New Dinosaur Species Found in India

and I can't believe she is casting her pearls before swine.

Could you please tell me what that phrase means? I've seen it all my life and I still don't know what the heck it's supposed to mean. (Let alone where it came from.)

It does not matter what I post, your group will either scream "bad science" or "bad credentials" or "bad source".

If the shoe fits... :-)

But since you mention "bad credentials", I don't remember any "evos" on this thread making a big deal about credentials, either way. In my experience creationists put a much heavier emphasis on credentials than "evos" do -- probably for the reason you alluded to earlier, having to do with "I can't analyze this myself, so I'll rely on someone who seems to be an authority".

In science, actually, credentials will help you get a job (since they indicate that you've at least had enough education to be exposed to a lot of information), but pretty much don't mean squat when it comes to getting your ideas accepted or not. And since PhD's are a dime a dozen in the science community, degrees lose a lot of their ability to impress. This is especially true when you've met enough PhD's to learn that having gone to school long enough to get an advanced degree doesn't necessarily mean someone isn't a real idiot or kook. And even the non-idiot, non-kook variety can make mistakes like anyone else.

So when you list two pages of someone's credentials, don't be surprised if we all say, "So? That doesn't prove he must be right." In science, the quality of the evidence and the argument are everything -- not the reputation of the guy presenting them. Einstein was working as a patent clerk when he developed the theory of Relativity. That was no hurdle for the acceptance of his theory, because it was solid. Meanwhile, the guys who published the "cold fusion" paper were PhD's, and their work quickly fell apart under scrutiny.

Credentials are *no* measure of correctness.

Here are some examples of the latter (incidentally, not all are young earth creationists, they just disagree with the prevailing "knowledge" of evolution):

EXHIBIT A: Michael Behe: [snip long paragraph of credentials]

Again, credentials really don't matter, but I would like to point out one amusing bit of "resume puffery" in Behe's credentials: "Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by [...] over one hundred other periodicals." Um, okay... First, the number of periodicals a book has been "reviewed by" is less a measure of its value than its publicity. Second, this fails to point out that a large number of those reviews were negative, characterizing DBB's core thesis as fundamentally flawed (and identifying many of Behe's claims as simply false).

RESPONSE TO BEHE ON THIS THREAD:

First, let's look at how you originally introduced Behe into the thread: "They are also irreducibly complex, which Michael Behe deals with extensively in Darwin's Black Box." It's not like you presented much evidence or argument, you just made a claim (that some [unspecified] "things" were irreducibly complex) and waved Behe's book as your sole support. That wasn't much of an argument, you didn't even bother to describe Behe's thesis, and you rested your claim entirely on the fact that a book "deals with" the subject. I could point out that a lot of books "deal with" evolution, but that doesn't really say or prove or add much to the discussion either, does it? So before you imply that we rejected your evidence or argument by rejecting the source, let me point out that you didn't actually *present* any. The fact that Behe wrote a book is not an argument.

Now on to the replies:

Post 1157:Most scientists look at Behe as a joke, and I have to say that I agree with them. Irreducibly Complex? Come on, give me a fricking break. When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness. Behe was lazy, pure and simple, or ignorant, take your pick.

This may be blunt, but it's an example of the "been there done that" attitude I mentioned in an earlier post. Behe's work has been out for several years now, and has been hashed over extensively. He's saying that Behe's thesis has been thoroughly examined already, and has been found wanting. I would agree. He even gives you a condensed version of the core flaw in Behe's thesis when he writes, "When you are ignorant of the cause, to say Goddidit is the ultimate in laziness." The point that Behe's central thesis is, basically, if Behe can't figure out how something could have evolved, then it must have been designed. This is an example of the "fallacy of the appeal to ignorance", which is the class of logical errors of the form, "if we can't think of how X could happen, it must be impossible." There are many more specific objections to Behe's book, but that's the central one in a nutshell.

From Post 1167: Then lonely little Behe doesn't help you with his credentials or his tiny little handful of ID brothers.

