Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In recent museum exhibit of dinosaurs, plate tectonics dominates, not Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Ultimate Dinosaurs: Giants from GondwanaDid we mention that scientists seem to be starting to forget Darwin, and move on to more fruitful areas” Yesterday, I was at a Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “ Ultimate Dinosaurs: Giants from Gondwana” (presented by Raymond James). The exhibit was blessedly free of inappropriate homage to Darwin, who was identified only as the developer of natural selection theory. Pride of place went to Wegener and plate tectonics – the breakup and gradual movement of the continents to their present places around the globe.

The focus was on how the breakup of Pangaea into Laurasia and Gondwana (and related developments) separated groups of dinosaurs, who thereafter went their own way developmentally, while remaining quite obviously dinosaurs.

I was impressed by the (mostly) absence of just-so stories. They would only have been in the way. The exhibit of these long lost life forms was quite absorbing enough without ideologically motivated tales. We see some evolution but we don’t necessarily know the exact cause – other than separation from others of the same species – which is the message of plate tectonics.

Some dinos you maybe didn’t meet recently.

See also “Scientists are beginning to forget Darwin, whether they admit it or not.”

Comments
BA 77- Oh, and I have to comment on your atrocious quote mining of Henry Gee. Here you are trying to quote mine an evolutionist to say evolution is disproven? I got your logic. No scientist dares speak out against the dogma of evolution. Here are some quotes from scientists "admitting" evolution is false. According to your ID legendarium, any scientist who criticizes evolution will be fired and blacklisted. Now if that were true, why wasn't Henry Gee fired and blacklisted? There are only two possibilities. 1. ID proponents state falsely that those who criticize evolution are fired and blacklisted; or 2. ID proponents quote took Henry Gee's words out of context to reverse their meaning. Here Henry Gee reacts to the quote miners of Intelligent Design:
That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...] I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.
That's your authority, BA77, saying that the Discovery Institute and its leaders have immoral values because they are dishonest and they quote mine him to misrepresent his meaning. BA77, Henry Gee was the authority, the expert you presented. Now when he says that the Discovery Institute and its leaders have immoral values because they are dishonest and quote mine him, is he still your authority, your expert?Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
Maus -
You mean rather that Euclidian geometry and the average airspeed of an unladen swallow do. Evolution is not even an epicycle here, it’s entirely superfluous.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be implying you have a non-evolutionary "explanation", while being vague about it. Is your explanation "They got there by getting there"? Wow, like I've never heard that before. Is your "explanation" what Byers is talking about-- all marsupials walked to S. America from Mount Ararat? Or maybe from Australia-- I have no idea what Byers is going on about.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
Diogenes. I wrote an essay called "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained" by robert Byers. Just google. I say marsupials of S America simply walked there around the pacific rim and possibly only became marsupial upon entering s america. Jumping over to Antartica was no big deal and unrelated to australia. There is no reason to see marsupials as connected from a former united southern breakof of Gondwana etc. Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals.Robert Byers
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Evolutionary theory can explain the biogeographic distribution of xenarthrans in S. America and australidelphians in Australia and horses in N. America.
You mean rather that Euclidian geometry and the average airspeed of an unladen swallow do. Evolution is not even an epicycle here, it's entirely superfluous. Pro Tip: Don't cut yourself with Occam's Razor.Maus
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
Joe:
Yet evolutionary theory didn’t predict marsupials, South America, Austrailia, nor Antarctica.
Wow. You mean evolution can't predict the shape or number of continents? Darwin is finished. What next? Newtonism didn't predict the moons of Neptune?
Evolutionary theory didn’t predict ERVs.
Neither did creationism. But common inheritance does predict that any diverse set of inherited properties should show the same pattern of similarity and dissimilarity (phylogeny).
evolutionary theory cannot explain xenarthrans, australidelphians, nor horses.
I don't know what you mean by "explain." Allege a cause? Anyone can allege a cause. Santa Claus made them. The question is, can your causative hypothesis make testable predictions about observable quantities?Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
BA77:
No, the universe gives every indication as to having been designed for life.
