This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

gimlibengloin's Profile

gimlibengloin's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by gimlibengloin

More Discussions by gimlibengloin

Latest Comments by gimlibengloin

Go to: Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary?

gimlibengloin's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by gimlibengloin

Remarkable’ mammal hairs in amber? by Shaun Doyle

Published: 22 June 2010(GMT+10) Image by R. Vullo, news.bbc.co.uk

Figure 1. The microscopic details of this hair are identical to modern mammal hair—but this is supposed to be from the Cretaceous, 100 million years ago, supposedly way back in the ‘age of dinosaurs’. Amber, which is fossilised tree resin, is a fascinating substance (See Amber needed water (and lots of it)). It has preserved stunning specimens of many different types of biological structures and organisms, from bacteria1 to insects,2 and even marine life.3 Many of these organisms are said to have been preserved for over 100 million years. The latest amber-encased fossil find that has made headlines is that of some strands of mammalian hair, which have supposedly been preserved in almost pristine condition for 100 million years (figure 1).4 They were found in the Font-de-Benon quarry at Archingeay-Les Nouillers in Charente-Maritime, southwest France.5 It has been making headlines because it apparently shows that mammal hairs have remained untouched by evolution for the last 100 million years. So what should we make of this find?

The exceptional 3D preservation of the hair enabled the researchers to compare the hairs to living mammals to see if there was any difference. The researchers found that the hairs were ‘remarkably similar’ to modern mammal hair. For the evolutionist, “This discovery implies that the morphology of hair cuticula may have remained unchanged throughout most of mammalian evolution.”4

Mammals in the ‘age of the dinosaurs’

However, from a biblical perspective, mammals, even in the so-called ‘age of the dinosaurs’, would not be radically different to mammals today.

The popular impression among people today is that mammals in the dinosaur era, if they existed at all, were only small, reptile-like creatures and only diversified after the dinosaurs died out. However, from a biblical perspective, mammals, even in the so-called ‘age of the dinosaurs’, would not be radically different to mammals today. Of course, some mammal kinds may have died out, and modern-day mammals are the genetically impoverished descendants of the original kind (which is why we would not expect a domestic cat in ‘dinosaur rock’, for instance). But a creationist would anticipate that any hair or fur, one of the chief distinguishing characteristics between mammals and reptiles, would be identical to that of mammals today, and this is exactly what this find shows. By way of aside, a general rule of thumb for the fossil record, which is also the case with these mammal hairs, is that when one finds the same type of creature in a fossil as the living form, then the more detail that is preserved in the fossil, the more striking will be the similarity of the fossils to living creatures.

However, it’s more than just the detail of this particular fossil that points in this direction. The entire fossil record bears witness to this. Mammal fossils with ever increasing diversity and specialization have been found over the last 15 years even back into the Jurassic.6

And most orders of mammals were present well before the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct, while there was little change when the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct.7 After commenting on a number of recent mammal fossil finds, Oard comments:

“Evolutionists would have expected that any mammals found that were this ‘old’ to be generalized and able to evolve in many different directions with time. However, all these mammals are surprisingly (to the evolutionists) specialized and diverse—clear back in the Middle Jurassic!”8 Even on evolutionary assumptions, it’s now plain that mammals lived in great diversity and abundance with dinosaurs. From a biblical perspective, we would expect mammals and dinosaurs to be buried together, at least in part because they are both land-dwelling animals. Since the Flood caused a lot of mixing, however, this is not a hard and fast rule, but a general guide that still allows for a lot of randomization of fossil placement:

“Dinosaurs and trilobites lived in different environments, and we would expect a vertical order in the Flood [i.e. land animals (dinosaurs) above marine animals (trilobites)]. However, I would be more cautious in developing a vertical order with organisms from the same or similar environments”.9 Mammal hair non-evolution These mammal hairs also present a problem for evolution: nothing has changed (figure 1). And they are only the tip of the iceberg. The big problem for evolution is that the general rule of the fossil record is that things stay the same (see Fossils questions and answers). Darwin recognized this in his own day, but relied on people finding the intermediate fossils after him:

“We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy.”10 But this problem has not been solved in 150 years of searching since Darwin wrote those words. The fossil record is certainly incomplete for evolutionists, but if people have only found a few disputable transitional fossils in 150 years, with tens of thousands of tons of fossils found, then the problem is not with the fossils, it’s with the prediction and the idea that gave birth to it: evolution.

But if it can explain everything in the fossil record, that means it is incapable of predicting anything. And that is why evolution is an utterly meaningless concept for explaining patterns in the fossil record.

