The avoidance of "catastrophic slip due to the hydrodynamic formation of a fluid layer" (from the second paper) is indeed "just like the tread of a car tyre" (from the first paper). Racing car tires are intelligently designed to not have tread, precisely to maximize traction on dry pavement in controlled conditions. But for those of us primates who drive cars on real roads or climb real trees in wet weather, treads/ridges are the best bet for coming out on the right side of natural selection.
I'm not a scientist, I am not very skilled at reading papers. But knowing creationists I knew that line would be in an abstract or introduction setting up what the paper would actually be on
14:57 I've seen this sort of thing dubbed as a "Trojan Source" where creationists quote articles that specifically disprove the claim they're trying to support with the quote mine. It happens EXTREMELY often with YECs. Your mileage may vary on whether you think it's due to malicious dishonesty or low ability to read.
It's both. Typically, the vast majority of young earth creationists (and old earth creationists) are merely regurgitating a quote-mine they've read from some other creationist source, and don't have a clue what the original article that the quote comes from is even about in the first place. However, second, whenever some critic brings up the point that the article has been quote-mined, and discusses what the article is actually about and explains the exact nature of how the quote has been misrepresented, then creationists just "dig in their heels" (or "double down," whichever term you prefer) and deliberately ignore what has been pointed out to them, deliberately refuse to correct their error, and then just keep right on promoting their falsehood anyway. This is just Standard Creationist Operating Procedure 101 - which is how they demonstrate their attitude of "malicious dishonesty." It's why creationism pseudoscience promoters today routinely spout off a whole cornucopia of bogus claims and arguments that have been debunked for decades. They just keep regurgitating/recycling the same bogus claims and arguments over and over and over again without any regard for the actual scientific facts. For example, today we still find young earth creationists promoting the "exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field" claim, the "moon recession" argument, the "short period comets" argument, and so on - arguments that have been debunked for forty years or more.
One of the stupidest things about AiG's arguments is that they say it's evidence of a designer but they almost never show how it's THEIR version of a designer.
I’m wondering if this fingerprint friction paper considered that our skin is not dry, and even though the ridges reduce contact surface area, they might still increase friction because the ridges might provide channels to allow the oils to move away from the point of contact?
The more I think about design arguments the more they start to paint a caricature of creation that resembles a bad screenplay wherein certain things happen in the plot only so that they can move the story along to the desired outcome. Poor Yahweh, designed gravity but then had to come back arounf and put fingerprints on certain primates because they kept dropping their food!
Joel you have to agree that God "designed" us and primates with fingerprints, regardless of one's view of young earth or old earth. I worry that many people who stumble across your videos will think you are arguing for an atheistic worldview. I know it doesn't take much reseach to realize your actual worlview, however few probably take the time. Maybe incorporate your beliefs more often into your videos? For example, you could have prefaced this video with "As a theistic evolutionist, I believe God "designed" us and other primates with useful fingerprints....here is my refutation to my Christian brothers and sisters over at AIG on their view.of fingerprints..." If a teenager who is struggling with their faith saw this video without any context, he or she would have to assume you are an atheist content creator lobbing attacks at Christian organizations. Anyway, have a good weekend.
I'm working on a blog post to go wit this and I was really hit by this same point. I was just writing that "of course why can't it be both design and common ancestry?" I certainly should have addressed this in this video. It would have been a very good place to have had that very discussion. I should have taken the point that AIG thinks that chimps and gorillas as having a common ancestor further but pointing out directly that this means they believe that their differences in fingerprints are the result of changes in descendants from a common ancestor but that doesn't' mean that God was not involved as the original author of those changes. Maybe a short follow-up video is warranted to explore that at bit.
@coreylambrecht5797 - Dr Duff is not an "evolutionist". He is, though, a scientist. Meanwhile, you think you are being super sneaky, tip-toeing around, trying to get the good doctor to expose some kind of bias to you. What difference does it make what his religious views are? The _AIG_ article prevaricates. Now why would that woman want to do that?
