Sunday, August 15, 2010

No Imagination Shortage

In his piece Reclaiming the Imagination, Oxford's Timothy Williamson argues for more imagination in science. As part of his introduction, the Wykeham Professor of Logic considers our ability to imagine:

Why did humans evolve the capacity to imagine alternatives to reality? Was story-telling in prehistoric times like the peacock’s tail, of no direct practical use but a good way of attracting a mate?

Here Wykeham inadvertently undercuts his premise. There is no shortage of imaginative story-telling in evolutionary thought. Asking evolutionists to reclaim the imagination would be like telling five year olds they need more play time, or telling alcoholics that they need more cheap wine. Yes, imagination is a good thing, but let's start with some realism.

49 comments:

  1. The funny thing is in these discussions today, an atheist will even justify and excuse Mr Haeckel's embryio fraud as a necessary evil to combat the false beliefs. Therefore storytelling can be justified.

    Take as an example the mythological tales created around missing link examples of "Lucy", "Ardi" and countless others invented by the scientific Shaman. On every single popular origins debate forum you will notice the bait taken as FACT by every single religious Dawkinian shill as absolute truth only to be embarrssed later when the fossil starts to fall apart (like evolution by power saw ). Then the excuses and accusations fly as they try and salvage what's left of their own previous statements spoken out of ignorance.

    Interestingly, I've noticed that when these supposed evolutionary fossil findings are presented as a fact to the Media hype absorbing public, many of the really honest trained scientists standing in the background are usually skeptical (probably from massive amounts of previous letdowns), though I'm sure they have their fingers crossed behind their backs. Mostly it's the religious atheist movement that soaks up like a sponge anything remotely seems to favour their position even if it's in a Grim's Fairytale fashion.

    It's just that under normal real world circumstances, most publically well known scientists have reputations to worry about and accademic positions to consider. Your typcial anonymous posting Atheist with a funky username has neither. Now to be fair, the same can be said for the answersingenesis gang. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm, well the original post appears to be nothing but vaccuous rhetoric. Interesting to see not even a single point attempting to be made.

    Eocene -


    an atheist will even justify and excuse Mr Haeckel's embryio fraud as a necessary evil to combat the false beliefs.


    What on Earth are you talking about, exactly? I appreciate you are taking your lead from a post that is intellectually empty, but must you really add to the situation?


    Take as an example the mythological tales created around missing link examples of "Lucy", "Ardi" and countless others invented by the scientific Shaman.


    I'd dearly like to hear what you think Lucy and Ardi are. You keep battering around words like 'mythological' and 'fraud' when you refer to them. What do you think is the myth, exactly? What is the fact?


    On every single popular origins debate forum you will notice the bait taken as FACT by every single religious Dawkinian shill as absolute truth only to be embarrssed later when the fossil starts to fall apart


    Care to support this either?

    Actually, just care to support any of your assertions at all, really?


    Mostly it's the religious atheist movement...


    How deliciously ironic that you apparently don't even recognise the contradiction in terms here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Creationist: I can't imagine how X could have evolved, thus Goddidit.

    Biologist: Well, one way in which it could have evolved is through exaptation and modification of Y.

    Creationist: You and your imagination. Get real.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eocene: fossil starts to fall apart (like evolution by power saw ).

    Citation of this youtube video substantially hurts your credibility. Lovejoy was correct when he said that the prior arrangement was anatomically impossible. Not because it was chimp-like (and thus not "a good story," and it certainly wasn't as close to the shape of a chimp's as they make it seem in narration), but because of the way muscles attach to the bone and work the limb. This is pretty obvious when Lovejoy holds the hip against the sacrum along the sutured fracture in the NOVA special.

    The end result produces an iliac shape similar to what we see in South African australopithecine fossils that do not get as much press as Lucy: a pelvis that is not fully like modern humans, but much closer to humans than to chimps and showing adaptation for full-time bipedalism on the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The peacock uses his tail to advertise how healthy, well fed, and parasite free he is. Only a peacock that is in good shape can produce an impressive tail. The female wants a mate that is healthy. How does being a good story teller convince a potential mate that the story teller is fit?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Have you actually read the transcript on PBS Nova John ???

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

    It's probably sponsored by Tim the Toolman Taylor and Binford Tools. That's not science , that's science fiction. What do you suppose would be the response and outcry from you and of other atheists if some clod claiming to be a "creationist" pulled a stupid stunt like that but in reverse ???