You have no evidence of this whatsoever. All your "indications" are based on God of the Gaps, as well as many other mathematical fallacies. If you compute probabiities ignorantly, and make up small numbers, and multiply them together, then anybody can get astronomically small probabilities. You then assume that the default hypothesis, in the case of an astronomically incorrect probability, must be that an invisible intelligence is to blame. Now suppose that were valid. Then this would work too: 1. My cow died. 2. I can't compute the probability of a natural explanation for my cow dying, so instead I'll lie and make up a probability. I'll make it low. 3. Since the probability (that I made up) of a natural explanation for Dead Cow is very low, therefore, my neighbor's a witch. No, that is not scientific evidence. If you wish to support the hypothesis "my neighbor's a witch", then the hypothesis Neighbors-A-Witch must make specific testable predictions that match observable quantities. Invisible intangible intelligences are not the default hypothesis that "wins" when science "loses." Your hypothesis makes no testable predictions about observable quantities. Just probabilities that you compute with astronomical incompetence. You also make the Mud Puddle Fallacy. 1. The depression in the ground containing the mud exactly matches the puddle of mud. 2. The odds of natural forces creating a depression in the ground that exactly, precisely, matches this puddle are astronomically small. 3. Therefore the depression in the ground must have been designed to match the puddle. Here you have reversed that which did the adapting, and that which is adapted to. Thus your intuition regarding "odds" and "probabilities" is useless. As you are determined to pollute every thread on the internet with your incoherent shopping cart of detritus, I should get around to dismissing this, um, material. So let's consider your "sources."
Fred Hoyle.
1. Bullprob 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Mud Puddle Fallacy. Hoyle had some briliant grad students who were good at nuclear physics. However, he had no way to compute what's the probability of nuclear physics being anything other than what it is. In addition, this imaginary low probability does not imply cosmic intelligence, unless you first assume Neighbors-A-Witch by default. The hypothesis of cosmic intelligence does not make testable predictions. Fred Hoyle was not a biologist. Recall that he and Lee Spetner said Archaeopteryx was a fraud. This was profoundly ignorant at best, mentally unhinged at worst.
the atheists very own ‘Drake equation'
1. Fallacy of Independent probabilities The Drake equation is not atheistic. At any rate, it is formed by multiplying together many small probabilities, again assuming they're independent. How do you know? The more numbers you multiply together, the more incorrect your probability is.
on top of the highly improbable set of ‘coincidences’ that are necessary to allow life to exist on any given planet
1. Bullprob. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Mud puddle fallacy 4. Lottery winner fallacy What are the odds that I should be sitting on this sofa? There are a billion sofas on earth, and I'm sitting on this one. The odds of that are a billion to one. Clearly, God must have put me on the sofa.
Gonzalez and Richards, in the following video, speak of a ‘observability correlation that is very ‘suspicious’
1. Bullprob. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch. 3. Youtube Video. I'm not watching Youtube Videos. Seen enough VenomFangX, thank you.
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video
1. Neighbors-A-Witch. 2. Lottery winner fallacy 3. Youtube Video.
Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Gonzalez; Privileged Planet, Denton; Nature’s Destiny).
1. Neighbors-A-Witch. 2. Mud puddle
Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887 Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552
1. Probabilities simply made up. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch 3. Mud puddle 4. Lottery Winner fallacy 5. YouTube video
This following site has a rigorously argued defense of the fine-tuning(teleological) argument:
No such thing. 1. Probabilities simply made up. 2. Neighbors-A-Witch 3. Mud puddle 4. Lottery Winner fallacy Enough for now.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
Evolutionary theory predicted that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica because marsupials came from South America, and S. America was connected to Australia via Antarctica. And Australidelphian marsupial fossils were found in Antarctica.
Yet evolutionary theory didn't predict marsupials, South America, Austrailia, nor Antarctica.
Evolutionary theory predicted that Australian marsupials would cluster with some S. American marsupials, and in fact the S. American monito del monte has the same pattern of ERVs as Australian marsupials.
Evolutionary theory didn't predict ERVs.
Evolutionary theory can explain the biogeographic distribution of xenarthrans in S. America and australidelphians in Australia and horses in N. America.
Yet evolutionary theory cannot explain xenarthrans, australidelphians, nor horses.
On the other hand, an intelligent designer could put similar designs in different places, or the same places, if he wanted to, thus leading to no predictions.
1- Not one of your "predictions" has anything to do with the alleged designer mimic natural selection 2- ID makes the same prediction as archaeology and forensics- when agenicies act they tend to leave traces of their actions behind-> traces that we can and do detect.
It was creationists who denied plate tectonics for decades after scientists accepted Wegener’s theory. Even in the 1980?s creationists still called plate tectonics a Satanic illusion. They flip-flopped in the late 1990?s. Revised versions of the “Answers Book” flip-flopped on that.
