Creationist party over: GIGANTORAPTOR discovered

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/06/13/eadino213.xml

 

Well that's it then.

 

A feathered dinosaur. That was what was missing. Here it is; most of us never needed the proof. But for those that did, and pointed out archeaopterix did not lead to birds, they could say "the dinosaurs died out recently".

 

Now they can't. Shame with that disney type them park they just wasted a packet on.

 

because this is proof at last, that the dinosaurs did NOT die out. They evolved, and are all around us . There are two looking at me from the tree as I type.

 

And for a dinosaur to change into a bird would require millions and millions of years.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

I don't think that those fighting against the recent rise of creationism necessarily needed this discovery to help their cause as Dawkins, Hitchens and others seem to argue the case against it quite well enough. Remember too that the worship of fossil gaps isn't definitively resolved by finding a fossil to plug the gap; creationists might just argue that it just creates two new gaps!

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

 

(currently re-reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins - http://richarddawkins.net/ )

[LordTheNightKnight]

For us fur lovers, knowing how genetics can affect fur, denying evolution is really dumb.

[Worker 11811]

Remember too that the worship of fossil gaps isn't definitively resolved by finding a fossil to plug the gap; creationists might just argue that it just creates two new gaps!

 

Ya' got that right!

 

Basically, what they are saying is that, unless you can document every ancestor of Man from the very first lightning bolt that caused amino acids to form, through each and every proto-human species that ever existed, up to the modern homo sapiens, the theory of evolution is not only unproven but it is DISproven.

 

If we must follow their rules, the theory of evolution can not be proven. They have created a set of rules that prevent it from being proven THEN they turn around and use the fact that evolution has not been proven to their satisfaction as evidence that it can NOT be proven.

 

That is one of the most logically fallacious arguments that anybody has ever made!

 

It is second only to the age old question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Guest]

I see what you are saying, BUT this is different. Because it isn't just a question of plugging the gap; it is the definitive proof of how feather developed, and from there could not have happened in the short time scale they allow for. At the very least, they must now acknowledge that dinosaurs did not become exctinct recently....and that they are still all around us. Because the alternative is to prove themselves even more wrong if that makes sense: dinosaurs may have in their minds co existed with Adam and Eve....but if they did there were no birds at that time. So they must acknowledge some sort of evolution; creatures like apes may not have become man...BUT dinosaurs definitely became birds. In a sense, that proves some of their claim correct: they now don't have to bother faking pcitures of confederate soldiers shooting pteranaosaurs; since thre WERE dinsaurs at the time of Adam and Eve and indeed now. Dinosaurs and birds are the same.

[Worker 11811]

Fine point: Some dinosaur species evolved into birds.

 

There are modern species which evolved FROM dinosaurs but all the dinosaurs are gone.

 

You've got to be clear on that because those people will pounce on that.

 

But you could also conveniently leave that point unclear so as to draw your opponent into a battle where you will either defeat him or lead him off onto a tangent topic where he can do no harm.

 

It's a well-known debating tactic: "The Red Herring."

[Guest]

Yes but ALL birds descended from dinosaurs directly; now there is no doubt about that....if there ever was. Essentially, they are dinosaurs.

[ReFur]

I have never found facts to be something that a fundamentalist ever found to be important. Unless, of course it backed their cause.

 

L

[JGalanos]

An astute and unfortunately accurate observation, Linda. Fundamentalists are not really interested in truth ... But in proving they are right (and factual knowledge and logical thinking be damned).

[Guest]

You are right and it is of course a shame. Bacause denial of this fact for instance destroys their own argument. If they took the view that okay, evolution does happen, BUT its a "tool" of God, it wouldn't actually hurt the creationist argument.

After all there still had to be a "first" identifiable human . I don't know why they think evolution is against the idea of a God.

 

There does appear to be a "plan" at work whether that is a "biological experiment" that just happens, or a divine plan, is not really important.

 

Whereas denial actually hurts the whole idea of a God.

[LordTheNightKnight]

You are right and it is of course a shame. Bacause denial of this fact for instance destroys their own argument. If they took the view that okay, evolution does happen, BUT its a "tool" of God, it wouldn't actually hurt the creationist argument.

After all there still had to be a "first" identifiable human . I don't know why they think evolution is against the idea of a God.

 

There does appear to be a "plan" at work whether that is a "biological experiment" that just happens, or a divine plan, is not really important.

 

Whereas denial actually hurts the whole idea of a God.

 

The thing is that they believe the Bible is the literal word of God.

