Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

What photographs are you talking about ?What else does Ned need to do ?I don't know, IF he is indeed correct, like I said in my post then I will be forced to concede the point.What else need I to do ?I need a preponderance, just like you would if the situation was reversed.You being an objective person - why don't you propose a fair way to resolve this ?If not, then we are where we are.

I believe the fair way to resolve this is to look at the photographs and links that were offered you in the original threadThe Thylacine Museum - A Natural History of the Tasmanian TigerIn the original thread,
http://EvC Forum: Some Evidence Against Evolutionyou quote milton I may be wrong, someone correct me if I am, but I don't remember you ever really answering anyone concerning Milton's claims in the original thread. Your claims changed from virtually identical to vastly similar and then you basically call off the exchange with Ned there.http://EvC Forum: Some Evidence Against EvolutionYou also continue with your claim that evolution = atheism.I believe you HAVE been given a proponderance of evidence but are deliberately choosing to ignore it.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I would add that the photographs illustrating the teeth are absolutely clear. Nobody could say that they are the same - they really are quite distinct. As the site says "Even the skull structure is superficially similar to that of a canid, apart from the marked differences in dentition."http://www.naturalworlds.org/...ull/dentition_comparison.htm

Hello Again WILLOWTREE:I have a few points this time around. Let's start with "relevance". You made this statement in an earlier post: They way I read this is that you were thrilled to find Milton's evidence because here you have a non-creationist independently supporting creationist claims. Somehow, you believe, Milton simply saying that he is not a creationsist validates his evidence against evolution. And your evidence that he is not a creationist is his claim to not be one. Following that sort of twisted, circular logic, am I correct in making the assumption that if you find out the Milton is indeed a creationist, then your so called "independent corroboration" will no longer be valid and you will have to conceed that his evidence is now false?Your basic arguement against the ToE is based on him not being a creationist. That is why it's relevant.Now, about the skull comparison. You said this: If you have not yet visited the sites listed in Asgara's post, please do so. Pay careful attention to the comparisons between the Thylacine and Grey wolf skulls from the ventral view. Look closely. See all those foramen (holes) scattered about? Notice the differences in number and their locations? Now look at the area between the two rows of teeth. Notice anything different between the palatine and maxilla bones from one animal to the next? Do you see the two relatively smooth, curved surfaces surrounding a big hole located at the back of the shull? Those are called the occipital condyles and are the site of articulation between the skull and the atlas (cervical vertabrae #1). See how different they look?Let's move on to the teeth. Count the number of incisors for each animal. By my count, the Grey wolf has six (three on each side) while the Thylacine has eight. How about the premolars? Eight total for the Grey wolf, six for the Thylacine. If you count the molars you will notice that the Grey wolf has only four while the Thylacine has eight.See Willowtree, I think even a 1st or 2nd grader could find numerous differences between these "indentical" skulls. (Not that I'm saying NosyNed is, at best, only a second grader. I have a feeling (but I could be wrong) that NosyNed is a long way removed from second grade ). Is that preponderance enough?I would suggest you stop putting such blind faith in Milton and look at the evidence for yourself. In doing so, I fail to see how you could continue supporting claims that are so easily disproven.

