PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     FreeAmerican
       General reply to FreeAmerican's posts

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact is that certain animals are found only in certain isolated location . . .. These represent animals never found in Mesopotamia/Ararat. How did Noah and his sons gather all of these animals from the far reaches of the left and right hemispheres and polar areas?

You are making the assumption that the landscape was the same before and after the flood and that Noah lived in the Fertile Crescent both before and after the Flood.  But note Genesis 1:9 “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”  This coincides with Wegener’s continental drift and an original super-continent.  So it is possible that Noah had contiguous land access to all land-bound animals- even if God did not direct the animals to him to begin with.  

How did they fit in the approximately 3.8 million species into the Ark if it was the wee little boat described in Genesis?

You are assuming that the Biblical term “kind” indicates species and not some higher taxon.

Furthermore, species is a very objective term.  The strict biological definition is any group of organisms that can breed and produce viable offspring.  But since scientists have been unable to observe every individual animal we simply don’t know where the breeding inabilities lie.  Also consider that all domestic dogs are thought to belong to the same species.  A Great Dane could easily mate with German shepherd.  But both great Danes and German shepherds would be prevented from mating with a pekingese due the differences in the animals’ respective size (not to mention the attitude of the pekingese).  So by the strict biological definition a Great Dane or German shepherd is not the same species as a pekingese because they never mate.

What is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker, Creation Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, California, 1982: Charles Darwin, a master classifier of organisms, ultimately rejected the concept of species.  In an editorial in Natural History “A Quahog is a Quahog” (1979) Stephen Jay Gould echoed Darwin’s opinion.  According to Gould no species should be distinct enough to be identified since one trait gradually changes into another.  No trait is distinct in isolation.  Gould further laments “But, how could the existence of a distinct species be justified by a theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?”  For classification purposes organisms should grade one into another without distinct boundaries.

Speciation is an even more difficult matter when fossils are considered.  About a decade ago two paleontologists dug a dinosaur out of the ground in Antarctica.  The genus species name given to this fossil translates to “frozen crested lizard”- because the animal had a bony crest on its head and the two discoverers say they nearly froze to death getting it out of the ground.  For all intents and purposes species is a human and not a biological construct.  

How could they store enough food for the entire long journey aboard the tiny boat?

First of all the ark was the largest ocean vessel until the steamships of the late 19th century.

Some scientists think that under adverse circumstances all animals have the ability to hibernate.  This would have greatly lowered the metabolism of the ark’s animals and lessened the amount of care they needed.

Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations.  A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens.

When it landed on Mt. Ararat how did they return all of these animals back to their places of origin?

You are assuming this was necessary.  If the antediluvian world had a single super-continent and this continent broke apart as a result of the flood continental drift could account for the distribution of animals- which is what Darwinists believe.

The amount of water needed to flood the Earths highest mountains would have to be enough to cover Mt. Everest at 29,000 plus feet or over 5 miles higher than present sea level.

You are assuming that Everest (or a comparable mountain) was the highest antediluvian peak.

Although the Bible does not expressly say it is not possible that God created a mountainless earth.  God may have used mountain-building catastrophes as punishment for sin and when His leniency failed He sent the Flood.

Note that Genesis says the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat- as if Ararat is the name of a geographic region and not a particular mountain.  It is possible that Ararat was not mountainous when the waters drained away, but the people who wrote and edited the Bible may have updated the data when the mountains formed at a later date.  This would be akin to writing a history of the United States and using the name New Amerstdam for the period before 1664.

If you postulate miracle, i.e. magic, you must show me proof that magic exists. You must prove that magic ever occurred in any time or place. Other than magic, the Noah’s Fable was not physically possible.

What would you accept as proof of magic?  You are asking for something you don’t think is possible so you will reject any proof you are offered.

The sun must have stood still about a day (Joshua 10:8 and 12,13) and even gone backwards ten degrees (2 Kings 20:9-11) at some time in the past. We know that this ridiculous fantasy if it actually happened would have disrupted the sun, dramatically. It would rip apart under such strain. If we admit that the Earth was the body really still, not the sun, then the Earth would have had centrifugal forces of immence power and likely fragmented. Tidal waves would at least have spread across the Earth or been flung out into space.

The actual fact is that the earth was disrupted in Joshua and 2 Kings.  At the risk of being called a lunatic by them who think they know everything I point you to Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision- a book that describes the geologic consequences of disrupting the earth’s orbit.  The energy involved in disrupting the earth’s orbit was transferred into earthquakes and tidal waves.  And we do have ancient accounts of prolonged darkness that accompanied the prolonged daylight in Israel.

Deuteronomy 13:7
" of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
(Flat earth)


You obviously do not understand the concept of figurative language which makes it impossible for you to understand the Bible since both the Hebrews of old and the Elizabethan English were masters of the art.

Deuteronomy 28:64 "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, [even] wood and stone.

Following the death of King Solomon the Israelites revolted after Solomon’s son refused to enact a tax break.  The united kingdom became rival kingdoms of Judah and Israel.  The Assyrians captured the kingdom of Israel and dispersed the population throughout the Assyrian Empire, only to move other conquered people into the Israelite lands.  The Israelis were absorbed into other populations and never again existed with their own national identity.

Later the Babylonians captured the kingdom of Judah and sent the Jews into exile.  Less than a century later the Jews returned to their homeland as part of the Persian Empire.  The Jews were ruled in turn by Alexander the Great and his generals, the Maccabeans and the Romans.  Following the second Jewish revolt in the 130s AD the Romans exiled most of the Jews.  These Jews eventually came to live throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas but they lost neither their language nor their faith.  The remaining offspring of Israel may have likewise come to live throughout the world, but unlike the Jews they no longer have a distinct identity.

Mathew 5:8 And the devil took him (Jesus) up to an exceedingly high mountain, where he shewed him all of the nations of the world;

If you had actually read the Bible you would know that this verse in Matthew is in chapter 4 not 5.  Also the word translated into the Authorized King James Bible is the Greek for kingdom not nation.  There is a difference since kingdom merely implies authority and nation implies a population bonded by a common culture and history.  Satan may have simply shown Jesus all of the World’s authority and not all of the world’s people.

This Matthew tale was told by superstitious Christians in the late 1st Century AD.

Can you document the scholarship behind this claim?

But Christians thought a spherical earth was pagan heresy, and that the Earth was flat, as the Bible said. Hypatia of Alexandria, a beautiful woman and scientist, taught about the spherical Earth, atomic theory (400 years old as well), and the likelihood of animal evoluton (Aristotle.)

Evolution The Great Debate, Vernon Blackmore, Andrew Page Lion Publishing PLC Oxford, England, 1989: Actually Aristotle did not suggest evolution.  He saw animals as distinct units and did not allow for any blending of traits.

The error in your Christian documentary is that the animals such as Australian marsupials, Amazonian basin fish, Polar Bears in the Arctic, South American tapirs and jaguars and a thousand other examples of far flung animals were only found in those places before and after the time of the supposed flood.

You won’t accept the idea a short history of the earth and a recent origin of life, but yet you insist the Flood occurred at a particular time?

For example, kangaroos were never found in Asia (Middle East, Europe, or Africa). Their fossils go back many millions of years. And today that is still where they are found.

Are you rejecting the Evolutionists’ idea that the fossil record is incomplete?  Are you claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? If a Creationist made such claims Darwinists would never let them hear the end of it.

And he head to get fresh water colourful fish from the upper Amazon basin across the salty ocean in which they would perish, to the Ark in aquariums, then return them some 13000 miles back to the Amazon basin.

Please explain how fish needed a refuge on the ark?  Would the Flood have been simply an expansion of the fish’s watery habitat?

If God had deposited enough water to dilute the oceans to fresh water, then all of the salt water fish would have perished.

You are assuming that salt/fresh water distinction existed before the flood.  Some Creationists speculate that the world saw no rain before the flood- but isn’t erosion of land by precipitation the cause of the ocean’s salt?  It is possible that the antediluvian ocean was not a salt water environment and those marine organisms that now exist had to adapt to salty habitats after the Flood.

Lastly, one must object to the terribly perverted morality of a God murdering millions of babies, childen, pregnant women aside from the adult men. I refuse to even consider the remote absurdity that newborn babies are sinners.

I take it then that you are pro-life and are opposed to abortion.  I didn’t think an evolutionist could have any sense of morality that respects life since such attitudes nullify survival of the fittest.

I forgot one important piece of evidence against the world wide flood. That is there is no evidence in looking at the strata all over the world in thousands of sedimentary layers that there ever was one period in time that water covered everything. There are local regional floods in many places at many different times and these are evident in the rock deposits.

Do you accept that the earth’s entire physical history is documented in a complete geologic column?  If so where on earth does this column exist?  Isn’t it true that evolutionists document the fossil record by taking incomplete geologic columns from around the world and stacking them one on top of another?  If evolutionists cannot find a complete geologic column why should they expect that creationists can?

Quote from Guest at 2:18 PM on April 11, 2003 :
Scientists also conclude that everything on this earth evolved from nothing. Shouldn't there be overwhelming evidence for that?

---JB---
I never heard of a scientist who said such rubbish. We know that the Earth accumulated from accreted debris circulating the condensing gaseus proto-sun.


You obviously do not understand the statement you are responding to.  Can you document the origin of the “accreted debris” and “gaseus proto-sun”?  If the universe originated in the Big Bang and all energy and matter in the universe was once bound together in a mass of infinite density, where did the matter and energy come from in the first place?  You cannot answer the question of origins simply by pushing the question farther and farther into the past.

The physical improbability of having enough water to cover high mountains up to 8 Kilometres implies so much water as to not have happened. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? It is not here anymore. There is no place for it to hide. One must postulate Divine Magic which I reject.

As I have stated before you are assuming that the antediluvian landscape was as mountainous as the modern landscape is.  As for where the water come from you should read about the waters God placed above the firmament in Genesis chapter 1.  You also shouldn’t assume that the antediluvian earth had as much surface water as the modern earth does and I guess you haven’t heard of ground water.

Quote from Demon38 at 03:49 AM on April 12, 2003 :
"Anyways, this whole argument is besides the point. Once again, the bottom line is that none of you evolutionists can show how or when the first cell was made.

None of you Fundamentalists understand that no scientist claims to know how the first cell formed.
We know for certain what happened to evolution from the first cells to Humans. We are still trying to find the answer to the first cell. Unlike Christians, we don't lie about, or make up fantasies. We admit, "I don't know." I don't construct an imaginary invisible magical giant to do it.

You are essentially wrong here.  Since the 1920s various scientists have hypothesized on the origin of life, and since scientists are as egotistical as anyone else they are often adamant that they have the correct answer and they take great pains to ignore, or reject data that could prove them wrong.

Science and Earth History The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Arthur N. Strahler, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1987: In the 1920s Soviet biochemist Aleksandr I. Oparin and British geneticist J. B. S. Haldane, working independently of each other, formulated a hypothesis describing how the primitive atmosphere could have produced the organic molecules necessary for life.

Haldane pointed out that one of his colleagues had shown in the lab how UV light striking a mixture of water, carbon dioxide and ammonia will produce a mixture of organic compounds- including sugars and “apparently some of the materials from which proteins are built up”.  Under present conditions these organic substances are decomposed by micro-organisms.  However, according to Haldane, the organic substances could have accumulated in the primitive, pre-biotic oceans to the extent that they formed a hot, dilute soup. But, Haldane then declared that the first lifeforms would have had plenty of food- which would preclude a struggle to survive and negate the need for natural selection and thus render evolution impossible.

In the 1950s Stanley Miller created an apparatus and procedure that created 18 of the 20 possible amino acids.  However, Oparin, Haldane and Miller all claimed to know enough of the answers to recreate the earth’s primitive conditions.  But, in Miller’s case at least, creationist Duane T. Gish, as well as some Darwinian scientists, complain that Miller’s experiment was a closed system since the organic molecules were removed as they were formed and were not subject to destruction by the environment that created them.  Gish points out that high temperatures will destroy organic molecules and in nature the rate of destruction would exceed the rate of formation.  Some scientists even speculate that the primitive earth did have free oxygen- something rejected by Miller.  You say scientists don’t make up fantasies, but what else would call formulating answers when we don’t even know the questions?  

Quote from Hammer_of_God at 6:43 PM on April 13, 2003 :

FreeAmerican, omg, half the stuff you said is COMPLETELY wrong...have you actually READ the bible...yeesh

I not only read the Bible extensively in my youth, I attended religious primary schools, and took 4 years of Biblical Studies in College.


What college did you attend?  You say you are a biochemist and neuroscientist so what Bible thumping college would let you get a 4 year degree in either of these subjects?  I obtained a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, a school founded by the Methodist church, and I was not compelled to take a single course on the Bible.  However, due the availability of higher level biology courses, I did have to take a course in evolutionary biology.

You claim to have read the Bible extensively, but as I have pointed out you do not understand the Bible’s use of figurative language and you don’t know the proper chapter in Matthew to find the temptation of Christ.  If you have ever read the Bible you must have been doing it with your eyes closed; God knows you heart was.  
first off, God told noah to get 2 of every KIND, not species, so he only needed to get 2 horses,not 2 Zebras or 2 stallions...

He also told Noah Gen7: "Of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean, AND OF EVERYTHING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH." That inclusive statement included insects since "everything that creepeth on the Earth includes insects."


I’ll grant that insects would not have survived without having refuge on the ark, but I don’t see how Noah could have kept them off if he had to.  A month ago I overheard two women talking about how marshmallow peeps will survive a nuclear holocaust and I thought to myself- the peeps must survive since the cockroaches would have to have something to live on.

Genesis 6 makes no mention of nostrils. There are two flood narratives. Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shall take to the by sevens...7:3 "Of fowls also of the air by sevens." All of this means a lot more animals than just pairs.

The distinction was made between birds and non-birds and clean (that is kosher) and unclean (unkosher) land-bound animals.  Are you saying that by requiring 7 representatives of some animals God could not require only 2 of everything else?  You say God doesn’t exist so shouldn’t you stop doing the thinking on His behalf?

and also, where it says to God a a day is like a thousand years, it also says a thousand years is like a day, that's only saying that time means nothing to God...

If a thousand years is a day, then the 6 day creation adds only 6000 years to the fundamentalist 6000 years old earth for 12,000 years which we know is not so. Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life began about 750 million years ago.

Again you fail to comprehend the Bible’s figurative language.  Psalm 90:4 says to God a thousand years is like a day and also a thousand years is like a watch in the night, that is a 4 hour period of time, but I suppose you see this as just another Biblical contradiction.

I don't know how the first cell formed. I have some hypotheses but no way to test them.

Isn’t the hallmark of the scientific method the experimental validation of hypotheses?  If you formulate an explanation that cannot be tested by experiment, is the explanation scientific?  Since no human was witness to the origin of the universe, the formation of the earth and the origin of life we cannot duplicate the conditions that prevailed and thus we cannot apply the scientific method.  No Darwinists will acknowledge this fact.  Many Creationists also fail to acknowledge this fact.  Darwinism and Creationism both are faith systems and are not subject to science.  

Quote from Guest at 7:23 PM on April 17, 2003 :
"I can't understand the rejection of the fact of evolution anymore than gravity, heliocentric solar system, spherical earth, tectonic plates with continental drift, etc."

If you can't understand the rejection then you need to do some serious thinking. I can show you a rock and drop it to show the theory of gravity. What can you show me to prove the theory of evolution? Nothing. "

Actually I can prove evolution. I can show you a series of different life forms dating back to 550 million BC.


How does having a fragmentary fossil record prove evolution? The most fossils can prove is that organisms living now are the descendants of the same kinds of organisms that lived in the past. Even when Darwinists assemble a particular set of fossils into an evolutionary family tree they don’t always reach the same conclusion- witness Johanson and Leakey.

Encyclopedia of Evolution Humanity’s Search for Its Origins, Richard Milner, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1990: Paleontologist Donald Johanson began exploring Africa’s Afar region in 1972.  That first year he found a fossil knee joint which he took as coming from an upright hominid.  In 1973 Johanson found parts of a pelvis, some ribs and hand bones and a skull with teeth.  They found roughly 25% of a complete hominid skeleton, and assuming duplicate bones- such as a missing rib on one side- the skeleton was proclaimed to be 40% complete.  Seeing female characteristics in the pelvis Johanson’s team named the fossil “Lucy”.  But note that no “male” pelvis has ever been found for comparison.  Lucy could actually have been a male.

Johanson initially dated Lucy at 3 million years- the oldest species of Homo ever found.  However, Johanson later identified Lucy as Homo habilis, the same species that Mary Leakey had found at Laetoli.  Leakey’s fossil was a half million years older and found a thousand miles away from Lucy.

Mary Leakey highly resented Johanson’s claim as an attempt to usurp her discovery and established reputation. Furthermore, the Leakey’s had arranged funding for the expedition that discovered Lucy, but Johanson would soon manage to completely take over control of the digging in Ethiopoia.

However, Johanson’s coworker Tom White, later convinced him that the Lucy skull was not really human;  Lucy thereupon became Australopithecus afarensis.  If Lucy is truly a human ancestor she runs counter to what was the prevailing thought in anthropology.  Lucy did not have the brain capacity to use tools; but she walked upright and did not use her hands for locomotion.  Walking upright, therefore, was not a particularly unique human achievement.

The Leakey family has accepted Johanson’s first classification of Lucy as a type of Homo and not Australopithecus, but the scientific community is unsure as to what Lucy is, or is not.  Some scientists believe that Lucy is in fact a composite made from the fossils of one Homo species and one australopithecine.

In 1974 Johanson returned to the Afar and found fossils representing thirteen individuals, supposedly of both genders and an assortment of ages.  All of the individuals walked fully upright, but none of them stood more than four feet tall.  Their arms were longer than modern man’s, but shorter than modern apes.  Overall the males were about double the size of the females.  Not a single skull was found fully intact, but their brain size is thought to be about that of a chimpanzee.  This collection, the largest concentration of Homo fossils ever found at the depth for roughly three million years, was labeled ”The First Family”.

Some scientists believe that afarensis fossils from East Africa are even older than those from the Afar.  However, in 1984 Andrew Hill and Kiptalan Cheboi of Yale University, working at Kenya’s Lake Baringo found the oldest known hominid fossil- a jawbone of A. afarensis thought to be five million years old.

The rivalry between the Leakys and Johanson is ever-present in African paleontology.  The Leakeys maintain that their Homo habilis is the oldest human ancestor while Johanson’s Australopithecus is only a side branch of the human lineage.

In 1981 Both Johanson and Richard Leakey appeared on television with Walter Cronkite.  Just before going on camera Leakey said he did not wish to debate Johanson.  Instead, he suggested, giving a science lesson to combat Creationism.  Johanson agreed, but the first thing Cronkite did was to ask each man what he thought his fossils indicate.  Johanson immediately displayed a prepared diagram showing his human family tree.  Lucy was the founder of the human race; Leakey’s H. habilis was a sidebranch.

When Leakey responded that he had no artwork, he was given a marker and asked to modify Johanson’s chart.  Leakey did so by drawing an X through Johanson’s entire chart.  Then Cronkite asked what would Leakey put in its place, and Leakey simply wrote a question mark.  Leakey stormed out of the studio a few minutes later.  Nearly a decade later Leakey was still insisting that the rivalry was mostly a media invention.

As a biochemist and neuroscientist would you continue to use a particular scientific procedure if it did not give consistent results?  But yet paleontology does not give consistent results and you still say it proves evolution?

We can accurately age them with isotope chronology confirmed by tectonic plate and continental drift movement as I have shown before.

Scientific Creationism (public school edition), Henry M. Morris, editor, Creation Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1974: Radioisotopic dating of rocks depends on certain assumptions.

The radioactive substances exist in a closed system.  Radioactive substances may not be added to the earth, or lost through any process other than radioactive decay.  These conditions must have been in place for billions of years.  Uranium isotope dating was the first method used and it is used to calibrate all other rock dating methods.  But uranium does not exist in a closed system.  Ground water can easily remove uranium isotopes from rocks, and radon gas, one of the intermediate products, can freely move into and out of any uranium rock.  Uranium isotope dating is not reliable and the same rock sample may in fact produce different dates.
The system must not have originally contained any of the daughter elements. Rocks typically contain a mixture of Uranium-238, U-235, Thorium-232 and lead-204.  The mixture may also contain some of the intermediate daughter elements (including radium, radon and Pb-210) through which uranium and thorium isotopes must pass on their way to the final product.
The rate of radioactive decay must be constant throughout all time.  Scientists do not have measurement records prior to the discovery of radioactivity.  Since radioactive decay is a product of atomic structure any process that alters atomic structure can alter decay rates.  Both cosmic radiation and free neutron capture can alter atomic structure.  A reversal of the earth’s magnetic field and explosions of nearby stars can produce free neutrons and cosmic radiation.  Scientists have not way of knowing that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history.

The final products of radioactive decay do not exist in closed systems either.  The various lead isotopes can “capture” free neutrons that exist in the system.  One isotope of lead can therefore be converted into another.  Geologists have no way of knowing how much of one lead isotope is the result of free neutron capture and how much came from the radioactive decay of uranium.  Furthermore, scientists have no way of knowing if, and how much of a final product existed when the radioactive decay first began.  Volcanic eruptions spew both uranium and lead isotopes from the earth’s interior.  The resulting rocks can have a uranium age of over a billion years- even though they were formed in historic times.
Evolutionists explain the presence of both uranium and lead isotopes in “new” lava by claiming that the isotopes were present in the earth’s mantle and were transported together by the volcanic eruptions.  But, this means the uranium dating methods can be applied only to the earth’s mantle- not to (the fossil bearing) rocks in the earth’s crust.

When a rock yields conflicting dates the normal procedure is to pick whatever date most closely matches the previously determined dates for the fossils contained in the rocks.

That is hard science. We just recently completed the Human Genome.

Actually God, the Creator, completed the human genone a while back.  It’s taken man this long to determine what the human genome is.

We have genes for gills of fish and amphibian larvae in our embryo that are later recycled by other HOX genes into ear parts and larynx. We have genes for a spine that includes a tail. Other COX genes recycle the tail in us and our brothers the Apes, but occasional babies are born with a tail or a residual piece of gill in the neck (branchial cleft cysts which are histologically gill tisssue.)

It is utterly amazing that embryology is still around as proof of evolution.  My high school AP biology course taught the idea that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”.  This idea was rejected by the evolutionary biology course I took in college.  

Encyclopedia of Evolution Humanity’s Search for Its Origins, Richard Milner, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1990: This law was formulated by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), a quack German doctor (I don’t mean to be redundant) who obtained his medical degree in 1859, the same years that Origin of Species was published.  Haeckel became an instant convert to the new science and immediately abandoned his medical career to study anatomy at the University of Jena, becoming a professor of comparative anatomy in 1862.

Haeckel’s law holds that the stages of an organism’s evolutionary history are repeated in its embryological development. Haeckel prepared elaborate drawings of the embryological development of various species clearly showing their similarities to each other and to their respective evolutionary pasts. Other scientists recognized early on that Haeckel’s embryological drawings were inaccurate.  Haeckel simply replied that he made the drawings more accurate than the “faulty” specimens used to make them.

In true German fashion, Haeckel applied evolutionary biology to nations.  Nations had to struggle against one another for existence in the political world as organisms had to in the biological world.  Of course Germany’s evolutionary destiny was world domination.  Haeckel lived to see Germany’s first attempt end in failure.

Parker/Morris 1982:
The yolk sac in a chicken supplies food to the developing chick.  The “yolk sac” in human embryos acts as a storage device for the embryo’s first blood cells.  In a developed human blood cells are produced in bone marrow; However, bone marrow can develop only with a blood supply.  This initial blood comes from the “yolk sac”.  Once the “yolk sac” has performed its function it is discarded.

“Gill slits” in a human embryo are the precursors to the tubes of the middle ear and the parathyroid and thymus glands.  Human “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing in a watery environment.

The tail bone, or coccyx, serves as the anchoring point for the muscles required for man’s upright posture.  Babies are occasionally born with protrusions on their back that are called “tails”.  However, these protrusions are simply masses of skin and fat that can be removed with no ill effects.  They contain neither bone, nor muscle and are not tails.

You say that the genes for these vestigial organ are recycled so they can produce other organs.  But, isn’t there a one-protein to one-gene relationship?  How is it possible that genes that can produce the proteins needed to make gills cab also produce proteins needed to make tubular structures in the ear and glands that produce hormones?

" What is the bible? A made up storybook?"

Yes and No. Genesis is clearly false mythology. After exodus it is largely history with a fair amount of accuracy up throu Daniel, and excellent historical account of the Jews from Babylonian captivity to the end of the Seleucid Empire and the advancing menace of Rome. It was written in 145 BC by its style and anachronisms not in 587BC. Compare to Jeremiah and Ezekiel who did write in 600-590 BC (their prophesies were in error.) Daniel's fake prophesies were accurate because they had already happened and he wrote about them after the fact.


While getting your education as a biochemist and neuroscientist did you take time for a formal study of history that makes you competent to pass judgment on the historicity of the Bible?

" I have tried to explain to you my view on evolution, what is you view on creationism and the bible?"

Creationism is a retelling of the Genesis I and 2 chapters of the Bible. It is scientifically wrong and doesn't bother to use genuine science although it calls itself Creation Science.


Actually creationism is not limited to people who more-or-less believe the Genesis account.  Science literature over the past decade or so has many examples of scientists who reject Darwinism and see living organisms as the product of intelligent design, but who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

"Any response would be very helpful. Don't take these questions the wrong way, they are not necessarily for debating, but more for my curiousity."

Same here. I gave you honest answers be they unpopular in America. Let me add that I am a constitutionalist, and I support freedom of belief and unbelief. I would fight to defend your right to believe in fundamentalism as repugnant the ideology is to me. I feel it is your right. In defending your right, I may be protecting my own.


If you, as an evolutionist, agree that I have a right to believe in creationism you are the first evolutionist I know of to do so.

My college course on evolutionary biology required a term paper.  I chose as my topic that evolution is nothing more than an unproven theory and should not be taught as fact.  At first my professor refused to let me use that topic, but relented when I agreed that she could allow another biology professor grade the paper.

