Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Spud]

Perhaps you should refer your question to an expert, Spud, since what it looks like to the untrained eye might not be a particularly useful approach to take.

Only if you first assume evolution would you be so certain that eohippus was related to the horse.

It's equally likely that it wasn't the horse's ancestor, but was an unrelated species. We might, for example, think the chevrotain was the ancestor of deer if we found it only in fossil form. But in reality it isn't a true deer.

In my view it's more accurate to assume, based on fossils which look very much the same as their living relatives, that evolution from simple to complex life hasn't happened.

[Maeght]

Only if you first assume evolution would you be so certain that eohippus was related to the horse.

It's equally likely that it wasn't the horse's ancestor, but was an unrelated species. We might, for example, think the chevrotain was the ancestor of deer if we found it only in fossil form. But in reality it isn't a true deer.

In my view it's more accurate to assume, based on fossils which look very much the same as their living relatives, that evolution from simple to complex life hasn't happened.

You are entitled to your view of course Spud, but I'd rather take the view of people who work in relevant fields, have an understanding and knowledge of all the available evidence and who have studied the subject for years.

Very good of you though to post in such a way as to confirm the recent post by others about creationists. Very kind to give such support.

[SteveH]

Only if you first assume evolution would you be so certain that eohippus was related to the horse.

It's equally likely that it wasn't the horse's ancestor, but was an unrelated species. We might, for example, think the chevrotain was the ancestor of deer if we found it only in fossil form. But in reality it isn't a true deer.

In my view it's more accurate to assume, based on fossils which look very much the same as their living relatives, that evolution from simple to complex life hasn't happened.

Palaeontologists don't just say "Eohippus looks a bit like a very small horse, so it must be the horse's ancestor"; there are much more specific details which they can track through the fossil record to modern horses, and, of course, there is now also DNA analysis, when ancient DNA can be recovered, as is sometimes the case.

[SteveH]

And here, Spud, is a question for you (and any other creationists on here): If all life was created by an intelligent designer, why do ancestral traits survive in vestigial form, e.g. the hind legs of whales, present on their skeletons, but not appearing externally normally, though occasionally a whale is born with a useless external hind leg? Similarly, the vestigial human tail, also occasionally visible externally. In general, all mammals (and, to a lesser extent, all vertebrates) are built on a standard pattern: four limbs, with three long bones in each, one thick upper bone and two thinner lower bones. That's why whales have vestigial hind limbs. Human artefacts are obviously designed by intelligent designers - us - and you don't see the same thing: hoses and cars have in common that they have windows and are entered by people for extended periods, but you don't find useless, vestigial wheels on the corners of houses, nor vestigial interior walls in cars.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

If you are saying we can ignore the differences between using language to describe a direct observation and using language to form conceptual links between direct observations I think you are on dicey ground. That is why I criticise Hillside.

Wrongly so. At least try to think about it – if for example you happened to see someone shooting somebody what would “direct observation” tell you without “scientific” knowledge (eg, of what a gun is) and logic (eg, of deriving a causal relationship between the sound “bang” and the sight of someone falling over).

Do you see where you went wrong now? Observation is just data – information (about anything at all) requires processing.   

How those differences affect a campaigning atheism that sees evolution as a central plank I neither know or care.

Given that you’ve just made that up, why don’t you?

[Spud]

Steve, on the subject of vestigial organs, I have discussed this before and found that most of them have a function, thus we can't conclusively say that they are proof of evolution.

The whale's pelvic bones may be for anchoring reproductive organs, and were never for anchoring limbs.

Evolution is a big discussion and would require another thread, but in reply to your other comment: if eohippus looks like a small horse, then maybe it is a horse, just as Jack Russells and Great Danes are both dogs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Steve, on the subject of vestigial organs, I have discussed this before and found that most of them have a function, thus we can't conclusively say that they are proof of evolution.

The whale's pelvic bones may be for anchoring reproductive organs, and were never for anchoring limbs.

Evolution is a big discussion and would require another thread, but in reply to your other comment: if eohippus looks like a small horse, then maybe it is a horse, just as Jack Russells and Great Danes are both dogs.

It's only a big discussion in the sense that there's a lot to it and lots of people work in the field but not at all in the sense you imply of evolution vs creationism, any more than there's a real debate between flat earthers and the rest. Just for funsies though, why do you suppose your god would have bothered giving men nipples?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Wrongly so. At least try to think about it – if for example you happened to see someone shooting somebody what would “direct observation” tell you without “scientific” knowledge (eg, of what a gun is) and logic (eg, of deriving a causal relationship between the sound “bang” and the sight of someone falling over).

Since you were equating evolution with childbirth as being obvious facts. What is it you are now equating with something being shot out at the speed of a bullet?
Evolution or childbirth?

[Spud]

Spud,

It's only a big discussion in the sense that there's a lot to it and lots of people work in the field but not at all in the sense you imply of evolution vs creationism, any more than there's a real debate between flat earthers and the rest. Just for funsies though, why do you suppose your god would have bothered giving men nipples?

So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?

[SteveH]

So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?

OK, smart-arse: explain, from a creationist point of view, the unnecessary diversion followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Since you were equating evolution with childbirth as being obvious facts. What is it you are now equating with something being shot out at the speed of a bullet?
Evolution or childbirth?

