long-lived humans, according to a creationist view, were not just pre-flood but also for a relatively short period post-flood. I assume that most of the pre-flood evidence would have been destroyed. So there could only be a limited amount of evidence for long-lived humans that would still be available to science today. Limited, but perhaps not "none".

I've never even seen the book (and I look for these sorts of things) however the conspiracy theory side of things sounds like a good read and not unlike the plot of a Dan Brown novel.

Regarding the science, first there is no evidence of a world-wide flood in the last 10,000 years and there are plenty of human remains prior to 10,000 BCE and hominids millions of years BCE so to have a meaningful discussion we would need to work out which parts of science you are willing to accept and which you have rejected to accommodate the flood in your view of reality.

But for starters we could look at the brow growth claim. Is there any evidence that this occurs for modern humans in a way that could lead to Neanderthal shaped skulls. From memory it is not just the brow ridge that differs, from memory (so don't crucify me if I stuff up) but there is also less volume in the frontal parts of a Neanderthal skull and the overall cranial volume is lower on average. If this is true than the brow ridge continuing to grow conjecture would be dodgy, wouldn't it?

Spiny Norman
11-06-2010, 06:03 PM
From memory it is not just the brow ridge that differs, from memory (so don't crucify me if I stuff up) but there is also less volume in the frontal parts of a Neanderthal skull and the overall cranial volume is lower on average. If this is true than the brow ridge continuing to grow conjecture would be dodgy, wouldn't it?
I think his view would be that this could be due to rapid adaptation following a flood event. But I would have to re-read his book, and I'm all read out for now having been buried in the depths of Kierkegaard for the past few weeks.

Rincewind
11-06-2010, 06:44 PM
I think his view would be that this could be due to rapid adaptation following a flood event. But I would have to re-read his book, and I'm all read out for now having been buried in the depths of Kierkegaard for the past few weeks.

Well it would be interesting to hear was Cuozzo made of this. But if he is going to argue 'rapid adaptation' it sounds suspiciously like special pleading. I mean why bother worrying about the brow ridge at all and just say the whole cranial shape rapidly adapted from neanderthal to AMH. And if so, where is the evidence for longevity in neanderthals?

In other words, the brow ridge continuing to grow just seems like something he wants to keep because it fits his a priori believe that neanderthals were long-lived. However the rest of the head being the wrong shape is an inconvenient fact which he exorcises with rapid adaptation. Sorry but it doesn't sound like a very convincing hypothesis to me.

But keep me updated if you find out something different from Cuozzo's book (once you have been able to drag yourself away from Kierkegaard, that is).

antichrist
11-06-2010, 08:19 PM
While we are at it were these lizards and dinosaurs on Noah's Ark - that is what the thread is about? Did they have first class tickets and window seats?

Rincewind
11-06-2010, 08:39 PM
While we are at it were these lizards and dinosaurs on Noah's Ark - that is what the thread is about? Did they have first class tickets and window seats?

Just one window.

antichrist
11-06-2010, 11:24 PM
Just one window.

I would imagine then that TB would have been rife among NOah's relos. Breathing in the breath of fowls etc is how you get it - I think anyway. Foul breath so to speak. Surely NOah did not take pigs on board did he? We still have them around today so he must have. He must have had a soft spot for bacon rashes. Must have left a sow taste in Yahweh's mouth.

Spiny Norman
12-06-2010, 07:18 AM
... why bother worrying about the brow ridge at all and just say the whole cranial shape rapidly adapted from neanderthal to AMH.
Perhaps because growth of the brow ridge is something that is measurable today so is confirmed by today's science (so its definitively related to longevity in modern humans, therefore why not in neanderthals also?), whereas changes in cranial capacity have presumably nothing to do with longevity?

Spiny Norman
12-06-2010, 10:27 AM
Quick glance at the book (about 15 mins). Cuozzo's suggestions are:
1) that Neanderthals are post-flood people;
2) that mankind is in a state of decline (in terms of our DNA);

In chapter 27 "Age Changes in our Head and Face" he asserts:
1) after the "normal growth period" for humans (18-25 years) that growth continues in the face and head (quoting research from the American Journal of Orthodontics)
2) that the changes are at a significantly lower rate in later years (so you cannot measure the rate at, say, age 50, and then extrapolate over hundreds of years)
3) an index called the "cephalic index" decreases with age; that is, that heads become longer AND wider with age, but that height sometimes decreases; and that the lengthening is greater than the widening, so that with great age heads become noticeably elongated and sometimes shorter
4) that the cranium thickens with age throughout life
5) that growth of the head does not cease during the life of modern humans
6) age-driven changes could be described roughly as follows: base of the skull moves slightly downward and very slightly forward; the point where the nose meets the forehead moves forward at all ages; the frontal sinus ("hole") develops spectacularly with age; driven by forces from chewing, the brow ridges move forward faster than infilling from the chin; the eye socket enlargees and moves downware and forward, the base of the cheekbone moves forward so that the midface now slopes upward, giving the appearance of a "muzzle"; the upper jaw extends forward and descends; the whole roof of the mouth (palate) tilts towards the rear as it descends

Ian Murray
12-06-2010, 11:12 AM
Some observations:

Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon co-existed for at least 10,000 years while following separate paths along the human journey

Neanderthal petered out while Cro-Magnon flourished, and here we are - DNA testing (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14325-first-europeans-shunned-neanderthal-sex.html) connects modern humans to Cro-Magnon but not to Neanderthal, with no evidence of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interbreeding

The brow ridge is not a Cro-Magnon characteristic

Rincewind
12-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Quick glance at the book (about 15 mins). Cuozzo's suggestions are:
1) that Neanderthals are post-flood people;
2) that mankind is in a state of decline (in terms of our DNA);

Firstly thanks for spending the time to read up the arguments. My niitial impressions are...

(1) I assume he thinks that all fossils are flood or post flood because some neanderthal remains have been found in situations which have not been disturbed by a world-wide flood then they must be post-flood. Even though the remains are dated to >10,000 years old.

(2) I have no idea what you mean by this statement. I assume there is no evidence for it and it is is not scriptural (since DNA was unknown to the ancients) so it is just vague conjecture. Please provide some details if there is something more specific meant here.


In chapter 27 "Age Changes in our Head and Face" he asserts:
1) after the "normal growth period" for humans (18-25 years) that growth continues in the face and head (quoting research from the American Journal of Orthodontics)
2) that the changes are at a significantly lower rate in later years (so you cannot measure the rate at, say, age 50, and then extrapolate over hundreds of years)
3) an index called the "cephalic index" decreases with age; that is, that heads become longer AND wider with age, but that height sometimes decreases; and that the lengthening is greater than the widening, so that with great age heads become noticeably elongated and sometimes shorter
4) that the cranium thickens with age throughout life
5) that growth of the head does not cease during the life of modern humans
6) age-driven changes could be described roughly as follows: base of the skull moves slightly downward and very slightly forward; the point where the nose meets the forehead moves forward at all ages; the frontal sinus ("hole") develops spectacularly with age; driven by forces from chewing, the brow ridges move forward faster than infilling from the chin; the eye socket enlargees and moves downware and forward, the base of the cheekbone moves forward so that the midface now slopes upward, giving the appearance of a "muzzle"; the upper jaw extends forward and descends; the whole roof of the mouth (palate) tilts towards the rear as it descends

(1) Yes there is growth in the sense that cells continue to divide and die. My understanding is bones in general thicken though I believe the jaw bone thins for reasons I personally don't know. Although there is thickening of the width of the bone, the bone density begins to decrease from even early middle age and bones become quite light by age 80 or so.

(2) Extrapolation is a dangerous business. AFAIK the oldest person we have experience with is around 120 years. So they had 100 years of adult life and there would have been some pretty significant trend towards neanderthalism if by the age of 300-400 say we are getting neanderthal skulls.

(3) The cephalic index tell you nothing about height it is purely a ratio of width (cheek ridge to cheek ridge) against length (point between eyebrows to the back of the head). It decreasing with age does not necessarily mean the brow ridge is increasing. The back of the head could be getting thicker. The cheek ridges could be decreasing. It is too blunt a measure to say something definite about a specific part of the skull (the brow ridge).

(4) I believe that is more or less true as I said above. However thicker and less dense. These two competing trends can't both continue for hundreds of years otherwise you'll end up with a cranium with a consistency of soufflé.

(5) Is this just a repeat of (1)?