Students had the option of writing a first draft for evaluation.  I did so and the person who did the evaluation did not suggest a grade, but did not otherwise question my facts (only my writing style- more social studies than science).  However, my final paper must have been evaluated by someone else since it was given the grade of F.  Supposedly my professor did not factor the paper into my course grade.  But, my homework average was C, my class exam average was B and I scored 85 on the final exam.  So how did I get a D for the course?

FreeAmerican, I have noticed that you spell colorful as colourful and kilometers as kilometres.  These are distinctly British spellings, so are you sure you are from the American side of the Atlantic?

 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:24 PM on May 11, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting"First of all the ark was the largest ocean vessel until the steamships of the late 19th century"

I fail to see how anyone can speculate on the true size of the ark when it(or portions of it) still remain to be found.

Quoting "Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations.  A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens."

Yes, the could, if they had the thousands of acres of grazing land needed to feed all of them.  Was the ark big enough for that too?

Quoiting "A month ago I overheard two women talking about how marshmallow peeps will survive a nuclear holocaust and I thought to myself- the peeps must survive since the cockroaches would have to have something to live on."

Seriously, you are going to take for granted something your overheard in conversation from two random people?  Also, I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.  Insects being present on the ark is one thing, but insects surviving a nucleur holocaust seems completely unrelated to the topic at hand

Quoting "But, isn’t there a one-protein to one-gene relationship?  How is it possible that genes that can produce the proteins needed to make gills cab also produce proteins needed to make tubular structures in the ear and glands that produce hormones?"

Under the old definition of genetics, yes, there was one to one ratio. Back in the 70's though, scientists discovered that many different genes actually undergo alternative splicing:  the primary RNA transcript copied from the DNA template instead of being translated by a ribosome is instead spliced in different ways.  This might be too simplistic, but assume we have a RNA transcript with 4 segments 1-2-3-4
One way of splicing would be to splice out section two, and end up with 1-3-4.  Alternatively, section 3  could be spliced out, and we would end up with 1-2-4.  So, from one gene, we get one primary transcript which can alternatively spliced to form two different RNA transcripts which will be become two different proteins



 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 10:23 PM on May 11, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You are making the assumption that the landscape was the same before and after the flood and that Noah lived in the Fertile Crescent both before and after the Flood."

No assumptions are being made, we know that at that time there was no super continent at this time, so Noah would not have contiguous land access to all animals.  So Noah was merely a fairytale.

"How did they fit in the approximately 3.8 million species into the Ark if it was the wee little boat described in Genesis?"

For all your talk about what species are, you never even attempted to answer this question.
It is simply impossible (unbelievably impossible)
that Noah could have had a sea going vessel big enough to contain enough animals to produce the diversity and populations we see today.

"Some scientists think that under adverse circumstances all animals have the ability to hibernate."

Give some references then.  Animals that do hibrenate must prepare for it, store up body fat.
Tropical animals would not have the metabolism to hibrenate.  This sounds like another desperate, unsubstansiated rationalization to me.  Provide some evidence for this arguement or don't use it again.  

"Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations.  A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens."

Ridiculous!  Thousands of pigs or cattle?!  Millions of chickens?!  With bronze age technology?  I don't think so!  Ufthak made a good point, they had to feed these animals individually, not turn them all out to graze.  They had dispose of tons of poop everyday as opposed to letting it fall where it may.  No matter how you cut it, 8 people couldn't have done it.

"You are assuming this was necessary.  If the antediluvian world had a single super-continent and this continent broke apart as a result of the flood continental drift could account for the distribution of animals- which is what Darwinists believe."

Except there was no super continent 6000 years ago, so once again your story doesn't work.

"God may have used mountain-building catastrophes as punishment for sin and when His leniency failed He sent the Flood."

Thou shalt not commit adultery...or I'll build a mountain in your back yard!
You can't be serious?!  Mountain building takes a long time, for them to suddenly sprout up like mushrooms after the flood is absurd.  I'd really like to see some evidence for this claim.  Reality just doesn't seem to bother you when you're explaining the Bible!

"What would you accept as proof of magic?  You are asking for something you don’t think is possible so you will reject any proof you are offered."

I don't think so, just show me an event that was conclusively proven to have no natural cause.  Hearsay doesn't count .  

"You won’t accept the idea a short history of the earth and a recent origin of life, but yet you insist the Flood occurred at a particular time?"

No, fundmental creationists insist it occurred at a particular time.  Everybody else accepts the overwhelming evidence that it never happened.

"Are you rejecting the Evolutionists’ idea that the fossil record is incomplete?  Are you claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?"

Are you claiming that kangaroos lived every where pre flood and just happened to settle only in Australia after the flood?  What exactly is your claim here?  Large marsupials like the kangaroo could not have survived with other non marsupial animals, so the only place they could have thrived was an isolated environment where other animals had not gotten a foot hold, like Australia.

"Please explain how fish needed a refuge on the ark?  Would the Flood have been simply an expansion of the fish’s watery habitat?"

No it would not have been.  Many fish have a narrow tolerance to environmental changes.  The sudden expansion of the fish's watery habitat would have killed off the great majority of them rather quickly, so now you see why most species of fish would need refuge on the ark.

"You are assuming that salt/fresh water distinction existed before the flood.  Some Creationists speculate that the world saw no rain before the flood- but isn’t erosion of land by precipitation the cause of the ocean’s salt?  It is possible that the antediluvian ocean was not a salt water environment and those marine organisms that now exist had to adapt to salty habitats after the Flood. "

This assumption is supported by current geological and oceanographic data.  Firstly, we have found fossilized rain drop impressions much, much older than 6000 years, so your assertion that it didn't rain before the flood is totally falsified.  Secondly, while some salt in the ocean is definetely caused by erosion and runoff, even more is due to volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean directly pumping dissolved salts into the water.  So as long as there has been volcanic activity on the ocean floor, the oceans have been salty (about 500 million years).

"Lastly, one must object to the terribly perverted morality of a God murdering millions of babies, childen, pregnant women aside from the adult men. I refuse to even consider the remote absurdity that newborn babies are sinners.

I take it then that you are pro-life and are opposed to abortion.  I didn’t think an evolutionist could have any sense of morality that respects life since such attitudes nullify survival of the fittest."

Don't avoid the issue, is a world wide flood that killed millions the work of an all loving god or a morally perverse being.  If God created an ultimate moral code, he can not be above it.

"Do you accept that the earth’s entire physical history is documented in a complete geologic column?  If so where on earth does this column exist? "

Talkorigins.com lists 25 sites that display the entire geologic column:
       *  The Ghadames Basin in Libya
   * The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
   * The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
   * The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
   * The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
   * The Adana Basin in Turkey
   * The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
   * The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
   * The Carpathian Basin in Poland
   * The Baltic Basin in the USSR
   * The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
   * The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
   * The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
   * The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
   * The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
   * The Jiuxi Basin China
   * The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
   * The Tarim Basin China
   * The Szechwan Basin China
   * The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
   * The Williston Basin in North Dakota
   * The Tampico Embayment Mexico
   * The Bogata Basin Colombia
   * The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
* The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So yes, geologists and evolutionists can find the complete geologic column in many places.  And the strata displayed in all these different places agree with each other.  Indicating that what we know of the formation of the earth and the scientific theories we formulate about it are correct.

"Isn’t it true that evolutionists document the fossil record by taking incomplete geologic columns from around the world and stacking them one on top of another?"

No it's not true.  This is another lie many creationists spread to cast doubt on legitimate scientific research.

"As for where the water come from you should read about the waters God placed above the firmament in Genesis chapter 1.  You also shouldn’t assume that the antediluvian earth had as much surface water as the modern earth does and I guess you haven’t heard of ground water. "

Where exactly would this water above the firament be?  And ground water of that magnitude would leave a great amount of evidence, which we don't have.  

"You say scientists don’t make up fantasies, but what else would call formulating answers when we don’t even know the questions?  "

It's called formulating an hypothesis.  And science doesn't give answers before they ask questions, that's what creationists do.
The question is how did life originate on a primative earth?  Many people have attempted to find the answer to this, many are working on it right now.  Nobody has an answer yet.  Science makes no claim of a "theory" of Abiogenesis.  The experimentation, testing and research continues.  And there will be a lot of wrong hypothesises along the way, but that's the besuty of science, it's self correcting, when a better answer comes along, science embrasses it.  The fact of the matter is that so far, natural processes have been able to account for everything we have seen in the natural world.  We have seen nothing that requires a supernatural explaination.  It is therefore logical to project a natural origin for life itself.  But it was a long, long time ago (2 billion years?) and we don't know what the conditions were that allowed life to form, and the question is so complex, we might never know, but science has a habit of answering those tough questions eventually.

"Since no human was witness to the origin of the universe, the formation of the earth and the origin of life we cannot duplicate the conditions that prevailed and thus we cannot apply the scientific method."

But these events have left a great amount of evidence.  And that evidence can be subjected to the scientific method.  What other option do we have, throw up our hands and say "well, no witnesses to the first formation of life, Goddidit!"
You do not understand the scientific method!

"How does having a fragmentary fossil record prove evolution? The most fossils can prove is that organisms living now are the descendants of the same kinds of organisms that lived in the past."

Wrong, you don't take into account fossils that are obviously transitions between 2 groups, like the archeopteryx.  How do creationists explain fossils like that?  Have you ever looked at the series of fossils detailing the transition between reptiles and mammals?  It's hard to draw any conclusions other than reptiles evolved into mammals...Creationists refuse to look at the evidence objectively!

You spout a lot of goobledegook about radioactive dating, but creationists in general can't account for the fact that radiometric dating concurrs with all of the other dating methods we have.  Icecores, lake varves, ect. along with radiometric dating (all 44 different methods) all give us the same dates.  If any one of these methods were flawed, how come they agree with the other methods?  If they are all flawed, how come the dates they give us concurr?  For your assertion to be true, all scientists for the last 200 years must have been actively participating in a massive conspiricy to make sure all old earth dating results agree with each other.  Sorry, it just couldn't be done!  

"Scientists do not have measurement records prior to the discovery of radioactivity.  Since radioactive decay is a product of atomic structure any process that alters atomic structure can alter decay rates.  Both cosmic radiation and free neutron capture can alter atomic structure.  A reversal of the earth’s magnetic field and explosions of nearby stars can produce free neutrons and cosmic radiation.  Scientists have not way of knowing that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history."

But since we have had the ability to check this, no one has seen any naturally occurring conditions that have altered radioactive decay rates.  Until creationists can provide examples of  radioactive samples that have been seriously altered by cosmic radiation or free neutron capture, you don't have a leg to stand on.  

What I can't understand is why would you, as a creationist, even take a course on evolutionary biology?  Sure, I support your right to believe in creationism, but you must be ready to accept the results of your belief.  The theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in science and it unites biology as a cohesive whole.  If you don't accept this, you shouldn't be studying biology.















 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 12, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More nitpicking....

"You are assuming that the Biblical term “kind” indicates species and not some higher taxon."

Assuming for a second then that the flood happened and that Noah only took two (or seven) "kind" of each animal, and each of these kinds where a represenatative of a higher taxonomic order than the level of species, how would you then explain the extremely rapid diversification of the life forms after then flood into the present species today?  Granted, if he took kinds at the level of family or order, yes there might, just might have been enough room on the ark (Of course, an organism like this would not exist as all manner of classification above the species level is irrelavant to the organism, just simply a way of allowing scientists to classify them).  
But after they got off the ark, by only taking kinds, you are implying that they in fact later did diverge into different species, but since according to most young earth creationists, the flood only happened a few thousand years ago, the amount of evolutionary change required in these kinds to evolve into the species we see today is overwhelmingly astronomical. (Does that make sense?)

"Also consider that all domestic dogs are thought to belong to the same species."

All dogs aren't thought to belong to the same species, they DO belong to the same species.  Their outward phenotypic appearence may be different, but they still have the same biochemistry.  Granted, I understand when you say that a Great Dane and a Pekingnese will never mate, and this violates the biological species concept, but the isolation of two populations due to phenotypic differences(Known as a Reproductive isolating mechanism) is just one of the mechanism that eventually leads ot speciation, so in time, they may be considered separate species


"Speciation is an even more difficult matter when fossils are considered.  About a decade ago two paleontologists dug a dinosaur out of the ground in Antarctica.  The genus species name given to this fossil translates to “frozen crested lizard”- because the animal had a bony crest on its head and the two discoverers say they nearly froze to death getting it out of the ground.  For all intents and purposes species is a human and not a biological construct"

Okay, so they named the lizard like that, big deal? what does this prove?

"Actually God, the Creator, completed the human genone a while back.  It’s taken man this long to determine what the human genome is."

If he did create it, why then did he put so much junk DNA in there then? Most of our DNA is just there to take up space rather than serving as coding for proteins

 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 11:24 PM on May 12, 2003 | IP
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting"First of all the ark was the largest ocean vessel until the steamships of the late 19th century"

I fail to see how anyone can speculate on the true size of the ark when it(or portions of it) still remain to be found.


The size of the ark is based on the dimensions given in Genesis 6:15 – 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high.  The estimated length of a cubit, generally given by archaeologists and Biblical scholars, is 18 inches.  The ark would have measured 450 feet x 75 feet x 45 feet.

Quoting "Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations. A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens."

Yes, the could, if they had the thousands of acres of grazing land needed to feed all of them. Was the ark big enough for that too?


I was thinking in terms of feedlots.  With the exception of dairy cattle, very few livestock are put out to pasture in America.  Animals are confined by the thousands and millions in pens and cages to which farm workers bring foodstuffs and water.

Quoiting "A month ago I overheard two women talking about how marshmallow peeps will survive a nuclear holocaust and I thought to myself- the peeps must survive since the cockroaches would have to have something to live on."

Seriously, you are going to take for granted something your overheard in conversation from two random people? Also, I fail to see the point you are trying to make here. Insects being present on the ark is one thing, but insects surviving a nucleur holocaust seems completely unrelated to the topic at hand


I was merely commenting on the ability of insects to survive all adversity.  Considering their modern ability to proliferate I don’t see how the antediluvian insects would have needed Noah’s help apart from building the ark.

Quoting "But, isn’t there a one-protein to one-gene relationship? How is it possible that genes that can produce the proteins needed to make gills cab also produce proteins needed to make tubular structures in the ear and glands that produce hormones?"

Under the old definition of genetics, yes, there was one to one ratio. Back in the 70's though, scientists discovered that many different genes actually undergo alternative splicing: the primary RNA transcript copied from the DNA template instead of being translated by a ribosome is instead spliced in different ways. This might be too simplistic, but assume we have a RNA transcript with 4 segments 1-2-3-4
One way of splicing would be to splice out section two, and end up with 1-3-4. Alternatively, section 3 could be spliced out, and we would end up with 1-2-4. So, from one gene, we get one primary transcript which can alternatively spliced to form two different RNA transcripts which will be become two different proteins


I submitted your information to 9 different university biology departments.  Only Claude Desplan of NYU bothered to reply at all and he did not want to answer my questions because he did not want to conduct a conversation with a Creationist.  It took several emails to gain any information from Professor Desplan, but he finally agreed that the Hox genes simply determine where particular structures will be placed on an organism and not what those structures will be.  Hox genes can only work on genes that would be expressed anyway.  For example Hox genes can cause a Drosophila to produce a leg where the mouth should be- but the leg would have been produced anyway.  Professor Desplan told me he is not aware of the human embryo gill example and he did not bother to comment on any other embryological origin that indicates evolution.

Furthermore, Professor Desplan says he utterly rejects Creationism- but he admits that he has never actually read any Creationist literature.  He is simply condemning Creationism because it not the accepted dogma of his profession.

 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:10 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You are making the assumption that the landscape was the same before and after the flood and that Noah lived in the Fertile Crescent both before and after the Flood."

No assumptions are being made, we know that at that time there was no super continent at this time, so Noah would not have contiguous land access to all animals. So Noah was merely a fairytale.


You are assuming that the time scale upon which Darwinism is based in accurate.  You are assuming that radioisotopic methodology used to find geological dates is accurate.  You are assuming that the earth’s landscape is a product of uniformitarian geology and not catastrophism or a mixture of both.

"How did they fit in the approximately 3.8 million species into the Ark if it was the wee little boat described in Genesis?"

For all your talk about what species are, you never even attempted to answer this question.
It is simply impossible (unbelievably impossible)
that Noah could have had a sea going vessel big enough to contain enough animals to produce the diversity and populations we see today.


How did I not answer the question?  The fact is we have no hard and fast definition of what a species is and the Biblical term “kind” may very well represent a taxon higher than species.

Even if kind should be taken at the level of a genus John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, published by ICR, calculated that Noah had to save, at most, about 8000 genera both living and extinct.  This would amount to roughly 16,000 individual animals.

"Some scientists think that under adverse circumstances all animals have the ability to hibernate."

Give some references then. Animals that do hibrenate must prepare for it, store up body fat.


This claim is commonly made in creationist literature, but I dare say you wouldn’t accept such scholarship as legitimate since it does not coincide with your scientific dogma.  Furthermore, if God was going to have a man build a large boat and then send animals to that man God could certainly see to that the animals prepared themselves in whatever way necessary.

Woodmorappe, A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah's Ark - IMPACT No. 273 ICR March 1996, allowed the possibility of hibernation for at least some of the animals and he claims to have scientific studies showing that some animals could in fact enter a state of hibernation under the ark’s conditions.  However, he does not see hibernation as an absolute necessity when he determined just how many animals Noah had to care for.

Tropical animals would not have the metabolism to hibrenate. This sounds like another desperate, unsubstansiated rationalization to me. Provide some evidence for this arguement or don't use it again.

I did not say that all animals hibernated, only enough to reduce the amount of care Noah had to provide them.

"Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations. A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens."

Ridiculous! Thousands of pigs or cattle?! Millions of chickens?! With bronze age technology?


Jesus told his Disciples that conditions at the time of His second coming would be like the conditions that prevailed in Noah’s day.  In its broadest interpretation Jesus’ remarks may indicate that Noah’s civilization was just as technologically advanced as modern civilization is.  

It is true that an agricultural feedlot requires a great amount of technology.  High inputs of energy (for agricultural machinery), pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are needed to grow feed crops.  Livestock operations require large amounts of feed supplements and hormones to replace the materials confined animals cannot get on their own.  Likewise mass populations of confined animals must be given large amounts of antibiotics as a precaution against disease.

Even with the overall technological input for feed, hormones and medicines the amount of labor required to bring the technological products to confined animals is negligible.  If Noah could obtain and store the necessary amount of feed, the eight people on the ark could have easily looked after the animals.

It must also be noted that organic farmers grow crops with much less energy input and practically no man-made chemicals.  Noah could have easily obtained organic feeds and his animals would not have needed dietary supplements or hormones.  Furthermore the diseases that necessitate routine use of antibiotics are common only in large, monocrop livestock populations.  Diseases are not common on organic farms because those farms have either do not have enough of one type of animal to cause disease or they have a few representatives of a large variety of animals.  Noah’s ark would have duplicated an organic farm type animal population.

Disposal of manure is one of the largest tasks for modern feedlots.  More often than not feedlots just dump the manure in pits and let it rot.  Countless rivers in America are polluted because of feedlots.  But again, organic operations do not face these hazards.  Organic farms use manure as crop fertilizer and they can also convert into methane gas.  These options may not have been available to Noah, but still manure may not have posed any great problem on the ark.  One option for poultry farmers is to use a deep bed of newspaper, sawdust, moss or some other absorbent material.  A layer several feet deep in a henhouse, supplemented periodically by a fresh layer, greatly reduces odor and needs to be cleaned out only about once a year.  In Noah’s case it is possible that he may have saved the manure for use as a fuel once he left the ark.  Such a fuel source would have been necessary at least until dry wood could be found.  Noah could also have thrown the manure overboard once the rain stopped.  

"You are assuming this was necessary. If the antediluvian world had a single super-continent and this continent broke apart as a result of the flood continental drift could account for the distribution of animals- which is what Darwinists believe."

Except there was no super continent 6000 years ago, so once again your story doesn't work.


Again you are assuming a Darwinian time scale based on dating methods that are dependent upon unfounded assumptions.

"God may have used mountain-building catastrophes as punishment for sin and when His leniency failed He sent the Flood."

Thou shalt not commit adultery...or I'll build a mountain in your back yard!
You can't be serious?! Mountain building takes a long time, for them to suddenly sprout up like mushrooms after the flood is absurd. I'd really like to see some evidence for this claim. Reality just doesn't seem to bother you when you're explaining the Bible!


Judges 5:5 The mountains melted from before the LORD, even that Sinai from before the LORD God of Israel.

Psalm 46:2-3 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah

Psalm 97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Job 9:5-6 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger.

I would dismiss these Biblical passages as figurative language, except for the fact that similar accounts are found in non-Biblical writings. Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision cites numerous such examples.

The Greek writer Diodorus commented that Africa’s Lake Triton "disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay toward the ocean were torn asunder." This indicates that a mountain range, which once separated this lake from the Atlantic, collapsed in a geologically short amount of time.

The Assyro-Babylonian goddess Astarte is describes and one who shatters mountains.

Mexican scripture, the Popol-Vuh, the Manuscript Cakchiquel and Manuscript Troano, all record a time at which lava flowed simultaneously from every mountain in the Western Hemisphere.  These same documents (as well as others) described when one of the world ages came to an end: a rain of fire fell while mountains swelled under the pressure of molten lava and new mountains formed.

The Popol-Vuh says that the god "rolled mountains" and "removed mountains," and "great and small mountains moved and shaked."

The Incan god Coniraya-Viracocha is said to have raised some mountains while flattening others.

"What would you accept as proof of magic? You are asking for something you don’t think is possible so you will reject any proof you are offered."

I don't think so, just show me an event that was conclusively proven to have no natural cause. Hearsay doesn't count.[b]

It is customary today for liberals to claim the miracles of the Bible all had natural causes.  I don’t doubt that many of the miracles were in fact natural events.  Such events may not be miraculous, but if they happen when they are sorely needed they are certainly providential.  

Furthermore, what would you accept as legitimate documentation for miracles?  Does the fact that countless thousands of Christians were sent to Rome’s lions because they had reason to believe in the Resurrection of Christ count?  I know atheists and liberal Christians make all kinds of speculation to the effect that Jesus did not die on the cross and therefore did not rise from the dead.  But, if Jesus had not risen from the dead, why did his followers submit to persecution when producing His body, dead or alive, would have allowed them to live in peace?  If Jesus had survived the cross, how could He have remained in such perfect hiding when His followers were being harassed by government authorities?  If those followers were not absolutely convinced that Jesus had died and that He had risen from the dead why were they willing to die on His behalf?

[b]"You won’t accept the idea a short history of the earth and a recent origin of life, but yet you insist the Flood occurred at a particular time?"

No, fundmental creationists insist it occurred at a particular time. Everybody else accepts the overwhelming evidence that it never happened.


What is your source for this claim?  Some fundamentalists do insist that the Flood has happened since 4000 B.C.  Others claim it could have happened as much as 8-12,000 years ago.  My guess is that we will never be able to assign the Flood to a particular calendar date since we have no way of recording time before humans lived on the earth and we have archaeological and documentary evidence (see Velikovsky) that time has not been consistent during the human occupation of the earth.

"Are you rejecting the Evolutionists’ idea that the fossil record is incomplete? Are you claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?"

Are you claiming that kangaroos lived every where pre flood and just happened to settle only in Australia after the flood? What exactly is your claim here?


I am claiming that today’s geographic distribution of animals is the product of geology and animal migration.  But due to the precarious nature of fossils we don’t have a continuous fossil record to indicate how the modern day distribution came about.  Consider the millions of bison that have lived in North America and then consider how little fossil evidence we have for that number.  In the absence of such fossils you could easily say that bison are only a recent arrival.

Charles Berlitz, Atlantis the Eighth Continent, Ballantine Books, New York, 1984:  Antarctica was not icebound 8-10,000 years ago.  The Oronteus Finnaeus map shows Antarctica’s rivers, valleys and coastlines as modern technology indicates they exist- but submerged in ice.  The Buache map, prepared in 1754, shows Antarctica as two separate land masses- a fact not known to modern science until 1958.  These maps suggest that Antarctica was once visited by ancient mariners.

It should also be noted that the shortest distance between Africa and South America is shorter than the length of the Mediterranean.  Ancient mariners routinely sailed the Mediterranean from end to end even though the Med lacks the circular ocean and wind currents that facilitate sea travel in the in the Atlantic.  Crossing from Africa to South America would be easier than transversing the Mediterranean.

I remember once reading about an expedition around Africa sponsored by the ancient Egyptians.  I also remember seeing a picture of a pre-Columbian African statue that has a person holding what looks like maize.  Some scientists believe that maize cannot survive in the wild; it must have human input.  Is it possible that Africa had maize before the “discovery” of the New World?  Is it not possible that ancient sailors settled the post-Flood world and took animals with them?

Large marsupials like the kangaroo could not have survived with other non marsupial animals, so the only place they could have thrived was an isolated environment where other animals had not gotten a foot hold, like Australia.

Can you document your source for this information?  Doesn’t Australia have both marsupials and non-marsupials today?  I wasn’t aware that marsupials and non-marsupials were sworn enemies of each other.  Can’t they just both get along?

"Please explain how fish needed a refuge on the ark? Would the Flood have been simply an expansion of the fish’s watery habitat?"

No it would not have been. Many fish have a narrow tolerance to environmental changes. The sudden expansion of the fish's watery habitat would have killed off the great majority of them rather quickly, so now you see why most species of fish would need refuge on the ark.


Can you document any Creationist who claims the Flood did not lead to any extinctions?  Is it not possible that today’s marine population is the result of post-Flood natural selection and that that population’s ancestors once lived in conditions unlike them that are available today?  I have to trouble with post-Flood speciation produced by natural selection within a narrow range of genetic possibilities.  Since you seem to think habitats and species have been static throughout history you seem to be the one rejecting Darwinism.

"You are assuming that salt/fresh water distinction existed before the flood. Some Creationists speculate that the world saw no rain before the flood- but isn’t erosion of land by precipitation the cause of the ocean’s salt? It is possible that the antediluvian ocean was not a salt water environment and those marine organisms that now exist had to adapt to salty habitats after the Flood. "

This assumption is supported by current geological and oceanographic data.