Despite the failure of Darwin’s original prediction, researchers still readily use evolution to explain patterns in the fossil record. But now evolution, which by definition means change, can also accommodate non-change in the fossil record (See Evolutionary stasis). Evolution has become a rather neat way to explain the fossil record: it can now account for every sort of change you can think of, and even no change at all! Wow! But if it can explain everything in the fossil record, that means it is incapable of predicting anything. And that is why evolution is an utterly meaningless concept for explaining patterns in the fossil record (See The slow rise of dinosaurs). As ReMine quipped: “Evolutionary theory predicts nothing, not even a nested hierarchy. Rather, the theory adapts to data like a fog adapts to landscape.”11

However, stasis in the fossil record is not a problem for the biblical worldview. On the contrary, this is what it would expect, i.e. if we observed in the fossil record what Darwin predicted (countless chains of ‘links’, with untold thousands of indisputable transitional fossils) then the Bible’s explanation would be seriously undermined, if not falsified completely.

The Bible is remarkable The creationist may well ask: how can this find then be ‘remarkable’? It further confirms what we would expect from the fossil record as a general rule: fully formed and recognizable structures that don’t change. They are also one more piece of evidence that we have on hand that confirms that the Bible gives us the perfect starting place for understanding the fossil record. And that is certainly worth a remark, i.e. ‘remarkable’.

www.creation.com

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:29:40 UTC | #482586

Go to: Gaza: What would Jehovah do?

gimlibengloin's Avatar Jump to comment 93 by gimlibengloin

Comment 88 Epeeist

Sorry, just one more. Epeeists argument from Hume is mistaken. Hume's position is contradictory. He affirms that just because the sun rose for the last 1000 years that doesn't mean if will do so today. So he denies natures uniformity. Yet he elsewhere affirms natures uniformity in rejecting miracles as a violation of natural laws. So his position is contradictory and Dr William Lane Craig's argument still holds, as evidenced by the fact that he's whipping atheists in every debate.

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:13:59 UTC | #480363

Go to: Gaza: What would Jehovah do?

gimlibengloin's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by gimlibengloin

Comment 91 Tyler Durden

"Using the bible to sort out the Israel-Gaza (Jew-Muslim) problem is useless as none of the claims can be substantiated. It's very easy to claim "god" said this is our land, or "god" told me this or that - it's only opinion, biased opinion at that. Sorry, my point stands."

Well, you seem to be disagreeing with Paula who affirms that we can ask "WWJD?" and goes on to claim

"Clearly the religious are obliged to emulate their god and should be sharpening their swords and practicing the hamstringing of horses. Really, when God has made it so clear how he would solve the Gaza problem - when he has set such an unequivocal example - one really has to ask why today's Christians are in any doubt whatsoever what should be done about it." So apparently we can use the bible to determine what should be done but only in the case of Canaanite genocide which has no relevance to today for the reasons I already gave. What you really mean is we can only use the Bible when it says things that you can twist in the atheists favour. However, its clear I’m wasting my time so I’ll make this my last post.

All the best, GBG

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:06:26 UTC | #480359

Go to: Gaza: What would Jehovah do?

gimlibengloin's Avatar Jump to comment 89 by gimlibengloin

Tyler Durden (86)

I note that you still haven't answered my objection to Paula's argument. Neither has anybody else. I'm quite willing to adjust my point or drop it all together but neither you, Paula, or anyone else has provided a reason to do so.

In regard to my last post there are only TWO options: either life has a purely naturalistic, undirected explanation or it was intelligently caused. There is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation as demonstrated by the above mentioned facts. Living organisms outdo man made technology in their sophistication and design features. There are HUGE problems with the naturalistic origin of life as admitted by all those who work in the field and including Prof Dawkins. The fossil record is essentially one of STASIS which was not predicted by Darwin but instead contradicted his theory. ALL OF THIS IS IN CONFORMITY WITH CREATION BUT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION. Therefore, we have very good evidence for a Creator and Designer of life. Add to this the finetuning of the physical constants, the position of the earth relative to the sun and moon allowing for solar eclipses and the testing of relativity by intelligent beings who just so happen to inhabit this planet. Also there is very good evidence that our galaxy is situated near the centre of the universe though we await confirmation that this is more than just a feature of certain methodological presuppositions. In regard to Christianity specifically very good evidence has been given elsewhere on this site. THE GOD OF THE BIBLE MOST PROBABLY EXISTS.

kIND REGARDS, GBG

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:52:25 UTC | #479851

Go to: Gaza: What would Jehovah do?

gimlibengloin's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by gimlibengloin

In regard to comments such as creotard (ha,ha its a good job I'm not thin skinned isn't it)and quote mining and questions as to whether I know who Dr Gould is please consider the following with a relatively open mind.

Firstly, Prof Dawkins admits we have no explanation for the origin of life, saying, “That is a complete mystery” Boyle, A., The not-so-angry evolutionist, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com, 2009 In fact, in many cases its a classic ‘chicken and egg’ problem – molecular machinery is needed to process genetic information but the information is needed to build the machines. The situation is so bad that in his 1996 book, Climbing Mt Improbable Dawkins was reduced to claiming, Nobody knows how it happened but somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-replication.