    There's no need to answer since we all know the answer to that one. Unfortunately as we all know, there are two sets of rules in the evo-debate game. There are no absolutes and the truth is relative.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Natschuster: How does being a good story teller convince a potential mate that the story teller is fit?

    The peahen isn't consciously calculating fitness; she's thinking "shiny bird, I like".

    If your story telling wins you acclaim and prestige in the group, it may win you the favor of the fairer sex.

    Consider that our modern day equivalent, the rock star, generally has better than average opportunity to mate with multiple females.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John said...

    Creationist: I can't imagine how X could have evolved, thus Goddidit.
    ===========================

    explantion:
    Any individual who believes in a Creator but may not know exactly how technically something in nature works, will often just believe by admittedly saying the have faith that God did it. Of course this will always be pointed out by the atheist.
    --------------------------

    John further muses

    Biologist: Well, one way in which it could have evolved is through exaptation and modification of Y.
    =========================

    Explanation:

    As a rule, an evolutionist/atheist does NOT seem to have the capacity to admit it when they really don't know something. Hence rather than saying "Evolutiondidit" , they fabricate stupid inteelectual sounding terminologies like "JUNK DNA" or "VESTIGIAL ORGANS" rather than admit that at the present time they are unable to intelligently explain their function without looking the fool, so therefore it's simply an evolutionary hold over from the "Deep Time Continuum".

    Works for me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Interesting to note that scientific papers that explain the function of various natural processes often add such words as "evolved" or "nature selected". Removing these words would not subtract from any of the actual knowledge of the functions that are being described. These are just token words thrown in as a kind of appeasement.

    The empty rhetoric of the evolutionists adds nothing to sum knowledge of biology. If the theory of common descent did not exist, biology would not lose any knowledge, it would just shed a lot of speculative nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ritchie quote me and then stated:

    "Mostly it's the religious atheist movement..."


    How deliciously ironic that you apparently don't even recognise the contradiction in terms here.
    =========================

    Well now, let's go back in history and read what you stated before.
    -------------------------

    Ritchie prosyletized:

    "I am here because I oppose the spread of scientific illiteracy that such people as Cornelius Hunter take up like a holy cause. It is fundamentally irresponsible to feed our children backward bronze age myth rather than enlightened scientific understanding"
    =========================

    Hence you are in an evangelizing work to expose a false religion and introduce your version of truth, even though you don't believe in absolututes and "truth" is relative anyway. But then you tried backing out of that religious statement by stating this about Atheism.
    -------------------------

    Ritchie on Meds:

    "Has atheism itself ever led one person to kill another? Frankly I can't really picture it somehow. Why would not believing in any gods lead you to want to kill? Religion itself has the capacity to sanction murder in a way that atheism just doesn't."
    ========================

    So what parallel universe do you actually reside in Ritchie ???

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neal Tedford:

    "The empty rhetoric of the evolutionists adds nothing to sum knowledge of biology. If the theory of common descent did not exist, biology would not lose any knowledge, it would just shed a lot of speculative nonsense."
    ==========================

    Never underestimate the powerful tools of animations and cartoons Neal. Remember how Walt Disney could make anything happen and come to life ??? Look at Pinnochio, he came to life and that magic fairy with the wand was really Natural Selection who snuck in through the Star Gate at Cheyenne Mountain.

    As far as the Theory of Common Descent, they haven't even remotely touched on "Origin of the Species" yet. Of course neither did their god Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Awww, ain't it cute?

    Tedford and Eocene, two guys without a speck of scientific knowledge between them, hugging each other and telling themselves "forget all that empirical physical evidence to the contrary, we know GAWDDIDIT just because!"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Back to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the classic version only, please)... does anyone remember some of the contraptions that Mr. Willy Wonka used to manufacture some of his candy? There was the one scene where he added a winter coat to a large vat. It makes for a great movie that tickles the imagination, but no one believes that such contraptions would actually produce candy...

    So it is with evolutionists, they have themselves believing that the things that they can imagine really happened. Like Willy Wonka they put on a pretty good show...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eocene -


    Hence you are in an evangelizing work to expose a false religion and introduce your version of truth,


    Hang on a minute, you think everyone with a pet cause is religious?

    FAIL!

    I do indeed object to the spread of scientific illiteracy as embodied by much of Cornelius Hunter's posts. I try to counter this by calling out the scientific errors and logical fallacies he (and his followers) employ.

    This does not make me religious, does it?


    even though you don't believe in absolututes and "truth" is relative anyway.


