Conolophus subcristatus

| 136 Comments
Land_Iguana.jpg

Conolophus subcristatus – Land iguana, Galapagos Islands.

136 Comments

Are those the ones that sneeze salt?

Matt,

Another fine photograph of the native Galapagos fauna from you IMHO. From which island was this taken?

John

_Arthur said:

Are those the ones that sneeze salt?

You’re thinking of the marine iguanas: they sneeze it out because they have to void the salt from the sea water they drink.

I took the picture on Isla Santa Cruz, but I do not know if the critter is native there – I think I took the picture at the research station. I promise to (get my wife to) take better notes in the future.

They’re four feet long and eat primarily prickly pear cactus - but that one looks like it just ate a goat or something.

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Yabba Dabba Doo!

I can’t wait to see the Flintstones exhibit at the Creation Museum either (But only if they give me a free pass.):

Henry J said:

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Yabba Dabba Doo!

I can’t wait to see the Flintstones exhibit at the Creation Museum either

This is getting kinda OT, but a Flintstones exhibit at the Creation Museum will necessarily be tinged with tragedy. Unless the town of Bedrock existed after Noah’s time (seems unlikely), it was destroyed in the Flood with all its wicked inhabitants.

Take THAT Mr. Slate!!!:)

Unless the town of Bedrock existed after Noah’s time (seems unlikely), it was destroyed in the Flood with all its wicked inhabitants.

Well, I’ve heard that Fred and Wilma were the first couple to have been seen in bed together on television… ;)

Henry

What is with all of the Bible bashing in here? Are we not to be objective about this discovery here? How about the fact that when one accesses the site on http://creation.com that this has already been addressed by them before you guys have made a mockery of them in the first place?

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

I don’t put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Dr. Lewis said:

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

Can you provide this alleged ample evidence?

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

I don’t see how your doctorates are evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together.

Dr. Lewis said:

I don’t put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Well, the thing is that Young Earth Creationism has no explanatory power whatsoever, and its proponents, including yourself, have no ability nor desire to provide any evidence to support their claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis accurately describes the beginning of the Universe and the origins of the diversities of life on Earth.

In other words, please provide evidence to support your claims.

Doctor Doctor Lewis: I own two very nice water colour abstracts. So what? Present your evidence.

Hey, Dr. Lewis! Can I sue you for malpractice?

Dr. Lewis said:

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

That rather sounds like you bought them.

Dr. Lewis said:

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Maybe a little study of atomic physics might help you understand how the ages of dinosaur fossils and hominoid fossils are determined.

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

As others have asked, please provide some actual science-based literature citations. Please note that material from Answers In Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, the Coral Ridge Ministries, the Creation Research Society, the International Flat Earth Society, “Doctor” Kent Hovind, and such is not going to convince anybody here.

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Since you have made a point of this, please let us know which doctorate you got first, and from which duly accredited institutions you got your doctorates. Some of us would also be mightily interested in the subject and URL of your doctoral dissertations.

Dr. Lewis said:

The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

This is ironic, given as how you’ve said nothing interesting or informative, while informing us that you know nothing and simultaneously inserting your foot into your mouth.

Dr. Lewis said:

What is with all of the Bible bashing in here? Are we not to be objective about this discovery here? How about the fact that when one accesses the site on http://creation.com that this has already been addressed by them before you guys have made a mockery of them in the first place?

Greatly enjoyed your site Dr. Lewis. Especially the part about how the earth sits at the center of the universe in a gravity well sufficiently strong enough to cause an ~1:10^6 time dilation effect. Well, it did, but evidently while we are still at the center of the universe that gravitational effect turned off at some point. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Dr. Dr. Lewis:

If you are referring to the infamous Paluxy footprints, please read the following article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

I think that you will find that you have been sadly misinformed. But then again, if you really do have a degree in biology you should have known that.

If you have any other evidence, by all means please share it with us. The Talk Origins archive is extensive and it contains refutations of almost every creationist claim ever made. I am not particularly worried that you will present anything at all original.

On the other thread, I also made so bold as to doubt that the good doctor is in fact a doctor or a biologist. If he wants to allay my doubts - and those of others - all he has to do is to state the year, title of thesis and conferring institution of his (biology) doctoral degree, and cite his publications - the fruit of his fifteen years of laboratory work - in peer-reviewed journals.