Were you, or any other Evolutionist, around to witness the earth’s entire history?  How can you be absolutely certain that the earth has always operated the way it does now?

Firstly, we have found fossilized rain drop impressions much, much older than 6000 years, so your assertion that it didn't rain before the flood is totally falsified.

I am personally not inclined to believe that the earth saw no rain before the Flood, but neither will I accept that it did simply because the evolutionists say so.  Where are these fossilized raindrops?  How do you know they are raindrops? How was the date for them determined?  As I have said in previous posts radioisotopic dating is based on a plethora of unfounded assumptions.  Science is a profession that is supposed to be based on observation and experimentation.  But we cannot extrapolate observations into the past past the point of human observation.  Darwinists attack Creationists for making assumptions about the Flood, but then make assumptions about radioactivity.

Secondly, while some salt in the ocean is definetely caused by erosion and runoff, even more is due to volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean directly pumping dissolved salts into the water.

Can you document this claim?

"Lastly, one must object to the terribly perverted morality of a God murdering millions of babies, childen, pregnant women aside from the adult men. I refuse to even consider the remote absurdity that newborn babies are sinners.

I take it then that you are pro-life and are opposed to abortion. I didn’t think an evolutionist could have any sense of morality that respects life since such attitudes nullify survival of the fittest."

Don't avoid the issue, is a world wide flood that killed millions the work of an all loving god or a morally perverse being. If God created an ultimate moral code, he can not be above it.


I am not avoiding the issue.  Genesis is clear that the entire world, save Noah, was evil in the sight of God.  God took a similar path when the Israelites drove the evil Canaanites out of Israel’s ancestral homeland.  Even if the unborn were innocent their parents were not.  Sometimes the most merciful thing God can do is keep children from unfit parents or kill an entire civilization rather than allow the sin and misery to perpetuate.

"Do you accept that the earth’s entire physical history is documented in a complete geologic column? If so where on earth does this column exist? "

Talkorigins.com lists 25 sites that display the entire geologic column:
* The Ghadames Basin in Libya
* The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
* The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
* The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
* The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
* The Adana Basin in Turkey
* The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
* The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
* The Carpathian Basin in Poland
* The Baltic Basin in the USSR
* The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
* The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
* The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
* The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
* The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
* The Jiuxi Basin China
* The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
* The Tarim Basin China
* The Szechwan Basin China
* The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
* The Williston Basin in North Dakota
* The Tampico Embayment Mexico
* The Bogata Basin Colombia
* The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
* The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So yes, geologists and evolutionists can find the complete geologic column in many places. And the strata displayed in all these different places agree with each other. Indicating that what we know of the formation of the earth and the scientific theories we formulate about it are correct.


Is any of the data on Talkorigins or any other website subject to peer review?

I submitted your list to 5 university geology departments and none of them has offered any kind of reply.  This silence suggests to me that the Talkorigins claim is unfounded.

"Isn’t it true that evolutionists document the fossil record by taking incomplete geologic columns from around the world and stacking them one on top of another?"

No it's not true. This is another lie many creationists spread to cast doubt on legitimate scientific research.


Who conducted this scientific research and where is your documentation for the research results?  Again I can find no confirmation for a complete geologic column from geologists.

"As for where the water come from you should read about the waters God placed above the firmament in Genesis chapter 1. You also shouldn’t assume that the antediluvian earth had as much surface water as the modern earth does and I guess you haven’t heard of ground water. "

Where exactly would this water above the firament be? And ground water of that magnitude would leave a great amount of evidence, which we don't have.


Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

The Hebrew term translated as firmament means the expanse of heaven i.e. the sky or atmosphere.  The waters above the firmament would have been placed around the earth at the edge of the atmosphere.

What kind of evidence would ground water produce?  If the earth’s geologic history is one of catastrophism, as Creationists generally believe, the landscape would have been altered so much throughout history that the evidence for one period of time may likely be destroyed by the landscape of the next period of time.

"You say scientists don’t make up fantasies, but what else would call formulating answers when we don’t even know the questions? "

It's called formulating an hypothesis.


An hypothesis made in the face of incomplete observations is a fantasy since the hypothesizing scientist could easily make what ever assumptions his hypothesis requires.  Darwinists need a way to determine dates that are millions of years old so they assume that radioisotopes have always been present as they are now with behavior they exhibit now- even though no human was around since the universe began to make the necessary observations.

Stanley Miller needed to find a way to make organic compounds on the primordial earth in such a way that he could duplicate in the lab.  Since neither Miller, nor anyone else, was around to document the primordial conditions Miller simply assumed that those conditions matched what he hypothesized he needed in the in the lab.  

The question is how did life originate on a primative earth? Many people have attempted to find the answer to this, many are working on it right now. Nobody has an answer yet.

How can scientists hypothesize about conditions no one witnessed?  Even if scientists do succeed someday in producing life in the lab, how would they prove that the way they did it is the way the primitive earth did it?

Science makes no claim of a "theory" of Abiogenesis.

If life must come from life, how did the first cell come about from non-living matter?

"Since no human was witness to the origin of the universe, the formation of the earth and the origin of life we cannot duplicate the conditions that prevailed and thus we cannot apply the scientific method."

But these events have left a great amount of evidence.


Can you describe this evidence and document your source?

"How does having a fragmentary fossil record prove evolution? The most fossils can prove is that organisms living now are the descendants of the same kinds of organisms that lived in the past."

Wrong, you don't take into account fossils that are obviously transitions between 2 groups, like the archeopteryx.



Encyclopedia of Evolution Humanity’s Search for Its Origins
Richard Milner
Henry Holt and Company
New York
1990

From Genesis to Genetics The Case of Evolution and Creationism
John A. Moore
University of California Press
Berkeley, CA.; Los Angeles, CA.
2002

What is Creation Science?
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Inc.
San Diego, Ca.
1982

Scientific Creationism (public school edition)
Henry M. Morris, editor
Creation Life Publishers
San Diego, Ca.
1974

Science and Earth History The Evolution/Creation Controversy
Arthur N. Strahler
Prometheus Books
Buffalo, NY.
1987

In 1861 the fossil imprint of a feather was found in a stone quarry in Solenhofen, Germany.  The stones, very suitable for lithography, date from the Jurassic Period and are at least 150 million years old by uniformitarian standards.  Until this discovery no birds that old were known.  The feather imprint prompted German paleontologist Herman von Meyer to monitor the quarry.  When the first complete skeleton was found von Meyer termed it Archaeopteryx lithographica.

Darwinists immediately accepted Archaeopteryx as a missing link- part bird, part reptile.  Anatomists Richard Owen, a fierce opponent of evolution, insisted that Archaeopteryx was just a bird albeit an aberrant one.  However, John Evans, a Darwinian paleontologist, discovered that Archaeopteryx’s beak had a set of perfectly formed teeth and Archaeopteryx became a transitional creature.

As of 2002 scientists have a total of 7 Archaeopteryx specimens.  The animal was about the size of a modern pigeon.  After the discovery of Archaeopteryx and its feathers several featherless “reptile” fossils that had been found previously were reclassified as Archaeopteryx.  This includes a fossil found in 1850, now in the Netherlands’ Teyler Museum, that was reclassified in 1970.

Archaeopteryx had feathers like modern birds; its feet are designed for perching and its pelvis is like a modern bird’s.  Archaeopteryx did not have the keeled breastbone to which a modern bird’s flight muscles are attached.  Its bones were heavier than those of modern bird’s.  Archaeopteryx may have been more of a glider than a true flyer.

Additional reptilian characteristics include a tail similar to a lizard’s and claws on its wings.
A fuller examination of Archaeopteryx may dispel the idea that it is a transitional animal partway between reptile and bird.  Morris and Parker claim that the modern ostrich has features that are more reptilian than the features exhibited by Archaeopterxy.  Several modern birds also lack a keel bone while no living bird has the Archaeopteryx’s socketed teeth.  Furthermore, teeth are not a universal characteristic of living reptiles, fishes, amphibians or mammals.
Paleontologists are not all of one mind regarding the blood temperature of dinosaurs.  But, if all dinosaurs were cold blooded, a reptilian origin for Archaeopteryx would be ruled out by the Archaeopteryx’s feathers, which indicate the animal was warm blooded.

Morris and Parker also claim that Archaeopteryx, like fossil insects and fossil bats, had fully-formed, fully-functional wings.  Archaeopteryx had fully-formed feathers of several different types and would have been a strong flyer.  No animal with transitional wings has ever been found.

No fossil showing a transition between scales and feathers has been found either.  However, the wings of modern penguins have structures that resemble scales more than do feathers.  Furthermore, these structures do grade into feathers on living penguins, and the animals do have true scales on their legs.  Also, both scales and feathers are composed of the same protein- keratin.  Now, should we conclude that penguins are reptile-bird intermediates, or should we conclude that animals with both reptilian and bird characteristics lived in the past without making a reference to Darwinism?

In 1977 Paleontologist James “Dinosaur Jim” Jensen found a typical bird femur in a stratum of the same age as that that contained Archaeopteryx.  Modern type birds and Archaeopteryx were contemporaries.  Darwinists explain this fact by relying on mosaic evolution.  It is not necessary for ancestral forms to completely die out before they are replaced by their evolutionary descendants.  Thus the discovery of fossils for “true” birds the same age as Archaeopteryx does not mean that Archaeopteryx was not an intermediate between reptiles and birds.  Archaeopteryx simply gave rise to modern birds and then continued to live a while before becoming extinct.  But the question must be asked: if the Archaeopteryx habitat changed enough to put the animal under selection pressure and force it to express new traits and produce evolutionary offspring, how was the habitat changed so little that Archaeopteryx could survive temporarily once its descendants were in place?  This sounds like a stop-gap hypothesis made to explain some facts that don’t support Darwinism.  Mosaic traits could be used as “proof” of any transitional form evolutionists care to present.  

All fossils aside, humans and Archaeopteryx may have been contemporaries as well.  The article Serpent Bird of the Mayas, Science Digest, Vol. 64, November 1968 reported the discovery of a Mayan relief that depicted a bird with reptilian characteristics.  The relief, in fact, has a striking resemblance to Archaeopteryx.

Even while they proclaim the transitional status of Archaeopteryx evolutionists cannot classify the animal with any consistency.  Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1961 page 310 credits Archaeopteryx as “cogent proof of the reptilian ancestry of the birds.”  But, Dunbar later in the same paragraph said that Archaeopteryx is “…because of its feathers distinctly to be classified as a bird.”

Even if Archaeopteryx was a transitional reptile-bird its development into true birds must have come rapidly by evolutionary standards.  If Archaeopteryx had Jurassic origins it could be at most 190 million years old.  The Jurassic lasted only about 54 million years- roughly 1.17% of the earth’s total history since the start of the Precambrian era.  But about a decade after the first Archaeopteryx was found Cretaceous rocks in the western United States yielded Hesperornis, a loon-like bird that had small wings but stood about 3 feet tall, and Ichthyornis, a bird about the size of a modern gull.  Both of these animals were good flyers.

How do creationists explain fossils like that? Have you ever looked at the series of fossils detailing the transition between reptiles and mammals?

Can you explain the fossil series that shows the transition between reptiles and mammals?  National Geographic recently had a article explaining the various schools of thought on how mammals originated.  Science News just had a story about a conference at which Tim White, co-discoverer of Lucy, proposed that many of the species in the mammalian lineage should be eliminated in a way that would make that lineage more like a family tree than a family bush.  

Another story in Science News from last April reported that Australopithecine fossils recently found in South Africa may be a million years older that the previous oldest known Australopithecine fossils found in the region.  Furthermore, these fossils may indicate two distinct species.

Mammalian and human evolution is by no means a settled issue.  Evolutionists should wait until they know all of the details before they tell everyone else what to believe.

You spout a lot of goobledegook about radioactive dating, but creationists in general can't account for the fact that radiometric dating concurrs with all of the other dating methods we have. Icecores, lake varves, ect. along with radiometric dating (all 44 different methods) all give us the same dates.

What are all of the other dating methods?  Darwinists generally rely on radioisotopic dating to confirm what they think fossils and stratigraphy already told them is true.

If any one of these methods were flawed, how come they agree with the other methods? If they are all flawed, how come the dates they give us concurr?

Actually total concurrence is not universal.

Scientific Creationism (public school edition)
Henry M. Morris, editor
Creation Life Publishers
San Diego, Ca.
1974
0890510016 (paperbound)

Science and Earth History The Evolution/Creation Controversy
Arthur N. Strahler
Prometheus Books
Buffalo, NY.
1987

Problems with radiocarbon dating:
Many living organisms are not in carbon equilibrium.  The standard C-12 to C-14 ratio is not universally found in living organisms.  The shells of living mollusks have been found with a radiocarbon date of 2300 years (Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells, M. S. Keith, G. M. Anderson, Science, August 16, 1963, page 634).  The shells sampled came from mussels who obtained most of the carbon from limestone, which was lacking in C-14 due to the age of the rock.  Keith and Anderson complained that scientists should have made certain that the organisms tested obtained carbon that was of recent atmospheric origin.

Radiocarbon decay rates may not have been constant throughout history.  John Anderson conducted experiments that showed such a variation in radiocarbon decay rates as to make the process worthless as a dating technique (Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, American Chemical Society, 1971).

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has not been constant either.  The concentration increased about 13% during the 120 years prior to 1987- because of the use of fossil fuels.  The fossil fuels contributed only a small amount of C-14 due to their age.  But, if the natural rate of C-14 production has been constant over this period, the amount of C-14 relative to C-12 would have fallen.  The increased carbon dioxide diluted the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere.

Minze Stuiver, of the University of Washington, reported to a conference on past climates that lake core sediments show the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere has not varied by more than 10% over the past 22,000 years.  But the amount of change is not the point.  Carbon dating is dependent upon a constant ratio of carbon isotopes and that constant ratio does not exist.

The amount of vegetation on the earth would also control the carbon ratio.  If the earth ever had more vegetation than the present day’s amount, the ratio would have been smaller.  If the earth ever had less vegetation than the present amount, the ratio would have been greater.   Radiocarbon dates would therefore be either older or younger based on the amount of vegetation on the earth.

If the water canopy hypothesized by many creationists existed and if it produced a worldwide warm climate the antediluvian world would have had more vegetation than the modern world.  Much of the antediluvian carbon is locked up in the world’s coal formations.  Following the flood the earth would have had practically no vegetation and had to re-grow its plant cover.  Furthermore, some Creationists believe that the loss of the water canopy would have led to post-Flood ice ages that produced ice caps that further reduced the amount of vegetation the post-Flood world could have supported.

If Creationists are correct about the water canopy and it climatic effects, the modern world may not yet have reached its carbon equilibrium.  Such an equilibrium would require about 30,000 years.  Willard Libby, the scientist who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the radiocarbon dating technique, determined that the rate of C-14 production exceeded the rate of decay by more than 25%.  Dr. Libby ascribed the discrepancy to faulty and inadequate measurements.  However, additional measurements as late as 1963, 1965 and 1967 supported Dr. Libby’s conclusion- the earth produces more C-14 than it looses.  Creationists readily point out that the earth has not yet attained the age of 30,000 years necessary for carbon equilibrium. The actual carbon measurements indicate the earth’s atmosphere could be no older than 5,000 years.

Some Creationist literature I have read indicate that the journal Science (November 1, 1968) reported that the rock strata from which Nutcracker Man was recovered has a potassium-argon date of 1.75 million years.  However, the journal Radiocarbon (Volume 11, 1969) reported carbon-14 dates for materials from the same strata of only 10,000 years.  The standard Darwinian reply to this discrepancy is that errors were committed in the dating procedures.  But even if such errors were committed they expose the tendency of evolutionists to present data without much concern for its accuracy.

The Defender’s Study Bible
Henry M. Morris
World Publishing
Grand Rapids, MI.
1995

If we accept uniformitarianism and allow that rates observed in the present have been constant throughout history then the age of the earth is most uncertain.

* too small to calculate

EventAge in years
Decay of earth’s magnetic field 10,000
Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system 10,000
Continuous rapid deposition of geologic column *
Influx of juvenile water into oceans 340,000,000
Growth of oldest living part of biosphere 5,000
Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere 1,750-175,000
Influx of sediment into the ocean via rivers 30,000,000
Erosion of sediment from continents 14,000,000
Formation of radiogenic lead by neutron capture *
Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capture *
Decay of remaining natural paleomagnetism 100,000
Decay of uranium with initial “radiogenic” lead *
Decay of potassium with entrapped argon *
Formation of river deltas 5,000
Submarine oil seepage into oceans 50,000,000
Decay of natural plutonium 80,000,000
Decay of short-period comets 10,000
Decay of long-period comets 1,000,000
Maximum life of meteor showers 5,000,000
Instability of rings of Saturn 1,000,000
Escape of methane from Titan 20,000,000
Accumulation of dust on the moon uncertain
Deceleration of earth by tidal friction 500,000,000

"Scientists do not have measurement records prior to the discovery of radioactivity. Since radioactive decay is a product of atomic structure any process that alters atomic structure can alter decay rates. Both cosmic radiation and free neutron capture can alter atomic structure. A reversal of the earth’s magnetic field and explosions of nearby stars can produce free neutrons and cosmic radiation. Scientists have not way of knowing that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout history."

But since we have had the ability to check this, no one has seen any naturally occurring conditions that have altered radioactive decay rates.


Not according to John Anderson; see above.

What I can't understand is why would you, as a creationist, even take a course on evolutionary biology? Sure, I support your right to believe in creationism, but you must be ready to accept the results of your belief. The theory of Evolution is one of the strongest theories in science and it unites biology as a cohesive whole. If you don't accept this, you shouldn't be studying biology.

So I as a Creationist have to take what ever abuse Darwinists wish to mete out?  If my term paper deserved an F shouldn’t I have been told as much when I turned in the first draft?  If my facts were demonstrably wrong I would have gladly taken the F, but what right did my professor have to lie to me by giving me the impression that my term paper would not receive a bad grade?


 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 9:13 PM on May 15, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting "The size of the ark is based on the dimensions given in Genesis 6:15 – 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high.  The estimated length of a cubit, generally given by archaeologists and Biblical scholars, is 18 inches.  The ark would have measured 450 feet x 75 feet x 45 feet"

You assume that the Bible has remained completely unaltered since this was written however many thousands of years ago.  Its not entirely unconceivable that someone might have added a zero or a five here and there.  I know I do it occasionaly when writing checks.

Quoting "Sometimes the most merciful thing God can do is keep children from unfit parents or kill an entire civilization rather than allow the sin and misery to perpetuate."

I still fail to see how killing is merciful.  everyone shouldbe given a chance to correct themselves.


 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 12:37 AM on May 16, 2003 | IP
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You are assuming that the Biblical term “kind” indicates species and not some higher taxon."

Assuming for a second then that the flood happened and that Noah only took two (or seven) "kind" of each animal, and each of these kinds where a represenatative of a higher taxonomic order than the level of species, how would you then explain the extremely rapid diversification of the life forms after then flood into the present species today?


Another effect of the water canopy proposed by Creationists would have been a reduction in the amount of harmful solar radiation reaching the earth.  This reduction would greatly reduce mutation rates and retard aging, and Genesis records incredible human lifespans before the Flood.  The myths and records of Israel’s Mesopotamian neighbors likewise record long lifespans, but on a scale much greater that what we find in Genesis.

The lowered influx of cosmic radiation may lend support to polygenomic inheritance, an explanation I have for post-Flood speciation.  The term “kind” used in Genesis may indicate a taxonomic level higher than species.  God told every plant and animal to reproduce after its kind.  Since I don’t think God would allow His created genetic material to be lost, I assume that before the Flood each generation of offspring collectively preserved the entire genome of its parents.  Genes were neither dominant, nor recessive and neither were they mutable.  Phenotypes could have been triggered by the environment.  Thus Noah could take a mating pair of each kind of animal and thus preserve their kind’s genome.  Noah could have taken a pair of wolves and thus preserve the entire “dog” kind genome.

Polygenomic inheritance would allow the mating of close kin without ill effect. Thus Cain and Seth could marry their sisters without risking the concentration of detrimental genes.  After the water canopy was lost, radiation would have caused mutations.  But time was needed for dangerous mutations to accumulate; so Abraham could marry his half-sister and Isaac and Jacob their cousins.  In time mutations would necessitate the restrictions found in Mosaic Law.

Granted, if he took kinds at the level of family or order, yes there might, just might have been enough room on the ark (Of course, an organism like this would not exist as all manner of classification above the species level is irrelavant to the organism, just simply a way of allowing scientists to classify them).

As I pointed out in a previous post species is mostly an arbitrary classification as well.  Scientists group organism into species categories, but they have not bothered to test the mating abilities of every type of organism classified into species.  Two parakeets in side-by-side cages cannot mate because of a geographic barrier- so are they still the same species?

But after they got off the ark, by only taking kinds, you are implying that they in fact later did diverge into different species, but since according to most young earth creationists, the flood only happened a few thousand years ago, the amount of evolutionary change required in these kinds to evolve into the species we see today is overwhelmingly astronomical. (Does that make sense?)

You are assuming that speciation rates have been constant and were as slow a few thousand years ago as they are now.  But even modern rates may not be all that slow.  About a year ago I read a book that claimed to be a modern day equivalent of Origin of Species.  This book began by outlining the various strains of the HIV virus that have come about in the twenty odd years since the virus was first identified.  The implication given was that these new varieties were actually distinct species.  HIV has evolved because of selection pressures presented by the virus’ habitat.  This is classic Darwinism.  If the pre-Flood earth had a uniform climate and a single landmass, habitats would have been closely similar and would not have presented much in the way of selection pressure.  The climates and landscape of the post-Flood earth would have presented a myriad of habitats with their resultant selection pressures.  Evolution under such conditions can be relatively rapid- punctuated equilibrium.

"Also consider that all domestic dogs are thought to belong to the same species."

All dogs aren't thought to belong to the same species, they DO belong to the same species. Their outward phenotypic appearence may be different, but they still have the same biochemistry. Granted, I understand when you say that a Great Dane and a Pekingnese will never mate, and this violates the biological species concept, but the isolation of two populations due to phenotypic differences(Known as a Reproductive isolating mechanism) is just one of the mechanism that eventually leads ot speciation, so in time, they may be considered separate species


You are saying that species classifications have been made in the absence of complete data, which is what was saying to begin with.  Science in the absent of information that can never be complete is in fact arbitrary.  We simply don’t know where one species stops and another begins.

"Speciation is an even more difficult matter when fossils are considered. About a decade ago two paleontologists dug a dinosaur out of the ground in Antarctica. The genus species name given to this fossil translates to “frozen crested lizard”- because the animal had a bony crest on its head and the two discoverers say they nearly froze to death getting it out of the ground. For all intents and purposes species is a human and not a biological construct"

Okay, so they named the lizard like that, big deal? what does this prove?


It proves that scientists don’t always abide by the same set of rules.

"Actually God, the Creator, completed the human genone a while back. It’s taken man this long to determine what the human genome is."

If he did create it, why then did he put so much junk DNA in there then?


Maybe for the sake of adaptation?  The more genes an organism has the greater chance it has to adapt to a changed habitat.  A fact that Darwinists have repeated proven, but won’t fully acknowledge is that changes in habitat do not automatically produce changes in an organism’s genome.  Habitats can only select between genes that already exist.

Encyclopedia of Evolution Humanity’s Search for Its Origins, Richard Milner:
Following a severe winter storm in 1898 Brown University zoologist Hermon Carey Bumpus found 136 wind-blown sparrows lying on the ground in Providence, RI.  Bumpus collected the birds and took them to his laboratory.  Sixty-four of the sparrows died, while seventy-two recovered.

Bumpus took an assortment of measurements- wingspan, beak, head etcetera, for both the living and the dead.  Bumpus found that the survivors had measurements that were closer to the average measurements for the entire group of 136.

What Bumpus had observed was balanced phenotype, or stabilizing selection.  The extreme characteristics were eliminated.

Bumpus’ experiment came just shy of four decades after Darwin’s Origin, but it was the first, and until the mid-20th century the only, experiment on natural selection.

Bumpus’ work was cited in textbooks until the 1950s when H. B. D. Kettlewell’s work with England’s peppered moth became the standard example of natural selection.

Even to the present day Bumpus and Kettlewell provide the only major experimental clarification of natural selection.

Most of our DNA is just there to take up space rather than serving as coding for proteins

How do you know this?  Do you, or anyone else, have an absolutely complete knowledge of human anatomy, physiology and biochemistry that tells us some genes serve no purpose?




 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:10 PM on May 16, 2003 | IP
jeafl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting "The size of the ark is based on the dimensions given in Genesis 6:15 – 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. The estimated length of a cubit, generally given by archaeologists and Biblical scholars, is 18 inches. The ark would have measured 450 feet x 75 feet x 45 feet"

You assume that the Bible has remained completely unaltered since this was written however many thousands of years ago. Its not entirely unconceivable that someone might have added a zero or a five here and there. I know I do it occasionaly when writing checks.

Hebrew scribes were very meticulous in their work. A Torah scroll cannot be used for public reading:
if a single letter is added or deleted;
if any letter touches any of the letters surrounding it;
if any letter is illegible or resembles any other letter for any reason –or
if any word is too close to the words beside it so that one word appears as two, or two appear as one.
The scribe must be a Jew with special training and certification. He may not write even one letter from memory- he must copy from an existing kosher scroll. He must pronounce every word out loud before copying. And- he must abide by standard line-lengths and paragraph configurations.
A Torah scroll has 304,805 letters, yet every Torah scroll now in use throughout the world (except for nine spelling variations found in Yemen) is identical. Any scroll found to have an error must be fixed, or buried within 30 days.
These rules were in place at least by the start of the Middle Ages.  The Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls is almost identical to what Jews still use and the DSS date at least to the 1st century AD if not to a century earlier.  We can reasonably be sure that Hebrew Scripture has not been altered much over time.

Since you occasionally add zeros to checks I hope you don’t work for the government.