    Do not presume to judge what I do or do not believe about moral relativity. You don't know what I think on this issue. Unless you are battling your well-worn strawmen.


    But then you tried backing out of that religious statement...


    ... what religious statement?


    Has atheism itself ever led one person to kill another? Frankly I can't really picture it somehow...
    So what parallel universe do you actually reside in Ritchie ???


    Enough with the fatuous, rhetorical questions. Could I get an actual POINT here please?

    You obviously don't agree with me here. But you don't say why. Why do you disagree? Do you know of a single time when atheism caused people to commit horrendous atrocities? Do you know of people who have been killed because the perpetrators DIDN'T think it was divine will, or because the voice of God DIDN'T tell them to do it, or because they thought people WEREN'T witches or heretics?

    God's supposed will trumps human law or moral conduct. If people genuinely think a course of action is God's divine will, then nothing on Earth will deter them from it - including compassion or common sense. This has led directly to countless horrific atrocities throughout the ages.

    Atheism simply offers nothing comparable. There is no 'get-out excuse', no 'higher cause' justification. If you think you know differently, then please tell it plainly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal Tedford -


    The empty rhetoric of the evolutionists adds nothing to sum knowledge of biology. If the theory of common descent did not exist, biology would not lose any knowledge, it would just shed a lot of speculative nonsense.


    What absolute tosh! Evolutionary biology practically IS modern biology. Without it, we would have almost none of the advantages of modern biology made in the last century, including massive dividends in crop yields, enormous leaps forward in medicines and sterling work by conservationalists.

    Evolution WORKS. Unlike ID, it is NOT completely consequentially barren.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eocene: Explanation:

    As a rule, an evolutionist/atheist does NOT seem to have the capacity to admit it when they really don't know something. Hence rather than saying "Evolutiondidit" , they fabricate stupid inteelectual sounding terminologies like "JUNK DNA" or "VESTIGIAL ORGANS" rather than admit that at the present time they are unable to intelligently explain their function without looking the fool, so therefore it's simply an evolutionary hold over from the "Deep Time Continuum".


    Patently false. Scientists are much more likely to admit that we lack knowledge than you indicate. We do not know precisely how life arose on planet Earth. We have ideas, and we test these ideas by trying to replicate early Earth conditions as accurately.

    More specifically, when I wrote:
    "Biologist: Well, one way in which it could have evolved is through exaptation and modification of Y."

    That's not the end of the story. That's a hypothesis. We can test it with embryology (X and Y might arise from a common precursor structure), genetics (X and Y might be controlled by the same regulatory pathway), and paleontology (we may see organisms with a structure intermediate between X and Y).

    These lines of investigation that are possible make evolution both fascinating and well-supported science.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Eocene: VESTIGIAL ORGANS" rather than admit that at the present time they are unable to intelligently explain their function

    For the millionth time, vestigial does not mean useless, it means the structure is a vestige of history - it once had a different function than what we observe currently.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Eocene: Have you actually read the transcript on PBS Nova John ???

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html

    It's probably sponsored by Tim the Toolman Taylor and Binford Tools. That's not science , that's science fiction. What do you suppose would be the response and outcry from you and of other atheists if some clod claiming to be a "creationist" pulled a stupid stunt like that but in reverse ???


    Having read it now, nothing has changed. Lovejoy's reconstruction of "Lucy" is not controversial in the scientific community because it is so obvious and so few pieces are involved. Again, the unreconstructed arrangement caused by crushing produces a false sacro-iliac "joint" that is unlike anything we see in any mammal, because it produces an unworkable limb - it sends muscles out into space with no place on opposite bones for attachment. There is nothing chimpanzee-like about the bizarre angle between the two bones shown in the video prior to reconstruction, just obvious evidence of crushing and diagenesis. Importantly, the crushing is limited to one region, and we have the sacrum and femur for comparison.

    "Ardi" is a whole other matter. The remains of her pelvis were much more substantially crushed and fragmented, its reconstruction required a lot of computer help, there is no sacrum preserved, and there are genuine scientists who think the reconstruction is leading.


    What Lovejoy did was not a stupid stunt. It was necessary to reconstruct, otherwise you mistake taphonomy (alteration of te fossil material) for original anatomy. Paleontologists do it all the time based on their precise knowledge of anatomy. Mistakes can be made, thus the importance of peer review.