The avoidance of "catastrophic slip due to the hydrodynamic formation of a fluid layer" (from the second paper) is indeed "just like the tread of a car tyre" (from the first paper). Racing car tires are intelligently designed to not have tread, precisely to maximize traction on dry pavement in controlled conditions. But for those of us primates who drive cars on real roads or climb real trees in wet weather, treads/ridges are the best bet for coming out on the right side of natural selection.
I'm not a scientist, I am not very skilled at reading papers. But knowing creationists I knew that line would be in an abstract or introduction setting up what the paper would actually be on
14:57 I've seen this sort of thing dubbed as a "Trojan Source" where creationists quote articles that specifically disprove the claim they're trying to support with the quote mine. It happens EXTREMELY often with YECs. Your mileage may vary on whether you think it's due to malicious dishonesty or low ability to read.
I was just about to comment saying the exact same thing.👍
It's both.
Typically, the vast majority of young earth creationists (and old earth creationists) are merely regurgitating a quote-mine they've read from some other creationist source, and don't have a clue what the original article that the quote comes from is even about in the first place.
However, second, whenever some critic brings up the point that the article has been quote-mined, and discusses what the article is actually about and explains the exact nature of how the quote has been misrepresented, then creationists just "dig in their heels" (or "double down," whichever term you prefer) and deliberately ignore what has been pointed out to them, deliberately refuse to correct their error, and then just keep right on promoting their falsehood anyway. This is just Standard Creationist Operating Procedure 101 - which is how they demonstrate their attitude of "malicious dishonesty."
It's why creationism pseudoscience promoters today routinely spout off a whole cornucopia of bogus claims and arguments that have been debunked for decades. They just keep regurgitating/recycling the same bogus claims and arguments over and over and over again without any regard for the actual scientific facts. For example, today we still find young earth creationists promoting the "exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field" claim, the "moon recession" argument, the "short period comets" argument, and so on - arguments that have been debunked for forty years or more.
5 mins in. I'm gonna guess we've got a Trojan Source popping up
One of the stupidest things about AiG's arguments is that they say it's evidence of a designer but they almost never show how it's THEIR version of a designer.
I’m wondering if this fingerprint friction paper considered that our skin is not dry, and even though the ridges reduce contact surface area, they might still increase friction because the ridges might provide channels to allow the oils to move away from the point of contact?
Can't believe she didn't read the title of the paper!
She probably did and that is why she didn't name the paper,
The more I think about design arguments the more they start to paint a caricature of creation that resembles a bad screenplay wherein certain things happen in the plot only so that they can move the story along to the desired outcome.
Poor Yahweh, designed gravity but then had to come back arounf and put fingerprints on certain primates because they kept dropping their food!
☝️(engagement comment) 🐨
Watch the koala disproves evolution video. Because it has fingerprints. Not the actual title. It’s baaaad.
Joel you have to agree that God "designed" us and primates with fingerprints, regardless of one's view of young earth or old earth. I worry that many people who stumble across your videos will think you are arguing for an atheistic worldview. I know it doesn't take much reseach to realize your actual worlview, however few probably take the time. Maybe incorporate your beliefs more often into your videos? For example, you could have prefaced this video with "As a theistic evolutionist, I believe God "designed" us and other primates with useful fingerprints....here is my refutation to my Christian brothers and sisters over at AIG on their view.of fingerprints..." If a teenager who is struggling with their faith saw this video without any context, he or she would have to assume you are an atheist content creator lobbing attacks at Christian organizations. Anyway, have a good weekend.
I'm working on a blog post to go wit this and I was really hit by this same point. I was just writing that "of course why can't it be both design and common ancestry?" I certainly should have addressed this in this video. It would have been a very good place to have had that very discussion. I should have taken the point that AIG thinks that chimps and gorillas as having a common ancestor further but pointing out directly that this means they believe that their differences in fingerprints are the result of changes in descendants from a common ancestor but that doesn't' mean that God was not involved as the original author of those changes. Maybe a short follow-up video is warranted to explore that at bit.
@coreylambrecht5797 - Dr Duff is not an "evolutionist". He is, though, a scientist. Meanwhile, you think you are being super sneaky, tip-toeing around, trying to get the good doctor to expose some kind of bias to you. What difference does it make what his religious views are? The _AIG_ article prevaricates. Now why would that woman want to do that?