That was not a point against Behe, it was a response to a different point you made.

Post 1200:I've attended one of Behe's presentations on ID. Behe may or may not be a joke, but his presentation was.

This wasn't a response or rebuttal to any claim you made, it was a response to the comment in #1157 about Behe being a "joke". The poster in #1200 was agreeing by relating his personal experience.

So again, you didn't really present an argument, but you did mention Behe, so a few people were prompted to talk about him. This is not a good example of where you allegedly presented an argument or evidence and it was dismissed merely by bashing the source.

Exhibit B: Dr. David Menton

[snip resume again]

Strangely, though I have mentioned him several times, there is hardly any commentary at all (if any) about the work presented by Menton on this thread.

I'm sorry, weren't you trying to present this as an example of evolutionists discounting evidence using an excuse of "bad source"? How exactly does the fact that no one got around to discussing Menton support your claim?

Responses regarding Dr. Damadian on this thread:

You implied that Damadian single-handedly invented the MRI. People pointed out that there was a lot of ongoing dispute about that. What does any of that have to do with evolution?

Now, I post something from a website where the person does have some knowledge of science, but may not have the credentials you desire (i.e., he isn't an evolutionist), and you dismiss what he has to say as lacking authority.

*Where* have we allegedly done what you describe? Your above three examples don't fit your allegation.

I don't know why I should bother posting ANYTHING to you all any more because if it is not evolutionist you aren't going to accept it.

We'll accept it if it makes a good case. If you think we have unfairly dismissed an actual argument or evidence, please point it out. But mentioning that Behe wrote a book, or that Damadian was involved in the the MRI, isn't an argument or evidence. And failure to address Menton's links is no kind of dismissal, it seems to have just gotten lost in the flood of posts and dozen+ links that were flying around. We can't address everything if there's too much to focus on, which is exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.

exactly why I suggested making a "project" out of selected items.

How about taking the Grand Canyon as a 'project'? I know stuff has been posted already, but it's been pretty fragmented and lost amonst all the other posts. Creationists have written a fair amount on the subject, so literature shouldn't be a problem from that side.

For those who are listening. If you want a list (that purports to be pretty accurate, and to my knowledge is darn close if not completely accurate) of those who doubt Darwinism (not all creationists mind you) then peruse the credentials of some of those found Here

Ahem. It's nice that you seem pretty confident of it, but I'm troubled by the fact that as I glanced down the list looking for names I recognized, the VERY FIRST one that jumped out at me was bogus. It was:

57. Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) as seen in his address to the American Museum of Natural History (Nov. 5, 1981).

This is a well-known example of dishonest quoting (2) (3) by creationists. Patterson was quoted out of context and then cited it to "show" that Patterson was "admitting" a lack of evidence for evolution. But when asked about the context of the quote, Patterson confirmed that he was not denying evolution and that "the creationists' [interpretation] is false".

Here's a quote from one of Patterson's books -- does this sound like an evolution-denier to you?

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

That doesn't give me much confidence in the rest of the list, especially since the Patterson misquote was debunked in 1993. It also doesn't bode well that many creationist websites are still using it...

This does not mean that these people are creationists. Some are, many are not. But it does go to show that the science is less universally accepted than proposed.

A list of a few hundred people who have expressed some kind of question about evolution is hardly proof that it's widely rejected. And that web page is engaging in a huge straw man when it claims:

"The claim is often made that few or no legitimate scientists or academics have any real doubts about the validity of Darwinism, naturalistic theories of the origins of life, or believe in the real scientific possiblity of Intelligent Design of life or the universe."

Horse manure. No such overblown claim is "often made" that "few or no" scientists have doubts about evolution, etc. Everyone knows that there are quite a few such people. But they are still a small minority.