    Lovejoy did this in the open, on a cast. When creationists alter fossils (as at Glen Rose, Texas) they do it in secret and in a clumsy way that betrays their anatomical ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ritchie said, "Evolutionary biology practically IS modern biology...Without it, we would have almost none of the advantages of modern biology made in the last century, including massive dividends in crop yields, enormous leaps forward in medicines and sterling work by conservationalists "

    And to believe that all of those examples you site depended on accepting as fact (without sufficient support) that we are all descended from some unidentified prokayrote cell!

    Tell us how does accepting as fact that we are descended from a prokayrote increase crop yields?

    ReplyDelete
  21. John, how do you know a "structure once had different function than we currently observe?"

    Don't you first have to assume evolution happened? So it becomes another tautology... evolution is fact, therefore we should see vestigal organs... we see a vestigal organ, how? because evolution is a fact and vestigal organs support that fact!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal Tedford

    "John, how do you know a "structure once had different function than we currently observe?"
    ===========

    Neal, I believe this is where Cornelius' O.P. on scientific imagination steps in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John made excuses:

    "Lovejoy's reconstruction of "Lucy" is not controversial in the scientific community because it is so obvious and so few pieces are involved."
    =====================

    John you didn't answer the question.

    What if someone who believes in the biblical account of Creation (or for that matter any other religious version) pulled the same stupid stunt ( Creation by Power Saw ), but in reverse ???

    ReplyDelete
  24. What if someone who believes in the biblical account of Creation (or for that matter any other religious version) pulled the same stupid stunt ( Creation by Power Saw ), but in reverse ???

    Rather than producing a functional hip, the reverse would produce a non-functional hip. If you do not provide good support for your reconstruction, it would not get past peer review.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal Tedford: Don't you first have to assume evolution happened? So it becomes another tautology... evolution is fact, therefore we should see vestigal organs... we see a vestigal organ, how? because evolution is a fact and vestigal organs support that fact!

    Eocene:


    See above.

    A hypothesis of common origin between the vestigial structure and its putative ancestral structure can be evaluated with embryology, paleontology, and genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John:

    It is in the peahens interest to pick a shiny male, even if she doesn't know why she is doing it.

    Now, when I think of a tribal storyteller, I think of an elder who is past reproducing.

    And while rock stars might get girls, I don't think that the guy who tells stories to little children at the library has that much success.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ritchie

    This does not make me religious, does it?
    ==========================


    Definition of religious: (Mirriam-Webster)

    "1) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity , a religious person , religious attitudes"

    Would it be fair to say that you fall under the catagory of ". . . manifesting devotion to an acknowledged Ultimate Reality" ???

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie

    "I do indeed object to the spread of scientific illiteracy as embodied by much of Cornelius Hunter's posts. I try to counter this by calling out the scientific errors and logical fallacies he (and his followers) employ.
    ==================

    No, what you and others do here is play the definition shell game card with Cornelius. Apparently to you and other atheists, the word FACT/S means something entirely difference than most common real world applications. It takes blind faith to believe in your version of what is to be considered a fact.

    Here's a really simply FACT question for you Ritchie and there are only two answers. One is a fact, the other false. Ready???

    In the Miller-Urey experiments of the primitive Earth scenario, water contained certain elements Miller thought represented the prebiotic sea. CO2, Methane, etc represented the primitive atmosphere of the Earth and of course the electric arc represented Thunder Storms or Volcanoes which gave the spark of life. So every componant represented something. Now what would you say the presence of the scientist/s conducting the experiemnt represents ??? Now there are only two answers.

    1) blind, pointless , pitiless indifference with undirected forces with no purpose or intent.

    2) An intelligent Designer

    Now the rules don't allow for goalpost movement or changing definitions to fit the dogma. However, let's say I add a 3rd answer.

    3) Aliens (Extraterrestrial sources) Panspermia

    If you select the 3rd answer, then you need to answer yet another question.

    If life's beginnings come from an extraterrestrial source (aliens, microbes hitching a ride on a comet or meteor, whatever) , then on what valid bases do you have for not including God (who would be an extraterrestrial source)???

    ReplyDelete
  29. Natschuster: Now, when I think of a tribal storyteller, I think of an elder who is past reproducing.

    But you don't have to be old to show off your mind, whether it's through creative storytelling, wordplay and wit, or through music. The old person becomes de facto storyteller/historian because he or she can no longer contribute in a more labor-intensive means (and has lived through history, with wisdom from experience to go along with whatever mental aptitude he or she possess).


