Dinosaurs By Design

[cryokinetic]

A fellow geology student showed me this book (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1013528&item_no=89051) a few weeks ago. I couldn't help laughing my ass off while reading it during lecture.

The book spouts such bullshit as:

* Dinosaurs and humans coexisted
* The Grand Canyon was a result of the "Great Flood" and was carved out in a matter of days
* Archeopteryx was a bird
* All animals were once vegitarians... even the one lions, tigers, etc


Because I'm bored, I've decided to submit this review to as many online booksellers as I can manage before I get tired of it.

This book is an excellent work of fiction. I found myself greatly amused at the turn of every page with the extreme inaccuracies.

In addition to being highly entertaining, this book is a must for any parent, teacher, or concerned citizen. You must read this book to understand the sort of argument Creationists are making in our schools. This book clearly illustrates that Creation Science is far from actually having anything to do with science. Show this book to your school district's administrators as well as your state and national representatives. Use it as a tool to help them understand that Creationism has no place in our schools anywhere outside of a philosophy classroom.

Also, I give the book the maximum rating the site allows... because such a great teaching tool... for teaching govt representatives, school administrators, etc about the bullshit being pushed on children today.

[distraction tactics]

Does it come with a 'May not be compatible with Norse Heathenism' sticker?

[cryokinetic]

Does it come with a 'May not be compatible with Norse Heathenism' sticker?
I wish.
Speaking of which...
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/textbookdisclaimers.gif
Taken from "The Annals of Improbable Research"

[Lee]

It's true, have you not seen The Flintstones?

[Snowflake]

lol

[cryokinetic]

It's true, have you not seen The Flintstones?
Dammit! I forgout about the Flintstones!


*Changes major to Business*

[eyebyte_atWork]

That is funny - I will have to check this book out - I think that by taking arguments to their extreme can we start to see whether they are valid or not.

(the behavior of an equations as the limit approaches infinity and shit like that)


Thanks for the post.

[last_caress]

Fundamentalist Christianity: fascinating. These people actually believe that the world is twelve thousand years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well, we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages? Twelve thousand years."
"Well, how fucking scientific, OK. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble there. That's good. You believe the world's twelve thousand years old?"
"That's right."
"OK, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?"
"Uh huh."
"Dinosaurs."

You know, the world's twelve thousand years old and dinosaurs existed, and existed in that time, you'd think it would been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point:

And O, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in its paw. And the disciples did run a-screamin'. "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!"
"I'm sure gonna mention this in my book," Luke said.
"Well, I'm sure gonna mention it in my book," Matthew said.
But Jesus was unafraid. And he took the splinter from the brontosaurus paw, and the brontosaurus became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch, O so many years, attracting fat American families with their fat fuckin' dollars to look for the Loch Ness Monster. And O the Scots did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord! Thank you, Lord!"

Twelve thousand years old. But I actually asked this guy, "OK, dinosaur fossils-- how does that fit into your scheme of life? What's the deal?" He goes:

"God put those here to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. I think I've figured this out."

Does that-- That's what this guy said. Does that bother anyone here? The idea that God might be fucking with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that thought in their head? God's running around burying fossils: "Ho ho! We'll see who believes in me now, ha ha! I'm a prankster God. I am killing me, ho ho ho!" You know? You die, you go to St. Peter:

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. (trapdoor opens) Aaaaarhhh!"
"You fuckin' idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was fuckin' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, aaaaaahh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!"

-Bill Hicks
.

[Biff_Loman]

:rofl:

I was raised in a very Christian environment. I went to a predominantly Christian public school, went to a Christian high school, was churched all my life, etc. In high school, particularly, I met a few very bright teachers - people who taught me how to think more critically and analytically - who were Christians. I read Christian apologeticists and studied the bible thoroughly, and immersed myself in a rational Christian culture. C.S. Lewis and all that, right.

The slogan of the rational Christian community was that reason could never get you "100% of the way there," whatever your belief system. Anything beyond "I think, therefore I am" can't be logically substantiated, as we can't get beyond Renee Descarte's malin genie problem. Since we need faith simply to believe the input from our own senses, it's a small step from there to believing in a religion that was, from the perspective of apologeticists, completely internally consistent.

The bible was truth, and studying science could only hope to confirm the truths the bible held. That was it. We could have various theories as to the flood, the age of the earth, etc., but God wasn't misrepresenting the situation. If something seemed unclear, it was because he had described the details in such a way that the ancient Hebrews would comprehend, but he still must have packed the truth into scripture so that it would be relevant to us today.