(6) This sounds like a massive just-so explanation. Firstly, the change in overall volume and distribution of volume required would have profound effect on the brain and as a consequence the functioning of the individual. Also (as in point (2) above, since these guys are post flood I imagine we are talking 300-400 years old as typical advanced ages. If so then the we should see at least some significant steps towards these trends in the skulls of 120-year-old modern humans.

Spiny Norman
12-06-2010, 05:18 PM
(2) I have no idea what you mean by this statement. I assume there is no evidence for it and it is is not scriptural (since DNA was unknown to the ancients) so it is just vague conjecture. Please provide some details if there is something more specific meant here.
Harmful mutations are observed to outnumber beneficial mutations by a significant number. I assume he extrapolates from that. This fits with the biblical view of longevity in ages past, reducing markedly since Noah's flood. In a population severely constrained (starting again from just 8 individuals) there would be a negative genetic impact. Its my understanding that harmful mutations overwhelming the small number of possible beneficial mutations was the inconvenient fact that caused some (e.g. Kimura?) to posit Neutral Theory (neutral mutations) as evolution's driver.

Rincewind
12-06-2010, 11:10 PM
Harmful mutations are observed to outnumber beneficial mutations by a significant number. I assume he extrapolates from that.

I'm not sure that that is the case. It depends on whether you are talking about large step (jump) mutations (significant change or new function), small step mutations (something small variations in beak length, for example) or even "molecular level" mutations which have no selective benefit or perceivable phenotype at all.


This fits with the biblical view of longevity in ages past, reducing markedly since Noah's flood. In a population severely constrained (starting again from just 8 individuals) there would be a negative genetic impact.

The relatively small number of generations would mean that one would expect very few selective mutations and I can't see there is any particular reason for lifespans to decrease unless there was a selective pressure down that route. Normally longer lifespans are beneficial provided the individuals remain reproductive since a lot of resources are necessary to reach maturity from then on it is pretty much making hay while the sun shines. So if the long-lived remained reproductive, one would expect the long-lived genes to out compete the short-lived mutations.


Its my understanding that harmful mutations overwhelming the small number of possible beneficial mutations was the inconvenient fact that caused some (e.g. Kimura?) to posit Neutral Theory (neutral mutations) as evolution's driver.

I think this was more that Kimura saw his ideas (which explains genetic "drift") and complementary to selective mutations. Jump mutations are almost always bad (fortunately they are a small part of the story of evolution) but small step mutations like small variation in beak length can be good or bad depending on environmental factors. When a beak can either be longer or short usually one direction is preferred due to available food sources and so around 50% of these "mutations" are beneficial.

I think current thinking is the beneficial jump mutations occur from time to time but a normal day in the office of evolution is the small step mutations.

I think Jono's mob and I assume you also accept the small step sort of evolution, calling it micro-evolution. But claim it cannot lead to new kinds. Evolution theory says that it can.

antichrist
13-06-2010, 05:02 PM
RW
I think Jono's mob and I assume you also accept the small step sort of evolution, calling it micro-evolution. But claim it cannot lead to new kinds. Evolution theory says that it can.

AC
But what about angel Lucifer (I am his mascot) evolving into the Devil - that is a mighty leap! And Lot into a pillar of salt - man, that is way out!

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 03:13 PM
I think Jono's mob and I assume you also accept the small step sort of evolution, calling it micro-evolution. But claim it cannot lead to new kinds. Evolution theory says that it can.
Oh puh-lease. The "micro-evolution" thing is an argument we advise creationists not to use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#micro_macro). Even Clinton the Dawk commended that page.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE=Ian Murray]Neanderthal petered out while Cro-Magnon flourished, and here we are - DNA testing (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14325-first-europeans-shunned-neanderthal-sex.html) connects modern humans to Cro-Magnon but not to Neanderthal, with no evidence of Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interbreeding
Not so. Ph.D. geneticist Rob Carter shows (http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours)that after 60% of the Neandertal genome has been sequenced (although ancient DNA is so fragmented there is lots of guesswork):

They discovered that (1) Neandertals are well within the range of diversity of modern man, that (2) the Neandertal genome is incredibly similar to the genome of modern man, and that (3) there are only a few fixed differences between modern man and Neandertals. But even those few fixed differences could vanish as we learn more about modern human and ancient Neandertal genetic diversity (the more we study, the more variation we find and so the “fixed” differences tend to be reduced over time).
Furthermore, Erik Trinkaus has found skeletons of hybrids (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17196.abstract?etoc) between Neandertals and undoubted Homo sapiens:

As with other European early modern humans, the mosaic of modern human and archaic/Neandertal features, relative to their potential Middle Paleolithic ancestral populations, indicates considerable Neandertal/modern human admixture.

Rincewind
15-06-2010, 04:18 PM
Oh puh-lease. The "micro-evolution" thing is an argument we advise creationists not to use (http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#micro_macro). Even Clinton the Dawk commended that page.

I believe what I said basically is your position. You prefer to use words like information. But basically you don't disagree that evolution of small variations occurs but disagree that it can bring about new kinds. However you just prefer to say this second part as "lead to new information". It means the same thing in effect.

Rincewind
15-06-2010, 04:39 PM
BTW the evolution cannot add information is covered in the TalkOrigins catalogue of Creationist non-arguments number CB102

The opening passage reads


It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve.

Full text here

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

The final sentence states it rather succinctly.


Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

Spiny Norman
15-06-2010, 05:21 PM
Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
Natural selection simply describes the killing of unfit organisms. It does absolutely nothing about transferring information to/from a genome/environment. That work is done by mutations, not natrual selection.

Rincewind
15-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Natural selection simply describes the killing of unfit organisms. It does absolutely nothing about transferring information to/from a genome/environment. That work is done by mutations, not natrual selection.

Did you read the linked page?

You can read Adami et al here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 10:57 PM
Not to me. Indeed beyond having the same kinds of cavities and a broadly similar shape I can see numerous differences. The cavities vary in shape, in cases in size, in cases in alignment, the bone surrounding the lower left cavity looks more or less straight in the blue one and clearly curved in the yellow one, there are longer and sharper protrusions in two places on the yellow one and the ridging on the bill seems far more pronounced on the blue one. Not being a dinosaur taxonomist I can't say what level these differences are significant at but "practically identical" no way.
Seems to me that all these things are the result of a slightly different alignment in the photos.


They look similar enough to incline you to investigate a relationship
Yes, they are in the same family, Diplodocidae.


but from that kind of superficial assessment you might as well say a thylacine looks practically identical to a dog.
Marsupial and placental skulls are much easier to distinguish.


That is just not even remotely relevant.
It is to the "biological species" definition.


Firstly there are plenty of cases involving living species where species are generally classified as belonging to different genera in spite of known capacity for fertile interbreeding in rare and sometimes artificial circumstances.
Then there is a case for classifying them in the same biological species.


Despite this, in the great majority of cases there is no known evidence that your "created kind" concept operates at family level, and even where there is intergeneric interbreeding involving some members of a family, that does not necessarily show that all species in a family would count as one of your "created kinds".
Yes it would, since a criterion is that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, then they are all members of the same created kind, or basic type to use Siegfried Scherer's term (Professor for Microbiology at the Technical University of Munich, Weihenstephan). This takes care of ring species for example.


So even if it did turn out that now and then a dinosaur that looked quite different from another could sometimes interbreed with it (which sometimes would be the case), that is no basis for a blanket assertion that families of extinct species tended to match your concept of "created kind".
It would, since the kind criterion is broader than "species". If two creatures can even hybridize, let alone interbreed, then they are the same kind.


Secondly, I doubt that inability to test for interbreeding has much to do with the proliferation of names in dinosaur literature, since so much taxonomic correction with living species doesn't require it either.
Another case involved not recognizing juveniles. E.g. Mussaurus was most likely a juvenile prosauropod Coloradisaurus. More recently, Jack Horner argued that Dracorex hogwartsia was a juvenile and Stygimoloch spinifer was a young adult version of Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis, since the eponymic thick skull of the latter was something that developed as the animal grew.

Rincewind
16-06-2010, 10:26 PM
Did you read the linked page?

You can read Adami et al here: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

Spiny Norman, is the silence indicate that you have read the links and now understand how natural selection transfers information about the environment into the genome? Or is this a work in progress?

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2010, 11:36 PM
Seems to me that all these things are the result of a slightly different alignment in the photos.