Quoting "Sometimes the most merciful thing God can do is keep children from unfit parents or kill an entire civilization rather than allow the sin and misery to perpetuate."

I still fail to see how killing is merciful. everyone shouldbe given a chance to correct themselves.

I guess this means you think the likes of Bin Laden should be given the opportunity to correct himself.  If evil is allowed to survive it will perpetuate itself.  Human civilization cannot long survive when evil is allowed to go unchecked.  God realizes this fact even if liberals and atheists don’t.

 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:11 PM on May 16, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting "You are assuming that speciation rates have been constant and were as slow a few thousand years ago as they are now.  But even modern rates may not be all that slow.  About a year ago I read a book that claimed to be a modern day equivalent of Origin of Species.  This book began by outlining the various strains of the HIV virus that have come about in the twenty odd years since the virus was first identified.  The implication given was that these new varieties were actually distinct species.  HIV has evolved because of selection pressures presented by the virus’ habitat.  This is classic Darwinism.  If the pre-Flood earth had a uniform climate and a single landmass, habitats would have been closely similar and would not have presented much in the way of selection pressure.  The climates and landscape of the post-Flood earth would have presented a myriad of habitats with their resultant selection pressures.  Evolution under such conditions can be relatively rapid- punctuated equilibrium. "


Even so, I dont believe that punctuated equilibrium occurs that fast in most species.  If the climate before the flood was unifor, wouldn't all organims be adapted to that environment? After the flood, an environmental catastrophe such as that would undoubtedly provide too much selection pressure for most organisms to deal with, and they would quickly go extinct.  In regards to HIV, yes, it has evolved quite bit in the last 45 or so years since it was first discovered, and there are now at least 2 very distinct strains of the virus.  However, while selection pressures have obviously played a role in shaping the evolution of the virus, the main reason why it has an incredibly high mutation rate (and consequently a faster evolution) is due to the error prone nature of the reverse transcriptase enzyme.  This enzyme for copying its genome is only found in it and other retrovirus, making them unique among organisms( whether viruses are organisms or not, that is still a matter of opinion).  To use this as an example of punctuated equilibrium is incorrect.  

Quoting "How do you know this?  Do you, or anyone else, have an absolutely complete knowledge of human anatomy, physiology and biochemistry that tells us some genes serve no purpose?"

I know for a fact that humans have psuedogene for an enzyme that produces vitamin C, but over time, this ability has been lost.  Another excellent example of useless genes can be found in the formation of anitbodies.  To generate antibodies, the DNA is B cells is rearranged...there are hundreds of different segments that can join together in many different combinations to form antibodies.  However, many of these segments used to form the antibodies are nonfunctional, and often cause nonfunctional proteins or missense RNA, etc.  They are genes, and they code, and they serve absolutely no function whatsoever.  I am not sure if I am making myself clear with this example.  To get into the proper detail about this process would requires pages.  I hope that this makes some ounce of sense
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 9:49 PM on May 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting "You are assuming that speciation rates have been constant and were as slow a few thousand years ago as they are now. But even modern rates may not be all that slow. About a year ago I read a book that claimed to be a modern day equivalent of Origin of Species. This book began by outlining the various strains of the HIV virus that have come about in the twenty odd years since the virus was first identified. The implication given was that these new varieties were actually distinct species. HIV has evolved because of selection pressures presented by the virus’ habitat. This is classic Darwinism. If the pre-Flood earth had a uniform climate and a single landmass, habitats would have been closely similar and would not have presented much in the way of selection pressure. The climates and landscape of the post-Flood earth would have presented a myriad of habitats with their resultant selection pressures. Evolution under such conditions can be relatively rapid- punctuated equilibrium. "

Even so, I dont believe that punctuated equilibrium occurs that fast in most species.


Isn’t the rate of evolution dependent upon the rate of adaptation and isn’t the rate of adaptation dependent upon the rate of change in habitats?  Why shouldn’t we expect the rate of adaptive evolution to match the rate of environmental change?

If the climate before the flood was unifor, wouldn't all organims be adapted to that environment? After the flood, an environmental catastrophe such as that would undoubtedly provide too much selection pressure for most organisms to deal with, and they would quickly go extinct.

This is exactly what many Creationists maintain as a way of explaining why dinosaurs did not long survive the Flood.

In regards to HIV, yes, it has evolved quite bit in the last 45 or so years since it was first discovered, and there are now at least 2 very distinct strains of the virus. However, while selection pressures have obviously played a role in shaping the evolution of the virus, the main reason why it has an incredibly high mutation rate (and consequently a faster evolution) is due to the error prone nature of the reverse transcriptase enzyme. This enzyme for copying its genome is only found in it and other retrovirus, making them unique among organisms( whether viruses are organisms or not, that is still a matter of opinion). To use this as an example of punctuated equilibrium is incorrect.

This brings up the question of what came first- the mutation or the change in environment.  Does natural selection act on genes that already exist, or do changes in the environment prompt organisms to mutate in hopes of surviving?

If Bumpus’ sparrows are any guide, then we must conclude that natural selection acts only to preserve the average genome.  Selection pressures generally kill off the extreme phenotypes.  HIV’s high mutation rate may have nothing to do with its adaptability.

Quoting "How do you know this? Do you, or anyone else, have an absolutely complete knowledge of human anatomy, physiology and biochemistry that tells us some genes serve no purpose?"

I know for a fact that humans have psuedogene for an enzyme that produces vitamin C, but over time, this ability has been lost.


Our inactive vitamin C gene does not prove evolution, just the way genetics work.  Some scientists speculate that the vitamin C gene once existed in both a dominant and recessive allele, but then a mutation rendered the dominant gene inactive and the recessive allele is what survived in the human population.  

But since vitamin C is so vital to human health I don’t see how it could have ever existed as a recessive allele.  Vitamin C is as vital as hemoglobin and all humans produce hemoglobin regardless of what their genotype is.  I would venture that the human vitamin C gene would have operated the same way.  Our vitamin C gene may be inactive due to a long ago mutation- chance but not necessarily evolution.

While it is necessary for good health, prolonged, excessive amounts of vitamin C can cause bladder and kidney stones, interfere with blood thinning drugs, destroy vitamin B12 and leech calcium from bones.  So once a human’s diet provides adequate vitamin C this gene is more hindrance than help.  All mammals have the vitamin C gene, but it is inactive only in humans- even though herbivores may get more vitamin C in their diets than humans do in theirs.  So how is the presence and inactivity of the vitamin C gene demonstrative of natural selection?

The vitamin C gene does not have a ping-pong switching mechanism- a prolonged absence of dietary vitamin C in the Pilgrims did not turn their vitamin C genes back on, but rather lead to scurvy.  If turning the gene off was an adaptation to a vitamin rich diet, keeping it turned off is certainly not an adaptation to famine conditions.  This makes Darwinian natural selection a one-way street.  An adaptation now may prevent an adaptation that is needed in the future.  Failure to adapt leads to extinction more that evolution.

Another excellent example of useless genes can be found in the formation of anitbodies. To generate antibodies, the DNA is B cells is rearranged...there are hundreds of different segments that can join together in many different combinations to form antibodies. However, many of these segments used to form the antibodies are nonfunctional, and often cause nonfunctional proteins or missense RNA, etc. They are genes, and they code, and they serve absolutely no function whatsoever.

Isn’t there a benefit to being able produce as many possible antibodies as possible?  B cells continually circulate through the body so the more proteins (that is antibodies) these cells can produce the greater the variety of pathogens they can deal with.  B cells must have genes for each antibody they produce.  So what do you mean by no function whatsoever?  Is it possible that antibody proteins are non-functioning until they come into contact with a pathogen they can attach themselves to?  



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:45 PM on May 21, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is exactly what many Creationists maintain as a way of explaining why dinosaurs did not long survive the Flood.
[b]

Okay, but then explain why some creatures had better adaptability then others? What possible reasons could God have for creating such an imbalance in adaptabilty among different organisms?


"This brings up the question of what came first- the mutation or the change in environment.  Does natural selection act on genes that already exist, or do changes in the environment prompt organisms to mutate in hopes of surviving?"

the mutation comes first, at least in this respect.  A mutation occured that allowed simian immunodeficiency virus to infect humans, hench, HIV.  By doing this the virus was able to thrive due to the enormous potential pool of potential victims it could use to spread its genome.  natural selection can only act upon the genetic material that is there.  It does not create new material to play with.  An organism will only survive in a new environment if it has the neccessary mutations already in its genome or if it some how manages to mutate in such a way that is favorable to it.

lets hope this bold type works...more when i get back from class
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 9:45 PM on May 21, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, lets try bold again

Our inactive vitamin C gene does not prove evolution, just the way genetics work.  Some scientists speculate that the vitamin C gene once existed in both a dominant and recessive allele, but then a mutation rendered the dominant gene inactive and the recessive allele is what survived in the human population.  

But since vitamin C is so vital to human health I don’t see how it could have ever existed as a recessive allele.  Vitamin C is as vital as hemoglobin and all humans produce hemoglobin regardless of what their genotype is.  I would venture that the human vitamin C gene would have operated the same way.  Our vitamin C gene may be inactive due to a long ago mutation- chance but not necessarily evolution.

While it is necessary for good health, prolonged, excessive amounts of vitamin C can cause bladder and kidney stones, interfere with blood thinning drugs, destroy vitamin B12 and leech calcium from bones.  So once a human’s diet provides adequate vitamin C this gene is more hindrance than help.  All mammals have the vitamin C gene, but it is inactive only in humans- even though herbivores may get more vitamin C in their diets than humans do in theirs.  So how is the presence and inactivity of the vitamin C gene demonstrative of natural selection?

The vitamin C gene does not have a ping-pong switching mechanism- a prolonged absence of dietary vitamin C in the Pilgrims did not turn their vitamin C genes back on, but rather lead to scurvy.  If turning the gene off was an adaptation to a vitamin rich diet, keeping it turned off is certainly not an adaptation to famine conditions.  This makes Darwinian natural selection a one-way street.  An adaptation now may prevent an adaptation that is needed in the future.  Failure to adapt leads to extinction more that evolution.


On the contrary, the gene for the enzyme to make Vitamin C from precursors is a fine example of natural selection and population genetics.  What exactly are you using a definition for recessive and dominant alleles?  What exactly is this recessive Vitamin C gene you are referring to?  If it is recessive, that does not necessarily mean that it does not work, it just means that its phenotypic effects are masked by the presence of another alternate allele at that locus.  Having a recessive and a dominant gene for making vitamin C would not mean anything, if they both made Vitamin C.  Most likely, there may have been several forms of the gene for making Vitamin C, some more efficient than others.  Getting on(i hope i am making some sense here, i tend to ramble) if a mutation were sustained that rendered the allele for this protein product defective, it probably wouldnt hurt the human (or protohuman) that it was found in, due to the nature if the diet thousands to millions of years ago.  In this environment, it would not be deleterious, and that gene might persist simply due to genetic drift.  Also, by not producing this protein product, amino acids which might have been used for this can be diverted elsewhere, thus producing some slight advantage(though how much of an advantage it would provide would be a stretch) So, yes it is due to chance, but this chance turned into evolution - change in the gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next

Yes, all humans produce hemoglobin because it cannot be obtained from diet so we must produce it.  But all humans do NOT produce the same hemoglobin.  There are over 400 different variants of it, though most are deleterious.  The most obvious example here is sickle cell anemia, which is caused by a single amino acid subsitution.  

Isn’t there a benefit to being able produce as many possible antibodies as possible?  B cells continually circulate through the body so the more proteins (that is antibodies) these cells can produce the greater the variety of pathogens they can deal with.  B cells must have genes for each antibody they produce.  So what do you mean by no function whatsoever?  Is it possible that antibody proteins are non-functioning until they come into contact with a pathogen they can attach themselves to?

Yes there is a benefit to producing as wide a range of antibodies as possible.  But, they do not have genes for every single type of antibody that they can produce. This is a complicated subject, and will take a while to explain.  Would you like me to? I was just merely using some of the nonfunctional coding segments found here to demonstrate that we in fact have DNA that is non functional (At this time) and currently serves us no purpose.

How come no one else is posting in this thread?
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 11:28 PM on May 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jeafl,

I’m afraid your posts on this thread have contained a bunch of easily documented misinformation.  I don’t blame you much, when I was a creationist I heavily depended upon Henry Morris as a source of information.  I was later embarrassed to learn how much of what I was fed was incorrect.  Below are my comments on a few of more easily verified mistakes that you posted.  

Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations.  A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens.


My uncle was a chicken farmer and it is anything but easy.  Also the farming techniques used in caring for a monoculture of animals do not apply to the challenges that Noah faced.  He had thousands of differing habitats, feed and water requirements to deal with.  Automated techniques would not be much help here.  There is a reason that zoos and farms do not feed and care for animals the same.

You later backtracked and said that Noah used organic techniques instead of mass production.  Here you have the contradiction that organic techniques are very labor intensive.  This is the reason that organic farms are generally small scale.

At the risk of being called a lunatic by them who think they know everything I point you to Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision- a book that describes the geologic consequences of disrupting the earth’s orbit.  The energy involved in disrupting the earth’s orbit was transferred into earthquakes and tidal waves.  


And yet somehow did not damage the delicate structures in Luray Caverns, Virginia. http://www.luraycaverns.com/ If you have never been, it is an amazing thing.  There are flow sheet deposits that look like curtains and are thin enough to be translucent.  You could break them between thumb and forefinger (and get arrested).

You are assuming that salt/fresh water distinction existed before the flood. Some Creationists speculate that the world saw no rain before the flood- but isn’t erosion of land by precipitation the cause of the ocean’s salt?  It is possible that the antediluvian ocean was not a salt water environment and those marine organisms that now exist had to adapt to salty habitats after the Flood.


A good place to see why the ocean is salty is the link below.   To say that erosion by rain is the sole cause of salt in the sea is not correct.  There are other factors.  A bigger question for flood believers is how the oceans got so salty and how we go so much salt deposited on land if the oceans started from zero some 4500 years ago.   http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/salty_ocean.htm “If the salt in the sea could be removed and spread evenly over the Earth's land surface it would form a layer more than 500 feet thick.”

I take it then that you are pro-life and are opposed to abortion.  I didn’t think an evolutionist could have any sense of morality that respects life since such attitudes nullify survival of the fittest.


Now that’s just rude!

In your first post you said:

Do you accept that the earth’s entire physical history is documented in a complete geologic column?  If so where on earth does this column exist?  Isn’t it true that evolutionists document the fossil record by taking incomplete geologic columns from around the world and stacking them one on top of another?  If evolutionists cannot find a complete geologic column why should they expect that creationists can?


Someone replied with some information from Talk.origins and then you said:

Is any of the data on Talkorigins or any other website subject to peer review?

I submitted your list to 5 university geology departments and none of them has offered any kind of reply.  This silence suggests to me that the Talkorigins claim is unfounded.


This is not a talk.origins claim.  The Robertson Group produced that list of sedimentary basins where you can find deposits from the major geological eras.  They are an oil and gas exploration support company.  The reference used by (former creationist) Glenn Morton to come up with the list found on Talk.origins is Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World,(Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group).  Glenn’s entire article on the geological column can be found at: http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm The Robertson Group’s website is:
http://www.robres.co.uk/

As for where the water come from you should read about the waters God placed above the firmament in Genesis chapter 1.  


Several times in your posts you have mentioned the vapor canopy.  It is an idea that has been rejected by many creationist groups (AIG et. al.) and others that have studied it (ICR) have been unable to figure out how a vapor canopy that contained significant amounts of water could render a habitable earth.  

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html  “A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the flood waters.”

Former creationist, Glenn Morton has a more in-depth article about the problems with the vapor canopy.  http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/canopy.htm

The final products of radioactive decay do not exist in closed systems either.  The various lead isotopes can “capture” free neutrons that exist in the system.  One isotope of lead can therefore be converted into another.  Geologists have no way of knowing how much of one lead isotope is the result of free neutron capture and how much came from the radioactive decay of uranium.


Neutron capture does not occur on Earth.  The environment necessary for this to happen would render the Earth uninhabitable.  Neutron capture of lead occurs in the shells of AGB stars.  Other environmental conditions where you get significant changes in decay rates would also render the planet uninhabitable (i.e. Woodmorrape has an article on changing decay rates {I believe on AIG) that requires that the earth be a superheated plasma!)  Magnetic field changes, heat and temperatures that could exist on earth do not affect decay rates.  

When a rock yields conflicting dates the normal procedure is to pick whatever date most closely matches the previously determined dates for the fossils contained in the rocks.


Where is this “normal procedure” documented?  This is a pretty serious charge of fraud.  I assume you can back that up with something other than your say-so.

In another post you documented some “maximum ages” for certain geological or astronomical events.  These are based upon some shaky (at best) assumptions and calculations.  Glenn Morton deals with one of them (Morris via Austin’s claim that erosion rates give us a maxim age of 14 Ma) http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/erosion.htm  

The tail bone, or coccyx, serves as the anchoring point for the muscles required for man’s upright posture.


No it does not.  http://www.coccyx.org/whatisit/normal.htm

Very rarely, people are born either with no coccyx or with an actual tail. People with long coccyxes seem to be more likely to have coccyx pain.

The coccyx is attached by ligaments to the base of the sacrum, which is the part of the spine that forms the back of the pelvis. The sacrum consists of five vertebrae fused together. When the coccyx is surgically removed, these ligaments are cut. [b]Cutting these ligaments and removing the coccyx does not affect mobility in any way. Afterwards, the ex-patient is able to do anything that a normal person does - run, jump, and so on.


Then you said:

Babies are occasionally born with protrusions on their back that are called “tails”. However, these protrusions are simply masses of skin and fat that can be removed with no ill effects.  They contain neither bone, nor muscle and are not tails.


Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not.  Scroll down in this discussion to see some remarkable pictures of people born with actual bony, muscled, mobile “tails.”

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3449&perpage=16&pagenumber=3

Joe T.




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:30 AM on May 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is exactly what many Creationists maintain as a way of explaining why dinosaurs did not long survive the Flood.

Okay, but then explain why some creatures had better adaptability then others? What possible reasons could God have for creating such an imbalance in adaptability among different organisms?


Why do some creatures have better adaptability under Darwinism?  I find it odd that evolutionists lament the extinctions required by creationism when Darwinism is dependent upon extinction.  No organism can be adapted to its habitat without having some other organism being unable to survive and thus go extinct.  If everything survives then there is no struggle.  Without a struggle there is no selection pressure and therefore no evolution.
Death and therefore extinction is punishment for sin: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Since death is a requirement of a sinful world I don’t see why God wouldn’t allow chance to play a role in deciding what species go extinct and which ones survive.

"This brings up the question of what came first- the mutation or the change in environment. Does natural selection act on genes that already exist, or do changes in the environment prompt organisms to mutate in hopes of surviving?"

the mutation comes first, at least in this respect. A mutation occured that allowed simian immunodeficiency virus to infect humans, hench, HIV. By doing this the virus was able to thrive due to the enormous potential pool of potential victims it could use to spread its genome.


The book I read (Darwin’s Ghost, by Steve Jones –if I remember right) gave the impression that speciation in HIV was due to its exposure to the various medical treatments given to AIDS patients- we now have distinct strains of HIV since HIV began infecting humans.  The book did not indicate if any of the mutant forms of HIV were pre-existing.

natural selection can only act upon the genetic material that is there. It does not create new material to play with. An organism will only survive in a new environment if it has the neccessary mutations already in its genome or if it some how manages to mutate in such a way that is favorable to it.

This is true and has been proven experimentally- habitats do not cause adaptive mutations.  But, Darwinists give the impression that evolution is somehow directional- slime to cells; cells to reptiles; reptiles to mammals; mammals to apes and apes to man.  But, since natural selection acts only on  a pre-existing genome adaptation is always a chance event.  The odds that such random adaptations can lead to every lifeform now in existence is truly mind numbing.

On the contrary, the gene for the enzyme to make Vitamin C from precursors is a fine example of natural selection and population genetics. What exactly are you using a definition for recessive and dominant alleles? What exactly is this recessive Vitamin C gene you are referring to? If it is recessive, that does not necessarily mean that it does not work, it just means that its phenotypic effects are masked by the presence of another alternate allele at that locus.

I was wrong about some scientists thinking the vitamin C gene ever existed in dominant and recessive forms.  I read a webpage too quickly.  However, the inactivity of the human vitamin C gene is generally attributed to a mutation that rendered the gene inactive in certain organisms.  In that case, as long as a genome had both the functional and non-functional forms of the gene it essentially had a dominant and recessive form.  In time, chance reproductions drove the functional form to extinction.  This being the case the vitamin C gene does not show Darwinian adaptation since the ability to make vitamin C would be beneficial whenever the diet lacks vitamin C.  A vitamin C gene that could be turned on and off as the diet required would be a beneficial adaptation, but this is not what happened.

Several websites indicate that primates and Guinea pigs also have the non-functioning vitamin C gene.  If evolution has occurred, we would expect that the Guinea pig is descended from the human-primate ancestor.  This brings up the question: what other mammals share the Guinea pig, human, primate lineage and thus have the non-functioning gene?

Having a recessive and a dominant gene for making vitamin C would not mean anything, if they both made Vitamin C.

If both genes made vitamin C, that is they are both expressed, how can either be recessive?  Aren’t recessive genes expressed only in individuals who are homozygous for the recessive gene?

Most likely, there may have been several forms of the gene for making Vitamin C, some more efficient than others.

Do you have any evidence for multiple copies of the vitamin C gene?

if a mutation were sustained that rendered the allele for this protein product defective, it probably wouldnt hurt the human (or protohuman) that it was found in, due to the nature if the diet thousands to millions of years ago.

It doesn’t hurt anybody now as long as enough vitamin C can be obtained from the diet.  I don’t see how foodstuffs millions of years ago would have any more or less vitamin C than foodstuffs now do.  What evidence do you have for this primordial diet?

Also, by not producing this protein product, amino acids which might have been used for this can be diverted elsewhere, thus producing some slight advantage(though how much of an advantage it would provide would be a stretch)

If you want to consider not having to make a particular protein an adaptation because it saves resources, shouldn’t you explain how using resources to copy a gene that serves no purpose is an adaptation?

Yes, all humans produce hemoglobin because it cannot be obtained from diet so we must produce it. But all humans do NOT produce the same hemoglobin. There are over 400 different variants of it, though most are deleterious. The most obvious example here is sickle cell anemia, which is caused by a single amino acid subsitution.

The Sickle cell gene gives some immunity to malaria so it offers a slight advantage in warm, mosquito ridden locales.  I would not consider Sickle Cell to be a variant hemoglobin in the terms you are thinking in.  Can you document the existence of 400 varieties of human hemoglobin?  If we have that many different blood proteins, why do we have so few blood types?  If someone produces one form of hemoglobin, why don’t the remaining 399 produce an immune response when given in a transfusion?  Is it possible for a single individual human to produce multiple types of hemoglobin and thus produce an immune reaction only to a few of the other 400 varieties?

Yes there is a benefit to producing as wide a range of antibodies as possible. But, they do not have genes for every single type of antibody that they can produce.

Are you saying that the finite number of genes produce polypeptide chains that can assemble in different ways to produce different antibody proteins?  If so what is the mechanism that directs how the chains are assembled?  If there is no biological mechanism and the assembling is left to the laws of chemistry isn’t there still a finite number of ways the chains can assemble meaning they can still produce just a limited number of antibodies?  At any rate how many B cell genes produce proteins that do not become part of any antibody?

Can you clarify what you mean by pseudogene?  Is a gene non-functioning because it is never transcribed and thus never translated into a protein?  Or is it non-functioning because its protein product cannot used for anything?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:26 AM on May 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Also consider how few farm workers it takes to look after livestock in intensive farming operations. A farmer and his family could easily care for thousands of pigs or cattle or millions of chickens.


My uncle was a chicken farmer and it is anything but easy. Also the farming techniques used in caring for a monoculture of animals do not apply to the challenges that Noah faced.


How many people worked on your uncle’s chicken farm?  I didn’t say Noah and Co. had it easy, only that a small number of people could care for thousands of animals.  I recently read the book Fast Food Nation.  Most of the chicken consumed in this country is produced by farmers who are under contract with one of the large poultry companies (usually Tyson).  The poultry companies deliver day old chicks to their farmers and then mandate what food will be used and in what quantity and at what time.  The companies also specify when the animals will be given feed supplements and antibiotics.  The companies then pick up the chickens at harvest time.  For all intents and purposes today’s commercial chicken farmers make absolutely no decisions for themselves.

He had thousands of differing habitats, feed and water requirements to deal with. Automated techniques would not be much help here. There is a reason that zoos and farms do not feed and care for animals the same.

Animals today do have varied habitats and metabolic requirements, but note what God said in Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

So before the Flood all non-aquatic animals were vegetarian.  This diet would impose a great deal of uniformity on the animals Noah had to care for.

You later backtracked and said that Noah used organic techniques instead of mass production. Here you have the contradiction that organic techniques are very labor intensive. This is the reason that organic farms are generally small scale.[b]

When I said Noah used organic foodstuffs I meant that he could have obtained much of the material in the wild.  Since the animals were all vegetarians they may have been able to survive (if not also thrive) on seeds and nuts, the harvesting of which would not be as labor intensive as harvesting something like hay.

[b]
At the risk of being called a lunatic by them who think they know everything I point you to Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision- a book that describes the geologic consequences of disrupting the earth’s orbit. The energy involved in disrupting the earth’s orbit was transferred into earthquakes and tidal waves.

And yet somehow did not damage the delicate structures in Luray Caverns, Virginia. http://www.luraycaverns.com/ If you have never been, it is an amazing thing. There are flow sheet deposits that look like curtains and are thin enough to be translucent. You could break them between thumb and forefinger (and get arrested).[/b’

How do you know that the Luray Caverns were present when the catastrophe’s described by Velikovsky happened?  I have heard that 5 foot long calcium carbonate stalactites were found in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial in 1968 even though the Memorial was not built until 1923.  I have also heard that the October 1953 issue of National Geographic has a photograph of a living bat that was trapped upside down by a stalactite.  The bat was entombed before scavengers and decay could occur.  If this is correct, it doesn’t bode well for uniformitarian geology.

