RETIRED: Creation or Evolustionists theory

[paperboy05]

Is it just me or does the Yahoo! featured news picture make it seem REALLY big?!?!?!?

[bonkman]

Quote from paperboy05 : Is it just me or does the Yahoo! featured news picture make it seem REALLY big?!?!?!?

certainly bigger than 3-4 ft.

[superdan54]

Quote from Darkfrog : http://richarddawkins.net/article...rd-Dawkins Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda by Richard Dawkins On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J". .....

I haven't seen "Expelled" either, so I can't defend or accuse it. However, Dawkins is committing the same error he accuses the creationists of doing. He states that the "Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened" but attempts to give athiests & Darwinian science a complete free pass. Why? I'd agree that Darwin himself might not be to blame for Hitler's eugenic principles, but is Christ really responsible for the actions of the Church?

Darwin himself may have not agreed with eugenics (he thought it was too utopian), but his followers certainly took the idea and ran with it. After all, it was Darwin's own cousin, Francis Galton, who first coined and triumphed the idea of eugenics. Other athiest/agnostics such as Herbert Spencer triumphed the idea of Social Darwinism and as Dawkins stated, "Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain." Did the Church really foster/promote these ideas? Then from where did they come from?

And on the subject of Hitler, he is quick to show early quotes of Hitler "doing the work of the Lord", while completely ignoring later quotes, such as these "gems":

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." July 12, 1941

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." February 1942

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/...itler.html

So in conclusion, yes it is wrong for Creationists to say belief in evolution caused the Holocaust. But Dawkins would like for us to look at the Church with scorn while ignoring the actions of Darwin's followers, which certainly impacted early 20th century philosophy much more than the Church.

[bonkman]

Quote from superdan54 : I haven't seen "Expelled" either, so I can't defend or accuse it. However, Dawkins is committing the same error he accuses the creationists of doing. He states that the "Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened" but attempts to give athiests & Darwinian science a complete free pass. Why? I'd agree that Darwin himself might not be to blame for Hitler's eugenic principles, but is Christ really responsible for the actions of the Church? Darwin himself may have not agreed with eugenics (he thought it was too utopian), but his followers certainly took the idea and ran with it. After all, it was Darwin's own cousin, Francis Galton, who first coined and triumphed the idea of eugenics. Other athiest/agnostics such as Herbert Spencer triumphed the idea of Social Darwinism and as Dawkins stated, "Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain." Did the Church really foster/promote these ideas? Then from where did they come from? And on the subject of Hitler, he is quick to show early quotes of Hitler "doing the work of the Lord", while completely ignoring later quotes, such as these "gems": "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." July 12, 1941 "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." February 1942 http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/...itler.html So in conclusion, yes it is wrong for Creationists to say belief in evolution caused the Holocaust. But Dawkins would like for us to look at the Church with scorn while ignoring the actions of Darwin's followers, which certainly impacted early 20th century philosophy much more than the Church.

a) Christ != Church
b) people who followed Darwin chronologically != followers of Darwin in the intellectual sense. As mentioned prior, Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It's not even close.

[superdan54]

Quote from bonkman : Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land ... Ahlberg didn't find the legs or toes of Ventastega, but was able to deduce that it was four-limbed because key parts of its pelvis and its shoulders were found. .... Ventastega is the most primitive of these transition animals, but there are older ones that are oddly more advanced

Who says it's even the earliest found? Based on what? The pelvis had to have been distinctive enough to completely rule out fins, what made it more primitive than already established early tetrapods (i.e. Acanthostega).

Quote : If you saw it from a distance, it would look like a small alligator, but if you look closer you would find a fin in the back

Or maybe not, since nothing of that sort was found....

[superdan54]

Quote from bonkman : a) Christ != Church b) people who followed Darwin chronologically != followers of Darwin in the intellectual sense. As mentioned prior, Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It's not even close.

I agree, however instead of simply neutralizing the argument, abolishing blame on either camp (or conversely assigning it to both), Dawkins does a complete 180 on the "Expelled" argument and tries to slander the Church while attempting to make the evolutionist position look spotless. That's what I had a problem with. He calls the "Expelled" camp "wicked men" for showing half-truths & distortions and then proceeds to do the very same thing himself.

[bonkman]

Quote from superdan54 : Who says it's even the earliest found? Based on what? The pelvis had to have been distinctive enough to completely rule out fins, what made it more primitive than already established early tetrapods (i.e. Acanthostega).