Willowtree, how on earth can you say that an evolutionist declaring themselves a theist has no relevance to this debate when time and time again you have, without a shred of evidence, confidently asserted that evolutionists are atheists. By pointing out I am a theist AND and evolutionist, that blows your assertion out of the water! I call that relevant. Can you really not see why a direct refutation of a point you made is relevant? Are you seriously saying that anything which contradicts your "worldview" is irrelevant? Think on this, if mankind had ignored evidence which was contrary to their "worldview", we would all still believe that the Earth was flat. You can't just ignore evidence which is contrary to your theories, otherwise you introduce bias into your thinking and it becomes anything but logical.If you continually bang on about evolutionists being atheists, don't be surprised if people contradict you, in fact you should expect it. From experience I've found that a large number of scientists are practicing Christians.As for Milton being independent corroboration - nope. His views count as OPINION, not evidence. I suggest you check out the meaning of the word "corroboration".Now as for theist scientists, we don't tend to use our religious beliefs in our work because we measure and assess things that are quantifiable. God's love isn't, the Truth of the Gospels isn't and so we can't use it in our analyses. How can you incorporate the Love of God into a calculation for the mean length of a gene across a number of species? Or even the mean shoe size of the average UK resident?If you really want a serious debate on the subject, you can't continually yell "Irrelevant" when someone points out a fact that is in contradiction to your "truths". The object of debate is not to score points, but to learn from others, to gather new information, to test your ideas and beliefs, to see how other opinions agree or contradict you and in the light of the information gathered you can maybe refine your ideas - that is what debate is all about. If you close your mind to unpalatable facts, you will never learn, you will never grow as a person and you run the risks of repeating the same fallacies all your life instead of refining your thoughts and maybe getting nearer to the truth, whatever that is.Just a last wee point. If Milton considers all religion as inferior pursuits, surely he is saying something that you totally disagree with, something in which you consider him to be wrong. Do you think the same could be said of any of his other opinions, eg the thylacine/wolf skull similarities or are these utterances immune from "wrongness" just because they suit your argument?[This message has been edited by Trixie, 01-07-2004]

I went to the link you provided and could not find a side by side comparison of the skulls in question.Yet, because you Asgara, and NosyNed are very adamant about the skulls NOT being "identical" (Milton's claim) I will accept this as a fact. I find Milton's drawings to be cheesy and very inexact to back his claim of "identical". It was I who changed "identical" into "virtually identical" based upon the whole message of the drawings, which I do not know how to post onto a post from his book.I reserve the right to re-introduce this evidence at a later date when and if I find enough evidence/argument to rescind this withdrawal.Therefore, I conclude, based on the evidence provided by NosyNed that the evidence in question is not some evidence against evolution. I officially withdraw this evidence.Congrats Ned.[Note: Post # 116 in this topic, does leave the door open for RM&NS]

NosyNed :Post # 141 in this topic is mainly directed at you.Congrats.

What is so twisted about a creationist (me) saying the obvious concerning a non-creationist (Milton), that if a non-creationist rejects the major tenets of the ToE then this becomes independant corroboration of what I already assumed ?All that I know about Milton is what he tells me in his book. He says some very hurtful things about creationists and he goes on to say that he is not a creationist.Therefore, if I point to a person who is not a creationist who also rejects evolution then this type of evidence IS independant corroboration of things I already hold to be fact.If Milton is not a creationist then he has no creationist ax to grind. IF Milton becomes a creationist then it is what it is : The evidence convincing a person of the truth.

Roughly half way down the page The Thylacine Museum - A Natural History of the Tasmanian Tiger there is a set of six pictures with a list of links below each of them.Below the picture labelled "AN EXAMINATION OF THE THYLACINE SKULL" there are the links "THYLACINE AND WOLF COMPARISON" and "THYLACINE AND WOLF DENTITION" (caps in original).

The problem is that you are assuming that Milton does not have his own axe to grind. He isn't any sort of expert - in fact as I pointed out in the "Milton and Selection" thread he doesn't even seem to understand something so basic to evolution as the role selection plays in the theory. So far as I can tell Milton is just grinding his own anti-evolution axe.For more evidence that Milton is not reliable check out this "debate" Milton/Foley Debate

However, it is evidence of Milton's qualifications and abilities.

