>
>
> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <brnqra$2r2$1@news.onet.pl>, piorokrat@autograf.pl wrote...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>wiadomoci news:brmtke$1cc$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>[snip all but a few interesting bits]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The passover, for instance, is an eternal metaphor, but it also
> >>>
> > literally
> >
> >>>happned happened in the time of Joseph.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Joseph? For a guy who supposedly bases all his beliefs on the bible, you
> >>sure don't seem to know your scripture.
> >>
> >
> > Moses, of course. Sorry about that, I just thought 'Egypt'.
> >
> >
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Is your belief in creationism and "kinds" based solely on your reading
> >>>>of scriptures, or do you think there is scientific evidence for it as
> >>>>well? Could any form of non-scriptural evidence ever change your mind?
> >>>>
> >>>It was the absence of fossils for Corydoras, except for one single
> >>>
> > perfect
> >
> >>>specimen I held in my hands that first startled me into asking
> >>>
> > questions.
> >
> >>
> >>Thus is revealed the folly of drawing global conclusions from a single
> >>genus of fish.
> >
> > It's a case.
>
>
> Ah, but a case of what? The fossil record is not compatible with a
> global flood, and if you looked beyond Corydoras, you would see that. Or
> maybe you wouldn't. This is a common creationist failing, looking only
> at the evidence that (they think) supports their case while ignoring all
> other evidence. Science just doesn't let you do that. You are a bit
> worse, because you use your omphalism to "explain" anything incompatible
> with old earth and evolution.
>
Okay, How many fossil hoatzins are there, other than the Bavarian
Archaeopteryx?
> >>>That and the way I observed scientists frantically filling in out of
> >>>
> > their
> >
> >>>own imaginations the bits the fossil record didn't give them.
> >>>
> >>
> >>This observation is mostly a figment of your imagination.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have come to the conclusion that most of those dinosaur skeletons we
> >>>
> > see
> >
> >>>in museums are rarely more than a few bones, with the rest being models
> >>>
> > that
> >
> >>>are used to show where they think the bones came from. Ignorant people
> >>>
> > think
> >
> >>>the whole thing is a fossil.
> >>>
> >>
> >>This conclusion, like most of your conclusions, is wrong. Many dinosaur
> >>skeletons are substantially complete. Generally the only reconstruction
> >>going on is to assume that, for example, the left coracoid is a mirror
> >>image of the right coracoid, or that a vertebra looks much like the
> >>vertebrae to front and back of it. Many skeletons have the reconstructed
> >>parts color coded, if you look for them.
> >
> > They do, but only so that those in the know realise it.
>
>
> That sounds a bit paranoid. Are you alleging a conspiracy to conceal the
> truth from the public?
>
The whole atheist world is like one big conspiracy against believers, from
what I can tell.
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Indeed, but in the fossil record we see big gaps, which is very
> >>>>>
> > telling.
> >
> >>>>Not really very telling, since there's no reason at all to think the
> >>>>currently-known fossil record contains all of the organisms [or all of
> >>>>the species] that ever lived. And there are plenty of striking
> >>>>"transitional intermediates" in many of the most interesting "gaps" in
> >>>>the modern biological world. We have very clear "fish/amphibian",
> >>>>"reptile/bird", "reptile/mammal", "land-mammal/whale", "ape/human"
> >>>>intermediate fossils, for example [Acanthostega, Archaeopteryx,
> >>>>therapsids, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus... (hmmm, looks like I need
> >>>>to look up some cynodont therapsid starting with "A")].
> >>>>
> >>>Archeopteryx is in my view a hoatzin.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Your view is insupportable. Archaeopteryx is no more like a hoatzin than
> >>it is like any other modern bird, except for the claws on the wings of
> >>juvenile hoatzin. You might as well say that Corydora is a Gasterosteus
> >>because they both have bony plates in the skin.
> >
> > That is outrageous.
> >
> > The sticklebacks are more closely related to the seahorses than to the
> > Siluriformes.
>
> >
>
> > The lay out of the plates is completely different, but the bone
structure of
> > the head is what really gives it away.
> >
> > And I never saw a catfish with more than one dorsal spine.
>
>
> Precisely. One could list a similar set of problems with considering
> Archaeopteryx a hoatzin. Only your ignorance of ornithology lets you do
> something you would never consider with regard to fish.
Why is archaeopteryx not a hoatzin?
>
> By the way, what's this about sticklebacks being "related" to anything,
> and about the existence of Siluriformes? I thought there were lots of
> separate kinds, unrelated to each other, in your view.
>
I'm not against Linnaean systematics, but I do not consider the 'relation'
to reflect a common ancestor that ever lived and walked the planet. They are
related in a metaphorical way. Some people like the Bible, admire it, and
treat it as a metaphor, so I can do the same with Karl von Linne, if I feel
like it.
> >>Is your view based on anything rational? Anything at all?
> >
> >
> > http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/200001/0173.html
>
>
> Everything in this article is nonsense. Please look at a skeleton of
> Opisthocomus hoazin and compare it to Archaeopteryx. If they were fish,
> I guarantee you wouldn't confuse them.