Based on that article...nothing but the researchers word. Read their report if you want more detail. Or email them. Odds are, they are experts in the field in which they study and they have an answer for the question you posed. Let us know what you find.

Earliest, though, is the wrong word. Earliest means chronologically. We're talking "primitive," which is a term of structure and function. remember:

Quote : Ventastega is the most primitive of these transition animals, but there are older ones that are oddly more advanced, said Neil Shubin, professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago, who was not part of the discovery team but helped find Tiktaalik, the fish that was one step earlier in evolution. "It's sort of out of sequence in timing," Shubin said of Ventastega.

BTW, the wiki page of acanthostega [wikipedia.org] has a small timeline of the appropriate period including the tiktaalik and the acanthostega at the bottom. Some answers may be in the shoulder/neck and /neck/head structures, as well as pelvic shape.

Quote : Or maybe not, since nothing of that sort was found....

You can tell a lot from the shoulders, pelvis, etc. That's what led them to conclude that it had limbs in the first place. "Maybe" is a rather senseless word -- "maybe" any fin it had was a growth like an extra thumb. Any fossil expert seeing someone with an extra thumb would realize that it is likely a mutant due to abnormal physiology relative to other (non-human) animals -- ie bone fusion.

[bonkman]

Quote from superdan54 : I agree, however instead of simply neutralizing the argument, abolishing blame on either camp (or conversely assigning it to both), Dawkins does a complete 180 on the "Expelled" argument and tries to slander the Church while attempting to make the evolutionist position look spotless. That's what I had a problem with. He calls the "Expelled" camp "wicked men" for showing half-truths & distortions and then proceeds to do the very same thing himself.

IMO, it was because the letter came from a person who put an accent on their religion, although that religion was Judaism not Christianity.

[superdan54]

Quote from bonkman : Based on that article...nothing but the researchers word. Read their report if you want more detail. Or email them. Odds are, they are experts in the field in which they study and they have an answer for the question you posed. Let us know what you find. Earliest, though, is the wrong word. Earliest means chronologically. We're talking "primitive," which is a term of structure and function. remember:

ok I did a little research and apparently they used a technique called "relative warp analysis", basically superimposing diagrams of the different Devonian species over each other and comparing similar skull feature points. Basically it looks like Ventastega and Acanthostega are nearly identical in skull shape, with the exception of a "tabular horn", a feature which seems to be unique to Acanthostega. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://talkrational.org/showpost....stcount=48

I still think the "fin on the back" comment is a little unwarranted (unless it was sarcasm)...I don't even think Tiktaalik had one of those.

[bonkman]

Quote from superdan54 : ok I did a little research and apparently they used a technique called "relative warp analysis", basically superimposing diagrams of the different Devonian species over each other and comparing similar skull feature points. http://talkrational.org/showpost....stcount=48 I still think the "fin on the back" comment is a little unwarranted (unless it was sarcasm)...I don't even think Tiktaalik had one of those.

thanks for the research! That's an awesome name

[superdan54]

Quote from bonkman : thanks for the research! That's an awesome name

Apparently it only works with a dilithium crystal powered projector .

[darkfrog]

New show on the History Channel coming up called Evolve [history.com].
I think this will be a good show for the Creationists to watch as well. It will probably lead to some good debate, but hopefully, some of the less informed might actually learn something so they can avoid mischaracterizing the evolutionist's position.

[bonkman]

Quote from darkfrog : New show on the History Channel coming up called Evolve [history.com]. I think this will be a good show for the Creationists to watch as well. It will probably lead to some good debate, but hopefully, some of the less informed might actually learn something so they can avoid mischaracterizing the evolutionist's position.

sounds cool -- thanks for the heads up.

[superdan54]

Quote from darkfrog : New show on the History Channel coming up called Evolve [history.com]. I think this will be a good show for the Creationists to watch as well. It will probably lead to some good debate, but hopefully, some of the less informed might actually learn something so they can avoid mischaracterizing the evolutionist's position.

Unfortunately I don't have cable/satellite, and only get 2 channels - consisting primarily of "Everybody Loves Raymond" repeats. Not that I'm complaining, it's a good show!

[talgot]

Quote from superdan54 : Unfortunately I don't have cable/satellite, and only get 2 channels - consisting primarily of "Everybody Loves Raymond" repeats. Not that I'm complaining, it's a good show!

do you really expect to find out to much thats new to their arguement? I love the link synopsis at the site. They write it as if its a fact, what they are promoting. Typical evol propaganda. But I am not questioning it will be entertaining. Most science fiction is