[b]
You are assuming that salt/fresh water distinction existed before the flood. Some Creationists speculate that the world saw no rain before the flood- but isn’t erosion of land by precipitation the cause of the ocean’s salt? It is possible that the antediluvian ocean was not a salt water environment and those marine organisms that now exist had to adapt to salty habitats after the Flood.

A good place to see why the ocean is salty is the link below. To say that erosion by rain is the sole cause of salt in the sea is not correct. There are other factors. A bigger question for flood believers is how the oceans got so salty and how we go so much salt deposited on land if the oceans started from zero some 4500 years ago.


So how much of the salt in the oceans comes from land erosion and how much was inherent in the ocean to begin with?  The civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia were absolutely dependent upon the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers for irrigation.  But, evaporation of the irrigation water allowed salt to build up on the river banks.  Both rivers begin in landlocked regions of Turkey, then flow south and then empty into the oceans.  I know that the Nile River is formed by snow melt from the mountains of Africa, but I am not certain if the Tigris and Euphrates are formed by snow melt or springs.  Snow melt would simply recycle the salt in the ocean, but wouldn’t springs produce freshwater that becomes salty only by eroding the land it flows through?

I am not completely convinced that the world had no rain before the Flood.  But it there was no rain, there would not have been much in the way of riparian erosion and thus little of the land’s salt would have ended up in the ocean.  But since the Flood covered the entire surface of the earth much of the ocean’s salt would have been deposited by the Flood.  A better question may be how long did it take for the water cycle to return so much salt to the land.


I take it then that you are pro-life and are opposed to abortion. I didn’t think an evolutionist could have any sense of morality that respects life since such attitudes nullify survival of the fittest.


Now that’s just rude!


Since the adaptation and survival of some organisms requires the maladaptation and extinction of others how can Darwinists refuse to pay homage to death since death makes natural selection possible?  Hugh Ross is a uniformitarian who claims also to be a Christian and a creationist.  He has nothing against death and praises God for designing a creation that allowed animals to die before man brought sin into the world.  Ross, however, has a warped sense of God.  His God is one of death, not life.  



Do you accept that the earth’s entire physical history is documented in a complete geologic column? If so where on earth does this column exist? Isn’t it true that evolutionists document the fossil record by taking incomplete geologic columns from around the world and stacking them one on top of another? If evolutionists cannot find a complete geologic column why should they expect that creationists can?

Someone replied with some information from Talk.origins and then you said:

Is any of the data on Talkorigins or any other website subject to peer review?

I submitted your list to 5 university geology departments and none of them has offered any kind of reply. This silence suggests to me that the Talkorigins claim is unfounded.

This is not a talk.origins claim. The Robertson Group produced that list of sedimentary basins where you can find deposits from the major geological eras.


Is the entire geologic column composed of deposits from the major geological era, or does it have deposits from every era, period and epoch?  Is there such a thing as a 100% complete geologic column or not?

Upon consulting Glenn Morton’s website I noticed immediately that he states "New drilling, new availability of information from distant places means that every few months I find a new place which has all of the geologic eras piled up.. " I asked him to confirm what he means, but he has not responded.  

If a geologic column does not have deposits from Precambrian times followed by deposits for the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian Carboniferous (Mississippian and Pennsylvanian) and Permian periods of the Paleozoic Era followed by the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods of the Mesozoic Era followed by the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene Epochs of the Tertiary Period of the Cenozoic Era followed by the Pleistocene and Recent Epochs of the Quanternary Period of the Cenozoic Era, is the geologic column complete?


As for where the water come from you should read about the waters God placed above the firmament in Genesis chapter 1.

Several times in your posts you have mentioned the vapor canopy. It is an idea that has been rejected by many creationist groups (AIG et. al.) and others that have studied it (ICR) have been unable to figure out how a vapor canopy that contained significant amounts of water could render a habitable earth.


I am not convinced that the waters above the firmament would have produced a universal tropical or sub-tropical climate; although we do have fossils for tropical organisms in un-tropical places like Alaska and Siberia.

Chances are the ability of a water canopy to block cosmic radiation was more important than its ability to contribute rain to Noah’s Flood.  Breaks in the earth’s crust that allowed steam to escape, condense and fall as rain was probably sufficient for most of the flooding.

I wonder of any of the water canopy researchers has considered a model whereby the water canopy was not in direct contact with the atmosphere, but set some distance from it.  Could this prevent excessive temperatures at the earth’s surface by allowing heat to escape back into space rather than being trapped in the atmosphere.


The final products of radioactive decay do not exist in closed systems either. The various lead isotopes can “capture” free neutrons that exist in the system. One isotope of lead can therefore be converted into another. Geologists have no way of knowing how much of one lead isotope is the result of free neutron capture and how much came from the radioactive decay of uranium.

Neutron capture does not occur on Earth. The environment necessary for this to happen would render the Earth uninhabitable. Neutron capture of lead occurs in the shells of AGB stars. Other environmental conditions where you get significant changes in decay rates would also render the planet uninhabitable (i.e. Woodmorrape has an article on changing decay rates {I believe on AIG) that requires that the earth be a superheated plasma!) Magnetic field changes, heat and temperatures that could exist on earth do not affect decay rates.


It may not be the same thing, but neutron capture by boron is used as a cancer treatment.

Lead is commonly used as a shielding material for radiological applications.  Consult: http://www.leadinfo.com/ARCH/rad.html.  This website says in part: “When applied as part of a neutron particle shielding system, lead has an extremely low level of neutron absorption and, hence, practically no absorption of secondary gamma radiation.  If the shield material has a high rate of neutron capture, it will in time become radioactive, sharply reducing its effectiveness as a shield material. Pure lead itself cannot become highly radioactive under bombardment by neutrons. Therefore, lead shielding, even after long periods of neutron exposure, emits only insignificant amounts of radiation due to activation.”  So, while not common, the capture of neutrons by lead does occur under earth conditions.  Even though neutron capture by lead is not common, any amount of neutron capture that changes the rate of a radioactive decay operation would render the operation useless as a dating tool.


When a rock yields conflicting dates the normal procedure is to pick whatever date most closely matches the previously determined dates for the fossils contained in the rocks.

Where is this “normal procedure” documented? This is a pretty serious charge of fraud. I assume you can back that up with something other than your say-so.


I don’t know right off any specific examples of where evolutionists use fossil dates over radiological dates, but I am investigating further.  However, it should be noted that many rock formations had been dated according to their fossil contents before radiological techniques were available.  Originally rocks were dated according to their stratigraphy, that is rocks deeper in the earth are older than the rocks above them and younger than the rocks below.  Using this technique allowed evolutionists to assign relative dates to fossils.  These relative dates would have been assigned to fossils in the “same” rock formations found detached from the rest of the geologic column.

The relative fossil dates could easily become sacred cows, relied on when other dating methods produced conflicting results.  So what happens when fossils are found in rock formations that are supposedly too old to contain them?

http://aig.smartbusiness.org/docs/1141.asp
Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
first published in: Creation 19(2):42–43 March–May 1997


http://aig.smartbusiness.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp
Dating Dilemma:
Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone
by Andrew Snelling
First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3):39–41 June–August 1999

In another post you documented some “maximum ages” for certain geological or astronomical events. These are based upon some shaky (at best) assumptions and calculations. Glenn Morton deals with one of them (Morris via Austin’s claim that erosion rates give us a maxim age of 14 Ma) http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/erosion.htm

Can you explain what maximum ages I mentioned?  It is my position that we cannot assign absolute dates to events before 750 BC since we have written records and archaeological artifacts to indicate the earth has not always had days of 24 hours or years of 365.25 days.


The tail bone, or coccyx, serves as the anchoring point for the muscles required for man’s upright posture.


No it does not. http://www.coccyx.org/whatisit/normal.html


The administrator of this site, by his own admission, is a physicist and not a doctor.  I would not expect his training in the biological sciences to be extensive.  Furthermore, much of what this website contains is personal experiences and thus hearsay and not science.  


Very rarely, people are born either with no coccyx or with an actual tail. People with long coccyxes seem to be more likely to have coccyx pain.

The coccyx is attached by ligaments to the base of the sacrum, which is the part of the spine that forms the back of the pelvis. The sacrum consists of five vertebrae fused together. When the coccyx is surgically removed, these ligaments are cut. [b]Cutting these ligaments and removing the coccyx does not affect mobility in any way. Afterwards, the ex-patient is able to do anything that a normal person does – run, jump, and so on.


I cannot find this information by doing a search on the message board display.  Does it come from the website you cited above? By using the expression “then you said:” you give the impression that I had presented this information, or that I was responding to it.  Neither is the case.

As for the lack of function in the coccyx consult: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

“The coccygeus muscle can draw the coccyx ventrally to give added support to the pelvic floor against abdominal pressure. It draws the coccyx forward after defecation. This muscle is inserted by its base into the margin of the coccyx and into the side of the last section of the sacrum. The coccygeus muscle consists of the levator aid and the prirformis which enclose the back part of the outlet of the pelvis.

In females, the coccygeus muscle draws the coccyx forward after it has been pressed back during parturition. Smith (1986:134) reported that the movements of the coccyx help to enlarge the birth canal during childbirth. The levator ani muscles constrict the lower end of both the rectum and the vagina, drawing the rectum both forward and upward- see Anthony (1963:411). Far from being remnants of muscles that pull the tail down in a dog, as Cartmill et al. (1987:186) and others claim, the small sling of muscles attached to the coccyx serves several functions.”

This page continues:

“The oval surface of the coccyx base articulates with the sacrum. Cray (1966:130) pointed out that the rounded apex or lowest part of the coccyx is attached to the tendon of the sphincter ani externus and its movement can be bifid, meaning that it can be deflected to both sides, and thus make bowel movements possible. Also, Cray (1966: 130) discussed the anococ-cygeal raphe which is a narrow fibrous band that extends from the coccyx to the margin of the anus.

Citing an anatomy textbook, Scadding (1981) concluded this very succinctly by stating that several muscles and ligaments insert on the coccyx. Walker (1987:253) noted that it is the coccyx ”... to which certain anal and perineal muscles attach:’ Weischnitzer (1978: 285) reported that the iliococcygeus muscle “. . . supports and raises the pelvic floor’ He indicated that the iliococcygeus is inserted on terminal parts of the coccyx.
Without the coccyx and its attached muscle system, humans would need a radically different support system for their internal organs which would require numerous design changes in the human posterior Concerning the coccyx and its importance, Allford concluded that:
"The posterior surfaces [of the coccyx] serve as attachments for the gluteus maximus muscle and the sphincter and externus muscles. The gluteus maximus muscle is essential for defecation and labor during childbirth. The sphincter ani externus muscle is needed to keep the anal canal and orifice closed. These are obviously very important functions. The interior surfaces of the coccygeal vertebrae also serve as important attachments for muscles that aid in the containment of feces within the rectum . . . [as well as control of] defecation, and the expulsion of the fetus during labor. For these important reasons, the coccyx can never be classified as a rudimentary or vestigial rudiment of our ancestors. Aliford (1978:42)
Franks dealt with coccyx malfunction as follows:
"Individuals who injure the tailbone may develop a painful condition called coccydynia. Removal of the coccyx presumably because it is thought to be nonessential seems to be a poor operation. I counsel my patients with tailbone pain to resist removal of the coccyx if ever suggested" . Franks (1988:24)
The coccyx is not the only support system of the internal organs; the diaphragm and other muscles also help fulfill this role. If the coccyx is surgically removed, enough surrounding supporting structures exist in adults so one can live fairly normally. The three to five small bones are obviously part of a larger support structure consisting of bones, cartilage, muscle, ligaments, and tendons, all of which participate.
Concerning surgery of the coccyx, Shute noted that the vestigial organ argument is not realistic:
Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what the biologists have told him about this useless ‘rudiment: Shute (1961:40)”
If even a fraction of what this website reports is true, claims that the coccyx serves no purpose is exaggerated in the extreme.

Babies are occasionally born with protrusions on their back that are called “tails”. However, these protrusions are simply masses of skin and fat that can be removed with no ill effects. They contain neither bone, nor muscle and are not tails.


Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Scroll down in this discussion to see some remarkable pictures of people born with actual bony, muscled, mobile “tails.”

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3449&perpage=16&pagenumber=3


I am having trouble logging onto to this website.  It loads very slowly and has frozen my monitor display.  However, I did not see any photographs on the part of the page I could examine.  Could you post the photos on this message board, and provide documentation that these bony tails have been verified by medical authorities?

You began this post my claiming that I am relying on erroneous information from Morris, but then you failed to specifically show what this information is.  I don’t necessarily accept every claim made by every Creationist, and while I utterly reject the idea of Darwinian macroevolution I am willing to give enough credence to the claims of evolutionists to facilitate a discussion.  To that end I would appreciate any documentation you can provide to disprove specific claims of specific creationists.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:19 PM on May 24, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here are a few of my thoughts and things i noticed as scrolling through this post.

quote "For all your talk about what species are, you never even attempted to answer this
question.
It is simply impossible (unbelievably impossible)
that Noah could have had a sea going vessel big enough to contain enough animals to
produce the diversity and populations we see today. "

And you think that all these animals came from one thing? how could all animals come from one gene or cell or anything like that and not from a bunch of different kinds of animals on an ark?
Also There are many possibilitys such as taking babys on the ark. They are small, sleep lots, are not easily heart or break bones when they fall, and do not eat much.

Quote "This assumption is supported by current geological and oceanographic data.  Firstly, we
have found fossilized rain drop impressions much, much older than 6000 years, so your
assertion that it didn't rain before the flood is totally falsified.  Secondly, while some salt
in the ocean is definetely caused by erosion and runoff, even more is due to volcanic
vents on the bottom of the ocean directly pumping dissolved salts into the water.  So as
long as there has been volcanic activity on the ocean floor, the oceans have been salty
(about 500 million years). "
How do you know that was from over 6000 years where is the proof?

How do you know that the geologic colum wasn't put down in water sand sifts out to different densitys why not animals and such? Also the small ones that live on or in the ocean would be buried first. there is more than one way to explane the geologic colums.


Quote "It's called formulating an hypothesis.  And science doesn't give answers before they ask
questions, that's what creationists do."

Well Scientist do form thier hypothesis's on what they think is the answer. They chose to ignor God and formulated thier answer on that.

Darwin originated his theory with many flaws some still unanswered today. He was a racist and believed in exterminating those lower than himself. He himself in his book left many unanswered questions. The theory of evolution has been around almost as long as creation.  It is a good excuse to live an immoral life (see my post in the ethics or something like that of evolution), without God and to do whatever we want.






-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 11:30 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Scientist do form thier hypothesis's on what they think is the answer. They chose to ignor God and formulated thier answer on that.


Science must use a naturalist methodology.

Darwin originated his theory with many flaws some still unanswered today. He was a racist and believed in exterminating those lower than himself.

Darwin was no more racist than the average European of the time. "OMG George Washington was a racist!"


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:16 AM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry it took me so long to answer some of these questions....

"Where are these fossilized raindrops?  How do you know they are raindrops?
"

Heres a link to a BBC article on fossilized raindrops:
India
raindrops


And this web site has pictures of fossilized raindrops:
fossil

raindrops


So yes, we have concrete, observable evidence that it did rain millions of
years ago.

"No fossil showing a transition between scales and feathers has been found
either"

I got this from Science News Online.  Sinosauropteryx, a therapod
discovered in China in 1996, has a coat of downy fibers that may well be
the forerunner of feathers.  As more fossil evidence is uncovered, the link
between birds and dinosaurs gets better and better, just as the Theory of
Evolution predicts.
And the 2 species of dinosaur found in 1998 are even better,
Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui had feathers, not feather
like structures, but real feathers.  Now let's see, a specimen with what
could be proto feathers, then 2 non bird therapod dinosaurs with real
feathers, the hallmark characteristic for classifiying birds.  And then
there is archeopteryx, reptilian and avian characteristics.  And while no
paleontologist claims archeopteryx is a direct link in the line of descent
between dinosaurs and birds, it does represent a true transitional species
and that such transitions took place.

"But the question must be asked: if the Archaeopteryx habitat changed
enough to put the animal under selection pressure and force it to express
new traits and produce evolutionary offspring, how was the habitat changed
so little that Archaeopteryx could survive temporarily once its descendants
were in place?  This sounds like a stop-gap hypothesis made to explain some
facts that don't support Darwinism.  Mosaic traits could be used as "proof"
of any transitional form evolutionists care to present. "

It's all ready been established that archeopteryx was not a direct ancestor
of modern birds, but your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution is still
showing.  Why couldn't a parent species and it's descendents exist at the
same time?  If the population was split into 2 different environments and
the 2 groups were put under different selection pressure, it's certainly
feasable that the parent population could survive relatively unchanged
while the offshoout population could evolve to reflect the changes in the
new environment.

"Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1961 page 310
credits Archaeopteryx as "cogent proof of the reptilian ancestry of the
birds."  But, Dunbar later in the same paragraph said that Archaeopteryx is
"?because of its feathers distinctly to be classified as a bird."

Shame on you for using a source 42 years out of date.  Science moves
forward and always incorpooates the latest data.  As shown, feathers are no
longer the sole property of birds.

"Mammalian and human evolution is by no means a settled issue.
Evolutionists should wait until they know all of the details before they
tell everyone else what to believe."

No it's not a completely settled issue, but it is obvious that evolution is
taking place.  As far as the reptile to mammal link, once again I go to
Talkorigins because of their thorough research and well referenced sources:
"This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far
this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the
transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence
is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that
came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long
that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the
beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al.,
1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data
analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything
about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is
largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the
fossil record." Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living
mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil
record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one t
o trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail." "

I think the line of descent is pretty well established.  Scientists create
theories that best explain the evidence, and the evidence for reptile to
mammal evolution is conclusive.
And scientists never tell people what to believe, that's what dogmatic
fundamentalist christian creationists do.  Scientists present their
theories, the evidence to back them up and then anyone with contradicting
evidence is free, is encouraged, to attempt to falsify that theory.  You
still don't understand how science operates.

On radiometric dating:
"What are all of the other dating methods?  Darwinists generally rely on
radioisotopic dating to confirm what they think fossils and stratigraphy
already told them is true. "

I mentioned 2 of them, examining icecores and lake varves.  But there are
something like 44 different radiometric dating techniques.  When samples
are dated, more than one technique is used.  When a sample is given a date,
it is because more than one dating technique was used.  Check out the USGS
page on the radiometric timescale.  They specifically state that when
feasable, 2 or more methods are used to date the same sample to ensure the
date ascertained is correct.

"Actually total concurrence is not universal"

No it is not, but the overwhelming majority of the time seperate dating
techniques do concurr.  Because of this concurrence, we can accurately
estimate the age of the Earth to be 4.54 billion years old.






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:45 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I read the stuff on fossilised raindrops. How do they know they are that old? they gave absolutlyno proof other than they were there.

I don't think that judgeing by Ice cores is extreemly accurate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp
This artical is about some airplanes titled the lost squadren. The were hundreds of feet and thousands of years below the ice.

Scientists make thier assumption that their dating methods are true. How do they know that things always stay the same? when there are variations in things such as tree rings (more rings during years of lots of growth)?

They don't know. Maybe there was a bit of a different atmosphere even 1,000 years ago that throws the date off by 2,000 years?


If I was a evolutionist and wanted everyone to believe evolution I could come up with the ways and numbers that I liked best too. The same dating could prove creation or young earth because there could be room or most likely atmosphere changes.

Also with lake warves what if a flood deposeted all of that within a very short period of time. They have found whales standing on its tail buried and fossilized. It takes years for an inch. The whale would have decompose but since it didn't there must be some other reason. If there was a flood that killed all those diatoms at once that would explain it.





-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 8:14 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another thing on dating methods go to
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html
very interesting thing that disproves old earth by dating methods



-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 8:20 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"For all your talk about what species are, you never even attempted to answer this
question.
It is simply impossible (unbelievably impossible)
that Noah could have had a sea going vessel big enough to contain enough animals to
produce the diversity and populations we see today. "

And you think that all these animals came from one thing? how could all animals come from one gene or cell or anything like that and not from a bunch of different kinds of animals on an ark?
Also There are many possibilitys such as taking babys on the ark. They are small, sleep lots, are not easily heart or break bones when they fall, and do not eat much.


This depends on how many individual animals you think are necessary to achieve today’s variety.  In his book Faith, Form, and Time Kurt P. Wise briefly explained the creationist science of bariminology.  This branch of biology attempts to classify organisms according to the original created kind.  Bariminologists classify animals and plants based on what “species” can interbreed and produce hybrid offspring.  For example, domestic dogs can breed with wolves and coyotes- suggesting that all three “species” are part of the same created kind.  Another example is the cama- a camel/llama hybrid.  The world has 149 species of duck, swan and goose, but 80% of the species, representing 40% of the genera and 60% of the tribes (term unknown to me), can produce hybrids.

In the plant kingdom thousands of orchid “species” can produce hybrids- and some of the parent species don’t even belong to the same genera.  Other inter-species hybridizing plants include grasses, roses, lilies and fuchsias.


"This assumption is supported by current geological and oceanographic data. Firstly, we have found fossilized rain drop impressions much, much older than 6000 years, so your
assertion that it didn't rain before the flood is totally falsified. Secondly, while some salt
in the ocean is definetely caused by erosion and runoff, even more is due to volcanic
vents on the bottom of the ocean directly pumping dissolved salts into the water. So as
long as there has been volcanic activity on the ocean floor, the oceans have been salty
(about 500 million years). "

How do you know that was from over 6000 years where is the proof?


I’m still waiting for someone to post the answer to this question myself.

How do you know that the geologic colum wasn't put down in water sand sifts out to different densitys why not animals and such? Also the small ones that live on or in the ocean would be buried first. there is more than one way to explane the geologic colums.

Creationists who rely heavily on a global flood generally attribute the entire geologic column to the flood and ascribe the distribution of fossils to the living mobility of the organisms involved.  I have always wondered if the distribution could be due to a centrifugal force exerted by the rotating earth.  I am not willing to make the Flood the sole cause of the geologic column since I believe the world’s entire history is one of catastrophism.  I have trouble accepting much of what creationists say about the Flood and geologic column because I have seen no experimental data to test the hypotheses involved.

"It's called formulating an hypothesis. And science doesn't give answers before they ask questions, that's what creationists do."

Well Scientist do form thier hypothesis's on what they think is the answer. They chose to ignor God and formulated thier answer on that.


Most evolutionists have a warped idea of what the experimental method is.  Some of them, beginning with Darwin himself, claim that science is incapable of proving anything.  As far as Darwinism is concerned they are right.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:31 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Several websites indicate that primates and Guinea pigs also have the non-functioning vitamin C gene.  If evolution has occurred, we would expect that the Guinea pig is descended from the human-primate ancestor.  This brings up the question: what other mammals share the Guinea pig, human, primate lineage and thus have the non-functioning gene?


True, it would be interesting to know what other mammalian species possess a nonfunctional psuedogene for vitamin C, but still, no one can construct a phylogeny based upon a single gene.  A single gene alone is not enough to construct relationships among organisms, you would need many more to compare.



Having a recessive and a dominant gene for making vitamin C would not mean anything, if they both made Vitamin C.

If both genes made vitamin C, that is they are both expressed, how can either be recessive?  Aren’t recessive genes expressed only in individuals who are homozygous for the recessive gene?


Sorry, i may have been confusing here.  I was merely trying to understand what you stated about dominant and rescessive genes earlier, though you corrected it in your last post.

Do you have any evidence for multiple copies of the vitamin C gene?

Again, I was being unclear.  What I meant to say was that there might have been different alleles for making vitamin C, not different loci(i.e separate genes).  But regardless, they were lost through genetic drift due to the fact that they werent really needed since vitamin C could be obtained from the diet.

The Sickle cell gene gives some immunity to malaria so it offers a slight advantage in warm, mosquito ridden locales.  I would not consider Sickle Cell to be a variant hemoglobin in the terms you are thinking in.  Can you document the existence of 400 varieties of human hemoglobin?  If we have that many different blood proteins, why do we have so few blood types?  If someone produces one form of hemoglobin, why don’t the remaining 399 produce an immune response when given in a transfusion?  Is it possible for a single individual human to produce multiple types of hemoglobin and thus produce an immune reaction only to a few of the other 400 varieties?

Again I was refering to the number of variant alleles found for hemoglobin. I am sorry for being so confusing, I'll try to write these things out more clearly.  But, there are quite a few hemoglobin genes in the chromosome On chromosome 16 there are two alpha hemoglobin genes.  On chromosome 11 there are two gamma hemoglobin genes, one delta hemoglobin gene, and one beta hemoglobin gene.  Together, these combine (in tetramers) to form the complete hemoglobin molecule used for oxygen transport.  the most common type is hemoglobin A, which consists of two alphas and two betas.  the most common type of hemoglobin found in fetuses consists of two deltas and two gammas.  Also, inbetween these genes are sandwiched many psuedogenes which currently serve no purpose.  The vast array of hemoglobin genes have helped greatly in the construction of phylogenetic trees.

Hemoglobin would not trigger an immunological response when placed into another individual, and has absolutely nothing to do with blood types.  Blood typing has to do with carbohydrates attached on the surfaces of cell membranes.  Hemoglobin is found on the inside of cells, and would not normally be attached to surface of the cell.  
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 11:03 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Btw, i am citing this from Hemoglobin: Molecular, Genetic, and Clinical Aspects.  Bunn & Forget, 1986.

Don't worry, im not making it up!
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 11:05 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Creationists who rely heavily on a global flood generally attribute the entire geologic column to the flood and ascribe the distribution of fossils to the living mobility of the organisms involved.  I have always wondered if the distribution could be due to a centrifugal force exerted by the rotating earth.  I am not willing to make the Flood the sole cause of the geologic column since I believe the world’s entire history is one of catastrophism.  I have trouble accepting much of what creationists say about the Flood and geologic column because I have seen no experimental data to test the hypotheses involved."


Yah I agree that basing all known evidenc on a flood but I was pointing out that there is more than one way to explane things. (even though the geologic colum hasn't proven accurate all over the globe).