But that article was published in a scientific journal!
Shocked I tell you!
>
> > I hereby rename the single fossil of Archaeopteryx, your holotype for
the
> > so-called missing link between reptiles and birds 'Opisthocomus
revelatus'.
>
>
> Which single fossil? There are, currently, 8 specimens.
>
> Archaeopteryx has a long, bony tail. Opisthocomus has a pygostyle.
> Archaeopteryx has teeth. Opisthocomus does not.
> Archaeopteryx has three separate digits in the hand. Opisthocomus has a
> fused carpometacarpus and reduced, fused digits.
> Archaeopteryx has no keeled sternum. Opisthocomus has a keeled sternum,
> though the keel is smaller than in most other flying birds.
> I could go on and on with this, but in general, Archaeopteryx resembles
> other dinosaurs, while Opisthocomus resembles other modern birds.
>
How can you be sure Archaeopteryx has no keeled sternum?
> OK, the juveniles have claws on their wings. So? This is another case in
> which you consider one piece of the data in isolation, and ignore all
> the other data that contradict your pet theory.
It's shaped like a hoatzin, it looks liek a hoatzin, if you ask an
amerindian what it is, they'll tell you it's a hoatzin, not a lizard.
>
> >>>Ambulocetus has very few fossils, and the fossils are not complete, and
> >>>
> > the
> >
> >>>same goes for Australopithecus.
> >>>
> >>>What is the intermediary on either side of Ambulocetus?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Anthracotheres on one side and Pakicetus on the other. But of course
> >>this raises the familiar creationist version of Zeno's paradox: each
> >>intermediate fossil discovery creates two new gaps that can be
questioned.
> >
> > The gaps are very big in this case.
>
>
> Not so big as you claim. You are out of date.
There's another thread going on in talk.origins that isn't cross-posted,
something about renaming the group, where Pakicetus is being claimed not
even to be an early cetacean.
>
> > Horses in comparison can afford to eat, drink and be merychippus.
> >
> >
> >>How many fossils does it take to recognize the characteristics of a
> >>species? Why isn't one good enough? Are you saying you can ignore a
> >>fossil if it's missing a big toe?
> >
> > Well most of them seem to be missing absolutely all of their DNA, which
> > would seem a more serious problem for the evidence.
>
>
> Why? It would be nice if fossils had DNA, but why not make use of the
> evidence that's there rather than concentrate on what isn't? The bones
> have a lot of information in them, and living organisms have plenty of
> DNA to inform us about their relationships.
>
> >>>Why did Basilosaurus
> >>>not survive? Where are the intermediary fossils for the evolution of
the
> >>>'melon' in toothed whales?
> >>
> >>We don't know why Basilosaurus didn't survive, but then again I don't
> >>know of any other surviving genus of Eocene mammals either. Mammal
> >>species tend to last for a couple million years at most, and genera for
> >>10 million years or so. Extinction happens, and evolution continues to
> >>replace extinct species with new ones.
> >>
> >>How does all this discussion of evidence fit with your omphalism, by the
> >>way? I thought you said the world looked old, based on any physical
> >>evidence.
> >
> > I am, however, attempting to posit that the world did not get created
with
> > fossils in it, but that such fossils and oil and a lot of other things
came
> > out of the catastrophe, and the post catastrophic residual drift and the
> > salination of the seas.
>
> >
> > Prior to the fall there was no death in the world, and so there could
not
> > have been fossils. I have to posit fossils as Flood phenomena for my
version
> > of Umfolozi to be a real stand up Umfolozi. I'm not gonna go down the
route
> > of suggesting there were fossils there. That's not a navel, that would
be a
> > contradiction. Gosse, if he did that, might have been able to blame the
> > unfortunate reaction his views received on the point.
>
>
> By the way, calling things by silly names ("Umfolozi" for "omphalism)")
> just makes it harder for people to figure out what you're talking about
> and makes you seem like a teenager talking baby talk. Which for all I
> know you are, but it's not pleasant to read.
>
Well, I'm sorry to have brought any individual style into this high
scientific debate. For what it's worth I'm forty, with five kids. Teenagers
don't talk baby talk, parents do.
> > I have said clearly in these here posts of mine that I see fossils as a
> > Flood phenomenon.
> >
> > Hence I am arguing about fossils despite being an umfolozian.
> >
> > If you can force me into doing a rethink, I'll do a rethink.
>
>
> Are you willing to examine the actual evidence, rather than what you
> think the evidence ought to be? Because it's clear from all the evidence
> that the earth is billions of years old, that life is billions of years
> old too, and that there is a geologic column, containing all the
> fossils, that ranges over billions of years too. In order to maintain
> your viewpoint, you have to reject not only evolutionary biology, but
> geology and physics too. And of course you have to ignore the
> information we have from DNA sequences.
>
I'll look at the evidence of DNA sequences in fossils, sure.
And anything else that could possibly be conclusive proof that omphalism is
a philosophical non-starter.
At the moment all we have is that a man named Gosse bit the bullet and had
to take a lot of flack from all sides for it.
Which is to say, he was probably was right, there must be fifty ways to be
an omphalist.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|