Suggest you get your eyes tested then, or perhaps your adherence to your supposed axiom of non-contradiction of the scriptural record is so extreme that it even distorts your visual inputs if they aren't convenient to your case. A slightly different alignment does not cause an almost straight line to become sharply curved, a hole to appear nearly twice as large in one specimen as another, a cavity to have its widest point near one end of the socket in one skull than another, and so on. To write off the differences with an excuse like this is a case of not looking closely enough.


Marsupial and placental skulls are much easier to distinguish.

My analogy was assessing a dog and a thylacine as similar based on external appearance not skull morphology. Of course, internal morphology is frequently more useful than external but the same constraint applies: assuming a close relationship based on broad morphological similarities of any kind is risky.


It is to the "biological species" definition.

That was not what I was asking. What I was asking was why it was relevant to your claim in #98 that the "kind" would likely be as broad as the "family" when it came to extinct species. I have already indicated why such a claim lacks foundation even if the BSC is assumed. Indeed, assuming the BSC is particularly toxic to your claim in #98 because of cases where specimens that appear morphologically identical are nonetheless reproductively isolated, and hence not only different biological species but also by your standards different "kinds".


Then there is a case for classifying them in the same biological species.

Indeed, which is exactly why the BSC is so widely panned as a taxonomic concept these days, even by those who cannot agree on a clear alternative. If two substantial and largely discrete populations are morphologically, ecologically and genetically very distinct but can nonetheless interbreed to produce fertile offspring in very rare instances, then calling them the same thing downplays all the information about their difference in favour of one thing that doesn't even demonstrate likeness, only functional capacity.


Yes it would, since a criterion is that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, then they are all members of the same created kind, or basic type to use Siegfried Scherer's term (Professor for Microbiology at the Technical University of Munich, Weihenstephan). This takes care of ring species for example.

Only where every species in the family has a connection, possibly indirect, through chains of possible hybridisations, with every other. So, for instance, seven species of circumtropical gulls of the genus Larus as classically presented meet your definition of a "kind" because there is a supposed connection of interbreeding between each one and another, however indirect. But that does not even prove that the genus Larus meets the definition of "kind" as there are about two dozen species in that genus and they would need to be in the hybridisation loop (or tangle) as well.

And to get to the point of declaring the whole family Laridae to be a "kind", you've got another 30-odd species in 11 distinct genera to accommodate. Good luck with that one then.

A possible added obstacle for you is that the ring species analysis in the famous gulls case is under dispute as it is apparently considered oversimplified. I haven't read Liebers, Dorit; de Knijff, Peter & Helbig, Andreas J. (2004): The herring gull complex is not a ring species. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 271(1542): 893-901 but I may well look it up when next down at the Uni library. :lol:


It would, since the kind criterion is broader than "species". If two creatures can even hybridize, let alone interbreed, then they are the same kind.

Refuted above, but since you said it twice I will too: just because two particular species in the same family are the same "kind" as defined by you does not demonstrate that all species in that same family are the same "kind". I would be interested in any evidence showing that any polygeneric family has been shown to meet your definition of being the same "kind".


Another case involved not recognizing juveniles.

There are also cases of this with 19th century taxonomy of living species. Easily cleaned up once demonstrated.

Spiny Norman
17-06-2010, 05:56 PM
Spiny Norman, is the silence indicate that you have read the links and now understand how natural selection transfers information about the environment into the genome? Or is this a work in progress?
No, I guess I will have to say it again, but a different way.

Natural selection describes a process whereby already existing genetic material is preserved in a population. Over time, 'inferior' individuals die more frequently, and 'superior' individuals gradually represent higher and higher percentages of that population.

If you're talking about some kind of conceptual (but not real) genome, then I can see why 'you' might think that natural selection transfers information to that genome. But in real genomes, as opposed to just conceptual (or 'averaged'?) genomes, natural selection produces nothing and transfers nothing. To do that, natural selection would have to produce real genetic changes.

Natural selection does not produce real changes in real genomes.

Rincewind
17-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Natural selection does not produce real changes in real genomes.

The quote did not say "Natural selection does not produce real changes in real genomes." What they said was "Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism" (Adami et al. 2000).

If you read the paper the context will be clear. In the case of asexual reproduction (the main focus of the study) the continued existence of certain individuals (that is, natural selection) Means the mutations tell you something about the environment. To transfer information it does not require the environment to modify the genome. Random mutation does that. Natural selection is the process that filters out the message from the white noise.

In terms of sexual reproduction, it is more complicated but the results can be cautiously applied statistically.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Suggest you get your eyes tested then,
Mine were tested as 6/6 and 6/5 (for immigration) so they are fine, thanx.


or perhaps your adherence to your supposed axiom of non-contradiction of the scriptural record is so extreme that it even distorts your visual inputs if they aren't convenient to your case.
Or perhaps your adherence to atheistic goo-to-you-via-zoo evolution is making you see huge differences when they are trivial (biologist Dr Don Batten (http://creation.com/dr-don-batten-cv) who took the photos agrees). I have attached a pic of two other vertebrates, great danes and chihuahuas, that illustrate the point. Here are much more extreme differences and no one disputes that they are the same species (the two dinosaurs are supposedly different genera!).


That was not what I was asking. What I was asking was why it was relevant to your claim in #98 that the "kind" would likely be as broad as the "family" when it came to extinct species.
The widespread taxonomic splitting in extinct forms.


I have already indicated why such a claim lacks foundation even if the BSC is assumed. Indeed, assuming the BSC is particularly toxic to your claim in #98 because of cases where specimens that appear morphologically identical are nonetheless reproductively isolated, and hence not only different biological species but also by your standards different "kinds".
Not necessarily, since hybridization shows they are kinds; a lack of hybridization doesn't necessarily show the opposite. The main thing is that hybridization is an objective way to add to the kind.


Only where every species in the family has a connection, possibly indirect, through chains of possible hybridisations, with every other. So, for instance, seven species of circumtropical gulls of the genus Larus as classically presented meet your definition of a "kind" because there is a supposed connection of interbreeding between each one and another, however indirect. But that does not even prove that the genus Larus meets the definition of "kind" as there are about two dozen species in that genus and they would need to be in the hybridisation loop (or tangle) as well.
All this shows that the hybridization test hasn't yet been proven. It would be reasonable to assign Larus to one kind if there was extensive hybridization chains. Declaring species to be part of genus Larus seems less objective than declaring them a kind (or basic type in Scherer's terminology).


And to get to the point of declaring the whole family Laridae to be a "kind", you've got another 30-odd species in 11 distinct genera to accommodate. Good luck with that one then.
If there were cross-generic hybrids, it would go a long way to provisionally assign the Laridae to one kind.


A possible added obstacle for you is that the ring species analysis in the famous gulls case is under dispute as it is apparently considered oversimplified. I haven't read Liebers, Dorit; de Knijff, Peter & Helbig, Andreas J. (2004): The herring gull complex is not a ring species. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 271(1542): 893-901 but I may well look it up when next down at the Uni library. :lol:
Wouldn't worry me. Usually it's the evos who brag about the wing species, although it's no problem for the creation model.


Refuted above, but since you said it twice I will too: just because two particular species in the same family are the same "kind" as defined by you does not demonstrate that all species in that same family are the same "kind". I would be interested in any evidence showing that any polygeneric family has been shown to meet your definition of being the same "kind".
It seems that in the cattle, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, yet Bos also hybridizes with the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’. In the plant world, there is widespread hybridization between genera, e.g. proven hybrids between lychees and longans [McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V., Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.), Annals of Botany 74:111–118, 1994]. Dr Batten also studied hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae..


There are also cases of this with 19th century taxonomy of living species. Easily cleaned up once demonstrated.
Once again though, Dracorex, Stygimoloch, and Pachycephalosaurus had very different-looking skulls, and were classified as different genera, not merely different species.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2010, 02:47 AM
Or perhaps your adherence to atheistic goo-to-you-via-zoo evolution is making you see huge differences when they are trivial (biologist Dr Don Batten (http://creation.com/dr-don-batten-cv) who took the photos agrees). I have attached a pic of two other vertebrates, great danes and chihuahuas, that illustrate the point. Here are much more extreme differences and no one disputes that they are the same species (the two dinosaurs are supposedly different genera!).