    And while rock stars might get girls, I don't think that the guy who tells stories to little children at the library has that much success.

    I think you would be surprised. Not all females are alike (understatement of the year). This guy's hobby says "kind, stable, would be a good father," and that would definitely be attractive to some women as well. Take it a step further though, if the reader was also the author of the prize-winning children's book, then interest is likely to rise substantially.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Neal Tedford -


    Tell us how does accepting as fact that we are descended from a prokayrote increase crop yields?


    Well, in hugely simplistic terms:

    - organisms pass on their physical characteristics to their off-spring
    - the off-spring of large, good, desirable grain will itself share those characteristics
    - when you harvest crops, save the best seeds to replant for next year - that way the harvests as a whole will improve because they are the result of the best of last year's crops reproducing.

    This conclusion is by no means intuitive. Many biologists, when they travel abroad to third-world countries, report a great deal of difficulty in explaining to the poorly educated farmers why it is better to plant, rather than eat, the best grains.

    You may be thinking 'this is artificial selection rather than natural selection'. And you'd be right. But the process is still an evolutionary one.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eocene -


    Would it be fair to say that you fall under the catagory of ". . . manifesting devotion to an acknowledged Ultimate Reality" ???


    No. My 'devotion' (which seems a duly odd word for it) requires no 'faith'. Merely logic - going where the evidence leads. And what exactly are you suggesting is 'an acknowledged Ultimate Reality'?

    I believe that the second definition presented is more relevant:
    2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances.

    You know that an argument based on religious premises is generally one that is extremely shoddy and probably ultimate based on faith rather than evidence. So you call my position 'religious' to try to insinuate this is the case with the theory of evolution. But you are simply wrong. It is not based on faith at all (at least, not any more than absolutely any other theory in science is) - it is based on evidence and hypothetico-deductive reasoning.

    ... Or maybe you insist hypothetico-deductive reasoning is 'faith' because you don't actually understand it and thus confuse the two.


    Here's a really simply FACT question for you Ritchie and there are only two answers. One is a fact, the other false. Ready???


    There are not only two answers, since you have given me a huge rambling premise containing many points, any one of which I might disagree with.


    Now what would you say the presence of the scientist/s conducting the experiemnt represents


    They do not represent anything. They have merely set up the experiment as best they could to simulate, as best as they could tell, the conditions in which life probably first arose.

    A SIMULATION (ie, a RECREATION) requires design - but that is only to ensure it is as close as possible to that which it is meant to represent. 'Designers' are required for the Miller-Urey experiment only to ensure that the experiment did simulate early conditions accurately, as it was supposed to. But the original state of the Earth wasn't 'supposed' to be like anything.

    Imagine someone having a car accident. Now for some reason, someone (perhaps the police for a crime recreation, or whatever) want to recreate the crash as accurately as they can, perhaps to test a certain hypothesis about driving conditions or the state of the car - whatever. The point is that it is a recreational experiment. There would be people working out the logicstics and dynamics of the recreated crash in the tiniest detail. The recreated crash would be planned, designed, deliberate, as far as people could possibly manage. But - and here's the relevant point - that doesn't mean the original crash was deliberate or planned at all, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eocene:

    If life's beginnings come from an extraterrestrial source (aliens, microbes hitching a ride on a comet or meteor, whatever) , then on what valid bases do you have for not including God (who would be an extraterrestrial source)???

    Given that extraterrestrial refers to entities that are not known to exist on the planet Earth, you might have a point.

    But hypothetical extraterrestrial aliens, microbes, etc, presumably would have to reside in the Universe. Yes? No?

    Does your god reside in the Universe? It not, then your point is meaningless. If yes, then where in the Universe does your god reside?

    ReplyDelete
  33. David

    "But hypothetical extraterrestrial aliens, microbes, etc, presumably would have to reside in the Universe. Yes? No?"
    ======================

    Real easy here David.

    Extraterrestrial -

    Definition wiki "Extraterrestrial life is defined as life that does not originate from Earth"
    "Extraterrestrial (or extra-terrestrial) may refer to any object or being beyond (extra-) the planet Earth (terrestrial). It is derived from the Latin extra ("outside", "outwards") and terrestris ("earthly", "of or relating to the Earth")."
    ------------------------

    Now before we get into another purposed sideshow of a definition shell game again, Hollywood who is fond of evolution and extraterrestrial mythological story telling and your average atheist/evolutionist who is likewise fond of Hollywood, always seem to be open to the idea of some sort of invisible other dimensional world of extraterrestrial alien life beings encountered by Earth origined space explorers in all of the popular movies and series.

