Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

As everyone who has seen the photographs knows the dentition of the thylacine and the wolf is very different.Thus Milton's "observations" can be rejected as false - the skulls are not nearly identical - they can easily be distinguished by a layman.This was all hashed out in the thread you referred to.Score one against Milton's reliability.OK how about Milton's comments on the T.O. Transitional Fossils FAQ. He CLAIMS that the FAQ promises fine-grained transitional sequences - but he omits the text which makes the actual promise:
"Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals"
Why then does Milton not talk about the transitions given in part 2 for mammalian species ?Then he takes ordinary scientific language and calls it "undefined Darwinist code words" which he claims is "used to suggest or imply
that there is strong or direct scientific evidence of a relationship". In fact in every case they DO deal with evidence of a relationship or an evidenced relationship.So Milton's direct comments on the FAQ are based on misrepresentation.So what "strata" does Milton demand ? It isn't clear. Why for example does he reject the horse sequence ? And why does he claim that the transitional fossil are just isolated specimens when fine grained transitiosn are known to exist ?And lets repeat a question you asked :
"Richard Milton says ape to human transitional bones do not exist WHY does he say this ?"The answer is that he DOES have a very big axe to grind against evolution.

Milton hasn't stated what he thinks would "demonstrate" evolution to the extent that he requires it. I would alo like to know how he thinks that stellar formation is demonstrated to the degree he requires.Since I'm not a psychologist I would not like to offer any firm ideas on why Milton "thinks" the way he does. However it appears that he hates science because it contradicts the nutty things he wants to believe in. As I showed in my previous pos Milton says thigns that are quite clearly false - so can you offer a better explanation ? While you're at it you can explain why you still trust what he says.As for Philip Johnson, all I can say is that his writing makes me understand why so many Americans distrust lawyers.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-01-2004]

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

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

I would liek to say that I don't see any reason to consider Milton a creationist as such, however so far as I can tell he just objects to evolution without having a coherent position of his own.However I don't beleive that Milton can be considered independant corroboration of creationist claims either. To know that we would have to consider how he arrived at his beliefs. I woudl also add that Willowtree has yet to offer any valid reason for considering Milton any sort of authority - or even to deal adequately with the mounting evidence that Milton doesn't understand what he is talking about - and may well be lying (consider his criticism of Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ - the FAQ clearly and truthfully states that examples of species level transitions will be found in section 2 amongst the mammals but Milton claims not only that the FAQ promises such transitions in a discussion of fish in section 1 but that the FAQ contains no such examples at all).

quote:

---

When I did post scientific I posted mainstream stuff. (Milton, Behe, Johnson )

---

Now that is a clear falsehood. Behe is the only one who is any sort of scientist and his anti-evolutionary argments are rejected by the mainstream.Johnson is a lawyer, whose arguments are likewise rejected.And as I showed Milton doesn't even seem to understand the role natural selection plays in the theory of evolution. And your promised reply in that thread - which you said would be posted by the 27th December has not materialised. And he obviously hadn't done any proper research on the wolf and thylacine since otherwise he would have known that what he was saying wasn't true (indeed the diagnostic difference in the back teeth is evident even in Milton's small drawings of the skulls).So obviously you have no idea what the mainstream scientific view even is.

Methodological Naturalism has nothign to do with a belief in whether God is the creator. Methodological naturalism states that the supernatural is outside the scope of science.So unless you can show where 1 Romans stats that science can prove that God exists methodological naturalism isn't there. And if it was then 1 Romans would be wrong since science can't prove that God exists.

What is this "Bible" you are talking about - it certainly isn't the book that is usually known by that title. Is it something you made up ?