Secondly, Dawkins claims that we have an explanation for the origin of species but this claim flatly contradicts the testimony of the fossil record. Consider the following points made by the leading American evolutionist and anti-creationist Prof Stephen Jay Gould: By far most species appear in the record in a geologically abrupt manner and then continue in stasis for extensive periods of time until their extinction.(p19) Darwin asserted insensibly gradual transition as the expected feature of the fossil record knowing however that the literal appearance of the record was geological abruptness, stasis and extinction.(p20) The fossil record should have provided a major part of the evidence for gradual evolution yet Darwin titled his 9th chapter in the Origin ‘On theImperfection of the Geological Record’ (p26,27) But how can any imperfection in the record explain the literal appearance of stasis. Even if one regards the record as 99% imperfect nevertheless the evidence is one of stasis and STASIS IS DATA. (p31) Dr Ernst Mayr [one of the greatest evolutionary biologists ever] acknowledged that Gould and Eldredge were right in their claim that the stasis of fossil species was not the expected findings of the majority of evolutionary biologists (p32) -Punctuated Equilibrium (2007)

Furthermore, of course, the argument for imperfection rests essentially on the non-existence of the evidence for evolutionary change. Add to the stasis of species in the fossil record the well-known problem of the Cambrian explosion which Dawkins inadequately deals with in his book The greatest Show, and the steadily diminishing alleged fossil intermediates such as Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik and one realises the utter poverty of evidence for evolution. Its so bad Dawkins has to appeal to homology and imperfect design as evidence for evolution but neither of these are predictions of evolution but are merely forced into the evolutionary mold. One can find detailed refutations of such claims on creation.com or the latest Dawkins slaughtering work The Greatest Hoax on Earth by Dr J Sarfati see www.thegreatesthoaxonearth.com.

Evolution is fundamentally unfalsifiable pseudoscience. Evolution refers to increasing informational complexity and content ie primeval cell to dolphins yet it also refers to degeneration eg the flightless cormorant which has lost flight structures; and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (see creation.com). Dawkins claims that those who don’t believe in evolution are stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked and one leading evolutionist Dobzhansky I think, claimed, ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. But that’s because everything in biology is interpreted in the light or, rather ‘shadow’ of evolution. Even loss of information and structure is claimed evidence for evolution. Even sophisticated structures that go beyond anything we are capable of are regarded as shoddy design as if one would look at the limitations of a Microsoft program and claim, ‘Ha. See? Imperfect design. It must have evolved by chance’. DOH! Further, as has been repeatedly argued by those in the know eg the British engineer and BioMimetic expert Dr Stuart Burgess these so called imperfect designs are either degenerated due to the Fall or they are the result of the inevitable trade of between optimal design and practical function. For example the so called backwards wiring of the eye relates to its need of constant blood supply and according to one surgeon it protects the most sensitive parts from damage. In fact when you think about it evolutionary biologists are the least qualified people to lecture on design or imperfect design. What expertise does Dawkins have in Design or Engineering? None. So really he’s just an amateur who happens to be a great apologist for imitation science. People who do know what they’re talking about are Prof Andy McIntosh of Leeds University or Dr Stuart Burgess of Bristol University two of the top engineers in the world AND WITH EXPERTISE IN BIOLOGICAL DESIGN. Dr McIntosh having led a three year funded study into the defense mechanism of the Bombadier Beetle and Dr Burgess being a world authority on BioMimetics. People like Dawkins are just theoreticians who can lecture and write interminably ignoring inconvenient facts, while easily convinced atheists desperate for any excuse to escape from the uncomfortable (yet marvellous and exciting) truth that God exists worship at the Professor’s feet. Please consider this statement by Prof S J Gould the evolutionary geologist I referred to earlier. As you read this statement mentally substitute the word ‘evolution’ for the word ‘theory’: ‘...A theory often compels us to see the world in its light and support [remember what I wrote earlier about Dobzhansky and the tendency to force everything into evolutionary theory?]. Yet we think we see objectively and therefore interpret each new datum as an independent confirmation of our theory. Although our theory may be wrong, we cannot confute it........ ........Science progresses more by the introduction of new world views or “pictures” than by the steady accumulation of information........we believe that an inadequate picture has been guiding our thoughts on speciation for 100 years’ -Punctuated Equilibrium, p33

Instead of engaging in this futile resistance why don’t you just believe certain truths? (1) God exists (2) God created the universe (3) God is holy and righteous (4) You are most unholy and unrighteous (5) God has no intention of allowing unholy, unrighteous, sin loving individuals to live forever in any state in his creation(Gen 3:22-24) (6) The soul that sins it shall die ( Gen 5:1-31;Psalm 146:3,4 (praise God for vv5&6 though); Rev 20:14,15) (7) However, “our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus, gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed..” (Titus 2:13,14) “while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly....God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us... .....those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5)

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:50:02 UTC | #479573

More Comments by gimlibengloin