Ed

Actually this doesn't help your case doov. Basically what they are saying is that these snakes have not evolved in 65 million years! They are just like the snakes that lived in the Cretaceous. They maybe one the original snake "kinds".

Ed

No, they just made some unwarranted assumptions about the perspective of the scriptures.

Quote:

lp: And do we have to believe in astrology and alchemy because Kepler believed in astrology and Newton believed in alchemy? Does Ed reject the Trinity because Newton had done so?

These men were just great theistic scientists not infallible gods.
They made their share of mistakes.

Quote:

lp: Have Bacon and Newton and Boyle induced Ed to become an Anglican/Episcopalian? Has Kepler induced Ed to become a Lutheran? Have Copernicus and Galileo induced Ed to become a Catholic?

All of those denominations accepted the core teachings of Christianity which were essential for the development of experimental science.

Quote:

Ed: Actually the existence of God is the most rational claim for the cause of the universe. Which god?

Guess.

Duvenoy

If you read the article carefully, you'll see the key words are, "more closely resemble." Transitional fossils, hmmm? There are some somewhere for snakes. It's just a matter of finding them.

This might turn out to be a daunting task. Most ancient snakes are known from fossil vertebra, skull fragments, and teeth. Due to their delicatcy, snakes just don't fossilize well.

Serpents, like every other form of life on this bruised and battered planet have indeed evolved over the last 16m years. I wonder at what point they developed duvernoy's organ and the incredable fangs, many of them, the very longist, folding back and swinging out like switch-blades, to inject it's venom.

Damn. How long ago did I post that article, anyway? Ed, you're gettin' slow, bro.

Hmm. My 1,000th post. Have I now officially qualified for the No Life Club?

doov

lpetrich

Ed on geocentrist theologians:
No, they just made some unwarranted assumptions about the perspective of the scriptures.

Whatever those alleged "assumptions" are supposed to be.

Ed clearly interprets away any part of the Bible he dislikes, like the flat-earth and geocentric parts.

(Kepler on astrology, Newton on alchemy and the Trinity...)
These men were just great theistic scientists not infallible gods. They made their share of mistakes.

But these are supposed to be superior beings.

I note also that Ed rejects Galileo's view that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

(Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran)
All of those denominations accepted the core teachings of Christianity which were essential for the development of experimental science.

That's beside the point. Why aren't you converting to any of these?

Also, what Ed calls "Christianity" might best be called Eddianity. Which he projects onto anyone he likes.

And Ed fails to address the question of why science got restarted in northwestern Europe centuries after Constantine made Xtianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. If Xtianity is such a superscientific religion, then the Byzantine Empire would have developed modern science long ago.

Ed

There is only one. And He is not an effect so therefore does not need a cause or creator.

Nickle

haha

"What caused the universe to exist?"

"Zeus, and he doesn't need a cause, so don't ask."

Just because you define a creator with the properties of not needing a cause doesn't solve any problems. Someone can just come along and define the universe in such the same slapdash way and walk away without the middleman.

Ed

No, the website dealing with the Kow Swamp fossils where Dr. Peter Brown is interviewed shows that H. erectus was living as recently as 12,000 years ago in Australia and interbred with H. sapiens. And in fact present day Australian aborigines may be direct descendants of H. "erectus".

Quote:

lp: Also H. erectus did not have much of an artistic muse -- there are no cave paintings that can reasonably be attributed to H. erectus.

Why not given that they lived with H. sapiens? see above.

Quote:

Ed: there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines. lp: Such species as H. erectus and H. habilis nicely bridge the gap.

No, homo erectus is 100% human see above and there are the other big gaps, ie the movement forward of the foramen magnum and the other changes from facultative bipedalism to obligate bipedalism.

Quote:

Ed: And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers. How so? Ambulocetus and the like have rather big "claspers".

I was referring to Basilosaurus, not Ambulocetus, it has other problems.

lpetrich

Ed:
No, the website dealing with the Kow Swamp fossils where Dr. Peter Brown is interviewed shows that H. erectus was living as recently as 12,000 years ago in Australia and interbred with H. sapiens. And in fact present day Australian aborigines may be direct descendants of H. "erectus".

However, this page shows that that claim is just plain wrong. Dr. Peter Brown claims that the Kow Swamp fossils are not far from the Australian-Aboriginal range.

I wonder where His Eddianness go the idea that Dr. Brown had thought otherwise -- some creationist site with lots of out-of-context quotes?

And here is more on the H. erectus - H. sapiens question.

No, homo erectus is 100% human see above and there are the other big gaps, ie the movement forward of the foramen magnum and the other changes from facultative bipedalism to obligate bipedalism.

Except that the australopithecines were more humanlike than what His Eddianness seems to believe.

Jack the Bodiless

Earlier, on the thread in GRD, you attempted to argue that the Australopithecines were apes because the foramen magnum was at the rear, rather than the base, of the skull.

You were wrong. The australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the base of the skull.

...So what is your position now? Why are you still mentioning the foramen magnum?

Do you now regard the australopithecines as "fully human" due to the position of the foramen magnum? Their brains were no larger than chimp brains!

Humans are descended from (other) apes. This is a scientific fact, and we have the transitional fossils to prove it. A lack of pre-australopithecine fossils does nothing to help your cause, because you must accept that the australopithecines weren't human: creationists call them "apes", but they were bipedal apes.

Do you accept that we have a complete range of transitional forms between bipedal apes and bipedal humans?

If not: where is the gap?

Jack the Bodiless

As the other thread has finally been mercy-killed, I'll transfer the evolution-related stuff here.
Fraid so.
Incorrect. There are at least TWO explanations that I'm aware of. One, that the evolution of the Hox genes made it easy for diverse body plans to appear at this stage. Two, that the formation of hard body parts (and, hence, more fossils) became easier due to a change in the chemical composition of seawater at this time. Both could be correct, of course.

Besides, the Cambrian explosion doesn't help the cause of Biblical creationism anyhow (not even the Old-Earth variety). Not a single creature mentioned in the Bible appeared in the Cambrian explosion: no mammals, no birds, no reptiles, no fish, no land plants, no insects, nothing at all. Every single creature in the Bible evolved much later. The Cambrian explosion does not fit with any of the Genesis "days".
Why should there be any transitions between bilateral and radial symmetry? I think it's highly unlikely that ANY scientist believes that either evolved from the other! Both evolved independently from unsymmetric creatures (which still exist).

You obviously need to learn MUCH more about evolution!