WW,
Your latest post has me so exasperated and befuddled, I honestly am starting to question why I do this. I've been at this forum for a couple of years now, and it's just the same ridiculous pattern over and over and over, and truthfully, I think it's starting to give me a really ingrained terrible impression of fundamentalist/conservative/right wing Christians. Allow me to demonstrate why...
Wormwood said:
So, again, the idea that the pelvic bones of a whale which are used for reproduction were once used for walking (or maybe walking and reproduction simultaneously!?) is not based in any science. There is no science to show that these bones once served another purpose.
Are....you.....serious? No science at all? None? Not one scrap of data from fossils, embryos, genetics, existing Cetaceans, or anything else?
I just don't know what to say. It's one thing for someone like you to say you don't agree with the science being done, but to say it doesn't even exist? That's so delusional, I don't know how to respond. Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to a mentally ill person. What else explains someone being shown multiple lines of research, and immediately responding that it doesn't exist? What else do you say to such a person?
The structure has a completely functional and meaningful use and the fact that textbooks taught these bones were once legs is not science in any way, shape or form. There is nothing to suggest this to be true, other than the demand to meet the need of the overarching hypothesis that must be maintained at all costs.
And now you invoke a global, centuries old conspiracy theory, as if earth and life scientists for the last 150 years have deliberately "maintained at all costs" a false theory because........? So basically your position is that there's absolutely no science behind whale evolution, and what science seems to be there is actually just part of the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Again, how do you respond to something like that? Is it even
possible to have a rational discussion with someone who's this irrational? I don't see how.
Moreover, it was once assumed that "junk DNA" was also the result of evolutionary processes and that those elements of the DNA were no longer very useful because of the evolution of the cells to change functions. We now know that is not the case.
And now you're doing the exact same thing with yet another topic!
I just dont think it is right to determine which theories are allowed to be tested and which are to be shouted down as "not science" or not factual. The scientific findings show if a theory is plausible or not. We dont need people like you telling someone that they have no right to postulate about a particular theory because the theory itself is outside the confines of science. Most breakthroughs have been made in science because someone decided to reject the assumptions of the scientific community of the day and consider something different.
Here's another frustrating part of your post. I specifically asked you to explain how I, or any other scientist, is stopping creationists from researching and studying whatever they want. You completely ignored that, and just repeated your accusation. This is probably the most frustrating aspect of these discussions. I keep asking you guys questions like that, and you just ignore them like they were never asked. Why? Is it because you can't answer, but can't admit it either?
I dont think they are making up stories. I think they are looking for answers and I think they are in honest pursuit of those answers.
Now you're not making sense. Above you asserted that there's zero science behind this and that what work is being done is "meeting the needs of a hypothesis that must be maintained at all costs", yet here you're saying they're engaged in "honest pursuit of answers". Which is it?
If they're "in honest pursuit of answers", what are they doing? Conducting science? If so, how does that mesh with your initial claim that there isn't any science?
What bothers me is when the same freedom is not given to others to pursue answers outside the perimeters of a common ancestor for all living things. That somehow those hypotheses are "religious" and cannot be pursued. Science should not determine such issues. Science is the work of testing the hypothesis and the results themselves should tell us if the hypothesis is worthy of consideration. Not allowing a certain realm of inquiry or discounting someone out of the gate simply due to their presuppositions is my issue. Everyone has presuppositions and to pretend only some do while the others are doing pure science is manipulative and prohibits real exploration for truth.
And that brings us to the same question you ignored.....how are scientists stopping creationist organizations from conducting research?
I read the abstracts....I dont know what you think they prove. They seem somewhat....forced to me.
Given your above material, I truly don't care what you think of those, or any other scientific papers. It's quite obvious that if they seem to reach conclusions that aren't what you want to believe, you'll just make up excuses to wave them away. I think for the most part I'm done posting links to science resources here. It's not accomplished a single thing and is obviously a total waste of my time and effort.
The true irony here is how you're exhibiting the very bias you've been accusing scientists of.
So, essentially what is being said here is, we know Shh isnt produced in the embryos which prevents the development of legs and causes their pelvis to function very differently from other mammals, and we dont have any paleontological records of it, but this is how it probably happened....
Now you're dishonestly quote mining the abstract. The very next two sentences are "
Newly found innominates, femora and tibia of Miocene baleen whales of family Cetotheriidae have primitive structure, which makes it possible to compare them with archaeocetes. As a result, a traditional view of acetacean innominate as containing vestiges of all three pelvic bones and acetabulum is corroborated by new data and interpretations."
So they started off by nothing that the scarcity of specific fossils made it difficult to test the hypothesis, but then point out that new fossil finds have allowed them to test and confirm the hypothesis. And what do you do? You copy the first part, but deliberately leave off the second.
Why? Are you so desperate to not give any ground or admit any error in this debate that you're willing to engage in such obvious dishonesty? Do you have any idea how disappointing it is to see someone like you do such a thing? What were you thinking when you did it? Or did you just shut off that part of your conscience that was telling you what you were doing was wrong?
I really, truly, and completely don't get it.
(I find it funny that this one talks about integrating the paleontoloigcal record of gradual change...of which the previous abstract says there really isnt one....hmmmm).
Ok...wait a minute. Perhaps it's possible that you just didn't understand that "Newly found innominates, femora and tibia of Miocene baleen whales..." meant that they have discovered new fossils. Is that what's going on here? You didn't recognize what that meant?