-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 01:41 AM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm getting tired of creatinists trying to discredit all dating methods because it destroys their assertion of a young earth.  Let's face the facts, there is no proof for their claims that radiometric methods are flawed, no proof what so ever.  And they can never answer the question, if ALL these dating methods are flawed, why do they keep giving us the same dates?

"Scientists make thier assumption that their dating methods are true. How do they know that things always stay the same? when there are variations in things such as tree rings (more rings during years of lots of growth)?"

I found a real good article on radiometric dating at:


dating

It's called "Radiometric Dating  A Christian Perspective"  by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.  

"Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating."

"Scientists make thier assumption that their dating methods are true. How do they know that things always stay the same? when there are variations in things such as tree rings (more rings during years of lots of growth)?"

They know things stay the same because they check.  They cross check different dating techniques and it has been pointed out the overwhelming majority agree.  Once again, let's look at what the aforementioned article has to say:

"All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth."

So what we see is that these dating techniques all agree with each other.  Creationists keep throwing out twisted data trying to discredit the various methods, but these are well known problems and can be compensated for.  So tree ring dating, lake varves and ice core sampling are very reliable, along with coral annual layering.  Creationists claims to the contrary are just plain wrong.
And they still can't account for the fact that all these different dating methods give us the same dates, they agree.  

Many creatioinsts try to claim that when scientists obtain inconsistant dates from samples, they just use whatever date fits their needs.  This is patently untrue.  Check out the USGS page for some good info on radiometric dating procedures.  

USGS

This is particularly relevent:

"Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results. "

So samples that are dated radiometrically are subjected to 2 or more different methods to make sure the date gotten is acurate.  I guess if 2 or more different radiometric tests are used and the dates they obtain concurr, they have to be very accurate.  

And still creationists try to weasel their way around the facts.  Some claim that nuclear decay rates could have changed.  Source after source shows that these rates have not changed but the creationists refuse to accept the facts and instead cling to hald baked claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up.  From the article I used above:

"Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.
There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods we have discussed.
1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.
2. Physical conditions at the center of stars or for cosmic rays differ very greatly from anything experienced in rocks on or in the Earth. Yet, self-proclaimed "experts" often confuse these conditions. Cosmic rays are very, very high-energy atomic nuclei flying through space. The electron-capture decay mentioned above does not take place in cosmic rays until they slow down. This is because the fast-moving cosmic ray nuclei do not have electrons surrounding them, which are necessary for this form of decay. Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. ' Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. This has been observed for dysprosium-163 and rhenium-187 under very specialized conditions simulating the interior of stars (Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2164-2167; Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190-5193, 1996). All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees.
3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates."

Also from the article:

"Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives."

Once again, radiometric dating is accurate and well understood.  Nuclear decay rates used for dating purposes have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unchanging.  Creationists are unable to present any real evidence that shows these dates to be in error.  Like petulant children they deny reality, not because of the facts but because reality contradicts the dogmatic delusion of a literal bible they've, against all reason, forced themselves to believe in.













 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:03 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think that judgeing by Ice cores is extreemly accurate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/233.asp
This artical is about some airplanes titled the lost squadren. The were hundreds of feet and thousands of years below the ice.

Scientists make thier assumption that their dating methods are true. How do they know that things always stay the same? when there are variations in things such as tree rings (more rings during years of lots of growth)?

They don't know. Maybe there was a bit of a different atmosphere even 1,000 years ago that throws the date off by 2,000 years?


If I was a evolutionist and wanted everyone to believe evolution I could come up with the ways and numbers that I liked best too. The same dating could prove creation or young earth because there could be room or most likely atmosphere changes.

Also with lake warves what if a flood deposeted all of that within a very short period of time. They have found whales standing on its tail buried and fossilized. It takes years for an inch. The whale would have decompose but since it didn't there must be some other reason. If there was a flood that killed all those diatoms at once that would explain it.


this site is really interesting because there are isotopes that wouldn't exist if it were an old earth. http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html

why on earth would you be sick of creationists trying to prove or disprove dating methods? Maybe that is the new science of the day? This is a debate why get upset when someone is trying to prove you wrong or bring out a point you missed.



-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:31 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"This artical is about some airplanes titled the lost squadren. The were hundreds of feet and thousands of years below the ice."

Except the planes were on a flowing glacier not a stable ice pack so how deep they were in the ice has no bearing on ice core dating techniques.

"They don't know. Maybe there was a bit of a different atmosphere even 1,000 years ago that throws the date off by 2,000 years?"

Sorry, wild speculation doesn't cut it, where's your evidence?  Scientists do have evidence of the atmosphere from many different time frames.

"If I was a evolutionist and wanted everyone to believe evolution I could come up with the ways and numbers that I liked best too. The same dating could prove creation or young earth because there could be room or most likely atmosphere changes. "

But scientists don't do that, they go were the facts lead and the facts, all the facts, lead to an old earth roughly 4.5 billion years old and an evolving biosphere.

"They have found whales standing on its tail buried and fossilized. It takes years for an inch. The whale would have decompose but since it didn't there must be some other reason. If there was a flood that killed all those diatoms at once that would explain it."

Wrong again, Turbo, you should check your facts instead of relying on deceiving creationist web sites.  From Talkorigins:
whale tail

"Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982).

Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989). "

Talkorigns provide their sources, so if you want to check any further, you can do it.  But I think it's obvious, this fossilized whale doesn't do a thing to prove your point.

"why on earth would you be sick of creationists trying to prove or disprove dating methods? Maybe that is the new science of the day? This is a debate why get upset when someone is trying to prove you wrong or bring out a point you missed."

I'm not tired of a good debate, I'm tired of creationists using the same old arguements that have been disproven for decades.  What do they think, that if they repeat the same lies enough times people will eventually believe them?



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Where are these fossilized raindrops? How do you know they are raindrops?"

Heres a link to a BBC article on fossilized raindrops:
India
raindrops


This article does not give any details as to how these fossils were identified as raindrops.  Consider the conditions under which raindrops could be fossilized.  The impact surface would have to be soft enough for the impact to make an impression, but hard enough to hold the impression once it is made.  If rain falls on wet mud the mud would flow into the craters and fill them in and thus erase the impression.  Rain falling on dried mud would leave an impression that would remain, but to be preserved the mud would have to be covered by another material and then put under enough pressure to turn the mud and covering material into rock.  But the covering material and the pressure would have to be applied without crushing or otherwise destroying the raindrop impressions.  A better explanation for these fossils may be that they are impact craters left when solid particles struck a rock-hard surface with the surface then being covered with loose material that was later turned into rock.

Note also that this article did not say anything about the chemical composition of the materials that made the impact.  So what proof is there that the impact was in fact made by rain?

And this web site has pictures of fossilized raindrops:
fossil

raindrops

So yes, we have concrete, observable evidence that it did rain millions of
years ago.


I cannot get this pdf document to download without shutting my computer down.

"No fossil showing a transition between scales and feathers has been found
either"

I got this from Science News Online. Sinosauropteryx, a therapod
discovered in China in 1996, has a coat of downy fibers that may well be
the forerunner of feathers.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1357.asp
The Cincinnati Enquirer, October 25, 1997
“New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is ‘almost impossible’ for the species to be closely related.”

Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, ‘Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science 278(5338):666–8, 24 October 1997, with a perspective by Richard Hinchliffe, ‘The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?’ on pp. 596–7.
Bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, concurred with the embryonic thumb analysis.  His team published their findings in the journal Science.

Ann Gibbons, ‘Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood’ and John Ruben ‘Lung Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds’, Science 278(5341):1229–1230, 14 November 1997.
An Oregon State research team, lead by respiratory physiology expert John Ruben, examined Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs and found that its “bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.”

M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 199–213, 1985; K. Schmidt-Nielsen, ‘How Birds Breathe’, Scientific American, December 1971, pp. 72–79.

Engineers make much use of this principle of counter-current exchange which is common in living organisms as well — see P.F. Scholander, ‘The Wonderful Net’, Scientific American, April 1957, pp. 96–107.
The airsacs in avian lungs are designed in a way that keeps air moving in one direction while blood flows in the opposite direction.

K. Padian and L.M. Chiappe, The Origin of Birds and their Flight, Scientific American, 278(2), 38–47, Feb. 1998; quote on p. 43.
When Creationists point to the complexity of the bird’s lung some evolutionists complain, ‘the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.’  This website replies that “only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.”

Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur’, Science 278(5341):1229–1230, 14 November 1997
Ruben, joined by ancient bird expert Larry Martin, thinks the feathers on Sinosauropteryx is actually traces of frayed collagen fibers that were beneath the skin. University of Connecticut bird expert Alan Brush claims the feathers “lack the organization found in modern feathers.”


http://www.creationtruthministries.org/pages/802131/

John Ostrom, of Yale University, has also concluded that the feathers are probably collagen- yet Ostrom is a firm believer in the dinosaurian origin of birds.

In an open letter to the National Geographic Society’s Dr. Peter Raven, Storrs L. Olson, the curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History (British?) has said that “…protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct…”.

As more fossil evidence is uncovered, the link
between birds and dinosaurs gets better and better, just as the Theory of
Evolution predicts.


Darwinists have a tendency to rush to judgment whenever some new fossil is found.  Seldom do the followers of Darwin speak with one voice, but they never allow their lack of consensus to shine a ray of doubt in what they take as faith.

And the 2 species of dinosaur found in 1998 are even better,
Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui had feathers, not feather
like structures, but real feathers. Now let's see, a specimen with what
could be proto feathers, then 2 non bird therapod dinosaurs with real
feathers, the hallmark characteristic for classifiying birds.


If proto-feathers are nothing more than theoretical structures, you have no standing to make this statement.  True feathers exist only in true birds and we still have nothing to indicate anything that is a transitional form.

And then there is archeopteryx, reptilian and avian characteristics. And while no paleontologist claims archeopteryx is a direct link in the line of descent between dinosaurs and birds, it does represent a true transitional species and that such transitions took place.

As I explained in an earlier post many scientists, not all of them evolutionists, believe Archaeopteryx was a true bird.  The fact that this animal had reptilian characteristics means nothing since several of these same characteristics (clawed wings for example) can be found on modern birds.  Rather than Darwinian pipe dreams a more likely scenario would have Archaeopteryx as the ancestors of these modern birds and not a link between dinosaurs and birds.  

"But the question must be asked: if the Archaeopteryx habitat changed
enough to put the animal under selection pressure and force it to express
new traits and produce evolutionary offspring, how was the habitat changed
so little that Archaeopteryx could survive temporarily once its descendants
were in place? This sounds like a stop-gap hypothesis made to explain some
facts that don't support Darwinism. Mosaic traits could be used as "proof"
of any transitional form evolutionists care to present. "

It's all ready been established that archeopteryx was not a direct ancestor
of modern birds,


Established by whom?  We have a fossil bird with certain characteristics and we have living birds with the same characteristics so why can’t we conclude that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor to some of the modern birds now living?  Who has ever claimed that Archaeopteryx has to be the ancestor to all modern birds?

but your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution is still showing. Why couldn't a parent species and it's descendents exist at the same time? If the population was split into 2 different environments and the 2 groups were put under different selection pressure, it's certainly feasable that the parent population could survive relatively unchanged while the offshoout population could evolve to reflect the changes in the new environment.

If you have a population that is adapted to its habitat and that habitat does not change why would genetic variations be allow to proliferate?  If a habitat does not change how does it present selection pressures?  If no selection pressures are available how can genetic variations within a population have any greater adaptability?

But suppose a parent population did give rise to a variant population without immediately going extinct itself: What do you propose caused these two populations to split?

"Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1961 page 310 credits Archaeopteryx as "cogent proof of the reptilian ancestry of the
birds." But, Dunbar later in the same paragraph said that Archaeopteryx is
"because of its feathers distinctly to be classified as a bird."

Shame on you for using a source 42 years out of date. Science moves
forward and always incorpooates the latest data. As shown, feathers are no
longer the sole property of birds.


Darwin’s Origin of Species is 144 years old, but it still forms the foundation upon which mainstream biology (and every other science) is based.

Regardless of the age of Dunbar’s book, it still illustrates the inconsistencies in the thought processes of evolutionists.

"Mammalian and human evolution is by no means a settled issue.
Evolutionists should wait until they know all of the details before they
tell everyone else what to believe."

No it's not a completely settled issue, but it is obvious that evolution is
taking place.


I have never said that evolution is not taking place, and many creationists would agree with me.  I do, however, make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.  I have no trouble with natural selection acting on the narrow range of genetic variability that exists in the “kinds” created by God.  I utterly reject the idea that one “kind” has ever, or could ever, evolve into another.

As far as the reptile to mammal link, once again I go to
Talkorigins because of their thorough research and well referenced sources:


“Thorough research and well referenced sources” by whose standards?  As I have already shown the data on Talkorigins regarding complete geologic columns is questionable at best.  What reason should I have to accept anything else on this website as gospel?

"This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far
this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the
transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence
is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that
came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long
that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the
beginning. As Rowe recently said about this transition (in Szalay et al.,
1993), "When sampling artifact is removed and all available character data
analyzed [with computer phylogeny programs that do not assume anything
about evolution], a highly corroborated, stable phylogeny remains, which is
largely consistent with the temporal distributions of taxa recorded in the
fossil record."


So what was the first organism to have both reptilian and mammalian characteristics?  Where is its fossil?  Darwinists have had many candidates in the past, but seldom have stayed around for long. As recently as two months ago an issue of National Geographic had an article on the rise of the mammals- as if evolutionists still don’t know exactly how (and creationists can ask if) the transition ever occurred.

Similarly, Gingerich has stated (1977) "While living mammals are well separated from other groups of animals today, the fossil record clearly shows their origin from a reptilian stock and permits one to trace the origin and radiation of mammals in considerable detail."

Shame on you for using a source 26 years out of date.  The National Geographic article clearly indicates doubt in the Darwinian community.  That doubt was certainly greater in 1977.

I think the line of descent is pretty well established. Scientists create
theories that best explain the evidence, and the evidence for reptile to
mammal evolution is conclusive.


What is this line of descent?  Please specify every organism between reptile and man.

And scientists never tell people what to believe, that's what dogmatic
fundamentalist christian creationists do. Scientists present their
theories, the evidence to back them up and then anyone with contradicting
evidence is free, is encouraged, to attempt to falsify that theory. You
still don't understand how science operates.


So that’s why my evolutionary biology term paper, that did not accept evolution as fact, was submitted to two different graders without my knowledge and it must have been why the paper was given an F.

On radiometric dating:
"What are all of the other dating methods? Darwinists generally rely on
radioisotopic dating to confirm what they think fossils and stratigraphy
already told them is true. "

I mentioned 2 of them, examining icecores and lake varves. But there are
something like 44 different radiometric dating techniques. When samples
are dated, more than one technique is used. When a sample is given a date,
it is because more than one dating technique was used. Check out the USGS
page on the radiometric timescale. They specifically state that when
feasable, 2 or more methods are used to date the same sample to ensure the
date ascertained is correct.


Faith, Form, and Time What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe
Kurt P. Wise
Broadman and Holman Publishers
Knoxville, TN.
2002

The National Geochronological Database (USGS Digital Data Series DDS-14, 1995) has information for thousands of rock samples that were subjected to different radiometric dating techniques.  But, often various techniques do not indicate the same age for a particular sample.

The K-Ar method cannot be used by itself or as a check on other methods:

Journal of Geophysical Research
Vol. 73, No. 14
July 15, 1968
Lava formed in 1800 and 1801 had K-Ar dates of 160,000,000 to 3,000,000,000 years.

Science
Vol. 162
October 11, 1968
Volcanic rocks less than 200 years old had K-Ar dates of 12 to 21 million years.

The radiological record on the moon is no better.
Cook, M.A., “Rare Gas Absorption On Solids Of The Lunar Regolith,” Journal Of Colloid And Interface Science, Vol. 38, No. 1, Jan. 1972.

Heymann, D., “Inert Gases In Lunar Samples,” Science, Vol. 167, pp.
555-558, Jan. 30, 1970

Coppedge, J.F., Evolution: Possible Or Impossible?, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1973.

Lunar rocks dated by NASA were glazed so they must have been subjected to temperatures of 1000 to 1300 degrees C.

Any chemical that vaporizes at temperatures less than 1300C would be removed from moon rocks.  This includes rubidium, which is used the rubidium-strontium dating method as well as the potassium used for the K-Ar method.  Only trace amounts of these chemicals are left in moon rocks and radiological dating methods calculate ages that are much too old.  But yet NASA used these techniques and calculated an age of 2-8 billion years.

Rice University’s Department of Geology and Space Science found that the rare gases used to date lunar rocks did not come from a radiogenic sources, but rather a solar wind about 1-2 thousand years ago.  The chemical ratios in the rocks are similar to the ratio in the solar wind. Rice University scientists and Dr. Melvin Cook estimate the moon rocks at no older than 10,000 years.

"Actually total concurrence is not universal"

No it is not, but the overwhelming majority of the time seperate dating
techniques do concurr. Because of this concurrence, we can accurately
estimate the age of the Earth to be 4.54 billion years old.


An overwhelming majority of concurrence is useless if the individual methods are anything less than fool-proof.  Using one faulty method to check another may result in both giving similar results.  But faulty methods cannot give accurate results in the first place.




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:43 PM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Several websites indicate that primates and Guinea pigs also have the non-functioning vitamin C gene. If evolution has occurred, we would expect that the Guinea pig is descended from the human-primate ancestor. This brings up the question: what other mammals share the Guinea pig, human, primate lineage and thus have the non-functioning gene?

True, it would be interesting to know what other mammalian species possess a nonfunctional psuedogene for vitamin C, but still, no one can construct a phylogeny based upon a single gene. A single gene alone is not enough to construct relationships among organisms, you would need many more to compare.


If you rule out convergent evolution can you declare that two organisms who have the same gene are not closely related? Or that the ancestry for both organisms will eventually have a species in common?  What is the chain of ancestors for Guinea pigs, humans and other primates- that exclude all organisms that have a functioning vitamin C gene?

Having a recessive and a dominant gene for making vitamin C would not mean anything, if they both made Vitamin C.

If both genes made vitamin C, that is they are both expressed, how can either be recessive? Aren’t recessive genes expressed only in individuals who are homozygous for the recessive gene?

Sorry, i may have been confusing here. I was merely trying to understand what you stated about dominant and rescessive genes earlier, though you corrected it in your last post.


How did I confuse dominant and recessive genes?  A dominant gene will operate anytime it is present.  An individual must be homozygous for a recessive gene to be expressed.

Do you have any evidence for multiple copies of the vitamin C gene?

Again, I was being unclear. What I meant to say was that there might have been different alleles for making vitamin C, not different loci(i.e separate genes). But regardless, they were lost through genetic drift due to the fact that they werent really needed since vitamin C could be obtained from the diet.


An allele is a variant form of one particular gene.  A gene for blue eyes and a gene for brown eyes are alleles for the same gene.

A locus is simply the location a gene occupies on a chromosome.  

How can a gene that produces a single product, vitamin C, exist in different alleles?  If two genes produce the same trait are they not the same gene?

The Sickle cell gene gives some immunity to malaria so it offers a slight advantage in warm, mosquito ridden locales. I would not consider Sickle Cell to be a variant hemoglobin in the terms you are thinking in. Can you document the existence of 400 varieties of human hemoglobin? If we have that many different blood proteins, why do we have so few blood types? If someone produces one form of hemoglobin, why don’t the remaining 399 produce an immune response when given in a transfusion? Is it possible for a single individual human to produce multiple types of hemoglobin and thus produce an immune reaction only to a few of the other 400 varieties?

Again I was refering to the number of variant alleles found for hemoglobin.  I am sorry for being so confusing, I'll try to write these things out more clearly. But, there are quite a few hemoglobin genes in the chromosome On chromosome 16 there are two alpha hemoglobin genes.  On chromosome 11 there are two gamma hemoglobin genes, one delta hemoglobin gene, and one beta hemoglobin gene.


Are there multiple forms of alpha hemoglobin or any other of the hemoglobins you mention and thus different alleles?  Since hemoglobin is needed in such large quantities it is only natural that we have multiple genes for it.

Together, these combine (in tetramers) to form the complete hemoglobin molecule used for oxygen transport. the most common type is hemoglobin A, which consists of two alphas and two betas. the most common type of hemoglobin found in fetuses consists of two deltas and two gammas.

So the genes produce the different components needed for hemoglobin and not different forms of complete hemoglobins?  This is like having a certain amount of lumber and bricks.  We produce the lumber and bricks the same way, but then they can be assembled in different ways to produce different house styles.

Also, inbetween these genes are sandwiched many psuedogenes which currently serve no purpose. The vast array of hemoglobin genes have helped greatly in the construction of phylogenetic trees.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution
Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam, editors
The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge
Cambridge, England; New York, NY.
1992

Humans and chimpanzees share striking similarities in their proteins and stretches of DNA- but in anatomy and behavior humans and chimps are worlds apart.  Allan Wilson, and his colleagues, tried to explain why.  They studied the anatomy of various species of frogs and various species of hominoids.  They next examined the molecular make-up of these animals.  Frogs are closely similar in anatomy, but widely different in molecular biology.  The hominoids were closely similar on the molecular level, but they are very different in anatomy.
Wilson concluded that either anatomy and molecules became detached at some evolutionary time in the past- or his researchers were simply unable to study the molecules that determined anatomy.  Wilson concluded that we may know the basic molecules used by humans and chimps, but we do not know the genetic instructions whereby the molecules are arranged.
Of the four satellite DNAs found in humans three are found in the great apes.  Human satellite II has not been found in chimpanzees, but is on the chromosomes of gorillas and orangutans.
G-bands in humans generally correspond to g-bands in macaques and baboons even though the two animal species have 4 chromosomes fewer than humans (42 rather than 46).  Human g-bands are generally not found in the common gibbon.  But, structurally humans are more similar to gibbons than to macaques and baboons.
Furthermore, the chromosomes of the gibbons are dissimilar to the chromosomes of other species in the same genus Hylobates.  In fact two species of Hylobates can mate and produce hybrids.  One parent has 44 chromosomes, the other has 50 and the hybrid has 47.
In order to compare the chromosomes of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans scientists identify the animal chromosomes most similar to the 14th human chromosome as chromosome XIV.  The actual chromosomes are numbered 15 for chimps and orangutans and 18 in gorillas.  Nevertheless comparisons are made based on the XIV identification.
Analysis of various gene distribution on chromosomes has failed to demonstrate any clear patterns for humans, chimps and gorillas.  The patterns cannot be used to show how closely these species are, or are not, related.
The best indicator of how closely two species are related is to either map the DNA sequences in their respective genes- or determine the amino acid sequences for the proteins that are coded by those genes.
Albumin-immunology research has yielded the following results:
Species (genus)                     % of amino acids in common with humans
Humans (Homo)100
Chimpanzee (Pan)95
Gorilla (Gorilla)95
Orangutan (Pongo)85
Gibbon (Hylobates)82
Babooon (Papio)73
Spider Monkey (Ateles)60
Ruffled Lemur (Varecia)35
Dog (Canis)25
Kangaroo (Macropus)8

Results of antibody-albumin tests are not always consistent.  The albumin of the New World owl monkey reacts almost as well to the antibody for the human protein as the albumins of the Old World monkeys.  But the owl monkey's albumin reacts better to antibodies for carnivore albumins than the albumins of simian primates.  The owl monkey has such a strong reaction to human protein antibodies because the owl monkey's lineage has changed very slowly.  The general expectation, however, is to find similar rates of change for descendants of a common ancestor.
Mutation in non-coding DNA is so fast that such DNA shows little relationship among mammalian orders- for example non-coding DNA shows little evolutionary relationship between mice and humans.  Non-coding DNA can, however, be used to determine the evolutionary relationships among closely related species such as humans, chimps and gorillas.  Phylogenetic family trees are produced on the assumption that the species with the most recent common ancestor will have the least difference in their DNA sequences.  Such a tree will group Gorilla, Pan and Homo together to the exclusion of Pongo.  But, the most parsimonious phylogenetic tree for myoglobin does not agree with the most parsimonious tree for hemoglobin.  Thus these proteins (and others?) cannot be used to determine the order of divergence.  So does this mean that such proteins show there was no divergence because the animals involved are the result of creation and not evolution?
If scientists assume that protein evolution proceeds at a constant rate, then molecular evolution does not agree with anatomical evolution.  Molecular dates are either too old or too young for the fossil record.  For example the protein calmodulin gives a date of over 2000 million years ago for the last common ancestor for protozoans, plants and metazoans.  The original calmodulin protein existed over 12000 million years ago- a time when the earth did not even exist.  Furthermore, human calmodulin and chicken calmodulin are identical; an eel's calmodulin has only one amino acid difference; a scallop has 3.  So again, are these animals due to creation or evolution?
Other proteins, such as globins and fibrinoproteins, place the last ancestor common to all vertebrates at 800 million years (several hundred million years too early for the fossil record), while the last ancestor common to both birds and mammals is dated between 160 and 180 million years ago (more than 100 million years too late).  Some proteins make the date for the human-African ape divergence as recent as 1 to 2 million years ago


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:16 PM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Except the planes were on a flowing glacier not a stable ice pack so how deep they
were in the ice has no bearing on ice core dating techniques."

I'm sorry I didn't see this anywhere. Can you support that statement.

"Sorry, wild speculation doesn't cut it, where's your evidence?  Scientists do have
evidence of the atmosphere from many different time frames."

But how do they know that their time frames are accurate? They leave no room for
mishaps. Volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, meteors, and hurricanes do a lot of damage.
How do they know that things have always been "stable"?

"But scientists don't do that, they go were the facts lead and the facts, all the facts,
lead to an old earth roughly 4.5 billion years old and an evolving biosphere."

You didn't go to the link I gave you for missing isotopes. If the earth was so old there
would be no certain types period. Why do we have so many than?

Creationist do not spread lies anymore than evolutionists do.

Where is the dating method for the raindrops story? That seems to be fictitious because
no one has given a real dating method.

Why is it bad for a creationist to say that there might have been natural occurrences that
changed, atmosphere, or habitat greatly but an evolutionist says that it happened to create
a new species and that's good???
I believe that the dinosaurs went extinct (although there could be some still living in
some remote area) because of a change in the atmosphere. Their lungs are to small to
breath properly in our atmosphere as it is. If there was more atmospheric pressure they
would be able to breathe better.