    So it's quite acceptable to include God

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ritchie equivocated:

    "There are not only two answers, since you have given me a huge rambling premise containing many points, any one of which I might disagree with."
    =================

    LAME, nothing more than shell games of an simple basic understanding that even a child gets. Next time Ritchie save some bandwidth by invoking the Pontius Pilate "5th Ammendment" = "What Is Truth?"
    It's the perfect illustration that can speaks volumes, or in other words, "A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Blurrs"

    Anything more and it tires the eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eocene, thanks for the clarification:

    Now before we get into another purposed sideshow of a definition shell game again, Hollywood who is fond of evolution and extraterrestrial mythological story telling and your average atheist/evolutionist who is likewise fond of Hollywood, always seem to be open to the idea of some sort of invisible other dimensional world of extraterrestrial alien life beings encountered by Earth origined space explorers in all of the popular movies and series.

    Your god is an extraterrestrial alien life form produced by Hollywood. Makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  36. John said:

    "A hypothesis of common origin between the vestigial structure and its

    putative (meaning supposed, asserted, assumed)

    ancestral structure can be evaluated with embryology,

    paleontology (creation or invention of storytelling myths in order to justify a already biased mandated dogma),

    and genetics (Only if carefully researched by an approved researcher like Craig 'Franken-Organism creator' Venter)."
    =================

    Let's ask a reasonable question that everyone here is capable of understanding. No fuzziness on this one. You'll all know what I mean.

    Scientists tell us that of the human body, the skin is to be considered one of the largest organs of the body. Now if this is true, would it be reasonable to say that black (African origined) skin could be considered a "Vestigial Organ" if someone of Negroid origin resides in the states of Alabama or say Mississippi ???
    ______________________

    John said:

    "Now, when I think of a tribal storyteller, I think of an elder who is past reproducing."
    ======================

    Why don't we just stick to the subject of storytelling. You never answered my question about the storytelling fable of "Lucy: 'Evolution by Power Saw".

    Now my question was, What if someone believing in the biblcial account of 'creation' were to pull the same stupid stunt as Dr Lovejoy but in reverse ??? In other words what would be the overall reaction by the Evolutionist world if a sort of "Creation by Power Saw" deception were employed to prove the existance of a Creator ???

    ReplyDelete
  37. Eocene -


    LAME, nothing more than shell games of an simple basic understanding that even a child gets. Next time Ritchie save some bandwidth by invoking the Pontius Pilate "5th Ammendment" = "What Is Truth?"
    It's the perfect illustration that can speaks volumes, or in other words, "A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Blurrs"

    Anything more and it tires the eyes.


    Nothing but bluster and self-important rhetoric.

    I was perfectly justified in my points. You claimed to be presenting me with a question with only two possible answers. You then prefaced the question with loads of presumptions. In other words, by following the logic you presented in the question and choosing one of the two answers you laid out for me, I would be accepting the assumnptions you made in the question.

    Such as the assumption that the scientist/s 'represent' something.

    But I do not.

    So your claim that there are 'only two possible answers' is wrong, isn't it? And no amount of frustrated bluster from you changes that.

    And by the way, you have still failed to explain what you think Lucy and Ardi are. Please be really specific, and cite sources to support your opinion as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eocene: "Scientists tell us that of the human body, the skin is to be considered one of the largest organs of the body. Now if this is true, would it be reasonable to say that black (African origined) skin could be considered a "Vestigial Organ" if someone of Negroid origin resides in the states of Alabama or say Mississippi ??? "

    This is one of the most ridiculous questions I've ever heard.

    Eocene, with every quote like this one you demonstrate you lack of willingness to even understand evolutionary theory, or basic biology terms for that matter. If you have two individuals of the same species, with the same organ serving the same purpose, in no way could only one of the organs be vestigial. I most likely have a differently shaped hand from you; that doesn't mean that one of our hands is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean 'variations in structure between individuals of the same species.'

    I am genuinely curious as to what property of the word 'vestigial' makes it so hard for creationists to understand. It seems to be consistent across the board.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Very clever David.

    "Your god is an extraterrestrial alien life form produced by Hollywood. Makes sense."

    Mis-quote, leave out important points and faint ignorance. Nice job. Your position is clear, destroy any true understanding (in otherwords, make the discussion fuzzy, gray and muddled), because even if there is proof of a creator, he's to be resented at all costs no matter what the arguements for existance, because it requires accountability of actions.

    Nice

    ReplyDelete
  40. Eocene: Now my question was, What if someone believing in the biblcial account of 'creation' were to pull the same stupid stunt as Dr Lovejoy but in reverse ??? In other words what would be the overall reaction by the Evolutionist world if a sort of "Creation by Power Saw" deception were employed to prove the existance of a Creator ???

    This question has already been answered twice. There was no deception on the part of Lovejoy - everything was out in the open and even broadcast.

    Based on evidence for previous creationist escapades, the creationist who did this in reverse would be a bumbler with no relevant knowledge of anatomy. He would circumvent scientific peer review and go straight to the faithful via DVD and youtube. This would hardly make a dent in the scientific community - just another inane, inept creationist.

    In Lovejoy's case, the only ones laughing are those who are ignorant of skeletal anatomy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eocene,

    Skin is not a vestigial organ. It has the same function (protection, containment) that it has in all animals that possess it, and would be the same as that in the earliest animals that first produced it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. John:

    "Based on evidence for previous creationist escapades, the creationist who did this in reverse would be a bumbler with no relevant knowledge of anatomy. He would circumvent scientific peer review and go straight to the faithful via DVD and youtube. This would hardly make a dent in the scientific community - just another inane, inept creationist."
    ========================

    And that is exactly what Lovejoy is, a bumbler. This is clearly biased excuse making for one of the dumbest Fables invented and promoted as a fact. The Panel of Peers are also suspect considering their qualifications for appointment must be that they themselves must follow and uphold the behind the scenes universal mandate that evolution be proven true at all and any costs. Cetainly something as religious and antiquated as integrity should never be entered into the equation.

    You know, if I saw some lame idiot Creationist pulling this stunt, I'd call it. *sigh* Nice fail John.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Eocene: And that is exactly what Lovejoy is, a bumbler. .

    Again, you fail to understand anatomy and taphonomy. Do you have any peer-reviewed work that shows Lovejoy was not justified in his interpretation and backs it up with relevant evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Derick stated:

    "Eocene, with every quote like this one you demonstrate you lack of willingness to even understand evolutionary theory, or basic biology terms for that matter."
    ========================

    No Derick, what I resent about evolution is the white European bigotry (which still exists today) for which this whole mess of a fogma was invented.

    ____________________________

    Derick believes:

    "If you have two individuals of the same species, with the same organ serving the same purpose, in no way could only one of the organs be vestigial. I most likely have a differently shaped hand from you; that doesn't mean that one of our hands is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean 'variations in structure between individuals of the same species.'
    =====================

    You know, human beings are NOT different species. We're all equal. There are no primitives racial species and there are no superior racial species. This very same mindset is the reason our world of Humankind is in the foul mess it's in right now and getting worse. Fortunately and yes, thank God, that's about to change soon.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Eocene -


    what I resent about evolution is the white European bigotry (which still exists today)


    What bigotry? The theory of evolution possesses none. It is only the ridiculous strawmen of ID advocates and Creationists that parade the terrible idea that evolution implies a hierarchy of human races. In reality it shows no such thing. The fault is with your grotesque lack of understanding of that the theory of evolution does and does not say.


    You know, human beings are NOT different species. We're all equal.


    Yes, all humans belong to the same species. But we do belong to different races. And that fact alone does not imply one race is superior to another. In just the same way, if there WERE different species of human, that does not imply one would be superior to any other.


    This very same mindset is the reason our world of Humankind is in the foul mess it's in right now and getting worse.


    If you want to identify racial bigotry as the source of humanity's woes, fine. Knock yourself out. But you cannot trace that bigotry back to the theory of evolution, however much you might want to.


    And by the way, you have still failed to explain what you think Lucy and Ardi are. Please be really specific, and cite sources to support your opinion as much as possible.


    Still waiting...

    ReplyDelete
  46. I said: ""If you have two individuals of the same species, with the same organ serving the same purpose, in no way could only one of the organs be vestigial. I most likely have a differently shaped hand from you; that doesn't mean that one of our hands is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean 'variations in structure between individuals of the same species.'