Any real scholar would be glad to do this. Any real University would be glad to affirm, and (for a small fee) to furnish a copy of such a thesis, which is, in the great tradition of free scholarly debate, considered a public document.

If this information is not forthcoming, I am of the opinion that his pants are on fire.

Dave Luckett said:

Any real scholar would be glad to do this.

Any real scholar has his CV online – even Richard Sternberg, an ISCID fellow, is proud to display his qualifications. Of course, publications to the ICR, CRS, ISCID, and the Foundation for Understanding Belief And Reason (FUBAR) should be listed along with contributions to Marvel Comics.

What – cat got your tongue?

Dr. Dr. Lewis:

If you are referring to the infamous dinosaur blood fiasco, please read the following article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/din[…]r/blood.html

I think that you will find that you have been sadly misinformed. But then again, if you really do have a degree in biology you should have known that.

If you have any other evidence, by all means please share it with us. The Talk Origins archive is extensive and it contains refutations of almost every creationist claim ever made. I am not particularly worried that you will present anything at all original.

Oh to be cold-blooded. “Honey, my core temperature is dropping. I’m going to have to go out and lay on this rock for a few hours.”

Dear Dr. Lewis:

Your breathtakingly inane remark (see below) is true only for avian dinosaurs (better known as birds). There is definitely NO EVIDENCE - not even the forged Paluxy River footprints (The forged ones are of course those of human footprints, not the nonavian dinosaur ones.) - to support your risible, most inane, assertion:

Dr. Lewis said:

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Could your Ph. D. in Biology be one courtesy of Loma Linda University or Biola University perhaps?

Live Long and Prosper (as an AiG Dalek clone),

John Kwok

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said:

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

Can you provide this alleged ample evidence?

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

I don’t see how your doctorates are evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together.

Dr. Lewis said:

I don’t put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Well, the thing is that Young Earth Creationism has no explanatory power whatsoever, and its proponents, including yourself, have no ability nor desire to provide any evidence to support their claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis accurately describes the beginning of the Universe and the origins of the diversities of life on Earth.

In other words, please provide evidence to support your claims.

You’re not providing evidence to support any claims made here. All you are doing is simply mocking Young Earth Creation Scientists. For me to provide evidential support for Young Earth Creation Science in its entirety would require me to write a book, you’re being quite unfair here. What about the theory of Young Earth Creation Science do you want evidence in regards to?

Lets look at what we know about the fossil record. For one 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms and 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants. 95% of the remaining of those are .25% invertebrates including insects. The remaining .0125% are vetebrates. We consider that the fossils in the layers that we find are Post-Flood for the most part, most of which were buried after the Flood and the scattering of humans from Babel. Of course you don’t believe in the Bible for whatever reason (theres ample evidential support of a global flood from nearly all ancient civilizations that account for one, so I don’t see how you could argue against it logically). We find that the dinosaur fossils are relatively small compared to other types of creatures. The Flood was a marine catastrophe, and as such, marine fossils are the dominant fossil found in the record. Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms as I discussed a few sentences ago, and this makes since of the percentages, helping us to understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are rare and overwhelemd by marine organisms. Why are there no fossilized humans in Flood sediments then might be your next question. Well, I think it proper to have a bit of understanding behind Biblical exegesis to understand why this is not a problem for us. Basically most people believe that in Genesis, it says that God will destroy man from the face of the Earth using the Flood. Some people who are not well studied on the subject believe that this phrase means to completely obliterate all evidential support of man. But this is not so. The Hebrewic word hxm or maha can leave evidence behind. That is a misconception. Maha has been utilized to be the blotting out of sin, but there is evidence that remains after. Better questions to ask about human fossil findings in layers that contain dinosaur fossils are as followed. Do the human fossils exist but are not yet found? What is the likelihood that the humans would have been fossilized? What is unusual about their distribution? Lastly, how much Flood sediment was there?

Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Consider that the Flood took weeks to cover the Earth, so it is possible still for people to make it to boats, grab on to floating debris and so forth. Some may have made it to higher ground. They wouldn’t have lasted long which is true, but that does not mean that they fossilize. In most cases, we find that dead things decompose or get eaten. They disappear and nothing is left. Tragedies worldwide have taken place and left not a single trace of a human behind, as there are victims who are never found (as is usually the case for natural disasters when it comes to dead bodies). It may still be possible to fossilize a human body. Neanderthals as we know are found in post-Flood sediments. But even still one consideration never made is that the human population was relatively small in the pre-Flood era. Considering that God did say be fruitful and multiply and man was incredibly disobedient in the pre-Flood era, it is quite possible that man did not listen to this command. Violence was highly prevalent during the time period as well, so death rates would be extremely high. An estimate could be hundreds of thousands of people living. A few million people would be generous. 200 million people would leave just over one human fossil per cubic mile of sediment laid down by the Flood. An uneven distribution of civilization is also another situation to consider, so it would be very hard to locate fossils.

Another misconception is that WHILE man and dinosaur did walk together, they did not actually walk together. What do I mean by this. Well, just because we walk with bears today doesn’t mean that we actually walk with bears. And in this case, its highly likely with the uneven distribution that mankind and dinosaurs were on opposite ends of the Earth to say the least. So we do not need to find dinosaurs buried with humans to say that they roamed the Earth together.

So the Fred and Wilma comments might be cute, but in truth they are highly unrealistic, condescending towards the Creation Science arguments, and up to and including a strawman misrepresentation of what we actually try to argue.

Thank you all, I hope this helps you at least understand where we are coming from.

And you may call me Jay.

Eric Finn,

Question 1: Do you think that originally there were many different types of replicators, or that there was only one type (more or less the present type)?

Question 2: Do you think that one of the main tasks of a possible theory on abiogenesis would be to explain, why there originally was only one type, or why the present type was the only one to survive, out of many?

Question 3: Do you think that abiogenesis is still happening all the time, but can not any more conquer the already populated habitat, or have the circumstances changed to make it very unlikely?

Well, if you want my guesses (or even if you don’t),

1. I wouldn’t be overly surprised either way - either one initial type ancestral to what is here now, or several initial types with only one leaving survivors. For the heck of it, I’ll throw in a third hypothesis: multiple types, from many of which the current survivors coopted some parts.

2. To some extent, that seems to be just a question of how to group topics together or subdivide them. One thought is that if there were several initial types, each one that we know about would be described by a separate abiogenesis theory. As to why all but one died out, a couple of possible explanations occur to me (and it could be a combination of both). 1) the less efficient ones got crowded out or eaten, or 2) some of them had bad luck.

3. I doubt that the abiogenesis that led to current life would still be occurring (although that’s just a guess), since the chemistry prevalent on this planet has undoubtedly changed quite a bit. Whether the current chemistry would lead to some other kind of replicator(s) if a large enough area got somehow left undisturbed for a long enough period, I have no idea. I also have no idea what “long enough” would mean in this context, but I suspect it would be very very long relative to our life spans.

Henry

Henry J said:

Eric Finn,

Question 1: Do you think that originally there were many different types of replicators, or that there was only one type (more or less the present type)?

Question 2: Do you think that one of the main tasks of a possible theory on abiogenesis would be to explain, why there originally was only one type, or why the present type was the only one to survive, out of many?

Question 3: Do you think that abiogenesis is still happening all the time, but can not any more conquer the already populated habitat, or have the circumstances changed to make it very unlikely?

Well, if you want my guesses (or even if you don’t),

1. I wouldn’t be overly surprised either way - either one initial type ancestral to what is here now, or several initial types with only one leaving survivors. For the heck of it, I’ll throw in a third hypothesis: multiple types, from many of which the current survivors coopted some parts.

[…]

Henry

Most certainly, I am interested in hearing all the guesses.

Your “third hypothesis” appears quite strong to me. At least there does not seem to be any fundamental discrepancy between the hypothesis and the current knowledge.

Thank you for your reply!

Dr. Lewis said:

Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn’t make me wrong. Thats not my problem at all. I have looked at both sides. I was a firm advocate of Evolution for many years. After I got out of school and started studying Science on my own in the research lab, I started finding things that did not add up to what Evolution was trying to say. When I asked questions regarding why certain things happened, they simply stated, “Evolution did it.” That wasn’t good enough for me, and I started studying other positions, such as Creation Science, and the newly found Intelligent Design Movement. The Intelligent Design Movement didn’t collaberate with the findings that I made, and oddly enough only a Young Earth would satisfy what my Scientific findings truely were. The Bible I find to be a very highly scientifically accurate book.