Your doggies aren't very useful examples for two reasons. Firstly you don't even show the two skulls from equivalent orientations - different as they are, this could exaggerate the appearance of difference. Secondly, the differences in question developed through an extreme selective process directed deliberately by humans without normal "natural" ecological selective pressures; as such the dog example provides no evidence whatsoever that such diversity of form should be expected in natural forms of any species in the wild. Both deliberate breeding and the pet status of the bred animals allow selection to occur rapidly in directions in which survival in the wild would be risky. (Nice poster though!)

Secondly, your claim in #99 was that the skulls look "practically identical" and I have exposed that as exaggerated by indicating many differences. They do look broadly similar, but as I noted in #101 when documenting many apparent differences "Not being a dinosaur taxonomist I can't say what level these differences are significant at [..]" Your claim that I am claiming "huge differences" is just blatant strawmanning, and your claim that the differences are in fact trivial is one for which the burden of proof is on you (or anyone else you wish to rope in). You then top it off by alleging that I am biased , but your basis for alleging bias is a summary of my alleged views that is in fact a hyperbolic misrepresentation, so your tentative claim of bias collapses.


The widespread taxonomic splitting in extinct forms.

Firstly, much of the incorrect splitting is in the past and has been debunked. So, if you want to claim that excess splitting means the "kind" is likely as broad as the "family" then you need to do that with respect to excess splitting in the current taxonomy, not by reference to what were mostly (with some exceptions) early misadventures. Furthermore, as I indicated before, dinosaurs are hardly the only taxa affected by excess splitting by early (or even more recent) taxonomists. Yet there is no demonstration of family often equalling "kind" for modern taxa.


Not necessarily, since hybridization shows they are kinds; a lack of hybridization doesn't necessarily show the opposite. [..]

All this shows that the hybridization test hasn't yet been proven.

If there is a hybrid you say they're the same kind; if there's not a hybrid you say they may still be the same kind but it hasn't been proven yet. What about cases where repeated and determined attempts have been made to breed apparently similar forms in captivity and either they won't even mate with each other or, if they do, the matings are persistently unsuccessful?


It would be reasonable to assign Larus to one kind if there was extensive hybridization chains.

That depends on how extensive. If you had sufficient evidence to include nearly every species in a hybridisation chain, leaving just a handful that were rare or difficult to work on, or that occurred nowhere near the remaining species, I might start suspecting the whole genus was in the chain. Then again, the very reasons why it might be difficult to test a few of the species might also be contributing factors to them not being in the chain anyway. In any case, as it stands, the supposed hybridisation chain in the dubious "ring species" case includes much less than half the genus.


Declaring species to be part of genus Larus seems less objective than declaring them a kind (or basic type in Scherer's terminology).

I've already been through this. Your so-called objective criterion is a case of giving an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong, because it doesn't usefully classify organisms, so its claimed objectivity doesn't help. And it's only partially objective anyway, because while in some cases it provides a clearcut test, in far more cases it just provides a "wouldn't have the foggiest" or a "probably not".


If there were cross-generic hybrids, it would go a long way to provisionally assign the Laridae to one kind.

You would need lots of fertile cross-generic hybrids before that started to look even remotely promising.


It seems that in the cattle, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, yet Bos also hybridizes with the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’.

Still nowhere near. The family Bovidae contains cattle, sheep, goats and many kinds of antelopes, so a hybridization chain involving two genera still puts you nowhere near demonstrating that all bovids are a kind.


In the plant world, there is widespread hybridization between genera, e.g. proven hybrids between lychees and longans [McConchie, C.A., Batten, D.J. and Vithanage, V., Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.), Annals of Botany 74:111–118, 1994].

Again, nowhere near. There are over 100 genera in that family.


Dr Batten also studied hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae..

And that's another massive family. Perhaps you didn't comprehend the question: it was whether there is any evidence that any polygeneric family has been shown to meet your definition of "kind". This means all species in the family must be shown to be in a hybridisation chain, and the family must contain multiple genera. Just in case there are any families containing just two monotypic genera that hybridise (though even that would be interesting), a reasonable place to set the bar would be a family with 3 or more genera including between them, say, six or more species.


Once again though, Dracorex, Stygimoloch, and Pachycephalosaurus had very different-looking skulls, and were classified as different genera, not merely different species.

Sure, but a few remaining instances of this sort of thing hardly prove it's still the norm. Especially not when the first two "genera" named were known only from juveniles; you can hardly expect the same thing to happen again in families where the taxa are known from adults.

antichrist
15-07-2010, 01:11 AM
KB, the world needs determined, educated and sensible people like yourself to fight the good fight in this thread.
And the irony of it is that it is in the thread where you sarcastically edited my poll

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 06:11 PM
And the irony of it is that it is in the thread where you sarcastically edited my poll

False. I did not edit your poll on this thread.

antichrist
15-07-2010, 10:52 PM
False. I did not edit your poll on this thread.

Well you must admit it looks like a bit of your handiwork. Can we play hangman as to who was the backstabber?

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 10:59 PM
Well you must admit it looks like a bit of your handiwork. Can we play hangman as to who was the backstabber?

Apparently you were. According to the thread moderation log, the poll was never edited.

If I had done it, I would have spelled your username correctly.

antichrist
15-07-2010, 11:05 PM
Apparently you were. According to the thread moderation log, the poll was never edited.

If I had done it, I would have spelled your username correctly.

You could very well be correct - I may have added the insult to save you guys the trouble. Defintiely signs of Stockholm Syndrome I'd say!

antichrist
27-07-2010, 09:03 PM
amazingly on ABC at the moment it stated that 175mil years ago Britain was down near the Equator, where its low areas picked up oyster shells that are now up mountains so to speak. That Britain got shoved to where it is now.

I wonder if it got carried up in the Big Flood

Desmond
02-08-2010, 08:21 PM
Queensland students taught humans coexisted with dinosaurs (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-students-taught-humans-coexisted-with-dinosaurs/story-e6freoof-1225899437968)

PRIMARY school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there's fossil evidence to prove it.
Fundamentalist Christians are hijacking religious instruction classes despite education experts saying Creationism and attempts to convert children to Christianity have no place in state schools.

Students have been told Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark, and Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.

...

Set Free Christian Church's Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.

Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said teachers were sometimes compelled to supervise the instructors "because of all the fire and brimstone stuff".

...

Buddhist Council of Queensland president Jim Ferguson said he was so disturbed that Creationism was being aired in state school classrooms that he would bring it up at the next meeting of the Religious Education Advisory Committee, part of Education Queensland.

He said RI was supposed to be a forum for multi-faith discussion.

...

New research shows three in 10 Australians believe dinosaurs and man did exist at the same time. The survey, by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, shows a "worrying" lack of basic scientific principles.

"The results underscore the need for students to be exposed to science and mathematics through a well resourced education system, rather than learning about science through Jurassic Park," FASTS president Dr Cathy Foley said.

PhD researcher Cathy Byrne found in a NSW-based survey that scripture teachers tended to discourage questioning, emphasised submission to authority and excluded different beliefs. She said 70 per cent of scripture teachers thought children should be taught the Bible as historical fact.

...

Rincewind
02-08-2010, 08:46 PM
I think RI should be scrapped from state schools unless there can be some regulatory control about the misinformation being "taught". My mum teaches scripture but she doesn't (to my knowledge) go about making scientifically invalid claims like the coexistence of man and dinosaurs.

It seems to also be a problem of the tail wagging the dog, since most people are Catholic or Anglican who don't generally claim that genesis 1 should be treated as a historical account but fundamentalists may be over represented in RI since they are strongly motivated to make their fringe view more mainstream. And there is no better way to do that than brainwash the young.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 09:35 AM
Queensland students taught humans coexisted with dinosaurs (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-students-taught-humans-coexisted-with-dinosaurs/story-e6freoof-1225899437968)

That article also said:
"Education Queensland is aware that Creationism is being taught by some religious instructors, but said parents could opt out."

Desmond
03-08-2010, 11:00 AM
That article also said:
"Education Queensland is aware that Creationism is being taught by some religious instructors, but said parents could opt out."
Yes it said that. The article also went on to point out that children who opted out had been ostracised. Hard for parents to know whether to opt in or out when the sessions are hijacked by fringe special interest groups with wacky beliefs and go against the sessions' purpose.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 11:15 AM
Yes it said that. The article also went on to point out that children who opted out had been ostracised.
Not exactly. The accurate quote from the article:
"Australian Secular Lobby president Hugh Wilson said children were ostracised and discriminated against if they were pulled out of the class."