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (a creationist), before Wegner, talked about the lands being all in one place- per the Bible, no less, and breaking up during the Flood.Joe
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
,,,then there actually exists a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a 'Theory of Everything' that overcomes this zero/infinity conflict!
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
,,Moreover there is actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, that we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ in a 'singularity' and/or a 'event horizon',,,
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation Particle Radiation from the Body - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit?hl=en_US Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit
footnotes:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state to a particle state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Verse and Music:
Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "In Christ Alone" / scenes from "The Passion of the Christ" - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPKdylIxVM
bornagain77
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
You also try to argue that the constants are not independent but 'emerge' from GUT (Grand Unified Theory) or TOE (Theory of Everything) yet, as Godel pointed out decades ago, there will never be a purely mathematical theory of everything,,,
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Moreover, although General Relativity is confirmed as accurate to a stunning degree as a valid description of space-time,,,
Einstein’s General Relativity Tested Again, Much More Stringently - 2010 Excerpt: As Müller puts it, “If the time of freefall was extended to the age of the universe – 14 billion years – the time difference between the upper and lower routes would be a mere one thousandth of a second, and the accuracy of the measurement would be 60 ps, the time it takes for light to travel about a centimetre.” http://www.universetoday.com/56612/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/
,,,And although the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments,,,
An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
,,,None-the-less, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are both shown to be 'incomplete'. This following site, through a fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, acknowledges the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from different points of observation in the universe.
The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf
Moreover, it is found that the space-time of General Relativity must somehow 'emerge' from the timeless and spaceless physics of quantum mechanics,,,
LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf
,,Yet General Relativity refuses to be 'unified' with Quantum Mechanics into a mathematical 'theory of everything'. Thus the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is shown to be a 'incomplete' description of reality because of its inability to be reconciled with General Relativity. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/ THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
,,Yet, if one allows God into math as incompleteness strongly indicates we must do,,,
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who has ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
bornagain77
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
you state:
1. you assume the universe is “adapted” to life, instead of considering that life is “adapted” to the universe
No, the universe gives every indication as to having been designed for life. In fact one of the first fine-tuned parameters to be discovered turned Hoyle from a 'hard atheists' to at least a deist, maybe a theist: Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon, the building block of life, is synthesized in stars he stated:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? ... I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.
Sir Fred also stated:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Sir Fred Hoyle - "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12 Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Atheist Fred Hoyle's conversion to a Deist/Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877
You object to the probability argument of calculating the necessary conditions for complex biological life to exist on a planet in this universe (actually the probability calculation is a refinement of the atheists very own 'Drake equation'), yet on top of the highly improbable set of 'coincidences' that are necessary to allow life to exist on any given planet in this universe, Gonzalez and Richards, in the following video, speak of a 'observability correlation that is very 'suspicious'
Privileged Planet - Observability Correlation - Gonzalez and Richards - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431 The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole. - Jay Richards
A few videos of related 'observability correlation' interest;
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video http://vimeo.com/31940671 Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998
Moreover; These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Gonzalez; Privileged Planet, Denton; Nature's Destiny).
Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887 Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light - Walter Bradley - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552 Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ
further note: This following site has a rigorously argued defense of the fine-tuning(teleological) argument:
The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe - ROBIN COLLINS http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf
bornagain77
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Ugh, BA77 with his bullprob calculations. The best you can do is 10^-1333? I could beat that easily, for any natural process. Just measure a few hundred parameters, assume they're independent and multiply them together. In this way, you can prove everything's supernatural. BA77, all your probabilities are irrelevant because you 1. you assume the universe is "adapted" to life, instead of considering that life is "adapted" to the universe 2. you make fallacy of independent probability, multiplying together probabilities that are not independent. 3. You make the lottery winner fallacy, computing the probability of one set of observations, instead of computing the cumulative probability of all sets of possible observations which would correspond to your causative hypothesis. 4. You're assuming God of the Gaps-- if an astronomically incorrect probability calculation gives an astronomically low number, the only possible explanation is that an invisible spirit made it happen. A probability of 10^-1333 is easy to achieve if you multiply together 816 probabilities, each of which is itself wrong. No one can say what is the probability of (for example) Planck's constant or the Gravitational constant have (for example) 10% higher or lower a value. No one knows what the probabilities are. Moreover, if you multiply them, you're assuming their independent. They're not. Under a GUT theory or TOE, they wouldn't be independent so you couldn't multiply together the probabilities we can't compute. A probability of 10^-1333 does not impress any statistician if it is computed by multiplying together 816 probabilities, each of which is itself wrong. It's called incompetence. And assuming God of the Gaps is invalid. You could do the same calculation on the causes of cancer, show that cancer can't be caused by mutations. Therefore an invisible intelligence must've did it. Witches gave Grandpa cancer.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Now BA77 would say, “Oh, that’s another biased evolutionary materialist lying and misrepresenting the facts!!!!