Just out of curiosity Demon, have you read any books from a creationist point of view? If
so which ones have you read and why did you think that they were wrong.

All the different verities of things we see today that have certain things in common
doesn't mean that we came from a common ancestor (where did the first ancestor come
from? not even the best of evolutionists can find an answer). Computers are all made the
same way does that show a common ancestor? No it shows a common plan or design.

Also our DNA is so complex that one strand can fill 30 volumes of encyclopedias.
Computers are very complex machines. But they cannot reproduce, do anything
themselves other than what was programmed into them, and they cannot think. Each cell
in our body is more complex than a space shuttle. Why would we (extremely complex)
evolve, and a computer or space shuttle (designed by the most intelligent people) be
created?  Maybe the creator knew what was best and he used that design to create
animals but of course if you want a world without God that cannot be acceptable.



-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:09 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Note also that this article did not say anything about the chemical composition of the materials that made the impact.  So what proof is there that the impact was in fact made by rain?"

You'll do anything to preserve your dogma.  Scientists compare and contrast their finds.  Their are many instances of fossillized raindrops.  Your better explaination is nothing of the sort.  Raindrops were fossilized when they hit sand, notice it says in the article I linked that these impressions were found in sandstone.  The rain was probably light and when it stopped the sand was dried out by the sun preserving the impact craters.  Then it was coverd over by wind blown sand and fossilized.  You are desperately trying to disprove the findings of trained geologists with nothing more substansive than whining.

"New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is ‘almost impossible’ for the species to be closely related.”"

Gee, this is real overwhelming evidence!  "Suggesting" it is "almost impossible"?  can't get much stronger than that!  I got this from the University of Berkly page:
Berkley

"Some researchcers have raised issues that may seem to make the theropod origin of birds difficult to support, but these difficulties are more illusory than substantial. One proposed difficulty is the gap in the fossil record between the first known bird (Late Jurassic) and the dromaeosaurs, probable sister group of birds (Early Cretaceous). This overlooks the blatant fact that other maniraptoran coelurosaurs, such as Ornitholestes, Coelurus, and Compsognathus, are known from strata of Late Jurassic age. If other maniraptorans were there, it logically follows that the ancestors of dromaeosaurs were there. Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs are also known from the Late Jurassic.
Other arguments, such as the putative differences between theropod and bird finger development, or lung morphology, or ankle bone morphology, all stumble on the lack of relevant data on extinct theropods, misinterpretations of anatomy, simplifying assumptions about developmental flexibility, and/or speculations about convergence, biomechanics, or selective pressures. The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable. This is probably because there are no other suitable candidates for avian ancestors. "Thecodonts" are often promoted as such, but this is an obfuscatory, antiquated term for a hodgepodge of poorly understood and paraphyletic, undiagnosible reptiles. The problems cited by such opponents for theropods are often more serious for the "thecodont" pseudo-hypothesis. Finally, such opponents also refuse to use the methods and evidence normally accepted by comparative evolutionary biologists, such as phylogenetic systematics and parsimony. They rely more on an "intuitive approach," which is not a method at all but just an untestable gestalt impression laden with assumptions about how evolution must work. The "controversy" remains an interest more of the press than the general scientific community. "

Don't get your information from the press.  The evidence so far points dramatically to a therapod origin for birds.  Their are disenting opinions, but they have yet to disprove the therapod/bird connection.

"Bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, concurred with the embryonic thumb analysis.  His team published their findings in the journal Science."

Very dishonest of you using Alan Feduccia to try and bolster your arguement, but you're a typical creationist.  Feduccia doesn't believe in the dinosaur to bird connection, BUT, he does believe in reptile to bird evolution.  So now your using evil evolutionists to support your point?   From here:
Alan

"He agrees with the theory that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. "

Since you use Alan Feduccia to support your point, do you agree with him that birds evolved from reptiles?  If not, then why did you quote him?

"In an open letter to the National Geographic Society’s Dr. Peter Raven, Storrs L. Olson, the curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History (British?) has said that “…protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct…”."

Then how come we keep finding more and more dinosaurs with what looks like "proto feathers"?  From here:
dinofeathers

"Skin impressions are known from several coelurosaurs. A partial impression, possibly from the tail of a tyrannosaur shows scales like those seen in other dinosaurs. All other coelurosaur skin impressions, such as those of Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and birds like Archaeopteryx, show feathers or feather-like integument. Such integument may have been present in the earliest coelurosaurs, then lost in gigantic forms, much as gigantic mammals tend not to have hair."

Five dinosaurs with feathers or feather like integuement.  Sounds like more than a theoretical construct to me.  It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that some dinosaurs had feathers.  

"Darwinists have a tendency to rush to judgment whenever some new fossil is found.  Seldom do the followers of Darwin speak with one voice, but they never allow their lack of consensus to shine a ray of doubt in what they take as faith."

Scientists don't take anything on faith, and that's the great thing about science, you just don't have a clue about science, do you...
Discussion and debate on new theories is what makes better, more accurate theories.

"True feathers exist only in true birds and we still have nothing to indicate anything that is a transitional form."

Twist the facts any way you want, you still can't change reality.  From here:
sciencenews

"The plumage on the new Chinese dinosaurs brushes away such arguments because it is identical to bird feathers, says Currie. The structures have a central shaft with parallel barbs on either side, report Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-An of the National Geological Museum in Beijing, Currie, and Mark A. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York at a press conference on June 23 at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., and in the June 25 Nature.
The fossils are considered theropod dinosaurs rather than true birds because they lack a number of features seen in Archaeopteryx and more advanced birds, says Norell. He and his colleagues doubt that the creatures could fly because they had relatively short forelimbs, short feathers, and a body twice the size of Archaeopteryx. What’s more, their feathers had a symmetrical shape like that seen in flightless birds today."

So true feathers do Not exist solely in true birds.  

"As I explained in an earlier post many scientists, not all of them evolutionists, believe Archaeopteryx was a true bird.  The fact that this animal had reptilian characteristics means nothing since several of these same characteristics (clawed wings for example) can be found on modern birds.  Rather than Darwinian pipe dreams a more likely scenario would have Archaeopteryx as the ancestors of these modern birds and not a link between dinosaurs and birds."

Sorry, the only reason some scientists classify archaeopteryx as a bird is because there is no classification to indicate it is transitional between birds and reptiles, it has to be classified as one or the other.  And this classification as a bird is based solely on the fact that it had feathers.  As has been shown, Birds are no longer the only animals to have had feathers.  You're pretty cavalier about dismissing all of Archy's other reptilian characteristics, I guess that's because the reality of the situation destroys the basis of your myths.  Show me a bird that has teeth.
From here:  Archy

"Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds."

Sure looks like a transitional to me.  And please explain to me why the first Archaeopteryx fossil found was thought to be a small therapod dinosaur?

"Established by whom?  We have a fossil bird with certain characteristics and we have living birds with the same characteristics so why can’t we conclude that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor to some of the modern birds now living?  Who has ever claimed that Archaeopteryx has to be the ancestor to all modern birds?"

we can assume Archae wasn't ancestral to modern birds because there were birds living at roughly the same time that were more closely related to modern birds than Archae was.   earlybird

on the Confucius bird:
"For almost a century Archaeopteryx has been alone on its perch as the early bird of the Jurassic geological period. But the new findings suggest that birds in several forms and stages of evolution probably existed at the time, or shortly thereafter. "

So my statement stands, Archaeopteryx probably wasn't a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it is still a perfect example of a transitional creature.  and then there's this from your old favorite site, Talkorigins:

"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds, merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds. Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things. So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs."

Modern paleontology seems to concurr, Archaeopteryx was not directly ancestral to modern birds.  If you doubt this, show me your evidence.

"If you have a population that is adapted to its habitat and that habitat does not change why would genetic variations be allow to proliferate?  If a habitat does not change how does it present selection pressures?  If no selection pressures are available how can genetic variations within a population have any greater adaptability?"

A portion of the population could exploit a new niche in the environment.  We see this today with similar species of insects living side by side but living off different vegetation.

"But suppose a parent population did give rise to a variant population without immediately going extinct itself: What do you propose caused these two populations to split?"

Any number of natural disasters, earth quakes, localized floods, tidal waves, droughts, the list goes on and on.  Anything that forces a portion of the population to move, thereby isolating itself from the parent population.  

"Darwin’s Origin of Species is 144 years old, but it still forms the foundation upon which mainstream biology (and every other science) is based.

Regardless of the age of Dunbar’s book, it still illustrates the inconsistencies in the thought processes of evolutionists."

You are sorely mistaken if you believe the Theory of Evolution hasn't changed in 144 years!  And I don't see the inconsistencies of evolutinists thought processes illustrated at all, explain that to me.  Dunbar says Archaeopteryx is clearly reptilian, but later says that it must be a bird because of it's feathers.  Well, because he made this statement in 1961, did not have evidence of feathered dinosaurs.  I think my point still stands, science is not static, it moves forwards and incorporates new data.

"I have never said that evolution is not taking place, and many creationists would agree with me.  I do, however, make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. "

But there is no difference between micro and macro, the mechanisms are the same, they are identical.  The only reason you claim they are different is because if they are the same (and they most definitiely are the same) it invalidates the myths you believe in.  No creationist can show any evidence for them being different.

" I utterly reject the idea that one “kind” has ever, or could ever, evolve into another. "

And yet you use Alan Feduccia to bolster your arguement, never even worrying about the fact that he too believes in evolution.  I call that intellectual dishonesty.

"Thorough research and well referenced sources” by whose standards?  As I have already shown the data on Talkorigins regarding complete geologic columns is questionable at best.  What reason should I have to accept anything else on this website as gospel?"

Talkorigins is thorough and well referenced by any standards.  You've shown nothing as far as questioning them.  I'm still waiting for you to tell us the results of emailing 5 universities about the existance of the complete geologic column.  I don't think you have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I guess we will never see your responses.  So until you can do more than whine about Talkorigins and back up your unfounded allegations, I'll accept there expertise.

"So what was the first organism to have both reptilian and mammalian characteristics?  Where is its fossil?"

You didn't even bother to read the article on Talkorigins, it lays out everything you want, the entire line of descent of early reptiles to modern mammals and it lays it out in excellent detail.  It's too long to reproduce here.

"The National Geographic article clearly indicates doubt in the Darwinian community.  That doubt was certainly greater in 1977."

Show me any evidence that the National Geographic article indicates there is any doubt that mammals evolved from reptiles, any at all.  As I said, it is well established that mammals evolved from reptiles and the evidence is monumental.  You can look it up on Talkorigins or look somewhere else reliable.

"An overwhelming majority of concurrence is useless if the individual methods are anything less than fool-proof.  Using one faulty method to check another may result in both giving similar results.  But faulty methods cannot give accurate results in the first place."

But you don't understand that for 2 or more dating techniques to give the same incorrect dates is simply impossible.  Study radiometric dating before you make foolhardy statements like this one again.


(Edited by Demon38 5/31/2003 at 06:18 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:00 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Turbo,

"You didn't go to the link I gave you for missing isotopes. If the earth was so old there
would be no certain types period. Why do we have so many than?"

Maybe I got it wrong...the site you gave me to look at was http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html, wasn't it?  I looked at this site and it comes to a completely opposite conclusion than what you are asserting.  The website contains a list of all 29 radioactive isotopes that have a half life of a million years or more and whether they are still found on earth.
I have always maintained that the earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old and this web site agrees with me.  Did you actually read it?

It says:

"The most obvious explanation for the above is that all these elements were present when the Earth was formed, but by now the short-lived ones have decayed away. This explanation is compatible with the age scientists accept for the Earth.

Of course, nothing about this list really proves that the Earth is old. But the list is exactly what we would expect if the Earth is old, and it is a very puzzling list if the Earth is young. "

You said:

"You didn't go to the link I gave you for missing isotopes. If the earth was so old there
would be no certain types period. Why do we have so many than?"

And according to the list on the website you asked me to read, the isotopes with shorter half lives are NOT found in the earth.

The conclusion of the website listed at the bottom of the page sums it all up:

"Conclusion: In short, the cutoff point in the list of isotopes is consistent with a old earth. "

Now I'm really confused...if you've mistaken me for a YEC and are trying to set me straight about the age of the earth being 4.55 billion years old, don't worry, I agree with this website, the earth really is 4.55 billion years old, I accept that.  Or did you make a colossal mistake and just skim this website and think it supported your preposterous claim?  If that is the case, I think you better check it out again.








 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:07 AM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Computers are very complex machines. But they cannot...do anything
themselves other than what was programmed into them, and they cannot think[b]

That is debatable Define "thinking"
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:06 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Greetings, Demon
At this other topic. You say you accept that the earth is 4.55 billion yers old referring to a website. How is the age decided? No way to prove anything like that. Assumptions "proven"
by other assumptions and then they applaud to their great strength of "evidences". Was somebody there 4.55 billion years ago to give a report? No. But "science" proves it? How?
Do not tell me about the old cheap evo nonsense "radioactive dating" I know all their
approaches. NO PROOF Demon. Nothing at all.
They do not accept the historical record of Christ's activity in the world which happened two thosand years ago according to written records, saying no evidence. Then the next turn they talk about something "happened" many thousand millions of years ago as if they would have been there. That is a blatant, arrogant system of lies not science but of course camouflaged as such to make it easier
to swallow by the credulous. Wake up people!



(Edited by Gabor 6/1/2003 at 10:17 PM).

(Edited by Gabor 6/1/2003 at 10:20 PM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:11 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Come on Gabor!  This is the 21st century!  Since you know nothing at all about radiometric dating, you can't dismiss it.  We know quite a lot about radioactive isotopes.  Ever hear of the Atomic Theory?  Radiometric dating is accurate.  It has been verified by other dating techniques.  It has been proven to be reliable over and over again.  The evidence provided by radiometric dating in conjunction with other dating methods is conclusive, 4.55 billion years is a damn good estimate for the age of the Earth.  

Why do creationists invariably claim radiometric dating is flawed?  They have no evidence to back up their claims, they do no real tests to prove it's flawed, heck, most creationists, like you, don't even understand it.  Yet they are always inventing some wild reason why it doesn't work.  Well, there is only one reason they keep insisting it's wrong, and that reason is that radiometric dating PROVES, and proves conclusively, that their version of the bible is wrong.  Simple as that, they can't accept reality
so they stick their proverbial fingers in their ears and repeat endlessly to themselves, "it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong..."  

There are over 40 diferent methods of radiometric dating.  Samples are tested with 2 or more methods before a date is determined.  It is simply impossible for 2 different isotopes with 2 different rates of decay to both be wrong and still give the same wrong date.  

You are dead wrong when you say there is no proof.  Ask any geologist and they will tell you, the evidence for a very old earth is undeniable.

You have a habit of making ridiculous claims and never being able to back them up.  Bring on the evidence for a young earth or the inaccuracy of radiometric dating, if you have any...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:00 PM on June 1, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Demon,

This is the 21st century!

Proven Demon!

Since you know nothing at all about radiometric dating, you can't dismiss it.  We know quite a lot about radioactive isotopes.

Whom are you talking about?

Why do creationists invariably claim radiometric dating is flawed?

Because it did badly and frequently so it is NOT
a reliable method to decide the age of ancient things. Even if we live in the 21-st century.

they do no real tests to prove it's flawed, heck, most creationists, like you, don't even understand it

Are you absolutely sure?Impressive self confidence but it may be utterly unfounded.
Think about it.

Radiometric dating is accurate.

How do you know it? Was somebody there? To
give a reliable report? The disagreements in radiometric samples dated is astounding. If
in engineering practice somebody would like to
use results like they are he/she would not be accepted even for a trial.

the evidence for a very old earth is undeniable.

Then nobody would denie it. But many do.
So your statement is false.





-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 3:18 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then nobody would denie it. But many do.
So your statement is false.


Gabor, there are also people who still think the Earth is flat and that diseases are caused by demons.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:36 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Note also that this article did not say anything about the chemical composition of the materials that made the impact. So what proof is there that the impact was in fact made by rain?"

You'll do anything to preserve your dogma. Scientists compare and contrast their finds. Their are many instances of fossillized raindrops.


Then why did you only cite references for two cases?

Your better explaination is nothing of the sort. Raindrops were fossilized when they hit sand, notice it says in the article I linked that these impressions were found in sandstone. The rain was probably light and when it stopped the sand was dried out by the sun preserving the impact craters. Then it was coverd over by wind blown sand and fossilized. You are desperately trying to disprove the findings of trained geologists with nothing more substansive than whining.

How can any rain, much less a light one, leave an impression upon impacting solid sandstone?  Sandstone is a sedimentary rock that consists of rock (mostly quartz) that is bound together by silica, calcium carbonate or iron oxide.  Silica is the hardest cement and therefore produces the hardest sedimentary rocks.

A concrete mix consists of sand or stone mixed with various silicates that act as the binding agents.  A typical Portland cement mix has 19% silica.  Concrete blocks and sandstone blocks are used much the same way in building construction, although sandstone may be harder than concrete.  So when is the last time you saw rain leave indentions in concrete?

Has anyone ever proven through experiment that soft sand with the impression of raindrops can undergo the compaction and cementation necessary for the sand to become sandstone without distorting the impressions?

As for desperately trying to prove anything I am not convinced that the antediluvian world had no rain so I am not rejecting your fossilized raindrops because I have something to prove.

"New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is ‘almost impossible’ for the species to be closely related.”"

Gee, this is real overwhelming evidence! "Suggesting" it is "almost impossible"? can't get much stronger than that!


So I guess Haeckels’ Law pertaining to embryonic development is merely speculative as well?

Regardless of your attitude, you presented Sinosauropteryx as bona fide unquestioned fact and expected the readers of this board to accept it without question.  The fact that some Darwinists reject the bird status of Sinosauropteryx proves you are wrong, but like most evolutionists you ignore data that does not support your pet ideas.

I got this from the University of Berkly page:
Berkley


We can play dueling academecians til doomesday, but all it would prove is that mainstream science has very little in the way of un-refutable evidence for Darwinism.  But yet evolutionists insist that what they believe is fact and they further insist that everyone else accept what they believe.

"Some researchcers have raised issues that may seem to make the theropod origin of birds difficult to support, but these difficulties are more illusory than substantial.

A therapod origin for birds must be Berkley’s pet view of evolution.

One proposed difficulty is the gap in the fossil record between the first known bird (Late Jurassic) and the dromaeosaurs, probable sister group of birds (Early Cretaceous). This overlooks the blatant fact that other maniraptoran coelurosaurs, such as Ornitholestes, Coelurus, and Compsognathus, are known from strata of Late Jurassic age. If other maniraptorans were there, it logically follows that the ancestors of dromaeosaurs were there.

Since when does science rely on logic in the place of hard evidence?  Berkley sees in the fossil record what it must see in the fossil record to uphold its particular interpretation of Darwinism.

Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs are also known from the Late Jurassic.

Fragmentary remains of possible dromaeosaurs? Gee, this is real overwhelming evidence! “Fragmentary remains” of “possible” dinosaurs: can't get much stronger than that!

Other arguments, such as the putative differences between theropod and bird finger development, or lung morphology, or ankle bone morphology, all stumble on the lack of relevant data on extinct theropods,

So we have a complete fossil record showing what species Sinosauropteryx came from and what it evolved into and thus proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds?

misinterpretations of anatomy, simplifying assumptions about developmental flexibility, and/or speculations about convergence, biomechanics, or selective pressures.

Without a complete fossil record and a complete understanding of anatomy and biochemistry and biophysics how do you know what is and is not a misunderstanding?

The opponents of the theropod hypothesis refuse to propose an alternative hypothesis that is falsifiable.

In light of incomplete data and understanding pertaining to the therapod hypothesis how is it falsifiable?  Any other hypothesis would be just as speculative without complete data and understanding.

While we are on the subject of falsifiable science what would accept a proof that evolution is false?

Finally, such opponents also refuse to use the methods and evidence normally accepted by comparative evolutionary biologists, such as phylogenetic systematics and parsimony.

So you reject out of hand any scientific procedure or idea that you don’t approve of?  Going against the grain, standing on a position that is not mainstream science is often how science progresses.  Suppose mainstream scientists in 15th-16th century Europe wouldn’t accept any scientific procedure or data that showed the sun did not circle the earth; how would Copernicus have ever proven otherwise?

They rely more on an "intuitive approach," which is not a method at all but just an untestable gestalt impression laden with assumptions about how evolution must work.

You mean like Berkley’s assumption that certain fossils must exist in certain strata because that is what we should logically find?

Don't get your information from the press. The evidence so far points dramatically to a therapod origin for birds. Their are disenting opinions, but they have yet to disprove the therapod/bird connection.

To my knowledge I have not relied upon the popular press- unless you count National Geographic.

"Bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, concurred with the embryonic thumb analysis. His team published their findings in the journal Science."

Very dishonest of you using Alan Feduccia to try and bolster your arguement, but you're a typical creationist. Feduccia doesn't believe in the dinosaur to bird connection, BUT, he does believe in reptile to bird evolution. So now your using evil evolutionists to support your point?


I was not using Feduccia to counter the idea of reptile to bird evolution, but rather your idea of dinosaur to bird evolution.  I take it you reject Feduccia because he does not support dinosaur to bird evolution, which I take is your dogma; but being dogmatic is not the mark of a scientist.  

"He agrees with the theory that the common ancestor of both ancient and modern bird orders was a small, ground-dwelling reptile that took to the trees for hiding, sleeping, or nesting. "

Since you use Alan Feduccia to support your point, do you agree with him that birds evolved from reptiles? If not, then why did you quote him?


I do reject Feduccia’s idea that reptiles evolved into birds because I have seen no absolutely undeniable evidence that such evolution took place.  As I just said I used Feduccia to counter your particular view that birds came from a particular type of reptile.

"In an open letter to the National Geographic Society’s Dr. Peter Raven, Storrs L. Olson, the curator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History (British?) has said that “…protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct…”."

Then how come we keep finding more and more dinosaurs with what looks like "proto feathers"? From here:
dinofeathers


I did not see the term “proto feathers” used on this website, but rather feathers and “feather like”.

"Skin impressions are known from several coelurosaurs. A partial impression, possibly from the tail of a tyrannosaur shows scales like those seen in other dinosaurs. All other coelurosaur skin impressions, such as those of Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, and birds like Archaeopteryx, show feathers or feather-like integument. Such integument may have been present in the earliest coelurosaurs, then lost in gigantic forms, much as gigantic mammals tend not to have hair."

This site pointed out that some dispute the “feathers” on Sinosauropteryx.

Five dinosaurs with feathers or feather like integuement. Sounds like more than a theoretical construct to me. It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that some dinosaurs had feathers.

So it is impossible for any structure other than a feather to leave an impression that looks like a feather?  Since we often find the fossilized remains of many species together in the same location, is it possible that both birds and dinosaurs (or some other reptile) died at the same time and place only to have the more fragile bird decay or have its fossil be mostly destroyed, thus leaving feather impressions on a reptilian fossil?  I’m not saying that this has actually happened anywhere, but I am saying it could.  Consider the La Brea Tar Pits- a collection of birds and mammals fossilized together- to the uninformed or to them who have pre-conceived ideas it could be said that La Brea contains intermediates forms- bird to mammal or mammal to bird.

"Darwinists have a tendency to rush to judgment whenever some new fossil is found. Seldom do the followers of Darwin speak with one voice, but they never allow their lack of consensus to shine a ray of doubt in what they take as faith."

Scientists don't take anything on faith, and that's the great thing about science, you just don't have a clue about science, do you...
Discussion and debate on new theories is what makes better, more accurate theories.


So that’s why you won’t consider Feduccia’s ideas?  Because you don’t take it on faith that Sinosauropteryx is a dinosaur-bird intermediate?  Because any theory that you don’t accept should not be considered in the course of scientific work?

"True feathers exist only in true birds and we still have nothing to indicate anything that is a transitional form."

Twist the facts any way you want, you still can't change reality. From here:
sciencenews

"The plumage on the new Chinese dinosaurs brushes away such arguments because it is identical to bird feathers, says Currie. The structures have a central shaft with parallel barbs on either side, report Ji Qiang and Ji Shu-An of the National Geological Museum in Beijing, Currie, and Mark A. Norell of the American Museum of Natural History in New York at a press conference on June 23 at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., and in the June 25 Nature.
The fossils are considered theropod dinosaurs rather than true birds because they lack a number of features seen in Archaeopteryx and more advanced birds, says Norell.


So are you saying Archaeopteryx is a true bird and not a dinosaur-bird intermediate?  Isn’t this what many Creationists say?

He and his colleagues doubt that the creatures could fly because they had relatively short forelimbs,

You mean like ostriches?

short feathers

You mean like penguins?

and a body twice the size of Archaeopteryx.

Since when do scientists use size to determine what is and is not a bird?  Archaeopteryx is thought to be about the size of a pigeon while finches are small and hummingbirds can be extremely small; so these animals are not all birds because they aren’t big enough?

What’s more, their feathers had a symmetrical shape like that seen in flightless birds today."

So true feathers do Not exist solely in true birds.


Prove that the Chinese dinosaurs had feathers.  

"As I explained in an earlier post many scientists, not all of them evolutionists, believe Archaeopteryx was a true bird. The fact that this animal had reptilian characteristics means nothing since several of these same characteristics (clawed wings for example) can be found on modern birds. Rather than Darwinian pipe dreams a more likely scenario would have Archaeopteryx as the ancestors of these modern birds and not a link between dinosaurs and birds."

Sorry, the only reason some scientists classify archaeopteryx as a bird is because there is no classification to indicate it is transitional between birds and reptiles, it has to be classified as one or the other.


Isn’t finding intermediates the goal of Darwinists? And considering that Darwinists have found so many intermediates it is a wonder that they don’t have a way to classify them.

http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolution7.htm
Sir Gavin Beer compiled a list of scientific papers pertaining to archaeopteryx. Archaeopteryx is a lizard in 6 papers, an intermediate in 8 and a true bird in 37.

