From Shimei:
The science fiction museum stating that teeth evolved from scales and they stated this as a fact, not a theory.
I suspect there were oodles of things presented as facts in that museum, which in truth, were theories. If you feel that every less-than absolutely established fact be provided with qualifiers to that effect, then every science textbook in the world is going to increase in size by 30%. Principles of aerodynamics, electronics, nuclear power, astronomy, biology, geology, archaeology, mechanics – just think how much the world will be improved if every reference to anything from such fields comes with an obligatory “we think …”, or “there is some evidence for …” or “this is not for sure, but …”.
But one underlying concept in the world of science is that our conclusions are always open to challenge. People who really understand science know this, and the people who object are showing their lack of understanding of the philosophy under which science operates. We don’t need qualifiers everywhere, in museums or books.
Do you agree that it is a little misleading to say such a thing and then have no evidence to back up the claim? I mean not even a simple demonstration (perhaps some cartoon illustrations) as to how this occurred?
Are you saying that every exhibit at a museum of science must include the trail of evidence that supports the display? Nonsense.
Should they add a little asterisk at the end of the statement that says * check out Denis Lamoureux, he has a PHD and he is a Christian Dentist.
I offered his name because he is well qualified to address the question, and does not inherently carry the anti-religious bias you might feel comes with my explanations. Can you suggest another scientist that is friendly to conservative Christianity and well-qualified to comment on the evidence for the scales–to-teeth question?
The burden is on your side, not Young Earth Creationists.
Your side initiated the ridicule of the teeth-scales idea. So far the sum of the evidence you have given to disprove it is that the museum stated it as a fact instead of a theory, that you have doubts about scales growing nerves (which aharvey has already shown is not the issue you thought), that the line of evidence was not presented with the display. And when presented with sources to provide answers to the questions you raise, your response is to pooh-pooh them. The burden for honesty is on whose side?
This whole debate has nothing to do with Enyart, so I don’t see the point of bringing him up again.
Oh, I thought Bob Enyart was a prime motivator for some of the membership of his church going to the museum. Not true?
BTW, another dentist went on this same tour and couldn’t stop laughing at such an absurd statement. Scales developed a nervous system. Ok, how does that happen again? We need actual evidence, not some far out theories from Lamoureux or anyone else.
Wonderful. Then you have access to an “expert” who can talk technically with Dr. Lamoureux and confirm that he is presenting the straight facts. BTW, how much has your dentist studied the evolutionary history of teeth? Or were his studies more directed towards the biology of modern human teeth, and how to treat dental problems?
Not to deflect the thrust of this thread, but I feel like this is hypocrisy personified. To contrast – I honestly feel that every Bible, in the interest of honesty, should come with an introductory section. In this section would be the statement that not a single original Biblical autograph manuscript is known to exist. For each original manuscript, if care of that sole copy was passed on to a poorly qualified or even malicious scribe for copying, then what the current Bible has in that area may poorly represent the original. And the unavoidable introduction in scribal errors has resulted in another level of uncertainty as to what some passage really said. The very list of the books found in most Bibles was determined not by divine decree, but by the vagaries of opinions of councils, by which writings escaped total destruction, and even by the influence of Roman soldiers. There has been a debate which yet rages in scholarly Christendom over the precise original meanings of some words and phrases, and which of the competing fragmentary manuscripts to give most weight to.
Then you disbelieve that scales could have become teeth, yet would ask me to accept fully that snakes can talk, that the success of battles is determined not by soldierly skill or tactics, but by whether one man can hold his arm up in the air. I shudder at the hypocrisy in this thread.
Bet you didn't expect me to be so honest!