I don't think I met a single rational person who wasn't a Christian until I was 19. I hope you can appreciate my bias, then.

Well, it didn't take long after that point for me to realize that the whole thing was a load of bullshit. I'm an atheist now.

[NoahFence]

The bible does not mention the existance of Kangaroos, either. I guess all of Christianity is disproven by this.

I also love how one irrational fanatic saying something stupid means all Christians believe exactly as he does and we're all equally stupid to believe something so obviously false. WTF is wrong with us!!

The funny part is that they apparently didn't take into consideration the whole Methuselah thing. Dude lived like a thousand years. Everyone lived longer then, apparently. How long does that make a generation? I'd say we're looking at 30000 years at least. If you're going to pretend to be rational, at least do it right.

I'm far more partial to the theory that magic used to be a prominent force in the world, but the Mana all got used up and it doesn't work anymore except in very minor ways. Dinosaur fossils are nothing more than the remains of dragons, whose metabolisms were heavily dependant on magic, and when the Mana went away, they all turned into stone and melted into the earth.

The bible is moral and social truth. It should not be confused with a scientific document. Very few measurements were taken and recorded in the bible. That wasn't the point. (Still not sure why they felt it necessary to preserve the dimensions of the Ark for posterity...like my faith would flag if I didn't know exactly how big a boat my namesake made)

[last_caress]

The bible does not mention the existance of Kangaroos, either. I guess all of Christianity is disproven by this.

I also love how one irrational fanatic saying something stupid means all Christians believe exactly as he does and we're all equally stupid to believe something so obviously false. WTF is wrong with us!!

Look, to be fair we don't think they're all equally stupid. It's a spectrum.



I'm far more partial to the theory that magic used to be a prominent force in the world, but the Mana all got used up and it doesn't work anymore except in very minor ways. Dinosaur fossils are nothing more than the remains of dragons, whose metabolisms were heavily dependant on magic, and when the Mana went away, they all turned into stone and melted into the earth.


:rofl:

[NoahFence]

So, some of us are only kinda stupid? I guess I can live with that :)

[joft]

i love http://improbable.com/


You die, you go to St. Peter:

"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There were fossils everywhere. (trapdoor opens) Aaaaarhhh!"
"You fuckin' idiot! Flying lizards? You're a moron. God was fuckin' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, aaaaaahh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, fucker!"
awesome

[Stillwater]

That Bill Hicks piece is fantastic. I'm going to go running around, tacking it to fundy church doors like Martin Luther. The dino book looks like a good laugh as well.

When I was a kid our family attended a church with a strict 'literal' interpretation of the bible. The odd thing was, my parents didn't really buy it. They just felt more comfortable rocking the boats of those people than steadying the boat in a unitarian/universalist type setting. At my mom's suggestion, I brought my fossils to church to challenge the pastor (I was young, 7 or 8). It was great.

[last_caress]

i love http://improbable.com/

Haha, "Graham Lee has joined the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists." sold me on it right away.
Thanks for the link. :)

[joft]

Taken from "The Annals of Improbable Research"
that's what that is

[eyebyte_atWork]

Yeah - I have seen people trying to reconcile both the bible and scientific evidence... People see what they want to see. THe bible is a good book on morals and society (Disclaimer - it was re-interpreted to fit the morals of the time). THere are some good insights in there - but it should not be taken literally but more metaphorically. Having said that - science is the pursuit of truth - regardless of society (the hard sciences anyway).

btw - God does play jokes on mankind - he invented women kind and then made us lust for them. Jesus Christ on a bike! ;)

[Stillwater]

God does play jokes on mankind - he invented women kind and then made us lust for them. Jesus Christ on a bike! ;)


"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

-Voltaire

[Trystorp]

This site (http://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html), posted to the "God can be proven" thread, has much of the same material. Definitely worth a read.

[eyebyte_atWork]

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

-Voltaire


I never heard that quote - but like it - that Voltaire was a sharp cookie.

[Pooja]

A few days ago, my organismal biology prof. really slammed "Intellegent Design" and "Creationalism"...

HIs central arguement (which I fully agree with), was that our 'design' really is not very intelligent. In fact, with the way our DNA is structured, and the way we use oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon, are extremely inefficient.
I could elaborate, but wasn't paying that much attention (I was doing homework for another class), so I'd have to get my notes. But I'm lazy....