What a classic case of “turning reality upside down”! How can we take this guy seriously when he totally contradicts the reality of science as I’ve known it since I myself was a college student?! It was actually my exposure to Young Earth Creationism that destroyed my faith in religion during that time period. The lies that “Creation scientists” told just became too blatantly obvious. Clearly, Dr. Lewis is a fraud.

Dale Husband said:

Clearly, Dr. Lewis is a fraud.

Just his use of language gives him away. It’s doubtful that he is even college educated, let alone having any advanced degrees.

Whatever he is, he isn’t a doctor of any sort.

He might be a Doctor of Thinkology.

Dr. Dr. Lewis wrote:

“Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn’t make me wrong.”

Well let’s see, the scientists are the ones who are demanding evidence here. Dr. Dr. Lewis is the one is is giving excuses for not providing any evidence and then claiming that he has provided evidence. Now who do you think is more likely to be “brainwashed”?

Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that none of us have ever examined “both sides”? Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that professional scientists have not examined more evidence than he has? Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that monetary coinsiderations are the important factor here? Scientists get paid for doing and teaching science, not one particular theory. If evolution were to be replaced by a better theory then we would all still get paid. In fact, the person who came up with a better explanation for all of the evidence would most likely be the richest most fampous person who ever lived.

Having failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, and having also failed to realize it, I also must conclude that Dr. Dr. Lewis is no scientist.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said:

Clearly, Dr. Lewis is a fraud.

Just his use of language gives him away. It’s doubtful that he is even college educated, let alone having any advanced degrees.

Whatever he is, he isn’t a doctor of any sort.

The “collaberate” and “truely” (among other things) had me suspecting a Loki. If so, he could be a doctor.

John Kwok said:

How dare you mock the one true GOD

Actually I’m an equal opportunity mocker. But there isn’t anything scary/daring about mocking non-plausible objects. You should try it some time, especially if you find it scary, it is supposedly good for your mental health.

As for Klingon belief - it is much like the Asa belief, so it makes more internal if not external sense (the gods have a use for the parts of the world that they create) and is harder to mock. But I’ll try: - It is just not a theory … - Odin!

Karen S. said:

How was that line again? “From god to goo”?

I believe it was From Goo to You by way of the Zoo.

Ah, thanks. It works too.

Eric Finn said:

Your post discussed some profound aspects of speculative side of science. I do not wish to challenge you in any way, I am only interested in your tentative opinions (or opinions by anyone else).

There is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis, although some bits and pieces that might be involved in that process are known. For that reason, I am not asking for any justifications.

[…]

Eric, thanks for your interest. Abiogenesis wasn’t really the purpose of my comment, rather to ask how speculative the molecular biology and/or bacteria phylogeny was, but I’m interested in answering your questions.

Unfortunately I’m due to a trip. I will try to get back to this interesting topic, earliest tomorrow, the day after for sure. (What is a day or two between the Gy from here back to abiogenesis? ;-) )

I was kidding of course:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

John Kwok said:

How dare you mock the one true GOD

Actually I’m an equal opportunity mocker. But there isn’t anything scary/daring about mocking non-plausible objects. You should try it some time, especially if you find it scary, it is supposedly good for your mental health.

As for Klingon belief - it is much like the Asa belief, so it makes more internal if not external sense (the gods have a use for the parts of the world that they create) and is harder to mock. But I’ll try: - It is just not a theory … - Odin!

Qap’la,

John

NPD,

Thanks for the correction:

NPD said:

John Kwok said: Anyway, Bill is destined to go to his personal version of the Klingon Hell (I believe it is correctly referred to as Sto-Vi-Kor), so “Dr. Lewis” will be joining him there too, once Yahweh “recalls” him.

Nitpick: Sto-vo-kor is Klingon Heaven. Or, well, it’d be more like Klingon Valhalla, I guess.

Gre’Thor is where the dishonored dead go.

< /nerd>

Am certain Gre’Thor is where Bill Dembski and “Dr. Lewis” are both bound for.

If you didn’t guess already, I’d probably been flunked out of the Klingon Defense Force by now for being such a mediocre Klingon warrior.

Qap’la,

John

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Eric Finn said:

Your post discussed some profound aspects of speculative side of science. I do not wish to challenge you in any way, I am only interested in your tentative opinions (or opinions by anyone else).

There is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis, although some bits and pieces that might be involved in that process are known. For that reason, I am not asking for any justifications.

[…]

Eric, thanks for your interest. Abiogenesis wasn’t really the purpose of my comment, rather to ask how speculative the molecular biology and/or bacteria phylogeny was, but I’m interested in answering your questions.

Unfortunately I’m due to a trip. I will try to get back to this interesting topic, earliest tomorrow, the day after for sure. (What is a day or two between the Gy from here back to abiogenesis? ;-) )

Thanks, I will be looking forward to it.

“Dr. Lewis” deeply contradicted himself when he described the floor as violent enough to have caused most of the present geology and yet mild enough for aquatic organisms to have survived. If corals are bleaching because of a slight rise in temperature how could such organisms have survived the changes in clarity, salinity, pH, etc. that he describes in the flood. As for not reading the other side, I’ve been reading creationist claptrap since the early 70’s. I even have a signed (yes he can write I think) copy of “From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo” It’s hilarious. But if you really want a laugh (or an upset stomach) read the April “Acts and Facts” “The Nature of Naturalism” by David Coppedge. He changes the meaning of nature and naturalism in almost every sentence. It is the single most convoluted and dishonest piece I have ever read in almost any creationist writing. And that’s saying something. As for those who may wonder why I would read this stuff. I taught biology for over 30 years and found I could defuse almost every argument by knowing what they were going to say and short circuiting them before they ever got started. It worked every time a parent complained about my teaching evolution at all.

Mary Hunter said:

As for those who may wonder why I would read this stuff. I taught biology for over 30 years and found I could defuse almost every argument by knowing what they were going to say and short circuiting them before they ever got started. It worked every time a parent complained about my teaching evolution at all.

Not only is that an excellent approach, it also prepares a teacher to anticipate many of the misconceptions about science that are now rampant among the public because of the intense, multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns of the ID/Creationists over something like four decades.

And knowing what the ID/Creationists are going to say even before they do is extremely effective in preventing them from even getting to the first rung on the ladder of intimidation. Most of these parents who attempt to intimidate know only the sound bites they have studied. They know nothing of the misconceptions and misinformation that these sound bites are built on.

“Dr.” Lewis said:

Why do you assume my evidence before I present it?

Because our past experience with creationists has shown that they will hide and dodge for months before daring to present anything remotely similar to evidence.

“Dr.” Lewis said: Or perhaps rather my argumentation that most Evolutionists do not even consider?

WHAT argumentation? You haven’t offered a single argument worth looking at. Until you do, your utter failure to support your claims will be mocked at will.

“Dr.” Lewis said:

The ample evidence I would suggest can be made through comments found within the Bible regarding documented beasts and animals that are described as being very large. Thats eyewitness testimony right there and very much worth repeating of.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!11!ELEVEN!!!

THAT’S your “ample evidence”? Teh babble mentions big things, therefore The Flintstones is a documentary? So unicorns are real? Grasshoppers have four legs? Pi = 3? Plants were created before the sun? Adam and Eve were made together along with all the other animals yet at the same time Adam was made alone after all the animals and Eve was made from a rib? All the evil in the world was caused by a rib-woman eating a magical fruit at the behest of a talking snake? A drunk in the desert made a boat big enough to hold two members of every species, and loaded it with two and seven of each simultaneously? The magic man in the sky gave commandments written in stone not to kill, then decreed that the punishment for damn near everything is execution and ordered his followers to commit genocide? And that same magic man in the sky had to sacrifice himself to himself to forgive mankind for something done thousands of years ago by humans who would be long dead if they had ever existed outside of myth?

“Dr”, you’re a laugh riot! Your babble proves absolutely nothing. It’s a book of contradictory myths passed down by ignorant savages! Your “eyewitnesses” are packed with liars and the insane. You’ve got nothing. And this is why we mock you. Because you have gone to such effort to earn mockery.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on April 6, 2009 12:00 PM.

A Paul Nelson Anniversary Missed! was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater Day 18: A pastor and two teachers is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter