You remember that cow they reportedly found in Africa? Well, there've been developments, apparently:In a journal article and an interview, the paleontologist, Dr. Paul C. Sereno, said this 30-foot-long dinosaur, with hundreds of teeth in its broad, squared-off jaws, had probably lived on ferns, horsetails and other ground vegetation. The 110 million-year-old species was discovered in Niger and is related to the North American dinosaur Diplodocus.There are many questions here:
The researchers reported yesterday that the dinosaur, named Nigersaurus taqueti, had a short neck, delicate bones and a habitual head posture pointed directly toward the ground. This was a ground-level browser like modern cows.
1.Why the rows of incisors if it was cud chewing? Did it eat woody substances?Of course, the claims of 110 million years are more of the same as:
2. From how much of the animal were the conclusions drawn? It's true you can get a good idea just from a thumb or an incisor.
1.Evolution has been shown to be seriously flawed;... neither issue being seriously explored within the scientific community – just entrenched positions being argued which is bad science. Here is another, for example, commenting on the carbon dating. The argument that it is the surrounding rock, not the fossil which is dated, is still a circular argument.
2.Radio-carbon dating also has serious flaws;
Just as the Creationist attempts at “science” have in many cases shown more zeal than science, so the scientific community's attempts to cover up flaws is unworthy of them. You can take your pick on references to this in many fields.
The thing is - there is abundant evidence that certain things in the metaphysical appeared to have happened and these can only be evaluated against the sum total of the human psyche over the period of humanity, from Egyptian theology to the human genome itself, not by radio-carbon dating or theory that presupposes that the metaphysical does not exist, e.g. Darwinianism.
Equally, there is ample evidence in the fossil record and to attempt to debunk the fossils themselves seems pointless. Clearly some broader method of analysis, eliminating prejudice, is required.
One can start by assuming that the biblical accounts and the fossil record both hold water and proceed from there. That would appear to be the true empirical method [and I'm sure you understand the difference between empirical and experimental].
"Evolution has been shown to be seriously flawed"
ReplyDeleteHmm, James, not quite as flawed as the page you link to. In response to a couple of points the Darwin Debunked article raises:
Why don't we see half-formed creatures?
1. Evolution does not predict incomplete creatures. In fact if we ever saw such a thing it would pretty much disprove evolution. In order to survive, all creatures must be sufficiently adapted to their environment; thus, they must be complete in some sense.
The basic false assumption here is twofold: first, that intermediates are necessarily incomplete, and second that once variation beyond the "type" is allowed, any and all variation is allowed (this latter is typological or essentialist thinking).
2. We see many creatures in transitional stages. These may be considered incomplete in that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar or related creatures:
* Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
* The euglena, which is halfway to plant
* Aquatic snakes
* Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared
* Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air
* The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear
* Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.
Mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits, they have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.
Most, if not all, "entirely new features" are modifications of previously existing features. Bird wings, for example, are modified tetrapod forelimbs, which are modified sarcopterygian pectoral fins. A complex, entirely new feature, appearing out of nowhere, would be evidence for creationism.
______
The source for these and several more good arguments against ID-Creationism is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
Hope you take the time to read them.
Evolution does not predict incomplete creatures. In fact if we ever saw such a thing it would pretty much disprove evolution.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point argued, Chris. The point is that the intermediate species are missing - there's no fossil record.
This is what gives rise to the notion that in fact these creatures did die out in a cataclysm and what we have now is new.
There's certainly no evidence to suggest that this did nt happen and plenty to indicate it did.
You cite arguments against creationism and I didn't dispute this in the post. I actually cited one.
However, opposing "creationism" in no way negates creation. They had to be created in the first place and there is absolutely no concrete prrof and in fact is proof even within the organism that there was design.
How do they know it was that colour? Or was that guesswork as well.
ReplyDeleteIt may well have been striped like a lot of large plant eaters are today in order to break up their outline to predators.
Evolution is a theory, along with other theorys like God creating the world in 7 days.
Bit like religion its a bit to tough to prove/dis prove either way.
James, if you read some of the stuff on the website I mention above, especially in the Paleontology section, you'll see there is fossil evidence for transitional/intermediate species.
ReplyDeleteFido is right: we can't prove or disprove any theory 100%, particularly how the world and what's in it came to be (technically, we're all agnostic, you know). I just base my view on what I see to be the best explanation of all the theories available - I suppose everyone does the same.
A final thought (yes, it's an old canard...), if there is "design" in organisms, who designed the designer?
Well, I like your post title! I don't see why Darwiniam excludes the metaphysical aspect.
ReplyDeleteWithout wading into the Evolution debate, there's one point I've never really seen made anywhere.
ReplyDeleteLet us assume, for a moment, that there is a God and God created the universe and all that's in it.
What if science is just a process of discovering God's method?
Without having looked into it too deeply, I can't see any fundamental reason why not. Except that, of course, the Bible said that God created the earth in seven days, Garden of Eden, etc etc....
Well, it would, wouldn't it? I mean, can you imagine if Moses came down from the Mountain and said, "right, guys and gals, take a seat... this might take some time to explain..."
He'd be laughed out of the Promised Land!
The sticking point - and it seems to me to be an entirely daft point to stick on, but that's just my take - is whether the text of the bible should be treated literally, or whether it is the message that counts: the "why" to science's "how". A meta-parable, perhaps.
Personally, I don't see any inherent conflict between the two. Certainly, some of science's greatest figures - including Newton, and Darwin himself - were religious people.