ID/Creationism challenge

[Halfcentaur]

I think you misunderstand the implications (please correct me if I misunderstand you).

You are referring to the density and distribution of blood vessels in the bones of non-avian dinosaurs, correct? The big deal there is that it implies high metabolic rate, which throws out the old "cold, dumb, slow" image of dinosaurs.

This has zero to do with when they lived, but has plenty (very interestingly indeed) to do with how they lived. It also speaks to the fact that homeothermy/bradycardia/endothermy has either evolved (in terms of a major radiation) twice, or it evolved before mammals diverged from the ancestral branch.

Edit, wrong link.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html


He feels the rate of decomposition would never produce such a finding barring a time period of around ten thousand years give or take at most for these trace elements of what might be red blood cells to be identifiable.

 

[Varanid]

The fossil record showing species generally appearing and certainly all within the concept of "kinds" abruptly without any evidence of the immediate ancestral kind and always staying within that "kind" (stasis).

This is just not true. Ever here of a vestigal organ?

Quick example- basal snake lineages (Pythons being the most well known, but there are others) often retain their pelvic girdle and even the remnants of back legs. Bang. Intermediate between two "kinds", and it isn't even a fossil. Hell, I am looking at a living example right this very minute.

 

[randman]

Where do neotenic species fit into your model? Especially the environmentally plastic varieties?

It's not my theory per se. You'd have to look up creationists and see what they say about that. I am just casually referencing a few points of evidence evos say do not exist.

 

[Varanid]

No.. The claim is that when split open, dinosaur bones bled out, and had soft tissue, implying they were fr far younger than 65+ millions years old.

Of course, it isn't true, but it doesn't stop the creationists.

Dear lord...anyone got a cite for that?


ETA: Thanks HalfCentaur for the link. And apologies Randman, I had not caught that finding. I agree, it doesn't mean what the YEC think it does, but I do retract my characterization of your comments.

 

[randman]

This is just not true. Ever here of a vestigal organ?

Quick example- basal snake lineages (Pythons being the most well known, but there are others) often retain their pelvic girdle and even the remnants of back legs. Bang. Intermediate between two "kinds", and it isn't even a fossil. Hell, I am looking at a living example right this very minute.

Lots overstatements over the years talking about vestigal organs. I would consider providing a long list of important human organs that evos wrote off as useless and convinced some doctors to adjust their treatment accordingly, with terrible results.

But that'd be talking about evolution, wouldn't it?

Basically here, the way I see it, you cannot offer an evolutionist response on any evidence as we have to assume evolution didn't happen per the instructions and rules of the thread.

That makes it interesting.

What are the explanations, ASSUMING no transitional species, for the features you mentioned?

Mutations that don't go anywhere?

That's good enough.

No reason to think they indicate evolution and we can't talk about that anyway.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I was under the impression the fallible qualities of radio carbon dating did not carry over beyond the relatively recent spans of time carbon dating is used for. When working with materials that are millions of years old, radiometric dating moves on to other elements which are precise and lack the flaws that carbon dating is said to be subject to. Carbon dating is only used for relatively recent materials in relative geological time frames.

It seems we've gotten back to falsifying evolution as evidence for creation however. While if evolution is proven false this would be a great place to look for evidence of creation, I thought the challenge was to look elsewhere to demonstrate creationism wasn't merely reliant upon falsifying the theory of evolution and had more to it than the controversy.

 

[Varanid]

It's not my theory per se. You'd have to look up creationists and see what they say about that. I am just casually referencing a few points of evidence evos say do not exist.

But these species refute the evidence you are offering (if I am understanding you correctly).

You are suggesting that species are only observed among a given number of "kinds", right? Well neotenic species exist in two different forms (and reproduce in both) depending on a variety of factors.

Mudpuppies are a familiar example.

 

[randman]

Dear lord...anyone got a cite for that?


ETA: Thanks HalfCentaur for the link. And apologies Randman, I had not caught that finding. I agree, it doesn't mean what the YEC think it does, but I do retract my characterization of your comments.

In typical fashion, his characterization of blood gushing out is just another false evo tactic to try to obscure the evidence.

Biochemistry suggests the bones could not be that old. That's a fact.

Evos, since they "know" they must be that old, have discussed a need to develop new theories on preservation (which we will see if they can really change biochemistry) and fossilization to explain the finding, but it was not expected and considered in their words "an extraordinary claim" requiring extraordinary evidence. Wasted a lot of time debating evos on places like EvC where the evo insisted they were not red blood cells, etc,....

Of course, I was proven right and it's generally accepted now. But I doubt any evos will admit they had it wrong.

They banned a ton of people from there (I was once a mod for a few days) including a lot of evolutionists a couple of years ago or so. Haven't been back then to say I told you so...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Funny, randman has only given more attempts to debunk evolution instead of actually providing positive evidence of Creationism/ID. I didn't expect much more.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Lots overstatements over the years talking about vestigal organs. I would consider providing a long list of important human organs that evos wrote off as useless and convinced some doctors to adjust their treatment accordingly, with terrible results.