No I wouldn't! I'm as upset as you are with the 'shoe horned' geology coming from Young Earthers (just as I am upset with Darwinists 'shoe horning' genetic/biological evidence!). I accept plate tectonics, just as I accept the Earth to be over 4 billion years old. In fact, along with many other parameters, plate tectonics are found to be 'fine-tuned' for life to exist on earth and thus are found to be very friendly to ID presuppositions. Notes: Since oxygen readily reacts and bonds with many of the solid elements making up the earth itself, and since the slow process of tectonic activity controls the turnover of the earth's crust, it took photosynthetic bacteria a few billion years before the earth’s crust was saturated with enough oxygen to allow a sufficient level of oxygen to be built up in the atmosphere as to allow higher life:
New Wrinkle In Ancient Ocean Chemistry - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: "Our data point to oxygen-producing photosynthesis long before concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere were even a tiny fraction of what they are today, suggesting that oxygen-consuming chemical reactions were offsetting much of the production," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029141217.htm The Life and Death of Oxygen - 2008 Excerpt: “The balance between burial of organic matter and its oxidation appears to have been tightly controlled over the past 500 million years.” “The presence of O2 in the atmosphere requires an imbalance between oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration on time scales of millions of years hence, to generate an oxidized atmosphere, more organic matter must be buried (by tectonic activity) than respired.” - Paul Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200810.htm#20081024a Increases in Oxygen Prepare Earth for Complex Life Excerpt: We at RTB argue that any mechanism exhibiting complex, integrated actions that bring about a specified outcome is designed. Studies of Earth’s history reveal highly orchestrated interplay between astronomical, geological, biological, atmospheric, and chemical processes that transform the planet from an uninhabitable wasteland to a place teeming with advanced life. The implications of design are overwhelming. http://www.reasons.org/increases-oxygen-prepare-earth-complex-life Evidence of Early Plate Tectonics Excerpt: Plate tectonics plays a critical role in keeping the Earth’s temperature constant during the Sun’s significant brightness changes. Almost four billion years ago, the Sun was 30 percent dimmer than it is today, and it has steadily increased its light output over the intervening period. This steady increase would have boiled Earth’s oceans away without plate tectonics moderating the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. http://www.reasons.org/evidence-early-plate-tectonics
The stunning long term balance of the necessary chemicals for life on the face of the earth, which is controlled at a foundational level by tectonic activity, is a wonder in and of itself:
Chemical Cycles: Long term chemical balance is essential for life on earth. Complex symbiotic chemical cycles keep the amount of elements on the earth surface in relatively perfect balance and thus in steady supply to the higher life forms that depend on them to remain stable. This is absolutely essential for the higher life forms to exist on Earth for any extended period of time. http://www.uen.org/themepark/cycles/chemical.shtml
further notes: There are hundreds of interconnected parameters for a 'privileged planet' listed here:
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 The Privileged Planet - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnWyPIzTOTw
bornagain77
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Andyjones writes:
Also, do you have any references about the creationist stuff? A quick google suggests that John Baumgardner for one has been a major fan of plate tectonics since the 80s. Or are you just spreading random disinformation here about 3rd parties?
Thank you for answering in a positive tone! I am glad posters at UD refrain from innuendo and gratuitous ad hominem. So far as I know, Baumgardner did not publish his catastrophic model until 1994. I do not know of ANY creationists who were pro-plate tectonics before then. If you have specific references, I'd be grateful if you could cite them specifically. Now I could throw a bunch of references at you, when I get time, but I'll start with a source you might find interesting. This reviewer compares Ken Ham's "The Answers Book" 1990 edition against the 2000 edition. According to this reviewer, the 1990 edition is strongly against plate tectonics, and the 2000 edition is for catastrophic plate tectonics. "The Answers Book" was edited by Ken Ham drawing on many of the more prominent creatinists, and this was back before he got into his dispute with Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, etc. Presumably he must have drawn on Andrew Snelling as well. Now BA77 would say, "Oh, that's another biased evolutionary materialist lying and misrepresenting the facts!!!! Um, the reviewer is signed as Dr. Stephen C. Meyers. I'm wondering if that's the DI's Stephen C. Meyer. Note the change in spelling of the last name. Could one of you check that out for me? Is that your Stephen C. Meyer? I'll cite a bunch more references later, when I get a chance.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
Andyjones writes:
the irrelevant junk and the over-selling of evolution that is being exhibited right here
Irrelevant junk and over-selling? On Uncommon Descent? Why, I never!