Thanks WT but I think that it is still best to examine what evidence you can if you can. If Asgara and I were expert at the anatomy of skulls then it might be less of a problem to take our opinions. We could describe in detail the differences from a technical perspective. (Experts do seem to call them "similar" btw).Go to this specific link http://www.naturalworlds.org/...ll/wolf_thylacine_skulls.htmor from the home there is a button with skull comparison on it. Under "an examination of thylacine skull"

---

Common sense isn't

Tell me O' observant one where did I say that "an evolutionist declaring themselves a theist has no relevance to this debate when time and time again you have...."What I said was directed at some riff raff that barged into the debate in another topic declaring themself to be a Spirit-filled intellectual armed with the atheist explanation of the origin of species.It was in this context that I asked this "theist", what relevance does your theism bring to the debate ? Why even admit your theism if it brings nothing unique to the debate ?I have laboriously argued the relevance of my theism and the unique thing that it brings to these debates. I have done so to a point that the entire room has asked me not to re-argue these things.I have also laboriously argued that ALL of my comments and arguments and evidence is DIRECTED at persons who reject God to be the ultimate Creator, which makes your comments about theistic evolutionists/deistic evolutionists in this post of yours a giant non-sequitor. You need to pay attention.Never did I say anything that contradicts my worldview to be irrelevant. I believe I said that any evidence that contradicts the atheist worldview is largely ignored. (everyone latches onto evidence that supports their worldview whether they admit it or not)Trixxi, I agree, nobody should ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview. Everyone agrees with this, however, the claim of rational enquiry that invokes a neutrality toward the Divine is dishonest.
This claim is really ruling God out of the picture but they cannot admit this because to do so would be admitting that a religious determination is being made without the credentials and evidence.The rest of your pro-theistic evolution sermonizing is embarrasssing.
Please do not lecture me about an open mind. You have reduced theism into a follower, a subordinate little puppy knowing its place in the scientific arena.If you had really done your homework concerning my beliefs which are contained in my posts then you would know I am a "God Sense" creationist. This position has ONE requirement, that we/I/whoever give God ultimate credit as the Creator and a word of thanks. If not, He will remove your ability to recognize His fingerprints in creation as a penalty for arbitrarily rejecting Him as the Creator. God removes your "God Sense" - this explains the atheists of neo-Darwinism as a whole.I am not a God-damn christian fundementalist who clings to their hillbilly dogma. There are eons and eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. These types of so called creationists make everyone believe that all creationists are the same - dumb trash burning Bible thumping morons with Jesus in their lips and Moses in their hearts.Half of everything you accuse me of in this post of yours is a straw man argument. You have mistaken me with the stereotype I just referenced.

It has already been shown that evolution and atheism do not go hand in hand, accept it. Please find a new argumnet.

---

"If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one another."
-- Epicurus

I'll try this again. Ok, how do we know that Milton is not a creationist? According to you, it's simple...he says so. But yet he does not accept the ToE. Ok, fine. What then do you, WILLOWTREE, consider the definition of a creationist to be? That is to say, what does someone have to "believe" in order to be a creationist? If things didn't evolve, then how did they get here? I'll admit it, I don't know that much about Milton. I'm just wondering what he thinks explains the diversity of life we see on this planet. There's not a lot of "wiggle room" here. If evolution is not a fact and therefore the ToE is non-applicable, pretty much the only other option is some form of creation. So his "independent corrorboration" is not all that independent.Then you give us this beauty: In that case, I can give you some more independant cooroboration. I once asked my 19 month old nephew if he was a creationist. He dropped his bottle, tripped over it, and then said "no" (I assumed in response to my question, but I didn't really follow up. Why do that. After all, he gave me the answer I wanted). Later on I asked him if he thought that maybe we evolved over millions and millions of years. All he did was look at me funny and then pee in his diaper. So there you have it....more independant cooroboration...Evolution is not true!
Some synonyms of corroboration are: validation, justification, legalization, and confirmation. Finding someone that independently supports your views doesn't validate, justify, legalize, or confirm them in any way. It simply means that you have found someone that agrees with you about certain things. Find yourself a practicing evolutionary biologist that can scientifically support your claims and then you would have independent cooroboration.Then you said: Boy, that lucky Milton just can't lose can he.And you completely ignored everything about the Thylacine, Grey wolf skull comparison. Why is that?