Hard for parents to know whether to opt in or out when the sessions are hijacked by fringe special interest groups with wacky beliefs and go against the sessions' purpose.
I'd give parents more credit. And more respect to their right to decide.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2010, 11:19 AM
From Boris' article:


A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.
"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.
"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?
"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."
A likely story, if you trust fourth-hand reporting from atheopaths with an agenda. It doesn't strike you as strange that the journo reports what a father told him his daughter told him that her RE teacher had answered. That chain of Chinese Whispers should have raised suspicions. I know of no creationist who claims that DNA wasn't invented back then; most argue that the genetic code is a fantastic example of design (http://creation.com/dna-marvellous-messages-or-mostly-mess).

Of course, inbreeding was no problem before there were many deleterious mutations. Now the mutational load is becoming an increasing problem even without inbreeding, as John Sanford has shown (http://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis).

Desmond
03-08-2010, 11:23 AM
Not exactly. The accurate quote from the article:
"Australian Secular Lobby president Hugh Wilson said children were ostracised and discriminated against if they were pulled out of the class."It is also stated further down if you would like to continue reading the whole article. Anyway, the problem is?


I'd give parents more credit. And more respect to their right to decide.Well I would allow my child to learn about religions, different perspectives and beliefs. But to be taught that it is scientific? Not on your life.

Desmond
03-08-2010, 11:25 AM
I know of no creationist who claims that DNA wasn't invented back then; most argue that the genetic code is a fantastic example of design (http://creation.com/dna-marvellous-messages-or-mostly-mess).

Of course, inbreeding was no problem before there were many deleterious mutations. Now the mutational load is becoming an increasing problem even without inbreeding, as John Sanford has shown (http://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis).Then you should be against these fringe wackjob, unqualified, unsupervised volunteers too.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 11:37 AM
It is also stated further down if you would like to continue reading the whole article. Anyway, the problem is?

I just provided full and accurate quotation. Is it a problem?

Well I would allow my child to learn about religions, different perspectives and beliefs. But to be taught that it is scientific? Not on your life.
That's your decision which you have the right to do. Other parents have a right to make other decision. What is the problem?

Desmond
03-08-2010, 12:18 PM
I just provided full and accurate quotation. Is it a problem?You said "not exactly" so I assumed you disputed something I said.


That's your decision which you have the right to do. Other parents have a right to make other decision. What is the problem?The problem is when parents get the choice to opt in or out of a class delivering X, when that class actually delivers Y.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 01:38 PM
The problem is when parents get the choice to opt in or out of a class delivering X, when that class actually delivers Y.
Do you apply it generally or just in the quoted case?

Desmond
03-08-2010, 01:43 PM
Do you apply it generally or just in the quoted case?Both. Don't you?

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Both. Don't you?
Only if X is indeed represented as Y.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2010, 01:48 PM
Then you should be against these fringe wackjob, unqualified, unsupervised volunteers too.
Where is the evidence, apart from fourth-hand gutter journalism?

But the real solution is: do away with government schools! That way, parents could choose the education for their kids, and schools would follow the parents.

Desmond
03-08-2010, 02:35 PM
Only if X is indeed represented as Y.
Translation: yes.


Where is the evidence, apart from fourth-hand gutter journalism?Where is the evidence that it is fourth-hand gutter journaalism? :rolleyes:

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2010, 03:38 PM
Where is the evidence that it is fourth-hand gutter journaalism? :rolleyes:
I already told you: journo reports what a father told him his daughter told him about an absurd way her RE teacher had allegedly answered. Smacks of "My contact knows that alien abduction is real because his grandfather told him that his cousin's plumber was abducted.

Desmond
03-08-2010, 03:47 PM
I already told you: journo reports what a father told him his daughter told him about an absurd way her RE teacher had allegedly answered. Smacks of "My contact knows that alien abduction is real because his grandfather told him that his cousin's plumber was abducted.
And the "gutter"?

Desmond
03-08-2010, 04:52 PM
I know of no creationist who claims that DNA wasn't invented back then; most argue that the genetic code is a fantastic example of design (http://creation.com/dna-marvellous-messages-or-mostly-mess).Just got around to looking at your article. Your irreducable complexity line is an argument from ignorance.

Much of the rest appears to be argument from personal incredulity; Eg so much information can be stored in a pinhead of DNA that it cannot have happened by chance and must have been designed.

Rincewind
03-08-2010, 07:24 PM
Just got around to looking at your article. Your irreducable complexity line is an argument from ignorance.

Much of the rest appears to be argument from personal incredulity; Eg so much information can be stored in a pinhead of DNA that it cannot have happened by chance and must have been designed.

The way that article is written you can see the author is preaching to the converted. The first paragraph introduced the "claim" as something non-controversial and axioms from scripture without any justification and so would only be accepted by someone who does likewise.

I certainly can't see an molecular biologist reading that and going "Oh, yeah... that makes sense." Unless of course the molecular biologist is already a fundamentalist Christian. :)

Spiny Norman
04-08-2010, 06:20 AM
I certainly can't see an molecular biologist reading that and going "Oh, yeah... that makes sense." Unless of course the molecular biologist is already a fundamentalist Christian. :)
You saved yourself with that last sentence. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2010, 10:57 AM
Just got around to looking at your article. Your irreducable complexity line is an argument from ignorance.
Should be perfect for you then.:P

In reality, it's based on what we do know about chemistry and information.


Much of the rest appears to be argument from personal incredulity; Eg so much information can be stored in a pinhead of DNA that it cannot have happened by chance and must have been designed.
Of course. Better than Dawko et al. arguing, "I can't see why a designer would have made something, so evolution must have done it" (WTTE).

When you have a genuine objection rather than fact-free babbling, please let us know.

Desmond
05-08-2010, 11:51 AM
Should be perfect for you then.:PAd hominem to defend the argument from ignorance.


In reality, it's based on what we do know about chemistry and information.The irreducible complexity argument is an argument from ignorance.

It basically says that, because we don't know what useful function a thing would have had with some components removed, that it had no useful function.

There have been cases where supposed examples of irreducible complexity have later been shown to be wrong, and that taking a subset of the components does yield a useful thing.

c.f. your fellow Christian Ken Miller.



Of course. Better than Dawko ...I don't propose to defend what Dawkins may have said, just to comment of the page you provided, and its shortcomings. So anyway back to the argument from personal incredulity, it is not a scientific argument.

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2010, 01:13 PM
It basically says that, because we don't know what useful function a thing would have had with some components removed, that it had no useful function.
Whereas evos accept by faith that they did. Furthermore, while Dawk and Miller claim that natural selection helps, they can't with the origin of first life including the genetic code.


There have been cases where supposed examples of irreducible complexity have later been shown to be wrong, and that taking a subset of the components does yield a useful thing.
Assertion. The most common argument by that Miller buffoon is the flagellar motor evolved from a secretory system, but even evolutionary experts think it was the other way round: the secretory system devolved from the motor (http://creation.com/misotheists-misology-richard-dawkins-attacks-michael-behe#flagellum).


c.f. your fellow Christian Ken Miller.
He's a twit and no fellow Christian.


I don't propose to defend what Dawkins may have said, just to comment of the page you provided, and its shortcomings. So anyway back to the argument from personal incredulity, it is not a scientific argument.
Yet you are incapable of finding a scientific mistake.

Desmond
05-08-2010, 02:43 PM
Whereas evos accept by faith that they did. Furthermore, while Dawk and Miller claim that natural selection helps, they can't with the origin of first life including the genetic code.Strawman. The theory of evolution does not propose to answer that question.


Assertion. The most common argument by that Miller buffoon is the flagellar motor evolved from a secretory system, but even evolutionary experts think it was the other way round: the secretory system devolved from the motor (http://creation.com/misotheists-misology-richard-dawkins-attacks-michael-behe#flagellum).:lol: "Evolutionary experts" at Creation.com eh? Have you got another source?


He's a twit and no fellow Christian.Are all Catholics who accept evolution also non-Christian twits according to you?


Yet you are incapable of finding a scientific mistake.I was unable to find any good science there at all. :)

Rincewind
05-08-2010, 04:58 PM
Yet you are incapable of finding a scientific mistake.

There are plenty of mistakes in reasoning. For example in the closing section you discuss the disagreement between Mattick and Claverie, where you abuse a quote of Claverie. He said...


"... the most basic principle of biology: things arose by the additive addition of evolution of tiny subsystems, not by global design." - Claverie (reported by Jono)

And twist it into the conclusion...


"‘Junk DNA’ (or, rather, DNA that doesn’t directly code for proteins) is not evidence for evolution. Rather, its alleged junkiness is a deduction from the false assumption of evolution." - Jono (summary)

However Claverie's quote was not given as a comment on Junk DNA but on Mattick's particular theory and was in no way a comprehensive list of problems of it, nor is the principle that things arose by the addition of small subsubsystems the only reason (or even the main reason) that junk DNA is considered to be junk DNA. Some non-coding DNA does serve other purposes, but some serve no apparent purpose which has been tested experimentally by changing some coding randomly and cutting out sections of junk DNA without any observable effects onthe organism.

Anyway, as I said earlier, the article is just wishful thinking which suffices when preaching to the converted but otherwise it is unconvincing.

antichrist
05-12-2010, 08:23 PM
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-37369820090110

now science can sort of prove that lobsters can live "forever" but cannot do the same for Noah or other humans

Rincewind
05-12-2010, 08:45 PM
now science can sort of prove that lobsters can live "forever"

Science hasn't proved anything like that and while some scientist may claim that lobsters might be able to live forever (see for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1297.096/abstract ) that doesn't necessarily make it science.

antichrist
05-12-2010, 08:51 PM
Science hasn't proved anything like that and while some scientist may claim that lobsters might be able to live forever (see for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1297.096/abstract ) that doesn't necessarily make it science.

that reference was certainly a fizzer they did not discuss anything.

Rincewind
05-12-2010, 08:56 PM
that reference was certainly a fizzer they did not discuss anything.

Maybe your subscription to the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences has lapsed.

Desmond
03-03-2011, 09:58 PM
This was quite illuminating in the context of previous discussion on this thread. Particularly from 1.27 onwards.

l6_o1GxgNMQ

Desmond
28-04-2013, 07:33 PM
language warning

YcMLUfmy0Q8

antichrist
29-04-2013, 09:31 AM
what a classic video, makes me happy for all my shit-stirring days

Oepty
29-04-2013, 07:33 PM
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:"

He has chosen a his path through that gate.

antichrist
26-07-2013, 08:28 PM
When have I claimed it has? As I said, that's someone else, not me.


That post WAS my own words, duh.


It's a site I work on.
From page 3, if the light from distant galaxies has already reached earth and it took millions of years to do so how could the universe be only 6000 years old?

Desmond
29-03-2014, 05:33 AM
Good reasons why so many Americans believe in Noah and his flood (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100265345/good-reasons-why-so-many-americans-believe-in-noah-and-his-flood/) - Peter Foster

Adamski
29-03-2014, 07:27 AM
Good reasons why so many Americans believe in Noah and his flood (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100265345/good-reasons-why-so-many-americans-believe-in-noah-and-his-flood/) - Peter FosterA good article. I do hope to see the movie although I do know it won't be true to the Biblical account.

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2014, 08:30 AM
From page 3, if the light from distant galaxies has already reached earth and it took millions of years to do so how could the universe be only 6000 years old?

Yawn, see The Creation Answers Book (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-505), chapter 5 (http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf), which answers:


How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them?
Did God create light in transit?
Was the speed of light faster in the past?
Does this have anything to do with the ‘big bang’?

Rincewind
29-03-2014, 08:57 AM
Actually no it doesn't. The "answer" it provides is based in fringe physics which has no scientific grounding as compared well-established theories like the big-bang cosmology. Furthermore it is a creationist spin on fringe physics which makes it even more speculative. The author acknowledges this because the last two paragraphs of chapter five finish with an amusing appeal to ignorance...


However, even without the new ideas that seem to solve the problem, such an approach would still have been wrong-headed. The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.

This is worth remembering when dealing with other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.

This is nothing more than a cop out and exposes the embarrassing circularity of the creationist position.

Desmond
29-03-2014, 09:57 AM
A good article.I thought so. I'm surprised that you did.

I do hope to see the movie although I do know it won't be true to the Biblical account.Why's that; because Emma Watson does not have webbed toes?

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2014, 10:00 AM
^^^^ Been through this before; Hartnett (http://creation.com/dr-john-hartnett-cv)is a tenured physics prof at the uni of Western Australia, and he has shown that Carmelian relativity solves problems of normal big bang cosmology like galactic rotation curves. And at least we are up-front about our biblical position—RW, like his idols like Dawkins (https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php)and Lewontin (http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote), are motivated by their atheopathic bigotry.


It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, 19 January 1984.

Desmond
29-03-2014, 10:15 AM
Yeah, just like not collecting ornamental teaspoons is a hobby.

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2014, 11:35 AM
No one is writing books against collecting ornamental teaspoons, rejecting perfectly good scientific theories because they were proposed by collectors of ornamental teaspoons. Your atheopathy is held with religious devotion, and hopes to answer the same questions as theistic religions do.

Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997:


I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.

Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

Desmond
29-03-2014, 12:18 PM
No one is writing books against collecting ornamental teaspoons, rejecting perfectly good scientific theories because they were proposed by collectors of ornamental teaspoons. Can you name any perfectly good scientific theory that was rejected because it was proposed by a creationist?

Rincewind
29-03-2014, 06:48 PM
Been through this before; Hartnett is a tenured physics prof at the uni of Western Australia, and he has shown that Carmelian relativity solves problems of normal big bang cosmology like galactic rotation curves.

Hartnett designs timepieces for satellites. He is not a cosmologist and as already shown Carmelian relativity is a nonsense that no one takes seriously except two or three fringe guys publishing in one or two fringe journals.

BTW Are you sure about the tenured physics professor at UWA? I thought he moved to Adelaide on his DORA (which was awarded in electrical engineering research btw check DP130104129) and is currently employed at the level of his DORA (which is level 2 aka associate prof).

(Edit: I forgot that a "professor" as UWA is equivalent to associate professor at almost any other Australian University. A full professor at UWA is called a Winthrop professor. But it still appears that perhaps John has moved to Adelaide.)

Adamski
31-03-2014, 03:37 PM
A good article. I do hope to see the movie although I do know it won't be true to the Biblical account.Should be seeing the Noah movie on Friday night. Anyone else seen it?

Desmond
03-04-2014, 06:38 AM
Should be seeing the Noah movie on Friday night. Anyone else seen it?Personally I don't have much time for movies staring the morally questionable Rusty Crowe. I'm sure he'll be perfect for the role though.

Desmond
03-04-2014, 06:40 AM
No one is writing books against collecting ornamental teaspoons, rejecting perfectly good scientific theories because they were proposed by collectors of ornamental teaspoons.


Can you name any perfectly good scientific theory that was rejected because it was proposed by a creationist?

Look over there! Is that a tumbleweed?

Rincewind
03-04-2014, 11:07 AM
Personally I don't have much time for movies staring the morally questionable Rusty Crowe. I'm sure he'll be perfect for the role though.

God's behaviour in the Noah Ark tale is highly questionable morally, so perhaps Russell was miscast as Noah.

Desmond
03-04-2014, 06:27 PM
God's behaviour in the Noah Ark tale is highly questionable morally, so perhaps Russell was miscast as Noah.Apparently God isn't in it :lol:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-noah-film-is-afloat-with-extremism/story-fni0ffxg-1226869091537

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2014, 12:45 AM
Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10740451/Noahs-Ark-would-have-floated...even-with-70000-animals.html)
Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that Noah's Ark could have carried 70,000 animals without sinking if built from the dimensions listed in The Bible.
Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent, Telegraph (UK) 03 Apr 2014



A group of master’s students from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leicester University studied the exact dimensions of the Ark, set out in Genesis 6:13-22.

According to The Bible, God instructed Noah to build a boat which was 300 cubits long 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high – recommending gopher wood for the enormous lifeboat.

The students averaged out the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit measurement to come up with 48.2cm, making the Ark around 144 metres long – about 100 metres shorter than Ark Royal.

Using the dimensions, the Archimedes principal of buoyancy and approximate animal wrights they were astonished to find out that the Ark would have floated.

Previous research has suggested that there were approximately 35,000 species of animals which would have needed to be saved by Noah, enabling the students to conclude that the dimensions given in the Bible would have allowed Noah to build an ark that would float with all of the animals on board.

Student Thomas Morris, 22, from Chelmsford, said: “You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work. We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work.”