But even then, its not as if any body actually predicted any of those things using “evolutionary theory”,
You're kidding right? As for Australian marsupials: back to 1931, one the early advocates of continental drift was Dr. Lawrence M. Gould. He wrote
"I had rather go back to the Antarctic and find a fossil marsupial than three gold mines." [L.M. Gould, "Cold", 1931]
Yeah, 1931. That sure sounds post-hoc to me. You do know that it was biogeography that inspired both Wallace and Darwin to come up with the theory in the first place, right? And that the biogeographical region "Wallacea" is named after Wallace, because he explained its absence of large Asian and Australian land mammals (with maybe the exception of one macaque)?
if by evolution you mean the production of new things that look like design, by unguided mutation and natural selection
OK, you converted me. Let's say "the production of new things that look like design" happens by magic or violations of the laws of physics or something. So then why did Go-- I mean the intelligent designer-- not design any placentas for big mammals in Australia? Synctyin (placentally-expressed gene) is designed. The intelligent designer can't tote those designs to Sydney? Consider ANY common features of Australidelphian marsupials. Let's say oh, the palatal holes, or the four molars. Why didn't G-- the intelligent designer-- design some up for some European placentals? What, he can't carry his briefcase of blueprints to Europe? Now xenarthrans in S. America. Why did G-- the intelligent designer-- not design a bunch of European and Australian animals with extra articulations in their vertebral joints, like xenarthrans have? He can't carry his briefcase of blueprints up to Europe? No. But when N. America and S. America drift about and get connected via Panama, OK then. Suddenly opossums show up in N. America. The Panamanian isthmus can do that, but G-- I mean the intelligent designer can't do it. Wallacea is named Wallacea, not Archbishop Whateleyea or Samuel Wilberforcea. This evidence fits a highly contrained, physically contrained, genetically contrained, geographically constrained, gradually diversifying, common ancestry. The data inspired the same theory in Darwin and Wallace. Although there were millions of "Intelligent Design proponents" in the nineteenth century, not one of them noticed the biogeography thing. Your Intelligent Designer can't carry his briefcase of designs across the ocean, eh. Can't swim? Maybe he's dead? So when'd he die?Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
If scientists neo-Darwinists don’t describe in detail the evidence that supports evolution, there is no evidence for evolution.
No, neo-Darwinists are excellent at going into detail of the evidence that they think supports evolution, the problem is that there is no actual demonstrated "empirical" evidence that actually supports the claim that undirected neo-Darwinian processes are responsible for the complexity we see in life, nor are undirected Darwinian processes responsible for the limited changes in genomes that we do see (Natural Genetic Engineering: Shapiro).
If scientists neo-Darwinists do describe evidence for evolution, they’re ramming their atheist religion down our throats.
No, they, neo-Darwinists, are 'ramming their atheist religion down our throats' by #1 dogmatically refusing to consider any other alternative than their severely 'quantumly' compromised materialistic/atheistic premise for the foundation of reality, and #2 by persecuting, intimidating, and/or firing, anyone who dares question their materialistic mandate.
If scientists neo-Darwinists tentatively describe the evidence for evolution, they don’t really believe their own theory.
Actually the word "evolution" is a gloss in most research papers of molecular biology since no molecular system, or molecular machine, has ever been seen arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes. Thus, as far as hard evidence itself is concerned a conclusion for evolution can only ever, charitably, be called tentative (No matter how loudly neo-Darwinists shout down the opposition to the contrary!). If you disagree please cite direct empirical evidence of a sophisticated molecular machine or system arising by purely neo-Darwinian processes!
Come on; you know that if transitional fossils were marked with a red tag “Evidence for Darwinism!” you would call it materialist indoctrination.
No you sticking the word 'transitional' before the word fossils is what is materialistic indoctrination. Other than you adamant claim that the fossil is transitional, you have no evidence that #1 the fossil actually is transitional and #2 even if the fossils were transitional you have no demonstrated materialistic mechanism to account for such sweeping change in body-plan morphology! As Henry Gee, editor of Nature, stated,
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ? Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
You then state:
They had nice displays on the horse series and the hominid series. But there were about 10 other fossils in there that I know to be transitional, that were not marked with a red tag “transitional.” Should they be? Dunno, that’s an artistic decision.