 

Yet if we applied their burden of proof to creationism, they would get far worse. For one thing, where in the bible does it say that it is the literal word of God, and should always be taught as such? After all, Jesus often spoke in parables, so if the son of God didn't always speak literally, then wouldn't that mean that there isn't absolute proof that the bible is the literal word of God, and by their reasoning against evolution, that NOTHING in the bible is to be taken literally?

[trebor]

You people unfortunately are using the same broad strokes to describe Fundamentalists as they use to describe and Evolutionists and atheists like you.

 

Has it ever occured to any one that it is NOT and "either" or "or" inquiry but could even be an "and" proposition.

 

I had a geology professor in college who was asked "THE QUESTION" which couched in the very mind frame that everyone uses....which is the correct approach Evolutionism OR Creationism.

 

He answered this way....he said, who is to say that God did not use evolution to create the works you see? After all there are natural laws that have been set in motion which govern the forces of Nature. But who did this? If you say that we all evolved only by Chance from primordial ooz, then you not only miss the whole point but do yourselves a great disservice and display an utter lack for the ability to learn.

 

Think about it.

 

Trebor

 

PS I am NOT a Fundamentalist

[LordTheNightKnight]

You people unfortunately are using the same broad strokes to describe Fundamentalists as they use to describe and Evolutionists and atheists like you.

 

Has it ever occured to any one that it is NOT and "either" or "or" inquiry but could even be an "and" proposition.

 

I had a geology professor in college who was asked "THE QUESTION" which couched in the very mind frame that everyone uses....which is the correct approach Evolutionism OR Creationism.

 

He answered this way....he said, who is to say that God did not use evolution to create the works you see? After all there are natural laws that have been set in motion which govern the forces of Nature. But who did this? If you say that we all evolved only by Chance from primordial ooz, then you not only miss the whole point but do yourselves a great disservice and display an utter lack for the ability to learn.

 

Think about it.

 

Trebor

 

PS I am NOT a Fundamentalist

 

None of us wrote evolution was only by chance (or I missed it on this thread). We just maintain evolution did happen, whatever made the system come into being.

 

Are you assuming us discussing evolution means we don't believe there is a God? That's what your post seems to imply you are assuming.

[Guest]

Quote:

 

He answered this way....he said, who is to say that God did not use evolution to create the works you see? After all there are natural laws that have been set in motion which govern the forces of Nature. But who did this? If you say that we all evolved only by Chance from primordial ooz, then you not only miss the whole point but do yourselves a great disservice and display an utter lack for the ability to learn.

 

end quote

 

That is what we are saying Trebor

 

I am just making the point that their denial of evolution is making their position untenable.

 

I am an Animist; not an aetheist. I believe that nature is conscious; and that we are maybe not half as conscious as we think we are. In a sense, my position is the opposite of Buddhism. Enlightenment to me is the ultimate human conceit. So I believe what I see...and I see that energy of nature flows through all living things and that we all are as lightbulbs in a grid. BUT even Animism does not dispute either evolution, or christianity or any other religion for that matter. Early animist "black madonnas" symbolised mother earth a thousand years before Christ yet are seen by the Catholic church as the mother of christ. But you see how easy it was to convert Animists to chritianity when so many off the symbols and festivals are the same. Christmas is an animist not a christian festival....they just merged. The crucifix is an animist symbol....it is a compass. Romans used X shaped crucifixes usually, and the early christian symbol was a fish over an X. But with a similar symbolism, animism does not deny the possibility of Judaeo Christianity as long as it isn't literal (7 day genesis for example: think....how could it be a human day before the heavens and earth were created...its a metaphorical "day"...a period of time) And who could argue with the general teachings of Christ?

 

 

So there is no point in denying any other belief...because yes Christ could be the son of God and that deity could be nature itself; I am easy. And evolution could be the "design for life". In a sense that is exactly what it is...it appears to have been designed. And evolution is just the tool of that design. But when Christians try to deny evolution they are committing intellectual suicide as far as credibility goes.

 

Aethism by contrast in itself is a belief system too; and also one which is in denial....since attempts to explain the apparent "programme" of evolution through chaos theory is bordering on the desperate.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Off to the side, touch, I don't think your views are the opposite of Buddhism, just that one of your views is the opposite of one of their views. Buddhism is a bit more complex than it seems, and can overlap with animism. For one thing, both believe in the spirit over the material, just in different ways.

 

Also Shintoism and Buddhism have largely coexisted peacefully in Japan for centuries, so evidently, those people don't feel those views are opposite.