[Biff_Loman]

I like the fact that our retinae are backwards; cephalopods have them the right way 'round, so they don't have a "blind spot" where the nerve bundle is.

And we breathe and eat through the pharynx, so we can choke on our food. There's no need for that.

The nerves for the larynx run behind the aorta. That's right, they go down from the head into your chest, behind your aorta, then back up to the throat. That's the same for all mammals; that's a long distance for a giraffe.

Intelligent design my ass, and that's just morphology; I have no clue whatsoever when it comes to biochem.

[Sackanaka]

Of course, they could "counterattack" by saying "Well, those defects are just God's way of reminding us how we are flawed and must work our way to get back to him."

Maybe it could be renamed to Weaksauce Design and everyone would be more comfortable.

[Pooja]

then God is a doofus...

That's how mature my arguements can be-

[joft]

autoimmunal disorders are pretty ironic. and there's Rh hemolytic disease of newborns, where the mother's blood type actually attacks the fetus because of incompatibility. it's easy to ignore all the millions of handicapped, retarded, and birth-defective children born every year because we hide them away nicely. not that this proves anything, a christian could just easily cite Genesis 3:17 and say God was actually merciful by "cursing the ground for our sake" instead of cursing us directly, and that "the ground" here means something like "nature," which would also include us except we're special

[Pooja]

I wish I could be god...

for everything 'good' he "does", he gets endless praise from 99% of us...

for whatever bad that he "does", we just thank him for it too, because he could've done worse.

[joft]

if they could tell these (http://images.google.com/images?q=%22harlequin+fetus%22&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images) people (http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22conjoined+twins%22&btnG=Search) about the beauty and splendor and majesty of nature and how it just had to have been designed for it to be so perfect and complexly balanced, if they could finish telling it to all of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-9_codes_740-759:_Congenital_anomalies) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10_Chapter_Q:_Congenital_malformations%2C_deformations_and_chromosomal_abnormalities), then we could talk

[mgb]

Oh.

I think I've really misinterpreted the title of this thread. I went ahead and designed a dinosaur without looking at the thread (I didn't want any other designs to influence mine) and well, here it is.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/designadinosaur.JPG

There are horns on it's head an nose. I think those will give it a real advantage in a fight. And wings. Those probably pose some logistical problems I hadn't thought of, but I figured that a big dinosaur that could also fly would be an advantage. Plus, I put a tail fin on it, because, well, planes have them. Also, sharp claws, for clawing shit. And a barbed tail, like a mace. Come to think of it, it really looks more like a dragon. Were those real?

[joft]

they're still alive today

http://mclaren.frenzy.com/~dougmc/fark/trogdor-wings.jpg

[Pooja]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/2d374f8c8134e4b3fbd4fe7cf3c660d615dinos.jpg

[eyebyte_atWork]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/2d374f8c8134e4b3fbd4fe7cf3c660d615dinos.jpg


Is this proof that dinosaurs co-existed with humans? Well this is a picture proving it. I guess those creationist are onto something.

[Pooja]

see the navy blue on the bottom? That's were I used "paint" to hide where it said "world's largest manmade dynosaur"..It's what the creationists might've done to prove their point.

[mgb]

see the navy blue on the bottom? That's were I used "paint" to hide where it said "world's largest manmade dynosaur"..It's what the creationists might've done to prove their point.

Plus, it's not the world's largest man made dinosaur.

[last_caress]

Plus, it's not the world's largest man made dinosaur.

That would be Christianity.

[Lee]

Intelligent design my ass, and that's just morphology; I have no clue whatsoever when it comes to biochem.To be fair, some design considerations will inevitably come with a trade off, like the positioning of the larynx and epligottis that make us very susceptible to choking. That particular arrangement is also very important in the human ability to speak, so important has our ability to communicate been in our recent evolutionary history, such an organisation was selected for despite raising the chances of accidental and potentially fatal blocking of the airways.

In other words, a trade off occurs between two mutually exclusive benefits. In fact, all evolutionary adaptations should be viewed in the context of costs and benefits, such a failure to do so was ubiquitous amongst early evolutionary theory and helps to explain some of the shortcomings of early adaptionist thinking. For a thorough and interesting overview I suggest 'The Ant and the Peacock' by Helena Cronin.

