150 attend meeting on 'stupid' theory (including Darwin's great-grandson)

York Daily Record ^ | 30 September 2005 | Teresa McMinn

[Nateman]

Don't matter if you are convinced or not. Reality is what it is and if you don't care for it, you lose, not reality.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Here is another example of the quality of scientific scholarship available from Answers In Genesis:

And exactly what is your point? You don't think it possible that dinosaurs could have ever been vegetarian? Or that two young specimens of every land creature creature including birds could have made it on to the ark?

[blowfish]

And exactly what is your point? You don't think it possible that dinosaurs could have ever been vegetarian? Or that two young specimens of every land creature creature including birds could have made it on to the ark?

Including insects? Including fresh-water fishes? Including shallow-water invertebrates and crustaceans? There's no mention of fresh-water tanks in the bible.
I won't even comment on the idea that T Rex was a vegetarian.

[Zeroisanumber]

Can anyone point me to any test of Creationism (or ID, if you prefer) and any prediction made from that test?

Creationists might mutter something under their breath about "irreducable complexity"; but no, they really can't provide a scientific prediction.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Can anyone point me to any test of Creationism (or ID, if you prefer) and any prediction made from that test?

You know, yours is a question that keeps coming up and in the end, it starts to take the shape of so many other 'sayings' that sound good until one thinks about it long enough to realize that there is something fundamental flawed with the question itself. It's sort of like a question/statement along the lines of 'don't you realize that you can't legislate morality' or something like that.

Scripture says in Genesis that God created all creatures, He did it during this short one week period of time discussed in Genesis 1 and I don't believe scripture says He ever did it again (with the exception perhaps of when He created animals in front of Adam in Genesis 2 so that Adam could provide names for them). Scripture goes to great lengths to give us an inkling into the attributes and character of God and out of this, it is clear that God is a supernatural being. He has chosen to not physically reveal Himself to mankind but He can do all things (as long as they don't go against His character - for example, He can't lie). Let's flip your question around - What would be an acceptable test that would convince you of the case for Creationism? Would you accept anything other than God himself physically coming down to earth and showing you His creative powers right in front of your very eyes? If this is what it takes, you need to realize that to do so goes against the very character of God. Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. Or to put it another way, God could do it but the act would kill you. It's an old example but still apropos - can you see the wind? If you can't how can you believe it exist? Clearly, we believe it exists because we see the effect of the wind on everything around us. In the same way, the effects of God are seen. Paul said this Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God doesn't even bother to try to address the question of proving His own existence (or whether or not what we see around us was created by Him) right from the first verse of the Bible - it just assumes it. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, GOD created the heaven and the earth. And it is assumed that any person looking at the universe would see that it is only common sense that the creation had a creator and was self explanatory. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. You cannot prove God or whether or not He was responsible for creation by anything but only through the manner He has revealed Himself to us. Job 11:7 Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? Robert Horn wrote, "This does not make the idea of God irrational and the fact of God unreal. God is and must be His own proof - a circular argument if you like, but if God be God no other option exists."

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Including insects? Including fresh-water fishes? Including shallow-water invertebrates and crustaceans? There's no mention of fresh-water tanks in the bible. I won't even comment on the idea that T Rex was a vegetarian.

Yes including insects but no, there weren't any fish on the ark or any other water dwelling species. Genesis 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. Differentiation between fresh and salt water fish happened after the flood.

Please do comment on a proof that T Rex was a meat eater. Just because something is ferocious looking doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it eats meat or vegetation, does it?

[blowfish]

1) Differentiation between fresh and salt water fish happened after the flood??? REALLY? Sounds like evolution to me! And this all happened since the birth of Noah? Must have been some really fast evolution as well.
2) T Rex didn't have the right teeth for grinding plants. I defy you to find a herbivore, past or present, with teeth like a T Rex.

[blowfish]

Can anyone point me to any test of Creationism (or ID, if you prefer) and any prediction made from that test?

...much biblical bloviation...