The problem is if evolution were true we'd expect vestigial organs as evidence of transition. How can you fault them for being cited? Snakes with remnants of limbs and whales with remnants of limbs seems like something it would be silly to not address if in fact animals evolve. Positing vestigial organs that are revealed to still have a use doesn't change this at all.

But again, indeed, if in fact evolution were false and ID true, would there not be any points to be made independently without relying on falsifying evolution? Of course that wipes out a great many arguments, but it should not wipe out all of them should it? And if not, bringing up aspects of evolution to be falsified isn't doing the topic any favors in a topic accusing it of being without substance outside the agenda of falsifying "evo" theory.

 

[Shalamar]

It's terrible the way that science discovers new things that changes the way that scientists think about them, instead of declaring 'GOD DID IT!'.

Of course, the soft tissue had to be demineralized, and it seems that decomposition isn't as straight forward as we thought. But those bones are still 65+ million years old.

 

[Halfcentaur]

In typical fashion, his characterization of blood gushing out is just another false evo tactic to try to obscure the evidence.

Biochemistry suggests the bones could not be that old. That's a fact.

Evos, since they "know" they must be that old, have discussed a need to develop new theories on preservation (which we will see if they can really change biochemistry) and fossilization to explain the finding, but it was not expected and considered in their words "an extraordinary claim" requiring extraordinary evidence. Wasted a lot of time debating evos on places like EvC where the evo insisted they were not red blood cells, etc,....

Of course, I was proven right and it's generally accepted now. But I doubt any evos will admit they had it wrong.

They banned a ton of people from there (I was once a mod for a few days) including a lot of evolutionists a couple of years ago or so. Haven't been back then to say I told you so...

Trace elements of red blood cells which have been admitted by the finder to possibly be tainted samples are not extraordinary evidence and your seizing upon them as if they are isn't doing you any favors. You're basically asking people to believe a child is seeing monsters and ghosts rather than examine the possibility she may be mistaken. Probability has to be a factor, and error.

How many incidents are there of these blood samples beyond Mary Schweitzer? You're dishonest to characterize someone ignorant of the details as if they are ignoring the details. So far it seems the case is isolated and limited to the people you're accusing.

 

[randman]

The problem is if evolution were true

This is the problem I am talking about. We cannot discuss evolution here in this thread.

 

[randman]

Trace elements of red blood cells which have been admitted by the finder to possibly be tainted samples are not extraordinary evidence a

That's not what scientists and science writers have said.

You are just making stuff up, as usual.

Edit: missed the part on possibly being tainted. Sorry.

Why do you think they suspect it's tainted?

Answer: because it is AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

 

[randman]

Trace elements of red blood cells which have been admitted by the finder to possibly be tainted samples are not extraordinary evidence and your seizing upon them as if they are isn't doing you any favors. You're basically asking people to believe a child is seeing monsters and ghosts rather than examine the possibility she may be mistaken. Probability has to be a factor, and error.

How many incidents are there of these blood samples beyond Mary Schweitzer? You're dishonest to characterize someone ignorant of the details as if they are ignoring the details. So far it seems the case is isolated and limited to the people you're accusing.

So you think she must be mistaken?

I would be cruel but just to save time, there's been more research and findings since the materials you have read. The case is somewhat closed now as they keep finding the same thing elsewhere.

 

[randman]

It's terrible the way that science discovers new things that changes the way that scientists think about them, instead of declaring 'GOD DID IT!'.

Of course, the soft tissue had to be demineralized, and it seems that decomposition isn't as straight forward as we thought. But those bones are still 65+ million years old.

Biochemistry says they are not.

 

[randman]

Funny, randman has only given more attempts to debunk evolution instead of actually providing positive evidence of Creationism/ID. I didn't expect much more.

Really?

So information theory requiring an Intelligent Designer is not positive evidence and keep in mind I listed specific non-theist theories to explain it as well.

Maybe you lack the ability to follow along?

 

[Shalamar]

Biochemistry says they are not.

[citation needed]

 

[randman]

Here's a non-theistic mechanism for Intelligent Design.

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today.[25] According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the current existence of a multiverse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Of course, wiki could be wrong in it's assessments. But if the universe or multiverse selects past histories for the purpose of allowing life, that's evidence the universe has some sort of intelligence as a mechanism to purpose life and affect the past; hence Intelligent Design.

 

[Varanid]

Positing vestigial organs that are revealed to still have a use doesn't change this at all.

I'll go ya one further. It makes perfect sense that vestigal organs have a purpose in many cases. The use of an appendage/organ today does not mean that is what it will be used for umpteen generations from now. This is frequently missed in the irreducible complexity argument.

Pythons use their legs to this day. Not only can they use them in a defensive role (weakly and only rarely, but still...) they are (in many species) a crucial part of male/male combat and in courting, stimulating, and positioning the female! (I need a cold shower after that last phrase).

From locomotion to reproductive function.
Hey, it rhymes, so you know it's right.