[MrMockle]

All,

 

Fundamentalism means more than just passion; atheists can be passionate about their "beliefs" - although I'm unsure if atheism is a belief system as such.

 

The key difference is that almost (if not) all atheists would be willing to accept they are wrong if the ultimate proof supporting the existience of God (or Gods) is revealed. I'm not sure than most theists (or deists) would do the same if science finds the evidence to disprove the existence of God (or Gods). That's fundamentalism: the continuance of belief in spite of all the available (often overwhelming) evidence. And for me - yes, as an atheist - there is far more evidence to support evolution over creationism, and to support the non-existence of God (or Gods) over his/her/its/their existence.

 

I refer you all to Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" for a reasoned arguement against religion and fundamentalism: http://RichardDawkins.net/godDelusion. Of course it is possible to be religious and support parts or all of the theory of evolution; from a recent (brief) newspaper interview:

 

Metro: The biggest clash between science and religion seems to be over when Earth was created.

 

Richard Dawkins: Some people still take the book of Genesis literally and believe Earth is less than 10,000 years old

[LordTheNightKnight]

Mockle, you can't prove a lack of existence like that. I'm not saying God exists. It just can't be proven that God doesn't exist.

[MrMockle]

Lord (how apt in this current topic!),

 

I'm not sure which part of my last reply necessarily proved a lack of existence and I agree that it's true to say that so far neither science or religion has satisfactorily proved the existence or otherwise of God/Gods. Of course, just because the solution hasn't been reached though that does not mean everyone is should be impartially agnostic or that the likelihood of existence/non-existence is equally probable. There are very few die-hard (ahem) "fundamental" atheists/theists who would not be swayed by a clinching arguement against their cause or beliefs.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

The problem I think Lord has identified here Mr M is one that is important.

 

If you BELIEVE that God does not exist until it is proven to you, that is still a belief. The true frame of mind should be a position of "agnostic" for anyone with open mind; since as Lrd says it cannot...possibly ever...be proven that God does not exist. And efforts to do so so far are as absurd as Creationsim.

 

For example, the scientific effort to explain flock and herd movement through Chaos theory is utterly absurd to anyone who understands animals. I would argue that using it to explain evolution is also absurd. So so far, aetheism intellctually requires a belief in an "anti" God based on mathematical inevitability and pattern. This fails to address evolution as badly as it addresses flock movement pattern.

 

So if you say you are an Aetheist, you are a believer in fairytale maths.

 

I think you mean Agnostic Mr M ?

 

Those that believed the earth to be flat, and those who believed the earth to be round, were both wrong . The scientific mind set out to prove the latter....Hypothesis as belief. A multi discipline approach...and the historical analytical mind in particular, says:

"I don't know....let's look at the evidence, and come up with all the possibilities and see which has most credence....then we still have to consider "reasonable doubt".

 

Let us use the metaphor of Cluedo.

 

We all have an idea of who killed the murdr voctim, based on the fact that each of us holds a clue card. BUT none of us know for definate who it is.

 

 

So the Moslem says I believe it to be Miss Scarlett,

 

The Hindu says: I believe it to be Professor Plum

 

The Jew says: I believe it to be the Reverend Green

 

The Christian says I believe it to be Colonel Mustard

 

The fundamentalist of any says there was no murder but all the suspects need to be rounded up and beaten anyway.

 

Now the Aetheist looks and despite the evidence of a dead body and a possible murder weapon, says "I believe it was an accident"

 

He may be right...the victim COULD have fallen on to the knife after being hit on the head with a lead pipe that merely fell from the ceiling and then cluthcing the wound tried to pick up the phone and accidentally picked up a gun and shot themselves. As everyone else raises an eyebrow, the aetheist says "What? I can prove that if you leave a room full of monkeys with a typewriter they will eventually over billions of years type the whole works of shaespeare, so this is possible" Then he attempts to prove such a hypothesis through theoretical science.

 

Possible yes...but its still a belief.

As Bette Davis once said:

"I have lost faith in science"

 

All that we can say for sure is a person is dead and there is suspicion of foul play.

 

The Buddhist says

"It does not matter since I am still alive and am enlightened ....and so is the fly on the wall and that is what is important"

 

Now the agnostic says

"There has been a murder and I have no clue of who did it....but look at your choices of suspect: they are all based on who you are prejudiced against and not anything about the victim; so it puts me off religion"

 

The correct analytical mind looks at motive and all possibilities.....and says "its possible but unproven but I shall keep an open mind"

 

And in the absence of conclusive evidence, the Animist says:

" We have no clue but the owl that looked through the window and was a witness may reveal the secret one day if we listen to him.....for he knows the secret; he is ancient and wise and without prejudice"

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

I would say that my belief/feeling/reasoning (as you will) is certainly somewhere between agnosticism and atheism; I think it highly improbable that a "superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it" exists and live my life on the assumption that it does not. I don't agree that it can never or will never be proved one way or the other, nor do I agree that people should stop investigating or searching for an answer. But neither do I believe that I should hedge my bets to such a degree that I follow all belief systems or "teachings", many of whom also teach atheism when it comes to other belief systems ("Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster").

 

I can't say that I know anything about flock and herd movement - or much about Chaos Theory for that matter - but I welcome any pointers you wish to give me (for when I have time to research the matter). But to say that all atheists believe in "fairytale" maths just be cause scientists cannot explain herd movement is a ridiculous statement to make. Such understanding may come in time: at one stage people believed there was nothing smaller than a grain of sand; then we got down to the atom and its component particles, and now quantum theory is looking for smaller particles.

 

As for your Cluedo metaphor, did you mean to illustrate some of the divisions that religion already causes? Why doesn't the Buddist say "Let's ask whatever creature/being Dr Black comes back as?" Is Dr Black now that fly on the wall or the owl outside? And most importantly for Dr Black's family, where's the forensic scientist or CSI when you need them?

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

don't go mixing atheism up with Paganism now.....

[Guest]

 

What I am saying is that human enlightenment can throw the world into darkness.

 

The owl is not a reincarnation of a human being since the owl has been around 63 million years longer. Which throws light on the real truth: the real truth is that humans do not matter in the great scheme of things.

 

And if we want to know what the great scheme is, we should maybe listen and use our senses more in keeping an open mind.

 

Now what you are saying is you do not accept there is a deity....unless it is proven to you.

The religious person says that the deity does not accept you until you prove yourself to it.

 

 

Both imply that human knowledge and endeavour are of importance intriniscally.

 

It matters not whether there is a God or not; and if it exists what his name is. It matters not if the CSI investigator finds out who the murderer is.

 

What matters is that for 4.5 billion years we were NOT important in the scheme of things.

 

And it is the scheme of things...whatever you call it....that is the Truth. It matters not if the sheme is a programme which implies a programmer, or if that programme is operating somehow without consciousness.

 

BUT ...and this is where chaos theory falls aprt....when scince tries to explain how the programme is the result of mathematical inevitability, it is easily proven wrong.

 

Birds and horses are able to move together in extremely swift unison. Science could not explain this. Because it is conceited and believes only what is already proven instead of looking at the evidence.

 

Birds and horses are often said to have small brains. BUT brians without the need to coneptualise, reason etc need not be large. Now what is more important to those creatures than anything, is the need to move very quickly in a herd/flock. So quickly in fact, that we cannot even begin to conceive that they possess abilities far beyond ours because we believe ourselves to be superior. Their brains, devoted to this above all, are far superior to ours in that respect: instinct devoid of thought is like a computer with a small memory but only one programme operating on it: unlike ours, it does not crash or slow up.

 

It was NOT me that chose this as a battlefield...it was the scientists who "believe" in chaos theory; since the option appears to be telepathy which they thought absurd. So they thought it was a battle they could win...now they have lost it in spectacular fashion. Somehow, hrd and flock animals ARE able to communicate since they do NOT operate out of some random chaos...the leader is ALWAYS 100000th of a second ahead....so there IS in fact conscious communication; possibly telepathy.

 

In a similar way, some birds of prey see far more colours than we do....they have to be able to detect for example fresh urine of a mouse from high above. They see it as a distinct colour. We are only know beginning to understand that if the impossible is the only explanation for something we have to consider it. Rather than using existing scientific

understanding. Hence, the herd and flock movements....can something be happening that scientific theory was wrong about?

 

Certainly. Horses and birds can communicate what seems like instantly because nature has designed it so; their brains are the result of millions of years of gearing prey animals to acting swiftly as a "unit". We still don't understand how; but we know they do it. It is NOT merely an accident whereby herd/flock pattern results from chaos, as was thought for the last 20 years, simply because that seemed like a rational mathematical possibility to explain it.

 

Likewise, all we can say is that within nature there is a plan; a plan to produce lifeforms and balance atmosphere through interdependence of plants-animals; prey-predators etc.

 

Religions can say that God is the architect of this.