In short: no. So it ain't science.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

1) Differentiation between fresh and salt water fish happened after the flood??? REALLY? Sounds like evolution to me!,/p>

So they were fish before the flood and they were fish after the flood, how is this an example of evolution? Fish evolved into ...... let me guess, fish? Now it may be that there were some fish that had more ability to survive in salt water (and the ones that ended up in those conditions survived while the others died off) and it may be that some fish had more ability to survive in fresh water (and the ones that ended up in those conditions survived while the others died off)........ but how is this an evidence of evolution?

T Rex didn't have the right teeth for grinding plants.

What about the red panda? It has teeth that look like any other kind of meat eater but it mostly survives on bamboo and fruits. And anyway, by what logic does razor sharp jagged teeth make it logical that a dinosaur is more likely to be meat eater than a plant eater? Do you think that bones are any easier to crunch through than a large hardwood branch ripped down off a tree? I bet it wouldn't be hard to find lots of animals who have sharp teeth today that are not carnivores, but use them to open fruit and eat vegetables. I don't believe that having sharp teeth has anything to do with an animal being a meat-eater or not.

[blowfish]

Saltwater fish have biochemical systems that allow them to process all the extra salt. Freshwater fish don't. Not all fish are the same (or in many cases, remotely similar).

[jim_trent]

>Can anyone point me to any test of Creationism (or ID, if you prefer) and any prediction made from that test?

>>Substitute "evolution" where "Creationism" is found. Same question.

Wrong answer. There have been a number of tests, conclusions, and predictions in evolution. I have pointed out several examples in these threads in the past. Those who chose to ignore them continue to ignore them. However, I have NEVER been pointed to a similar source for Creationism.

If, on the off chance, you really are interested, I suggest that you Google Richard E. Lenski. He has been following 12 cultures of bacteria since 1988, comprising more than 25,000 generations. Interesting results, conclusions, and predictions.

[jim_trent]

> You cannot prove God or whether or not He was responsible for creation by anything

We disagree. I see God every day in everything around me. I don't understand why some religious people reject science. I do not see most scientists (except for a few fringe nuts) rejecting God. I you read the comments by famous scientists in the past (such as Einstein) you will find out that most of them firmly believed in God -- as well as science.

[qam1]

What about the red panda? It has teeth that look like any other kind of meat eater but it mostly survives on bamboo and fruits.

No it doesn't.

Here's two panda skulls, Look at the molars (Canines don't really mean anything)

Compared to true predators a wolf & lion

wolf

Lion

Big difference, Carnivores have sharp molars while herbivores have flat ones.

And anyway, by what logic does razor sharp jagged teeth make it logical that a dinosaur is more likely to be meat eater than a plant eater?

Chewing!!!

Give your dog a piece of meat and watch how fast he wolfs it down, then give him a piece of celery or an apple and see how he does.

Sharp molars are needed to tear & chew meat, but they simply aren't that good as chewing plant material and likewise flatter molars are great for chewing vegitation but no good for tearing meat.

So a T-Rex with those teeth trying to eat grass would starve.

Do you think that bones are any easier to crunch through than a large hardwood branch ripped down off a tree?

OK, Maybe. But how are they going to chew it?

I bet it wouldn't be hard to find lots of animals who have sharp teeth today that are not carnivores, but use them to open fruit and eat vegetables.

You'd lose,

Compare related animals

Meat eating - Piranha	Vegetarian (Eats fruits & nuts)  - Piranha

Insectivore Bat	Fruit Bat

Again the molars are the difference

I don't believe that having sharp teeth has anything to do with an animal being a meat-eater or not.

You'd be wrong

But beyond teeth,

Why does a cheetah need sharp claws and blazing speed? To run down a pumpkin?

or

Why does a spider need venom or build a web? To catch blue berries?

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Saltwater fish have biochemical systems that allow them to process all the extra salt. Freshwater fish don't. Not all fish are the same (or in many cases, remotely similar).,/p>

It's much more complicated than that. Lots of species are able to tolerate wide changes in salinity. Starfish for example will tolerate 16-18% of the normal concentration of sea salt indefinitely. Even barnacles which we associate with salt water almost exclusively can withstand exposure to less than one-tenth the usual salt concentration of seawater. Some species migrate between salt and fresh water i.e. salmon, striped bass and Atlantic sturgeon spawn in freshwater and mature in saltwater. What about eels? They reproduce in saltwater but grow to maturity in freshwater streams and lakes. The Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon lives only in freshwater. Here are some more fish with both fresh and saltwater capacity - toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the currently living fish orders have both fresh and saltwater representatives which suggests that the ability to tolerate wide changes in salinity could have been present in most fish at some point in the past. A logical explanation for this is simply that the specialization we see today may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

[Coyoteman]

Good information.