If so, that brings me back to the original question I asked and you didn't answer (continuing the frustrating pattern). How can someone who knows so little about the subject that he doesn't recognize that "newly found innominates" means "we found new fossils", simultaneously think themselves qualified to declare the entire field of research mere "propaganda"? How do you allow yourself to do this?
This is the kind of elitist garbage I am talking about. "{Yeah, we arent going to say you cant do your pseudo science you bunch of morons. Go build a fake museum." Meanwhile, teachers and professors are dismissed from their biology jobs if they do not affirm the theory. Obviously its not a "contribution" if its not toeing the big picture we all know to be fact. I mean, using science and biology to question whether or not whales could actually have been land-dwelling cows that took a swim and decided they liked it...millions of years ago is just anti-science. It doesnt give us a nice little tree of animals to show what we already KNOW happened. Its just prohibitive and a "no-can-do" attitude that isnt "contributing." Spare me.
You 100%, completely dodged the question...
again. You've accused scientists of preventing creationist organizations from conducting research. I asked you how that works. Why can't you just answer the question? Exactly how do scientists prevent creationist organizations....organizations that have lots of money....from conducting research?
I am writing about what you said was clear FACT and I said it is a series of theories that have often been proven wrong and thus different theories have been postulated.
What exactly did I say was "clear fact"? Or are you going to ignore that too?
My whole point in writing this is that textbooks that supposedly teach how this FACT came about were often in error...only to be corrected with updated theories. How can you say its FACT when it continually needs editing based on findings. Once again, I know people who do "real science" and work in biological fields with bacteria so you dont get a tummy ache when you eat your steak. They do not believe in Darwinian evolution even though they understand (likely much more than you) how biology works and how resistances and adaptations, etc take place on a cellular level. The fact that you would label someone who does "real science" and contributes to science as "not contributing" because they do not hold to Darwinian evolution says all there needs to be said. Its this type of myopia that cant see its own glaring hypocrisy that I just cannot engage. Moreover, the elitist snubs about "fake museums" and making those who disagree with out out to be oppositional to this imaginary group you have where all real science is done is just nonsense. This is going right back to where we always end up...you labeling those who disagree with you as liars and morons and taking the superiority road where you are right a priori if others havent read every article on the topic. To me, it just looks like non-answers and a way of trying to shut people down rather than really engage in substantive conversation.
This is going nowhere...once again. I'll take my leave from the conversation now.
So given all the above, and the truly bizarre turn this conversation has taken, I have a hypothesis to explain what I think is going on. I've seen this pattern repeat itself enough times that I think I'm on to something.
There are quite a few creationist organizations out there who put a lot of money and resources into outreach materials. Websites, blogs, pamphlets, textbooks for Christian schools, movies, church speaking tours, etc. I've seen lots of these myself. They're very cleverly done, look professional, and are targeted to people like you....Christians who lean conservative and don't have much (if any) of a background in science. As such, because these are people you feel you can trust, you generally give them the benefit of the doubt. So through their various forms of media they propagate a set of arguments/talking points....things like "no new genetic information", "no transitional fossils", "whale evolution has been proven false", and things like that. And they also tell you that scientists are biased against God and have a sort of anti-Biblical agenda.
Then some of you take these talking points, internalize them, and eventually post them into forums like this. And because those creationists didn't really give you much to support those talking points, you
have to post them as empty assertions. IOW, you say things like "whale evolution has no basis in science and has been proven false", and not much else. That's all they gave you, but you trust them to tell you the real truth. And I'd bet that when you say or post those things in friendly environments, they're received well, which only internalizes them more.
The problem comes when you post or say them in a place where someone like me is listening. Not only am I familiar with the actual science that's going on, I'm just as familiar with the creationist talking points, the organizations that propagate them, and what they attempt to base them on. So when you post those talking points, I know exactly how to counter them. Now what do you do? You can't really respond in kind because your creationist sources didn't supply you with that. They just sent you out with a series of talking points....they didn't tell you what to do beyond that. And you don't know the first thing about the science either. So when I ask something simple like "what do you mean by genetic information", you spend the next several days going "Er...um..." and scrambling around trying not to admit that you have no idea (because your creationist sources never told you that part).
And that's when the defensive reflex kicks in. Your talking points aren't holding up and you don't know how to respond to even basic questions. If you were to admit that you were wrong, you'd also be admitting that your creationist sources haven't been telling you the truth. That's a big deal emotionally....takes a lot of guts to do that. If you admit that
I'm right, how do you tell your friends and family who are on the creationist team that you've left the team? Scary. So scary in fact, that it's not even an option for most people. That puts you in a corner. How to not give an inch to an "evolutionist", support your creationist team, and maintain the talking points in the face of contrary science that you don't understand and were told didn't exist?
We saw what The Barrd did....declare that none of it matters and run away.
And now we're seeing what you've chosen to do....say it doesn't exist, misrepresent what you were shown, repeat the talking points, and run away.
Simply put, this is all the result of you being set up by creationist organizations that play on your trust and loyalty, fill your head with false and misleading talking points, but don't give you much to go on when their dishonesty is exposed. IOW, you've been duped, but you're not willing to admit that to yourself. That's the best explanation I can come up with for this very, very consistent pattern I see among creationists. You...
1) Come into a thread and make a series of unsupported assertions (the talking points from creationist organizations)
2) Ignore/dodge most follow-up questions
3) Find any excuse to wave away contrary information
4) Repeat talking points
5) Leave
Earlier I was asked what I was scared of. Let me ask any creationists who care to answer....what are you so scared of that you're willing to repeat this predictable pattern?