It is a separate matter whether all of the animals would fit inside an ark of these dimensions – the physics students were simply calculating the buoyancy of the ark.

Of course, creationists have pointed out that the created kind is much broader than the modern taxonomic species. If the kind corresponded to genera, we would need only 16,000 animals. See How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark) and Refuting Noah’s ark critics (http://creation.com/refuting-noahs-ark-critics).

Rincewind
04-04-2014, 02:13 AM
Of course boyancy is only the most basic issue to consider. As the article goes on to say...


It is a separate matter whether all of the animals would fit inside an ark of these dimensions – the physics students were simply calculating the buoyancy of the ark.

The students presented their findings in a paper for the Journal of Physics Special Topics, a peer-reviewed student journal run by the University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy.

Then after fitting there is the problem of feeding and keeping them alive for a year not the mention the issues of collecting the disparate unique fauna from the various continents (many of which were unknown to middle eastern people in Noah's time) and returning said animals back to those continents after the flooding had subsided.

Not sure when articles written in student journals were considered "Scientists discovered" headlines. But I guess that is what happens in the Telegraph's worldview.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2014, 02:21 AM
More boring atheopathic diatribe ^^^^ These were Masters students in physics!

We have dealt with those other arguments before too. Noah didn't have to fetch the animals, God would bring them, maybe using a secondary cause like a migration instinct. Keeping them is no problem, as can be easily calculated, since there was a ready supply of fresh water to drink, and the use of dried foodstuffs to save weight is ancient knowledge.

Desmond
04-04-2014, 06:18 AM
More boring atheopathic diatribe ^^^^ These were Masters students in physics!

We have dealt with those other arguments before too. Noah didn't have to fetch the animals, God would bring them, maybe using a secondary cause like a migration instinct. Keeping them is no problem, as can be easily calculated, since there was a ready supply of fresh water to drink, and the use of dried foodstuffs to save weight is ancient knowledge.If God could use a "migration instinct" why not just wipe out everything with a "die instinct", or a "not eating instinct" or a "no breeding instinct". Not as interesting a fable, I guess.

Rincewind
04-04-2014, 09:23 AM
The moral repugnance of a God who would wipe all all of creation save 8 people and a boat load of animals is arguably a bigger problem than the logistical issues. I mean the thousands of young children and the fetuses of women (however wicked) who were pregnant at the time of the flood were slaughtered in a most cruel and torturous way without the slightest compassion.

Desmond
04-04-2014, 05:04 PM
The moral repugnance of a God who would wipe all all of creation save 8 people and a boat load of animals is arguably a bigger problem than the logistical issues. I mean the thousands of young children and the fetuses of women (however wicked) who were pregnant at the time of the flood were slaughtered in a most cruel and torturous way without the slightest compassion.
Indeed but hardly surprising; after all the central tenet of Christianity is that you're guilty of other people's sins and that someone else will take that blame for you.

Adamski
04-04-2014, 11:10 PM
Saw Noah film Friday night Enjoyed it Did go well beyond Bible (Nephilim a cross between ents and transformers) but good elements incuded universal fliod, large ark and rainbow at the end. Also regular reference to the Creator (not the Evolver).

Desmond
05-04-2014, 05:05 AM
reference to the Creator (not the Evolver).Was it a different deity who oversaw the evolution from the animals on the supposed ark to the species around today?

Scott
05-04-2014, 12:49 PM
A hollywood movie is highly unlikely to be accurate and by the reports I have read the it certainly is not.

Desmond
05-04-2014, 07:15 PM
A hollywood movie is highly unlikely to be accurate and by the reports I have read the it certainly is not.Yeah, I've seen it time and time again with fans of the fiction being disappointing at the conversion from print to screen. Superhero stories, vampire stories, fantasy - you name it. I think the trick is not to get too invested in the fiction - just try to enjoy it for the work of entertainment that it is.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2014, 12:01 AM
God could have done a lot of things. What matters is what He did. Here is the original paper (https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/676/475).

Scott
06-04-2014, 12:19 AM
Yeah, I've seen it time and time again with fans of the fiction being disappointing at the conversion from print to screen. Superhero stories, vampire stories, fantasy - you name it. I think the trick is not to get too invested in the fiction - just try to enjoy it for the work of entertainment that it is.

It certainly is a big weekend for fans Song of Ice and Fire with the latest season of Game of Thrones starting. I am sure there will be a lot of them disappointed at the differences between the books and the television series like there was with the last series.

Rincewind
06-04-2014, 01:41 AM
Here is the original paper (https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/676/475).

When doing feasibility studies of some hypothesis it is good practice to provide conservative estimates and make assumptions which represent the most conservative of conditions.

In that paper the authors consistently make estimates and assumptions which are in favour of their hypothesis. For example...

They assume the ark is a rectangular prism. The maximises volume but is patently in practical from a seaworthiness perspective. a more streamline shape would reduce the total volume.

They assume the ark has no substructure which leave Noah, his family and all the animals to be knocking about a box empty box. Any substructure is an issue as it adds to the weight of the vessel which must be buoyed by the vessel's displacement.

They assume the water has a salinity of modern oceans. If all this water came from rainfall the water was likely brackish but not a saline as today's oceans which a reduction in density of the displaced liquid.

They assume that the draft of the vessel was equal to it's height. Again this is patently unseaworthy practically turning the arc into a submarine which presents a number of issues for the passengers. A draft of anything much over a 50% of the height is likely to be problematic for a sea voyage.

They assume no provisions are necessary for a one year sea voyage without the possibility of stopping to resupply. I know God ran a catering business for 40 years while the Israelites wandered in the desert but I thought Noah had to feed himself.

So even as a basic physics calculation the paper has a number of problems in relation to the assumption they make all being stacked in favour of their hypothesis.

The paper has a number of other issues like for example citing non-scientific sources. In fact around half of them are websites and a couple of others are non academic books. So if the paper was meant as a exercise in good research, it would not be a pass.

Of course the buoyancy issue is not a major problem. The wood they use is lighter than water and most animals are roughly the density of water of a little lighter so making a vessel from wood and filling it with animals it is impossible to design something that sinks on paper. The real issue is the that of volume and he logistics of collecting, keeping alive and redistributing anything like the biodiversity of a planet.

Of course if it is feasible then the creationist should just do it. A good first step would be to build a wooden vessel of the dimensions of the ark and survive a sea voyage of around 12 months. If they can manage that perhaps then they could try collecting a reasonably large a representative number of animals (say only around 2,000 species), and keep them all alive on their vessel for a year without stopping for supplies and manned by only eight people with no modern technology. Sounds like a doddle. :lol:

Desmond
06-04-2014, 06:12 AM
Of course if it is feasible then the creationist should just do it. A good first step would be to build a wooden vessel of the dimensions of the ark and survive a sea voyage of around 12 months. If they can manage that perhaps then they could try collecting a reasonably large a representative number of animals (say only around 2,000 species), and keep them all alive on their vessel for a year without stopping for supplies and manned by only eight people with no modern technology. Sounds like a doddle. :lol:
Sounds pleasant in a rectangular prism, you'd be basically sitting in the bilge. Avoid open-toed shoes :lol:

Adamski
07-04-2014, 01:18 PM
God could have done a lot of things. What matters is what He did. Here is the original paper (https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/viewFile/676/475).

Capa / Jono the original paper shows as blank! Surely it should be God's Word (NASB, ESV or NKJV especially)!

Good to see Scott back - yes I was not surprised most of the Noah film was unbiblical. I went with that expectation, and just to enjoy it as a story. Far from a great movie. The whole idea of Noah having a good side and a bad side battling each other was wrong. Noah was, the Bible says, a righteous man. And no evil spirits or Nephilim helped him build the ark!!!

Desmond
08-04-2014, 06:05 AM
Noah was, the Bible says, a righteous man. I should have thought that the righteous thing to do would be to refuse to be an accessory to worldicide.

Adamski
08-04-2014, 07:25 AM
I should have thought that the righteous thing to do would be to refuse to be an accessory to worldicide.
Hmm, new word worldicide. God told Noah that because the rest of mankind outside he and his family was wicked, He had decided the rest of mankind had to be destroyed.I don't think being obedient to God's request to building an ark made him an accessory to God's decision. Rather than seeing the film though, much better to read the biblical account from Genesis 6 on.