Meanwhile, in a winking parody of such "people who reject evolution" lists, there's the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which includes *only* scientists by the name of Steve or some variation of Steve (Stephanie, etc.) who have voluntarily signed onto this specific statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The "list of Steves" is currently at 375 and growing. So the number of scientists named Steve who support evolution is nearly as large as the creationist list of EVERYONE they could dig up who question it. And like the Patterson example, I'm not sure the creationist list is all that accurate, and it includes people who accept most of evolution but have expressed concerns only about certain parts, like Behe.

Also, since the name Steve or some variation only makes up about 1% of the population according to Census statistics, the Project Steve list statistically represents 37,500 scientists who would sign on to support evolution if the name restriction were removed.

Furthermore, Project Steve has not been widely publicized, many more would surely join if they heard about it. Meanwhile, the creationist list appears to have been formed by straining to qualify as many as they possibly could find, including entire membership rosters of organizations presumed to be creationist, without actually having each member explicitly agree to their support of such a position.

Finally, about two thirds of the Steves supporting evolution are biologists. Biologists are much farther and fewer between on the creationist list.

You see, the strongest absolute in your minds is that science can not be wrong. That the presuppositions which scientists use when examining the evidence can't be biased. That "evolutionary science" is infallible.

Please point out where you think we have actually said any of these things.

Genetics is one of the strongest enemies AGAINST evolution, not for it.

Please present your evidence.

There is evidence for a young earth and the creationist theories are valid.

Pick some and show us.

You all don't seem to be willing to admit, even to yourselves, that evolutionary presuppositions could be wrong.

Sure they could. Now show us some evidence that they are.

Others have been fired for teaching creation, even at the University level. The field is not open for ideas.

"The field" is open. Classrooms, however, are not "the field".

I can make the case that evolution presents its claims as infallible truths. It doesn't say "scientists believe (or even some scientists believe which is more accurate)" it says "such and such millions of years ago such and such happened."

Oh, come on... That's not a claim of "infallible truth", that's knowing that the reader will understand the claim to be "according to the best evidence and knowledge we currently have, unless and until something comes along to refine our knowledge, we have reason to believe that so many million years ago etc." Surely you understand that it would be unwieldy, to say the least, to put such a "disclaimer" the start of every declarative sentence which deals with any sort of scientific knowledge.

Evolution also never changes towards a younger planet,

Because there's no credible evidence that the Earth is younger, but plenty that it is as old as we believe it to be.

but molds its data to an older planet model

Because that's where the evidence leads us.

and explains away anything that doesn't fit that mold.

More accurately, it discards any suggested explanations that don't fit the data.

It rests on assumptions which it considers to be infallible, such as the ages in geological column

Please document that anyone considers the geologic column, or anything else in science, to be "infallible". As opposed, say, to extremely well supported by the evidence.

and won't even consider the possibility of alternate theories which do not support old ages.

Sure, we'll consider it. But it's going to have to explain *all* the evidence better than the current views. Good luck on that.

I complain that it is unfair to have my sources completely discounted at every turn because of their creationist leanings.

I don't see that that has happened here.

I have seen people express their opinions, learned through long experience, that creationist sources are often flawed, but that's a different thing than what you describe.

I admit I do not have the formal training to counter these "specialists" however, I do have a brain in my head that tells me Darwinian evolution is not universally accepted even by non-creationists,

So? I can't think of any concept that is "universally accepted", including "the Earth is not flat".

I can't show those who are blind and deaf to the evidence a thing.

Funny, we feel the same way. :-)

I have presented many reasons for my arguments. You all choose to say that I have produced no evidence.

"Reasons" are not evidence. I've seen a lot of "this seems reasonable (or unreasonable) to me", which are "reasons", but not evidence.

The evidence says Evolution's claims are wrong as this thread attests.

Hm?

The fossil record does NOT support evolution.

Yes, it does. Please explain why you think it does not.

Pangea is a fairy tail (why shrink Africa 40%

Africa has not shrunk 40%. The links you provided to show that it did were based on differing planar map projections, which cause different kinds of distortions.

and get rid of a lot of countries in between North and South America if Pangea were true.