And that is exactly the problem
“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.” Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a), Paleoanthropology Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature: "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." "The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series". Dr. Heribert Nilsson - Evolutionist - Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute. Darwin vs. the Fossils Excerpt: "A team of 22 international researchers led by Ludovic Orlando of the University of Lyon in France did one of the first-ever comprehensive comparisons of ancient DNA (aDNA) from fossil equids (including horses, donkeys and zebras). These specimens came from 4 continents. The results were so shocking, they call for an almost complete overhaul of the horse series. For one thing, they concluded that many specimens relegated to separate species are actually variations on the same species. For another, they found that for evolution to be true there had to be sudden bursts of diversification – Cambrian-like explosions within the horse family – contrary to Darwin’s prohibition of great and sudden leaps." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091211a
You then state:
The Franklin Institute recently had a nice exhibition on feathered dinosaurs.
This following video shows just how badly 'artistic impression' has infected this evidence as well
Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and with notes in video description http://vimeo.com/30926629
Further note on the persistent pattern of misrepresentation of fossils by Darwinists
Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011 Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/hominid_hype_and_the_election_050801.html
bornagain77
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Also, do you have any references about the creationist stuff? A quick google suggests that John Baumgardner for one has been a major fan of plate tectonics since the 80s. Or are you just spreading random disinformation here about 3rd parties?andyjones
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
If by evolution you mean the sorting of genes into subspecies, and their radiation across the earth over time, none of that is incompatible with Intelligent Design. But even then, its not as if any body actually predicted any of those things using "evolutionary theory", although it does provide plausible post-hoc explanations. But Diogenes, if by evolution you mean the production of new things that look like design, by unguided mutation and natural selection, its hard to see how that theory has any bearing on biogeography ... Denyse is merely applauding the fact that this museum dropped the irrelevant junk and the over-selling of evolution that is being exhibited right here.andyjones
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Diogenes, why do YOU think “evolutionary theory” was de-emphasized in favour of a simple, easily understood description of plate tectonics, which emphasized the fact of separation rather than theories of the supposed mechanism of evolution thereafter?
Now I see your logic. If scientists don’t describe in detail the evidence that supports evolution, there is no evidence for evolution. If scientists do describe evidence for evolution, they’re ramming their atheist religion down our throats. If scientists tentatively describe the evidence for evolution, they don't really believe their own theory. Come on; you know that if transitional fossils were marked with a red tag "Evidence for Darwinism!" you would call it materialist indoctrination. As for your local museum, I haven't been there. I don't know what's up there. I don't know what you mean by "fact of separation." Separation of continents? Separation of what from what? I used to go to the Yale Peabody a lot. They had nice displays on the horse series and the hominid series. But there were about 10 other fossils in there that I know to be transitional, that were not marked with a red tag "transitional." Should they be? Dunno, that's an artistic decision. I saw another exhibition on the hominid series, if I recall, it was The Philadelphia Art Museum. The Franklin Institute recently had a nice exhibition on feathered dinosaurs. The Institute of Natural History (of Drexel U) has some transitionals but not well-marked. Nice fossils, but captions not so informative.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Diogenes, why do YOU think "evolutionary theory" was de-emphasized in favour of a simple, easily understood description of plate tectonics, which emphasized the fact of separation rather than theories of the supposed mechanism of evolution thereafter? Re similar designs in different places, that is called convergent evolution, is it not? The accumulation of examples of convergent evolution will likely permit some predictions. That is, we will learn something from solutions that are arrived at by different paths, as opposed to solutions rarely attempted.O'Leary
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Evolutionary theory predicted that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica because marsupials came from South America, and S. America was connected to Australia via Antarctica. And Australidelphian marsupial fossils were found in Antarctica. Evolutionary theory predicted that Australian marsupials would cluster with some S. American marsupials, and in fact the S. American monito del monte has the same pattern of ERVs as Australian marsupials. Evolutionary theory can explain the biogeographic distribution of xenarthrans in S. America and australidelphians in Australia and horses in N. America. On the other hand, an intelligent designer could put similar designs in different places, or the same places, if he wanted to, thus leading to no predictions. It was creationists who denied plate tectonics for decades after scientists accepted Wegener's theory. Even in the 1980's creationists still called plate tectonics a Satanic illusion. They flip-flopped in the late 1990's. Revised versions of the "Answers Book" flip-flopped on that.Diogenes
July 12, 2012
July
07
Jul
12
12
2012
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply