Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction?

Posts: 8599

Related video:
Creationist Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth About Dinosaurs And Evolution!

Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction?

Quote:

This article will discuss the possibility that there may have been an ongoing effort since the earliest dinosaur "discoveries" to plant, mix and match bones of various animals, such as crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, giraffes, elephants, cattle, kangaroos, ostriches, emus, dolphins, whales, rhinoceroses, etc. to construct and create a new man-made concept prehistoric animal called "dinosaurs".

Where bones from existing animals are not satisfactory for deception purposes, plaster substitutes may be manufactured and used. Some material similar or superior to plasticine clay or plaster of Paris would be suitable. Molds may also be employed. A 144-page book titled "Make Your Own Dinosaur Out of Chicken Bones" provides step-by-step instructions complete with detailed drawings and diagrams.

	Quote:
	What would be the motivation for such a deceptive endeavor? Obvious motivations include trying to prove evolution, trying to disprove or cast doubt on the Christian Bible and the existence of the Christian God, trying to disprove the young-earth theory, and trying to disprove creationism. Yes, there are major political and religious ramifications.

	Code:
	http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm

Posts: 445

Very interesting post!
Always found it funny that the supposed dinosaur bones on display at Melbourne Museum are actually made out of plaster. They claim that the real bones are too fragile to exhibit..very piss poor excuse if you ask me.

Posts: 9

Even other creationists think Kent Hovind is a joke.

Posts: 8599

	solidsquid wrote:
	Even other creationists think Kent Hovind is a joke.

Looks like you're fitting in. I agree, but he does have some interesting dinosaur stories.

Posts: 9

Kent has been trying for years to progress his fight against "evil" Darwinism. He's blamed evolutionary theory for a whole slew of things from communism to teen pregnancy. My peeve with him is his intentional mischaracterization of science and scientific theories. I will give him one thing, he's a very good public speaker. Unfortunately his scientific knowledge and application of it leave much to be desired. Apparently he also has something against paying property taxes as well.

He does have a snazzy looking website though.

Posts: 8599

Darwinian evolution is indeed fraud. That doesn't mean that the Bible is the solution (as he would have you believe).

Videos:

The Collapse of Evolution

Evolution: Fact or Belief?

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

A War on Science

Religion has been used throughout history to control the masses and it continues to do so. This does not mean evolutionary theory is fact.

Posts: 9

madthumbs wrote:

Darwinian evolution is indeed fraud. That doesn't mean that the Bible is the solution (as he would have you believe).

Videos:

The Collapse of Evolution

Evolution: Fact or Belief?

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

A War on Science

Religion has been used throughout history to control the masses and it continues to do so. This does not mean evolutionary theory is fact.

Religon I can agree with you on. Evolution, I apparently do not. I've seen those videos with the exception of the last one. I own a copy of Unlocking the Mystery of Life video (ID video). I actually started out skeptical of evolutionary theory - years later I am no longer skeptical. There were classes and reading and so forth in there - it didn't just suddenly occur to me that evolution was supported by empirical research....that was a joke if anyone didn't catch it.

Posts: 8599

Please show us any supporting data for your belief. All I've seen on pro-evolution has been from nonsensical people who don't really care to discuss the matter.

Posts: 9

	madthumbs wrote:
	Please show us any supporting data for your belief. All I've seen on pro-evolution has been from nonsensical people who don't really care to discuss the matter.

It's a large area to discuss. Is there any particular part you'd like to focus on? Should I start with some of the assertions that Kent Hovind utilizes since his video was referenced in this thread?

Btw, if I don't answer your replies quickly, it's not that I'm neglecting this discussion I'm simply busy - either at work or in class. But I will make sure to get respond as soon as I can.

Posts: 8599

Kent Hovind is just a charismatic ignorant person with some interesting dinosaur stories.

For seriousness try:
Evolution: Fact or Belief?
Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

Posts: 9

	madthumbs wrote:
	Kent Hovind is just a charismatic ignorant person with some interesting dinosaur stories.

Another point I can whole-heartedly agree with you upon.

	Quote:
	For seriousness try: Evolution: Fact or Belief? Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

I've seen the second one, I actually own a copy. The first one I've seen bits and pieces of. Are you wanting me to create a rebuttal to those videos? Or (since I don't have time to review any videos - I have class soon) I could just start from the beginning with what exactly (by definition) evolutionary theory is.

I've found this to be a problem in many a discussion. Many people have an incorrect idea of what evolution actually is. They start with that inaccurate idea and try to discuss aspects of the theory and nothing ever truly gets communicated effectively since both parties are coming from two different bases to start off with.

So, formally, Audesirk, Audesirk, and Byers (2002) define evolution as:

	Quote:
	...the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next. (G-9).

Source - Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. and Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

With this definition we have a the basic outline of what the theory describes. Many people also think that evolution simply only describes speciation when speciation is only one aspect of evolution.

Another point of confusion would be the tendency to view evolution as goal directed or seeing organisms in some sort of heirarchical structure reminscent of Aristotle's scala naturae with humans being close to the top. Although in Aristotle's "ladder", demons, angels, and finally god are above man with "minerals" down on the last rung.

Evolution also is not teleological or "goal directed". To understand how the process occurs it becomes necessary to "reverse" our thinking from an idea of movement towards a goal to a consequence of an ongoing process.

Another area in which seems to be a sticking point in discussions is what exactly micro and macro evolution is. Simply put, microevolution and macroevolution are not really two separate processes, they are conceptual distinctions made by us. Microevolution is defined by Mayr (2001) as:

	Quote:
	...evolution at or below the species level (287).

And macroevolution is defined as:

	Quote:
	...evolution above the species level (287).

Source - Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

When speciation is talked about most people also don't realize that evolutionary lineages are not only linear and we are not only dealing with anagenesis which is when an entire population becomes so different from an ancestral population to warrant a new species designation. Along with that we also have cladogenesis which is the creation of a new "branch on the tree" so to speak. Such produces the visual representation that many know as analogous to a "tree" or "bush of life".

This graphic representation shows both anagenesis and cladogenesis:

One other major thing that we need to note that comes up many times in evolution discussions is that evolutionary theory does not encompass Big Bang cosmology nor does it explain or even attempt to explain the origin of life. It is a theory of life and how it changes over time. It also shouldn't be equivocated intentionally or unintentionally with the colloquial usage of the term "evolution". When I use the term evolution, I am referring to the scientific theory and not the popular use of the word defined as:

	Quote:
	1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane. 2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

Or in the military sense of the word:

	Quote:
	9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade. 10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

Source - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

That's all I have time for right now. Hopefully I can check back with you later this evening.

Posts: 16

	Quote:
	Evolution also is not teleological or "goal directed". To understand how the process occurs it becomes necessary to "reverse" our thinking from an idea of movement towards a goal to a consequence of an ongoing process.

Well said.
....natural selection.Only the survivors continue on...

Posts: 8599

	Quote:
	This bizarre-looking Goblin Shark was recently found off the coast of Japan.