Changing sea levels cause coastlines to change at different times, plus continental regions do stretch, compress, and bend. That's where mountains and other kinds of features come from.

It is a theory of what may have occurred and has been discredited).

Discredited in what way, by what evidence?

When mutation occurs, it is usually detrimental to the creature

Even so, natural selection quickly weeds detrimental mutations out of the population, while the less common beneficial mutations accumulate in the population over time.

and it certainly doesn't cause it to jump into an entirely different type of animal (reptile to bird, etc).

The fossils and DNA evidence contradict you on that.

By the way, there are continental shelves surrounding the continents and land bridges that could explain how people got from point A to point B.

How (and why) did the kangaroos and other Australian marsupials walk from Noah's Ark to Australia, and why did they all go there and nowhere else?

How about the New Zealand fauna? It's way the heck out in the ocean by itself, that must have been an impressive land bridge.

[Be advised, if you pick a single point and successfully defend it, that success will be marginalized and called meaningless]

No fair, old chap - touchdown dances are for after you actually score ;)

Also be advised, the first sentence above appears to be an attempt to trollishly "poison the well" by trying to convince DittoJed2 that she shouldn't even bother actually discussing the evidence because it would be a waste of her time. It looks like a case of "pay no attention to the man [evidence] behind the curtain..."

"No, don't even talk to those evolutionists, I implore you" seems to be the subtext. One must wonder if someone is afraid that DittoJed2 might actually learn something, and is trying to prevent it.

[and I can't believe she is casting her pearls before swine.]

Could you please tell me what that phrase means? I've seen it all my life and I still don't know what the heck it's supposed to mean. (Let alone where it came from.)

It's from the Bible:

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

The meaning is pretty clear, it's talking about the futility of presenting precious things to those entirely unable to appreciate them (like giving pearls to pigs).

How (and why) did the kangaroos and other Australian marsupials walk from Noah's Ark to Australia, and why did they all go there and nowhere else?

How about the New Zealand fauna? It's way the heck out in the ocean by itself, that must have been an impressive land bridge.

LOL!! Remember, there's nothing more implausible than humans and apes sharing a common ancestor.
If you acknowledge this fact, coming up with "hydroplate" theories or scenarios where animals walk back to their original habitat from mount Ararat in a devastated world, is not really a problem.

All sorts of mutations seem to have limits within the species and they stop and go no further.

From post 1779:
3)How evolutionary scientists can continue to claim that species develop into new and completely different types of species (I'm talking the big leaps over large amounts of time from say ape to human), when this kind of mutation of genetic material has never been observed ...

Two posts of yours discuss the same issue ... the presumed limit on the mutation process (a blocking mechanism) which confines all of nature to mirco-evolution while preventing macro-evolution. This is a rebuttal of that notion I posted nearly 2 years ago:

One might argue that the fossil record, starting with simple forms and progressing over time to apparently related yet ever-more mutated variations, powerfully illustrates the non-existence of such a "blocking mechanism." But even though it seems not to exist, we should keep an open mind. If such a blocking mechanism actually does exist, let's not worry too much that it hasn't been found yet, because these things take time. Yet, if we are ever to actually find such a mechanism, it's still necessary to propose an hypothesis as to what it might be, so that we know what to search for.

Think about it. The blocking mechanism has to be something that strictly limits the number of mutations in all of a creature's genes that might otherwise occur over time. The mechanism would need to keep track of how many variations had already occured (from some "standard model" which is memorized somehow) and then guard against any more. What is the nature of this mechanism? Is it a radiation shield to prevent background radiation from altering the DNA? Is it a "perfect copy" mechanism that suddenly prevents DNA from faulty replications? How would it work? How could we test for it? Do we find some "already maximum mutated" creature and zap them with radiation to discover the "DNA shield" that has suddenly manifested itself to make the creature "mutation proof"? Does such a mechanism make any sense, now that I've discussed a very few of its problems?

Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animal

Can you give me an example of this? Humans aren't a very good example; we do not differ very much from chimpanzees, either in a genetic sense or in a morphological sense. It's easy to find ants that are more different from each other than humans are from chimps, and yet I'm sure you have no trouble saying that all ants are of the same "kind".

What does nature use as the boundary between different "kinds"? How can we define it objectively? I am not trying to play "gotcha", here: I really am trying to understand what you mean. Clearly, "primates" are not a "kind", in your estimation, let alone "mammals", "vertebrates", "animals", or "eukaryotes". You said something about "families" before, but surely these are artificial definitions made for human convenience, and not natural boundaries.

Okay, I think I see where some of your misconceptions are originating. It helps to think of a species as a cloud of dots clustered around a central point we'll call "Norm." Those dots closer to the center (and there will be more of them -- the cloud gets denser toward the center) are closer to Norm. Those toward the outer edge are not as close to Norm, and have a bit more genetic differences (mutations) than the folks toward the center. Life in the fringes is pretty rough, but it does exist. Now, shift Norm either right or left. The folks on the fringes in that direction are now closer to Norm than they were. The folks on the opposite end are really far away from Norm now, and will most likely disappear quickly. The folks that were once in the center are now on the fringe. Within a few generations however, the cloud will reform with Norm at its center.

Okay, now take a line and draw it straight through the middle of Norm so that half the cloud is on one side and half the cloud is on the other. You now have two Norms. Move the right hand Norm to the right a hair and move the left hand Norm to the left a hair. Wait for the populations to cluster around them again. Repeat the process. After a bit, there will be no members of either cloud capable of hooking up (overlapping) with any members of the other cloud. Ta Da, you have speciation. Continue farther, splitting up the new clouds every so often and you'll discover the farthest right-hand cloud has very little in common with the farthest left-hand cloud (think dogs and bears).

Speciation doesn't happen to individuals, it happens to populations.

Not intelligence... knowledge. There is a major difference.

Noli Illegitimi Carborundum.
Mechanisms exist within cells that correct various mutations. This can be demonstrated by a stretch of DNA associated with Vitamin C and used as an argument for the common descent of humans and other primates. The peculiar thing about this DNA stretch is that there are regions within it that have absolutely no mutations amongst animals that have been separated by over 50 million years(or 100 million both way years). That range of time is nearly 10 percent of the time since "complex" animals first appeared on the earth. This indicates that whatever causes the fidelity of those regions is a reliable process. The point being there is a reliable process that limits change.

And by challenging the majority view in biology (accepted by over 98% of biologists, according to at least one poll), you're facing off indirectly against a few hundred thousand more scientists. So if you feel outnumbered, it's because you set out to claim that you're right and they (along with all their millions of pieces of evidence and millions of studies) are all wrong. That's a big job you've taken on.

Yes, it's the YECs against the world, and it's not just in biology. The YECs have trouble with the rest of the world's geology, astronomy, paleontology, cosmology, nuclear chemistry (so far as it supports an old universe), etc. One need only look at the list of issues presented in 1375. None of its points address anything Darwin ever said or thought in his life or much of anything in biology.

There is no astounding discovery to rescue the YECs from this hopeless position. Something that overturns all of biology won't do it. Something that overturns all of astronomy won't do it. Something that revolutionizes cosmology won't do it. Something that revolutionizes geology won't do it.

They have to pull the impossible revolution in biology, then they have to do it in geology, then they have to do it in astronomy, then they have to do it in nuclear chemistry, then they have to do it in cosmology ...

Incidentally, one disclosure you should know. As I have claimed all along, I am not impartial to this particular argument. Even if you come up with answers to these questions which I am unable to refute, it does not mean I'm suddenly going to say "oh, creationists are bad scientists." throw up my hands and admit evolution to be true. The reason for this is that my authority is higher than that of modern science. It is the Word of God.

Gee! I'd have never guessed this was going on! </sarcasm>