Tooth shape and function is pretty well known.
There are even differences within plant eaters for different types of plants.

The extinct mammoths did primarily grazing on grasses (with some browsing)
Mastodons were mostly browsers (trees and shrubs).

Mammoth:

Mastodon:

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Frankly, with all due respect to the effort of your post, I think it would need a lot more analysis and data to prove anything. Is that a skull of a red panda or a one of the other species of pandas? In order to compare the teeth accurately, wouldn't you need to be looking at the picture from the same angle or examining an actual skull? I mention this because from the pictures in your post, I can't see that the molars for the panda (of whatever type it is) are any more or less sharp than the ones for the lion or the wolf. It appears that the panda picture you provided shows it to have quite sharp incisors. Why would it need those if it was a herbivore? With regards to your pictures of the skulls of the insectivore bat and the fruit bat - not to be picky but these shots do not indicate much in the way of a radical difference between the two, do they?

With regards to your comment about 'Why does a cheetah need sharp claws and blazing speed? To run down a pumpkin?' - my question for you is, does this show evidence for evolution or special creation? If God knew that a particular animal would need certain characteristics at some point in the future, wouldn't he create it with those?

[blowfish]

You *actually* believe this stuff?

(...shakes head, walks away...)

[qam1]

Frankly, with all due respect to the effort of your post, I think it would need a lot more analysis and data to prove anything.

And what, you don't think scientist have analyzed this before?

Is that a skull of a red panda or a one of the other species of pandas? In order to compare the teeth accurately, wouldn't you need to be looking at the picture from the same angle or examining an actual skull? I mention this because from the pictures in your post, I can't see that the molars for the panda (of whatever type it is) are any more or less sharp than the ones for the lion or the wolf.

You can't be serious, But here is a close up shots of the molars (Yes it's a Red Panda)

Red Panda

Wolf
If you want a shot of a wolf jaw in the same angle as my first picture of the Panda go here http://www.naturalworlds.org/wolf/moretopics/wolf_skull.htm (It won't let me post pictures from their site)

It appears that the panda picture you provided shows it to have quite sharp incisors. Why would it need those if it was a herbivore?

Holding the food, intimidation, fighting

Incisors & the Canine can have other uses, but in determining if the animal is a herbivore vs carnivore doesn't matter because you don't chew with them (try it yourself, try and chew with yours).

With regards to your pictures of the skulls of the insectivore bat and the fruit bat - not to be picky but these shots do not indicate much in the way of a radical difference between the two, do they?

Look again, The fruit bat clearly has more flatter molars than the carnivore

With regards to your comment about 'Why does a cheetah need sharp claws and blazing speed? To run down a pumpkin?' - my question for you is, does this show evidence for evolution or special creation? If God knew that a particular animal would need certain characteristics at some point in the future, wouldn't he create it with those?

Evolution

1) A Cheetah would have starved waiting around for Adam to eat the apple

2) What about the Cheetah's extinct ancestores Miracinonyx inexpectatus, Acinonyx intermedius, Acinonyx pardinensis?

They are heavier and while they were fast, they didn't have the Cheetah's blazing speed.

Evolution wise they make sense as they in the transitional form would have been fit for the times they lived in. Creationism/ID wise they make no sense because if they were created along side of today's cheetahs and other modern big cats they wouldn't be able to compete and would go quickly extinct. So why would God bother to create such piss-poor cheetahs in the first place when he/she/it already had a good one?  

[LiteKeeper]

But guess what - none of them have sprouted wings. We are asking about how the first life can give birth to both plant and animal life. Not how bacteria became uber-bacteria.

[jim_trent]

You are right. None of them have sprouted wings in 17 years. But, life has been around a lot longer than that -- even if you believe everything was created 4,000 years ago.