Science can say there is no conscious architect.

BOTH ask me to believe something there is no evidence for; but only the latter asks me to disbelieve what I see with my own eyes; SOMETHING is deciding this. It may nor be conscious in the way we thing about consciousness, but it is NOT random.

 

BUT while the former MAY be correct, the only rational explanation of the latter has been chaos theory, latterly debunked.

 

That still does not mean that there is a programmer, but it does mean the programme is not running by random mathematical accident.

 

So ironically, proof of evolution may actually prove the existence of some form of divine consciousness.

 

Because this is the mickey mouse option:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

It may have some intellectual value; but whenever it is applied to nature it is easily shown to be utter crap. Not only can it not explain herd/flock dynamics and FALSIFY it to suit it, it also is at a complete loss to explain the ability of nature to adapt without saying "its mathematical magic"(easily shown to be wrong by the fact that not all adpatations work...so biology is a trial and error thing not a matter of sequentials).

 

Next they will be telling us that if we aren't watching the cat in the box it does not exist

 

Science is becoming bigger mumbo jumbo than ever religion was. In denying for example the existence of an organism that could survive in the gut, millions have died and suffered, when it was actually discovered 100 years before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori look up history) See? Science does exactly the same as we accuse religions of doing: ignoring evidence that doesn't suit it and persevering in faith of what it can explain with existing reason.

[MrMockle]

ToS,

 

I think we're starting to come together on this discussion - although my response may not sound like it.

 

Of course humans beings don't matter in the great scheme - assuming you believe that there is a scheme - intelligent design again! The planet we happen to live on is inhabited by many other species, a great number of which have been around far longer than we have and a good number of which will be around long after we have departed.

 

I'd agree that I do not accept the idea of a deity until proven wrong - but why should anyone have to prove ourselves to something that they don't believe exists? I don't follow your statement that that also implies that human knowledge and endeavour is all important, especially if solely contained to the human race. As for human knowledge, surely creationism is one of the damning examples of how religion can be used/abused to restrict knowledge (and endeavour).

 

I don't follow all your comments on flock/herd theory although as stated above it's not something I have studied. (I do know a little about probability theory but haven't discuss mathematics here yet). However I'm not sure that scientists would use Chaos Theory to define such behaviour. Do you have any specific references to demonstrate this - perhaps other Wikipedia links? Perhaps you could ask Mr Dawkins himself, a noted biologist and zoologist?

 

Evolution would say that such species have evolved over time; their brains (and bodies) evolving to react to leading creatures movements, developing more specialised nervous systems and senses at the very least. Or of course perhaps the mind and body of such creatures developed first and the flocking behaviour developed later on? The workings of any species' mind is still a relatively new science though. I'm not sure I'd agree that "we cannot even begin to conceive that they possess abilities far beyond ours because we believe ourselves to be superior" - they just have attributes and abilities more suited for their existence in their natural or adapted environment. And we can conceive it happening - because we can see it happening, and in our own way we can even attempt to immitate such behaviour (admittedly with a lot less speed and a lot more obvious communication).

 

Actually, I think you miss the point of evolution and natural selection: it is not random - and certainly not chaos theory:

Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degress from simple beginnings.

 

"The God Deulsion", Chapter 4 (Summary)

 

The absence of a deliberate design does not mean that such changes happened by chance; just that there wasn't a designer - "creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrived late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it".

 

As for Schrodinger's Cat, my understanding of quantum theory is in a bad need of a refresh!

 

I'd agree that a few scientists have been found to fudge results to come to a conclusion - they're only human after all, susecptible to the same modern pressures and demands as us all - but science evolves too. New ideas and tools are developed; old hypotheses and theories replaced by newer ones which more accurately demonstrate or predict the physical or natural world and universe as far as we can study it. In time Darwin's theories may also be proved wrong (by divine intervention or otherwise). But science is willing to test itself by revision and experimentation to increase our understanding of the world and universe we live in, and importantly, admit when it's wrong.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[JGalanos]

Message deleted.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Guest

[LordTheNightKnight]

"The owl is not a reincarnation of a human being since the owl has been around 63 million years longer."

 

I'll give the reincarnation system of Buddhism is a bit off from science, but that just proves the form of enlightenment particular to Buddhism is off.

 

Enlightenment literally means to fill with light. That can take on many forms, some from the many aspects of animism.

 

Oh, and it may be possible for a single human to reincarnate as a single owl, if the owl is born after the human dies, even in animism, since animism believe animals have souls.