    Eocene Replied: "You know, human beings are NOT different species. We're all equal. There are no primitives racial species and there are no superior racial species. This very same mindset is the reason our world of Humankind is in the foul mess it's in right now and getting worse. Fortunately and yes, thank God, that's about to change soon."
    --------------------------------------------------

    Eocene, it appears that your reading comprehension is on par with your understanding of evolution. Nowhere did I say, imply, or insinuate that there are different species of humans. I even used the phrase 'same species' twice to avoid confusion.

    I repeat what I said before, every one of your uninformed rants confirms that you have absolutely no clue what modern evolutionary theory says, and that you have no interest in educating yourself. Of course all humans are the same species: Homo Sapiens. Evolution doesn't deny this, it confirms it.

    Ironically, the only view that supports different 'tiers' of humanity is the version of creationism that has God creating the different races separately, which is supported by a plain, literal reading of Genesis. (forget the question 'where did Cain find a wife?" what about "who populated the city Cain went to?" and "who's vengeance was Cain afraid of after he murdered Abel - his little sisters?")

    Are you implying that evolution leads to racism? If that's the case, isn't it odd that slavery was prevalent in all parts of the globe up until about 150 years ago? And that in places where it still exists, science literacy is very low? That slavery was gone in the United States within a decade of the publishing of The Origin of Species? (correlation doesn't imply causation; but it's interesting nonetheless)

    ReplyDelete
  47. To clarify a point in the previous post, there are not different species of Humans currently. That has not always been the case.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Derick clarified:

    "To clarify a point in the previous post, there are not different species of Humans currently. That has not always been the case."
    ====================

    No Derick, again we have yet to see proof of an animal to man connection (despite cartoony animations and fable invention) and given the popluar statements by evolutionists that humans have been on Earth for well over 200,000 years, if true, then in numerous areas of geographical isolations (islands - separate continents, etc) we would expect to see a human speciation to have already taken place, but nowhere has any of that ever happened. Humans are all equal and have ability to procreate with each other no matter what race/culture/nationality , something that the chaos of evolution would surely have dealt a death blow to many , many milleniums ago.

    Even the whitest of superiorly evolved white man, Richard Dawkins could mate with a lowly Hobbit inhabitant of Papua New Guinea and produce an offspring (God forbid). *whew*

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocene -


    No Derick, again we have yet to see proof of an animal to man connection


    a) science deals in evidence, not proof,
    b) we have ample evidence of such.

    We have a rich supply of human-acestor fossils. Perhaps this is a good time to mention (again) the Lucy and Ardi question you keep buring your head in the sand over and hoping will go away.


    ... humans have been on Earth for well over 200,000 years, if true, then in numerous areas of geographical isolations (islands - separate continents, etc) we would expect to see a human speciation to have already taken place, but nowhere has any of that ever happened.


    When a species splits into (let's say) two groups with no gene flow between them, it takes time for the genetic differences to build up to such a degree that they can no longer interbreed, and thus, be classed as seperate species. As these gentic differences slowly mount, the two populations will gradually acquire more differences - they will become different subspecies, or races. Different races can be thought of as different species in the making. And the human species HAS seperated out into different races.

    Of course it needs to be stressed that we can draw no MORAL lesson from this. Once a species has seperated into races, there is no sense in which the split SHOULD be preserved and the species SHOULD speciate. It is not 'wrong' to re-establish gene flow, which is what has happened to humans. Modern technology has made the world a small place. Travel is easy, and it is not at all unlikely that you might breed with a partner from absolutely any genetic corner of the world. Modern travel means the genetic isolation of the human races has pretty much broken down and it is now very unlikely that humans will speciate - unless for some reason they divide into genetic isolation again.


    Humans are all equal


    No-one is arguing with you on this.


    and have ability to procreate with each other no matter what race/culture/nationality something that the chaos of evolution would surely have dealt a death blow to many , many milleniums ago.


    The human race IS curiously uniform. There is, in fact remarkably little genetic variation within the human species. What does this indicate? That the human species BOTTLENECKED in the not-too-distant past.

    Around 80,000 years ago, a tiny band of no more than a hundred or so left Africa and went on to populate the rest of the entire planet with humans. What exactly makes you so convinced that the human species must have speciated in that time?


    Even the whitest of superiorly evolved white man,


    The theory of evolution does not class any race as 'superior'. Get that into your thick head, can't you?


    Richard Dawkins could mate with a lowly Hobbit inhabitant of Papua New Guinea and produce an offspring (God forbid).


    Yep. There is more genetic variation between a horse and a donkey than there is between a human and a chimpanzee. How do you explain that if we a totally unrelated species?

    ReplyDelete