Anyway, those same cost-benefit considerations go into all aspects of life, both in evolution and in our technology. Like the computer you are using now, various functions come at the expense of other possibilities, that is the only correct way of measuring cost i.e. the cost is not only the time and energy spent, but what else could have been done with that same time and energy.

Any "desginer" would have to make similar cost-benefit trade offs, otherwise that designer would have to change the laws of the universe in order to make such trade offs unnecessary, which would of course be well within that designers power if we presume that designer to be God. What I am trying to say is basically that evidence of imperfect biological systems is not evidence against a desginer, especially when thatimperfect system displays the hallmarks of a trade off between two functions.

Though if you want a nice example to show lack-of-design in humans, then simply observe goosebumps, which are utterly redundant to humans. Goosebumps fluff up body hair in order to trap pockets of air for insulation, humans simply do not have enough body hair to achieve this, the automatic "goosebump reaction" serves no purpose in humans. It's like someone packaging an abacus with a state-the-art PC.

[Sackanaka]

Though if you want a nice example to show lack-of-design in humans, then simply observe goosebumps, which are utterly redundant to humans. Goosebumps fluff up body hair in order to trap pockets of air for insulation, humans simply do not have enough body hair to achieve this, the automatic "goosebump reaction" serves no purpose in humans. It's like someone packaging an abacus with a state-the-art PC.

But it feels good! Feeling good is a function! And don't forget that feeling good is not always a sin if it's not contradicting the Word.

(yea, I liked the rest of the argument)

[last_caress]

Omnipotent creators do not make unintentional compromises.

[Lee]

But it feels good! Feeling good is a function! And don't forget that feeling good is not always a sin if it's not contradicting the Word.Feelings are themselves subject to the same criticism, so the function can be the feeling, but on a deeper level, the feeling must have a function.

The fact that it feels nice would itself be an example of bad design.

[Lee]

Omnipotent creators do not make unintentional compromises.It isn't a matter of accident or uninentional mistakes.

Under the laws of the universe, these compromises are necessary, for God to avoid these compromises would require rewriting the laws of the universe. If God designed humans under a lawful universe like the one we experience, then those compromises would be necessary, since he would be constructing us within that rule-set.

[Biff_Loman]

I see the flaws in our design as a result of the fact that evolution "cannot go downhill," even to reach a better hill.

A voicebox would still work fine even if the organs for consuming food were located somewhere else entirely. Heck, we could even communicate with clicks and whistles like dolphins do. However, all land vertebrates are stuck with this eat/breathe conflict. Why? We've all descended from fish that swallowed air to breathe on land. Can't go back.

The goosebumps are great example of that.

[Lee]

I see the flaws in our design as a result of the fact that evolution "cannot go downhill," even to reach a better hill.That doesn't mean that organism have to evolve into more complex forms, sometimes simplicity has the selective advantage, like when an asteroid struck the earth and wiped out a vast proportion of the life that occupied the planet.

Evolution cannot go downhill, but we shouldn't assume that uphill always implies more complicated, since very cheap but not very good organisations can have the selective advantage. The destination at the top of the hill is always been moved about, so to speak.

Note: I am not sure you made that assumption, so shoot me down if I am putting ideas in yur head.


A voicebox would still work fine even if the organs for consuming food were located somewhere else entirely. Heck, we could even communicate with clicks and whistles like dolphins do. However, all land vertebrates are stuck with this eat/breathe conflict. Why? We've all descended from fish that swallowed air to breathe on land. Can't go back.The interesting thing about humans is that we are far more susceptible to that eat/breathe conflict than even our close ancestors, we are far more likely to choke to death.

Obviously, this is maladaptive and flies in the face of the theory of natural selection, but only when we consider it in isolation. When we actually take such a maladaptive trait in the context of a trade off to improve communication skills, then we realise that it is an evolutionary adaption. The design of our food and air passages is very important in the human ability to convey language, there are subtle adaptations that shape our throats and mouths to make the huge range of phenomes possible, sure we could have communicated through other means, but again that would be ignoring the cost-benefit considerations of those varying forms of communication.

Edit: Evolution also has to adapt currently existing systems for new uses, so there is a good reason we don't eat with our knees to avoid choking.

The ability to efficiently communicate is the key advantage humans have over other species, we do not have to all make the same mistakes or learn the same facts, we can simply relay them to one another in a form of reciprocal exchange and to increase inclusive fitness among kin, this can all be achieved at very little cost. Not only would this have a considerable impact upon survival, but would very quickly become instrumental in inter-sexaul selection, thus reinforcing the selective pressure for even greater linguistic virtuosity.