Desmond
08-04-2014, 07:37 AM
Hmm, new word worldicide. God told Noah that because the rest of mankind outside he and his family was wicked, He had decided the rest of mankind had to be destroyed.I don't think being obedient to God's request to building an ark made him an accessory to God's decision.I do. God is saying to noah to do x so that God can kill everything, then by doing x noah is complicit. If he had any moral standing he would have refused.

Adamski
08-04-2014, 08:44 AM
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Capa's fan may have a contribution though.

Desmond
08-04-2014, 12:34 PM
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Capa's fan may have a contribution though.What is the basis for your disagreement?

If I tell you to leave so I can kick a dog and you do so, are you complicit? If I tell you to stand in front of a security camera so I can steal something and you do, are you complicit?

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2014, 02:22 PM
I should have thought that the righteous thing to do would be to refuse to be an accessory to worldicide.

Why? God created the world so has the right to commit worldicide . Stop being so judgmental.

Desmond
08-04-2014, 02:32 PM
Why? God created the world so has the right to commit worldicide . Rubbish.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2014, 02:36 PM
They assume the ark is a rectangular prism. The maximises volume but is patently in practical from a seaworthiness perspective. a more streamline shape would reduce the total volume.
It doesn't need to be seaworthy in the sense of being streamlined, since it just needed to float not travel.


They assume the ark has no substructure which leave Noah, his family and all the animals to be knocking about a box empty box. Any substructure is an issue as it adds to the weight of the vessel which must be buoyed by the vessel's displacement.
With the right trusses, it would be a small fraction of the weight.


They assume the water has a salinity of modern oceans. If all this water came from rainfall the water was likely brackish but not a saline as today's oceans which a reduction in density of the displaced liquid.
Hardly a major problem since present day sea water is only 2.5% denser than pure water.


They assume that the draft of the vessel was equal to it's height. Again this is patently unseaworthy practically turning the arc into a submarine which presents a number of issues for the passengers. A draft of anything much over a 50% of the height is likely to be problematic for a sea voyage./QUOTE]
The only window was on top, so no problem.

[QUOTE=Rincewind;376179]They assume no provisions are necessary for a one year sea voyage without the possibility of stopping to resupply. I know God ran a catering business for 40 years while the Israelites wandered in the desert but I thought Noah had to feed himself.
Since they way over-estimated number of animals, there would have been plenty of room for food, especially dried.


Of course if it is feasible then the creationist should just do it. A good first step would be to build a wooden vessel of the dimensions of the ark and survive a sea voyage of around 12 months. If they can manage that perhaps then they could try collecting a reasonably large a representative number of animals (say only around 2,000 species), and keep them all alive on their vessel for a year without stopping for supplies and manned by only eight people with no modern technology. Sounds like a doddle. :lol:
The Bible indicates that Noah didn't have to collect them; God brought them.

jammo
08-04-2014, 04:25 PM
The Bible indicates that Noah didn't have to collect them; God brought them.

Could you clarify what you mean by "brought?" Did they travel by land, sea or air or were they perhaps teleported? I'm particularly keen to find out how my New Zealand alpine snail made it all that way. Jono thinks it swam there. Wouldn't it have been easier for God just to wipe out the lot then re-create them after the waters had subsided. After all, that would only take a week.

Desmond
08-04-2014, 08:09 PM
It certainly is a big weekend for fans Song of Ice and Fire with the latest season of Game of Thrones starting. I am sure there will be a lot of them disappointed at the differences between the books and the television series like there was with the last series.
I notice Noah received a Rotten Tomatoes score of 76% (not bad), still shy of even Captain America: The Boring Avenger 2 on 89%.

Rincewind
08-04-2014, 08:36 PM
It doesn't need to be seaworthy in the sense of being streamlined, since it just needed to float not travel.

But it does need to be streamline in the sense of staying right way up to stop becoming swamped in heavy seas.


With the right trusses, it would be a small fraction of the weight.

If it is so easy just do it.

But the real problem is you don;t need to be Einstein to see that some superstructure is necessary but this was another simplifying assumption made by the authors which, surprise, surprise, acts in favour of their hypothesis. This is just bad practice scientifically.


Hardly a major problem since present day sea water is only 2.5% denser than pure water.

But yet again another case of making an assumption in favour of their own hypothesis.


The only window was on top, so no problem.

Maybe if you sailing in a bathtub, as soon as you get one wave you get swamped. There is a reason why sea-going vessels typically have a low draft of 50% of their height. In the ocean you get waves.


Since they way over-estimated number of animals, there would have been plenty of room for food, especially dried.

Says you but they made NO ALLOWANCE for food. Not a nominal allowance - no allowance whatsoever. You don;t need to be Einstein (again) to realise that animals typically eat more than once per year. Also since they assume salty seawater as the environment, they would need to have somewhere to store freshwater for drinking and potentially an efficient means to collect rainwater for this purpose.


The Bible indicates that Noah didn't have to collect them; God brought them.

Of course she did.

Desmond
09-04-2014, 07:00 AM
If it is so easy just do it.I agree, it would be interesting to see if one of Jono's chums could do it. I watched a doco a while ago about building a trebuchet with only tools and techniques that were available at that time. It was interesting. An ark should be a doddle.

Adamski
09-04-2014, 05:38 PM
U
Capa / Jono the original paper shows as blank! Surely it should be God's Word (NASB, ESV or NKJV especially)!!!!
That was my bad Capa Fan. I missed the link on my mobile. God's Word is the "original" paper but of course he was referring to the recent academic paper on the ark.

Rincewind
09-04-2014, 06:22 PM
he was referring to the recent academic paper on the ark.

Note this was an in house student magazine and not an academic paper, per se. It is more akin to an undergraduate assignment.

Desmond
09-04-2014, 07:21 PM
Surely it should be God's Word (NASB, ESV or NKJV especially)!This is the infallible word of the God*

*version dependant.
:lol:

Adamski
10-04-2014, 12:39 AM
This is the infallible word of the God*

*version dependant.
:lol:Actually, most of the time those 3 versions say very close to the same thing - just minor nuances with no impact on doctrine. Each has its fans. NASB the most literal, NKJV closest to famous King james Version and ESV the most recent and therefor with more current idioms. All the Word of God. Infallibility does not apply to every word in English- rather to the words in the original Hebrew and Greek.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2014, 02:50 AM
I agree, it would be interesting to see if one of Jono's chums could do it. I watched a doco a while ago about building a trebuchet with only tools and techniques that were available at that time. It was interesting. An ark should be a doddle.

Try to keep up would you please?
A full size ark and it floats! An intrepid Dutchman builds his second floating ark; this time it’s humungous! (http://creation.com/full-size-dutch-ark)

Desmond
10-04-2014, 07:24 AM
Try to keep up would you please?
A full size ark and it floats! An intrepid Dutchman builds his second floating ark; this time it’s humungous! (http://creation.com/full-size-dutch-ark)OK, I'll try.

You title says "it floats" and in the article "by the time this article appears, it should be ready to launch". So does it? How did he go living in it drifting at sea for a year?

Rincewind
10-04-2014, 10:46 AM
It's not an authentic facsimile anyway unless Noah's ark was built with a steel frame.

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2014, 05:57 PM
I agree, it would be interesting to see if one of Jono's chums could do it. I watched a doco a while ago about building a trebuchet with only tools and techniques that were available at that time. It was interesting. An ark should be a doddle.
Jono's chums are building an ark (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/creation-museum-kentucky-noahs-ark-museum-ken-ham):

A Christian ministry’s long-stalled plans to build Noah’s Ark in the hills of Kentucky have been revived. Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73m. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016.
...
The wooden ark would have old-world details, such as wooden pegs instead of nails, straight-sawed timbers and plenty of animals – some alive, some robotic.

No mention of whether it will be tested to see if it floats, or if it can survive forty days at sea.

Desmond
11-04-2014, 06:44 PM
Jono's chums are building an ark (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/creation-museum-kentucky-noahs-ark-museum-ken-ham):

A Christian ministry’s long-stalled plans to build Noah’s Ark in the hills of Kentucky have been revived. Creation Museum founder Ken Ham announced Thursday that a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the Ark Encounter project, estimated to cost about $73m. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016.
...
The wooden ark would have old-world details, such as wooden pegs instead of nails, straight-sawed timbers and plenty of animals – some alive, some robotic.

No mention of whether it will be tested to see if it floats, or if it can survive forty days at sea.Wow that's a lot of government money.