You do this a lot: attempt a criticism, get it badly wrong, have your mistake explained to you, then throw in some evasive idiocy to get yourself off the hook in the hope that no-one notices. Why not instead do the decent thing and address the problems you continually give yourself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

So that they can be nipple-crippled, lol. They are more sensitive than normal skin, and I will let you work out how that gives them a useful function. Finding your way in the dark, perhaps?

Except the breast tissue of women and men contains hollow cavities ("alveoli") which are lined with milk-secreting cells. Entirely unnecessary you'd have thought for whatever purpose you're implying for men's nipples, but just as you'd expect with no top down designer involved. Or maybe you think "god" designed women, got a bit tired after all that effort so just went to the parts bin to finish the job for us chaps?

[Spud]

OK, smart-arse: explain, from a creationist point of view, the unnecessary diversion followed by the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.

[Maeght]

It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.

You weren't asked about the function but about the diversion  followed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.

Believe me, the chances of anyone quoting you on anything are negligible (except perhaps for entries on the "Fundies say the Darndest Things" website).

[SteveH]

It innervates the trachea and esophagus, and gives off a few branches to the heart. Possibly to enable the control of breathing, swallowing and heart rate while talking, but don't quote me on that.

It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).
Why also do we have a spleen and an appendix, both of which we can live perfectly healthily without, but whose presence endangers our lives - the appendix by getting infected and rupturing if unoperated-on, and the spleen by being ruptured in accidents and causing massive internal haemorrhageing. I am sure you'll be able to find some residual function on some fundy website - indeed, I believe the spleen has a part to play in destroying old red blood corpuscles - but they are completely inessential, and don't even offer a noticeable advantage. No intelligent designer would burden us with them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

It'd make more sense for the trachea, oesophagus, etc to be innervated separately, directly from the brain, than for the nerves serving the larynx to take such a roundabout course, which exposes them to greater risk of injury, and consequent loss of speech (which does happen - it's not just a hypothetical disadvanrtage).
Why also do we have a spleen and an appendix, both of which we can live perfectly healthily without, but whose presence endangers our lives - the appendix by getting infected and rupturing if unoperated-on, and the spleen by being ruptured in accidents and causing massive internal haemorrhageing. I am sure you'll be able to find some residual function on some fundy website - indeed, I believe the spleen has a part to play in destroying old red blood corpuscles - but they are completely inessential, and don't even offer a noticeable advantage. No intelligent designer would burden us with them.

"He'd" also have put our shins at the back so we didn't bang them on coffee tables...

[SteveH]

SteveH,

"He'd" also have put our shins at the back so we didn't bang them on coffee tables...

Very droll, but I should point out that I never use the male pronoun of God, so your sarcastic use of "he'd" including inverted commas is a little misplaced.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Very droll, but I should point out that I never use the male pronoun of God, so your sarcastic use of "he'd" including inverted commas is a little misplaced.

Odd reply - it was my use, there was no suggestion that it was also yours. "It" sounds a bit odd to my ears, but how people want to gender their imaginary friends isn't something I trouble with over much.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Creationists say that there is no evidence for evolution.

Citation required...

I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!

On the other hand, using evolution to explain how all the functionality of human beings, animals and plants came from a single common ancestor ... well, good luck with that one!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And here, Spud, is a question for you (and any other creationists on here): If all life was created by an intelligent designer, why do ancestral traits survive in vestigial form, e.g. the hind legs of whales, present on their skeletons, but not appearing externally normally, though occasionally a whale is born with a useless external hind leg? Similarly, the vestigial human tail, also occasionally visible externally. In general, all mammals (and, to a lesser extent, all vertebrates) are built on a standard pattern: four limbs, with three long bones in each, one thick upper bone and two thinner lower bones. That's why whales have vestigial hind limbs. Human artefacts are obviously designed by intelligent designers - us - and you don't see the same thing: hoses and cars have in common that they have windows and are entered by people for extended periods, but you don't find useless, vestigial wheels on the corners of houses, nor vestigial interior walls in cars.

Which is the wrong question, so I hope no creationists on here (as you so eloquently put it) waste their time on it.

If all life was created by an intelligent designer, I'd be asking the intelligent designer these questions.

If all life was not created by an intelligent designer, your questions are irrelevant.

Try again...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Or maybe you think "god" designed women, got a bit tired after all that effort so just went to the parts bin to finish the job for us chaps?

Clearly, you've not read Genesis 2 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Citation required...

I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!

On the other hand, using evolution to explain how all the functionality of human beings, animals and plants came from a single common ancestor ... well, good luck with that one!

Why would we need luck when we have so much evidence instead?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Clearly, you've not read Genesis 2 

Genesis 2 explains why men have nipples with milk ducts?

[Maeght]

Citation required...

I think you'll find that Creationists have no problem with evolutionary theory that explains variation. It is demonstrable and you don't need to be a scientist to verify it!

Not ToE then.

On the other hand, using evolution to explain how all the functionality of human beings, animals and plants came from a single common ancestor ... well, good luck with that one!

And there you go, giving the citation you asked for earlier.

Loads of evidence available. Oh, and humans are animals.