On the subject of langauge, I recommend "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker.

Anyway, my example was simply to demonstrate that some cases of imperfectness in organism "design," would not be effective counter-arguments to creationist claims, simply because physical laws necessitate those imperfections.

[last_caress]

It isn't a matter of accident or uninentional mistakes.

Under the laws of the universe, these compromises are necessary, for God to avoid these compromises would require rewriting the laws of the universe. If God designed humans under a lawful universe like the one we experience, then those compromises would be necessary, since he would be constructing us within that rule-set.

I know you know what omnipotent means, and anything less wouldn't be God by my standards.
It would be completely capable of creating a flawless uncompromised creation if it so desired.

Anyway this is a silly discussion :)

[Lee]

I know you know what omnipotent means, and anything less wouldn't be God by my standards.
It would be completely capable of creating a flawless uncompromised creation if it so desired.God can still be omnipotent and design humans within a rule-set which requires compromises. Just because God can create a rule-set that allows for flawless uncompromised design, does not mean that God has to, indeed "has to" would never apply to God, since God is omnipotent.

Besides, without a restrictive rule-set (like our universe) what does the word "flawless" mean?

[Architectonic]

they're still alive today

*burninates joft*

You didn't see anything.


Omnipotent creators do not make unintentional compromises.

But perhaps the intelligent designers were not god, but aliens? For example, banana-men. :banana:


Anyway, my example was simply to demonstrate that some cases of imperfectness in organism "design," would not be effective counter-arguments to creationist claims, simply because physical laws necessitate those imperfections.

But on the other hand, how would you prove that something is 'designed' then?

[Lee]

But on the other hand, how would you prove that something is 'designed' then?Use your imagine. I always think about the sudden appearence tomorrow of a European Elephant wandering in herds through the French countryside, or maybe the spontaneous appearence of a new breed of arctic kangaroo? Dragons in Wales? or some other sudden emergence that couldn't be accounted for in evolutionary theory, thereby falsifying it (at least as the sole source of life). It would also be quite convincing evidence that someone designed these creatures, unless we accept the alternative "pure chance" explanation.

Design would certainly have no reason to look like it evolved, though in theory it could do. The problem is that to falsify a design theory you have to presume intentions on the part of the designer, failure of observations to match up to those presumed intentions would be evidence against design, success would be evidence for; some old schools of creationism basically took that approach, though they made bad predictions and have since been replaced by scientifically weaker theories (say less can't have happened) to completely untestable theories (God put evidence here as a test of faith/manipulated it with his noodly appendage).

[last_caress]

But perhaps the intelligent designers were not god, but aliens? For example, banana-men. :banana:

...

But on the other hand, how would you prove that something is 'designed' then?

I eat bananna babies.

...

There are certainly no definitive metrics for 'designed'. Even what constitutes a designer is debatable.

[Lee]

I'll wager my bananna that that our understanding of what is possible in the universe is no more than a faint light under the door.
You'll have to provide a much more convincing example than that. I'm not capable at the moment, of imagining a situation where a rational person would consider that a promising theory.Are you telling me that the spontaneous appearence of herds of a new species of European elephant wouldn't be strong evidence of a desginer? I mean sure, maybe we just happened to not notice them before, hiding away on the bushes as they do, but honestly... appealing to the idea that there might be something else that we have no idea about is a weaker argument than "a designer did it."

[last_caress]

Are you telling me that the spontaneous appearence of herds of a new species of European elephant wouldn't be strong evidence of a desginer? I mean sure, maybe we just happened to not notice them before, hiding away on the bushes as they do, but honestly... appealing to the fact that i might be something else that we have no idea about is a weaker argument than "a designer did it.

Sorry deleted that one.

I need a definitive characteristic/quality of 'designed' that is measurable. Divine agency as a rational/useful/scientifically relevant explanation has a pretty poor record.

[Lee]

I need a characteristic/quality of 'designed' that is measurable. Divine agency as a useful explanation has a pretty poor record.A characteristic quality would be a particular uniformity or pattern to species design that would have been unlikely or imposible under evolutionary theories, or maybe an idiosyncratic temporal pattern in species taxanomy through the fossil records.

The reason why it has a pretty poor record is because it fails these tests, the "design" theory becomes more and more useless with each iteration because in order to fit the facts it says less and less, ultimately coming down to the untestable and utterly useless "test of faith" theories.