And this classification as a bird is based solely on the fact that it had feathers. As has been shown, Birds are no longer the only animals to have had feathers.

Do any of the organisms now living, other than birds, have feathers?

You're pretty cavalier about dismissing all of Archy's other reptilian characteristics, I guess that's because the reality of the situation destroys the basis of your myths. Show me a bird that has teeth.
From here: Archy

"Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds."

Sure looks like a transitional to me.


British anatomist Richard Owen, who was not an evolutionist, classified Archaeopteryx as a bird shortly after the identification of the first fossil.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_07.html
Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings, but so do two modern bird species, the touraco and the hoatzin (as a juvenile).

It must be remembered that teeth are not a universal characteristic of reptiles so having teeth is no guarantee that Archaeopteryx had any connection to reptiles.  Furthermore, while no modern bird species has teeth,  other extinct bird species (at least as far back as Archaeopteryx) had teeth. The Liaoningornis, with an evolutionary age of 130 million years, is an example ["Old Bird," Discover magazine, March 21, 1997].

L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86.127a127a
We should also note that the teeth of birds do not have the same structure as the teeth of reptiles. Ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone found that birds had unserrated teeth with constricted bases and large roots.  But the teeth of theropods had serrated teeth with straight roots.

L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, K. N. Whetstone, The Auk, vol. 97, 1980, p. 86; L. D. Martin, "Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods", Ithaca, Comstock Publishing Association, New York, 1991, pp. 485-540.
These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.

A.D. Walker, as described in Peter Dodson, "International Archaeopteryx Conference," Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 5(2):177, June 1985.
Studies by anatomists such as S. Tarsitano, M.K. Hecht, and A.D. Walker have revealed that some of the similarities that John Ostrom and others have seen between the limbs of Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs were in reality misinterpretations.

Richard Hinchliffe, "The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?," Science, vol. 278, no. 5338, 24 October 1997, pp. 596-597.
J. Richard Hinchliffe, of the Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, discovered that the three forelimb digits in dinosaurs are I-II-III, whereas bird wing digits are II-III-IV.  

Hinchliffe also found anomalies in size between the forelimbs of therapods and Archaeopteryx:
“Doubts about homology between theropods and bird digits remind us of some of the other problems in the "dinosaur-origin" hypothesis. These include the following: (i) The much smaller theropod forelimb (relative to body size) in comparison with the Archaeopteryx wing. Such small limbs are not convincing as proto-wings for a ground-up origin of flight in the relatively heavy dinosaurs. (ii) The rarity in theropods of the semilunate wrist bone, known in only four species (including Deinonychus). Most theropods have relatively large numbers of wrist elements, difficult to homologize with those of Archaeopteryx. (iii)”
Hinchliffe continued, “The temporal paradox that most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx.” So most reptilian birds evolved after the true bird Archaeopteryx.
Richard L. Deem, "Demise of the 'Birds are Dinosaurs' Theory,"http://www.yfiles.com/dinobird2.html.
American biologist Richard L. Deem confirmed Hinchliffe’s data regarding therapod and Archaeopteryx anatomy.  In the article "The Demise of the 'Birds Are Dinosaurs' Theory," commented:
“The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV... There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory. The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropod lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.”

In his book Icons of Evolution, American biologist Jonathan Wells confirms Hinchliffe’s conclusion about the temporal relationship between therapods and birds- theropod dinosaurs are younger than its alleged Archaeopteryx offspring.  According to Wells, “Two-legged reptiles that ran along the ground, and had other features one might expect in an ancestor of Archaeopteryx, appear later."

And please explain to me why the first Archaeopteryx fossil found was thought to be a small therapod dinosaur?

Wishful thinking on the part of Darwinists facilitated by little understanding of modern birds and even less understanding of dinosaurs (as of the 1860s).

"Established by whom? We have a fossil bird with certain characteristics and we have living birds with the same characteristics so why can’t we conclude that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor to some of the modern birds now living? Who has ever claimed that Archaeopteryx has to be the ancestor to all modern birds?"

we can assume Archae wasn't ancestral to modern birds because there were birds living at roughly the same time that were more closely related to modern birds than Archae was. earlybird


This is not what I said.  I did not say, nor did I imply, that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor to all modern birds- but only the birds that have Archaeopteryx’s unique characteristics.  Furthermore, it is also possible that any of the other extinct birds with Archaeopteryx’s characteristics could also be ancestors to later and modern birds with those same characteristics.

on the Confucius bird:
"For almost a century Archaeopteryx has been alone on its perch as the early bird of the Jurassic geological period. But the new findings suggest that birds in several forms and stages of evolution probably existed at the time, or shortly thereafter. "

So my statement stands, Archaeopteryx probably wasn't a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it is still a perfect example of a transitional creature.


Shouldn’t we expect a transitional organism to produce offspring?  If Archaeopteryx was a transitional form from reptile to bird how did the bird characteristics survive if Archaeopteryx did not leave evolutionary offspring?  I suppose you could say that Archaeopteryx was a side branch in the dinosaur-bird cladogram and it failed to properly adapt and thus left no descendants, but this would be mere speculation- the standard scientific procedure of Darwinism.

and then there's this from your old favorite site, Talkorigins:

"Some people like to claim that the finding of a fossil bird from the Triassic of Texas (Protavis) proves that Archae cannot be transitional between dinosaurs and birds because Protoavis predates Archae by 75 million years. This is, of course, errant nonsense, mainly because no one is claiming that Archae is the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds,


Didn’t you claim that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form when you said earlier, “Sure looks like a transitional to me”?

Biology 4th edition
Peter H. Raven, George B. Johnson
William C. Brown Publishers
1996

Figure 1.13 page 16
“Fossil of an early bird, Archaeopteryx…it provides and indication of the evolutionary relationship that exists between birds and reptiles.”

The Nature of Life
John H. Postlethwait, Janet L. Hopson
McGraw-Hill
1992

Figure 19.12 page 411
Diagram shows the evolutionary path from the first reptile to modern birds passing through Archaeopteryx.

So neither of these college textbooks on biology claims that Archaeopteryx was a transitional species?

merely that Archae represents a grade of organisation which the proposed lineage went through to get from dinosaurs to birds.

How does an organism get put in an evolutionary family tree without being a transitional species?  If natural selection is always operative and evolution is always in progress, shouldn’t every species that has ever existed be a transitional species between its ancestors and offspring?

Archae is, I'm sorry to say, out on a limb, evolutionarily speaking. It represents a side branch, useful for comparative purposes, but not in the thick of things. So even if there were birds in the Triassic, that fact would not diminish Archae's importance as an indicator that "yes, birds could have evolved from dinosaurs."

Isn’t this just an opinion that can be countered by numerous contradictory opinions such as the ones I found the biology textbooks?

Modern paleontology seems to concurr, Archaeopteryx was not directly ancestral to modern birds.

Again this is not the impression one gets from the textbooks.

"If you have a population that is adapted to its habitat and that habitat does not change why would genetic variations be allow to proliferate? If a habitat does not change how does it present selection pressures? If no selection pressures are available how can genetic variations within a population have any greater adaptability?"

A portion of the population could exploit a new niche in the environment. We see this today with similar species of insects living side by side but living off different vegetation.


This is nothing new.  However, separate niches within a single ecosystem should be considered as separate habitats.  If an insect species is dependent upon one particular type of vegetation and a catastrophe were to eliminate all of that vegetation wouldn’t the dependent insect species (or at least the population living in the area of the catastrophe) die off?  If by some chance a subpopulation had a gene that enabled it to live off of another type of plant, the rest of the population that did not have the adapted gene would still die off.

"But suppose a parent population did give rise to a variant population without immediately going extinct itself: What do you propose caused these two populations to split?"

Any number of natural disasters, earth quakes, localized floods, tidal waves, droughts, the list goes on and on.


Since you acknowledge the existence of so many possible catastrophes, do you reject uniformitarian geology?

Anything that forces a portion of the population to move, thereby isolating itself from the parent population.

What happens if the catastrophe strikes a plant’s habitat?  I didn’t know that plants were mobile.  Also consider catastrophes on the scale of the floods the Great Plains and Midwest had in 1993(?).  Parts of the country saw at least some rain every day for 40 days.  Miles and miles and miles of land were flooded.  All animals can move their bodies and some are mobile enough to move from place to place, but not many animals are mobile enough to flee several states’ worth of flooding.

Also how would mobility help organisms survive sudden and severe freezing temperatures?  Florida can go from temperatures in the 70s or 80s one afternoon and have temperatures in the 20s by the next morning.  

"Darwin’s Origin of Species is 144 years old, but it still forms the foundation upon which mainstream biology (and every other science) is based.

Regardless of the age of Dunbar’s book, it still illustrates the inconsistencies in the thought processes of evolutionists."

You are sorely mistaken if you believe the Theory of Evolution hasn't changed in 144 years!


That is not what I said.  Evolutionary theory is still grounded in Darwin’s book.  Except for the evolutionists who accept punctuated equilibrium, evolution is still dependent upon the build-up of minute changes in form and function over large periods of time as determined by survival of the fittest.  This is exactly what Darwin proposed in 1859; so how has the theory changed?

And I don't see the inconsistencies of evolutinists thought processes illustrated at all, explain that to me. Dunbar says Archaeopteryx is clearly reptilian, but later says that it must be a bird because of it's feathers. Well, because he made this statement in 1961, did not have evidence of feathered dinosaurs. I think my point still stands, science is not static, it moves forwards and incorporates new data.

Not all scientists, not even all Darwinists, are convinced we have evidence for feathered dinosaurs now.

"I have never said that evolution is not taking place, and many creationists would agree with me. I do, however, make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. "

But there is no difference between micro and macro, the mechanisms are the same, they are identical. The only reason you claim they are different is because if they are the same (and they most definitiely are the same) it invalidates the myths you believe in. No creationist can show any evidence for them being different.


How, when and where did I say the mechanism for micro and macro were not the same?  Natural selection acts upon pre-existing genetic variability.  The only reason I say macroevolution (something like reptile to bird) is impossible is because nature does not have enough genetic variation.  Mutations, the ultimate source of all genetic variability, are usually harmful.

"I utterly reject the idea that one “kind” has ever, or could ever, evolve into another. "

And yet you use Alan Feduccia to bolster your arguement, never even worrying about the fact that he too believes in evolution. I call that intellectual dishonesty.


Again I did not use Feduccia to counter any claim that birds evolved from some non-bird organism in general.  I used Feduccia to show that birds could not have evolved from a particular type of non-bird organism.  I don’t require Darwinists to be all of one mind, and I hope that Darwinists will grant the same consideration to creationists.

"Thorough research and well referenced sources” by whose standards? As I have already shown the data on Talkorigins regarding complete geologic columns is questionable at best. What reason should I have to accept anything else on this website as gospel?"

Talkorigins is thorough and well referenced by any standards.


Talkorigins is a usenet operation.  I have asked via email for an explanation as to how the materials posted on Talkorigins are screened, but I have not received any reply.

I did however find Talkorigins’ submission guidelines which I give here:

Before submitting a prospective article or FAQ to the Talk.Origins Archive, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Does my submission discuss an issue that comes up frequently (or periodically) in the evolution-creationism debate?
2. Does my submission cover a topic not already dealt with by another FAQ in the archive?
3. Is my submission concisely written in language that an educated layperson can understand?
4. Does my submission provide the background information necessary to understand its reason for being a FAQ?
5. Does my submission adequately deal with all issues relevant to the topic it covers (including creationist arguments and responses, if any)?
6. If my submission is technical in nature, does it provide references to other detailed works on the subject?

No where in these guidelines is there any requirement that the poster have any kind of academic training or science background.  Now I am not saying that all of the posters are completely devoid of such credentials, merely that such credentials are not required.  As nearly as I can tell anyone with a computer could post anything on Talkorigins - at least as long as it is critical of creationism or catastrophism.

Since Talkorigins is a usenet operation aimed at academicians I would venture that many of the academicians are from colleges and universities that are accredited by one of the regional agencies that accredits public (and many private) schools, colleges and universities.  Bryan College, a creationist institution in Dayton, TN. is accredited by one of these regional agencies- the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.  With this in mind I will accept that the Darwinists of Talkorigins are qualified scientists if you evolutionists will concede that creationists, such as Bryan College’s Kurt P. Wise, are equally qualified.

You've shown nothing as far as questioning them. I'm still waiting for you to tell us the results of emailing 5 universities about the existance of the complete geologic column. I don't think you have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I guess we will never see your responses. So until you can do more than whine about Talkorigins and back up your unfounded allegations, I'll accept there expertise.

The results were that not a single one of these departments of geology bothered to reply at all.  My brief exchange with Glenn Morton did confirm what I suspected from the start: there is no complete geologic column (meaning a formation that has deposits from every single epoch of every period of every single era.  Simply finding a formation that has deposits from every “major geological era” does not prove the existence of a complete geologic column.  Your idea of a “complete” geologic column is like saying a dictionary that has only half of the words for each letter of the alphabet is an unabridged dictionary simply because it has words for every letter.

"So what was the first organism to have both reptilian and mammalian characteristics? Where is its fossil?"

You didn't even bother to read the article on Talkorigins, it lays out everything you want, the entire line of descent of early reptiles to modern mammals and it lays it out in excellent detail. It's too long to reproduce here.

You did not provide a link for this particular Talkorigins article, but I managed to find it using TO’s search archives function.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
“Transition from synapsid reptiles to mammals”

“This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes.”

Apparently not at well documented as (or better documented than) you and Hunt claim- if National Geographic (April 2003) is any indication.

“The presence of a dentary-squamosal jaw joint has been arbitrarily selected as the defining trait of a mammal.”

Arbitrarily selected as the defining trait of a mammal?  What kind of science is this? Did Kathleen Hunt chose to define mammal in the way necessary to make the best use of the “transitional” fossils she chose to use?  I have never seen jaw structure listed as one of the defining characteristics of mammals- certainly not in any biology or life science course I have taken.  Now I am not saying that similar jaw structure is not a defining trait of mammals, but this sounds like a Darwinian homology; it could indicate a common design as much as a common evolutionary ancestry.

After giving a laundry list of transitional and cousin fossils Hunt mentions a “GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time.”  This is a complete paleontological record showing how reptiles turned into mammals?

Hunt next comments: “The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals.”

So, like I said, the reptile to mammal to man transition is not a settled issue.

Hunt then says, “Recent discoveries seem to show trithelodontids to be more mammal- like, with tritylodontids possibly being an offshoot group (see Hopson 1991, Rowe 1988, Wible 1991, and Shubin et al. 1991). Bear in mind that both these groups were almost fully mammalian in every feature, lacking only the final changes in the jaw joint and middle ear.”

Would these fossils be mammalian by any textbook definition of mammal?  If so why did National Geographic declare that morganucodontids were the first true mammals and that they emerged, along with other mammalian lines, about 210 million years ago i.e. the time for which Hunt says we have few fossils?

Hunt begins another list of fossils with a possible monotreme: “Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- These are tritylodontids, an advanced cynodont group. Face more mammalian, with changes around eyesocket and cheekbone. Full bony secondary palate. Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion (which some earlier cynodonts already had). Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes).”

But, then Hunt comments: “There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals (presumably during the late Triassic gap) or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.”

Again the transition is not as cut-and-dried as you want me to believe.

“Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas) -- A recently discovered fossil proto-mammal from right in the middle of that late Triassic gap! Currently the oldest known ’mammal’."

That is until the NG article.  I guess Talkorigins makes no effort to keep up-to-date.

“Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma) -- The next known very ancient proto-mammal.”

A proto-mammal existing at roughly the same time as the most recent true mammal?  Perhaps Wilson is right- the mammalian family tree needs pruning.

“Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma) -- A group of early proto-mammals called ‘morganucodonts’.”

So the 210 million year old moganucodontids are not the first true mammals as NG claims?  I wish you Darwinists would make up your minds.

“Vincelestes neuquenianus (early Cretaceous, 135 Ma) -- A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits, known from some nice skulls.”

From NG April 2003
“Recent DNA studies suggest placental mam-mals began to diverge from marsupials
as early as 175 million years ago.”  If Hunt’s Vincelestes marks the point of placental/marsupial divergence NG believes Hunt’s date is 40 million years too late.

NG points out that the reproductive traits of marsupials and placental mammals are not easily fossilized, and this is no doubt true, but then NG explains a placental like fossil, found in China’s Liaoning Province, that obliterates Hunt’s “probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits”.

From NG:
“‘This is the mother of all placental mam-mals,’ says Zhe-Xi Luo, a paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pitts-burgh, proudly presenting a fossil of what resembles a pressed mouse with a long snout. It is so well preserved that some of its fur remains visible. ‘We call it Eomaia, which means “dawn mother” in Greek.’

“Luo and his colleagues estimate the fos-sil’s age at 125 million years and have found anatomic markers that suggest that Eomaia, while not fully placental, was well on its way to becoming so. That placental development was so far along 125 million years ago makes it eas-ier for paleontologists to accept the genetic evi-dence that says the first protoplacentals began to evolve 50 million years earlier.”

“Pariadens kirklandi (late Cretaceous, about 95 Ma) -- The first definite marsupial. Known only from teeth.”

I didn’t know that the mouth is where babies come from.  If we don’t have fossils of reproductive organs, how is Hunt so certain that this animal was a marsupial?  I guess it is amazing what paleontologists can prove with just a few teeth.  Maybe they should become state attorneys: California prosecutors couldn’t prove O.J. is a murderer when they had 2 bodies and blood everywhere.

Paleontologists believe that tribosphenic teeth are a characteristic of the common marsupial/placental mammals.  Researchers have found tribosphenic teeth in Australia.  Hunt says that placental mammals and marsupials had not fully diverged as late as 135 million years ago.  She went on to say the first definite marsupial appeared about 95 million years ago and this implies that we should also have definite placental mammals about this same time. But according to NG:

“The tribosphenic controversy gets even deep-er in Australia, where the husband-and-wife team of Tom Rich of the Museum of Victoria and Pat Vickers-Rich of Monash University have turned up three different mammals with tribosphenic teeth dating back 110 million years. The Riches say that these mammals weren’t simply on the way to becoming placental, they were placental—something like hedgehogs, in fact.”  This is 15 million years earlier than Hunt believes.

“Kennalestes and Asioryctes (late Cretaceous, Mongolia) -- Small, slender animals; eyesocket open behind; simple ring to support eardrum; primitive placental-type brain with large olfactory bulbs; basic primitive tribosphenic tooth pattern. Canine now double rooted. Still just a trace of a non-dentary bone, the coronoid, on the otherwise all-dentary jaw. ‘Could have given rise to nearly all subsequent placentals.’ says Carroll (1988).”

According to NG Dawn Mother was the ancestor to all placental mammals in the early Cretaceous.  If your going to claim we know the fossils that lead from reptiles to mammals to man please try to keep up-do-date.

The NG article has several bits of information that is just absolute nonsense.

“We have specialized jaws, whose hinges came together early in our evolution to create the ear bones that let us hear better than other animals.”

These ear bones would serve no purpose if the animal who had them lacked a brain and nervous system capable of detecting the vibrations caused by soundwaves and then interpreting what the sounds meant.  Natural selection is supposed to be random- I have never known a Darwinist to claim that evolution is in any way directed.  Everything is supposed to evolve by chance.  So how can two traits, one dependent upon the other, come about together?

“We have complex teeth that let us grind and chew our food so that we get more nutrition out of it.”

“The teeth of the mor-ganucodontids were another important inno-vation that later mammals would improve upon. The upper and lower molars of morgan-ucodontid jawbones interlocked, letting them slice their food into pieces. That released more calories and nutrients.”

“’Reptiles don’t cut up their food,’ says Cifelli. ‘They grab and gulp. But these little guys were so active they had to get every calorie they could out of what they ate. The more they could process their food in their mouths, the more energy it gave them.’”

The main sources of calories in any mammalian diet are carbohydrates and fats.  Humans can digest simple carbohydrates in the mouth using salivary amylase and very little chewing is necessary. We don’t have salivary enzymes to digest fat, but again fats are easy to chew.

Apart from sugars, most digestion occurs in the stomach and intestines.  Chewing food is simply a way to make swallowing it easier.  Being cellulose, newspaper would be a great source of calories, and humans could eat newspaper with no trouble.  But, since we don’t have the enzymes necessary to digest cellulose how would our teeth help us extract energy from it?

“The separation of the jaw and the ear bones allowed the skulls of later mammals to expand sideways and backward—enabling mammals to develop bigger brains.”

Which came first- the large space or the brain to fill it?  Again this sounds like directed evolution.  

“The jawbone also indicates that the mor-ganucodontids had another important mam-malian trait—they drank mother’s milk. Researchers can infer that morganucodontids nurtured their young with mammary glands that produced milk because, like all mammals today, this animal had only one set of per-manent teeth—as its jawbones show. This is in contrast to the growth pattern of reptiles, non-milk-drinkers, which must continually replace teeth their entire lives.”

NG did not explain how mother’s milk facilitated permanent teeth.  Many people cannot digest milk as adults so a constant milk supply is not a requirement for permanent teeth.  Since humans have only two sets of teeth and both are put in place by around age 10, humans spend the overwhelming portion of their lives with their permanent teeth.  Primary teeth do get as much wear and tear and that seems like a waste of resources.  Alligators can live to be upwards of 50 years old- almost a human life expectancy and they get new teeth as needed.  Thus Alligators don’t need dentists- an adaptation many humans would like to have.

"The National Geographic article clearly indicates doubt in the Darwinian community. That doubt was certainly greater in 1977."

Show me any evidence that the National Geographic article indicates there is any doubt that mammals evolved from reptiles, any at all. As I said, it is well established that mammals evolved from reptiles and the evidence is monumental. You can look it up on Talkorigins or look somewhere else reliable.


The fact that what is the earliest mammal is not universally accepted, and the fact that this earliest mammal has been pushed back in time by the discovery of new fossils tells me that anything accepted as a reptile-mammal transition is only temporary.  The further back we can find the first “true mammal” and the use of arbitrary characteristics to define a mammal (and therefore a transitional organism) tells me that none of what Darwinists claim can be accepted as absolute fact.

"An overwhelming majority of concurrence is useless if the individual methods are anything less than fool-proof. Using one faulty method to check another may result in both giving similar results. But faulty methods cannot give accurate results in the first place."

But you don't understand that for 2 or more dating techniques to give the same incorrect dates is simply impossible. Study radiometric dating before you make foolhardy statements like this one again.


Don’t you understand that any dating method is worthless if it is based on unfounded assumptions or if it does not always work the way evolutionists say it works?  



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:22 PM on June 3, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact that what is the earliest mammal is not universally accepted, and the fact that this earliest mammal has been pushed back in time by the discovery of new fossils tells me that anything accepted as a reptile-mammal transition is only temporary.

what are you going on about?

If I gave you a color scale from black to white:

B---W

Could you classify every intermediate point as specifically either black or white? No.

Which is exactly why you cannot simply classify all fossils as being "Mammals" or "Reptiles" when many lie in the intermediate.

Here are some examples: http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Don’t you understand that any dating method is worthless if it is based on unfounded assumptions or if it does not always work the way evolutionists say it works?
What unfounded assumptions? Can you explain why these assumptions are unfounded?
You obviously propose we should be assuming something else about radio-dating instead - Perhaps that decay rate isn't constant (for example).
Could you please explain why such an assumption is more logical than the current assumption?
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 10:34 PM on June 4, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On fossilized raindrops:

"How can any rain, much less a light one, leave an impression upon impacting solid sandstone?"

They don't, and I never claimed they did.  But the sand they impacted in eventually became sandstone and preserved their impressions.
I am not an expert on fossilized raindrops, I thought the 2 sites I provided were more than enough to support my claims.  The original reason I brought up fossilized raindrops was to counter your half assed claim that "maybe" the oceans of the world were not salty because some creationists, though not you, claim it didn't rain before the "flood".  I presented evidence to illustrate the opposite.  Virtually all scientists who study the past accept that rain has been part of our ecosystem for 100s of millions of years.  And besides that, it has been established that the oceans receive much of their salt from other sources besides run off from the land.  Your original assertion that the oceans were not salty is disproven.

"So I guess Haeckels’ Law pertaining to embryonic development is merely speculative as well?"

I made no such asserion!

"Regardless of your attitude, you presented Sinosauropteryx as bona fide unquestioned fact and expected the readers of this board to accept it without question.  The fact that some Darwinists reject the bird status of Sinosauropteryx proves you are wrong, but like most evolutionists you ignore data that does not support your pet ideas."

I see no proof that I am wrong.  I never said that Sinosauropteryx having proto feathers as an unquestioned fact.  Here is what I said:

"I got this from Science News Online.  Sinosauropteryx, a therapod
discovered in China in 1996, has a coat of downy fibers that may well be
the forerunner of feathers. "

But when this is taken in relation to the other dinos I mentioned that do have true feathers, a pattern emerges, a pattern suggesting birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs.

"We can play dueling academecians til doomesday, but all it would prove is that mainstream science has very little in the way of un-refutable evidence for Darwinism.  But yet evolutionists insist that what they believe is fact and they further insist that everyone else accept what they believe."

No, you use out of date sources.  You like to confuse the issue and make illogical assumtions.  Evolutionists accept what the evidence shows them.  You have yet to show any experts that deny evolution.  You used Alan Feduccia even though he too is an evolutionists.  Therapod to bird is the leading theory right now, most paleontologists accept it.  While I'm no expert, I accept it also, I think the evidence is compelling.  You claim that it is dogma to me, and again you are wrong.

"I take it you reject Feduccia because he does not support dinosaur to bird evolution, which I take is your dogma; but being dogmatic is not the mark of a scientist."

I reject Feduccia because I think the evidence supports dino to bird evolution.  If Feduccia presents more compelling evidence of earlier reptile to bird evolution, fine, I'll go with the best evidence.  While I am well read on paleontology, I'm certainly no expert.  A sudden reversal on the ancestry of birds would be very interesting because there is so much evidence for the dino to bird link, but I would never dismiss it out of hand.  Once again, let's get back to the original point.  All the experts and scientists agree, organisms evolve.  Even the experts you try to use against me are evolutionists.  Try as you might, you can find no creationist scientists that can provide compelling evidence to support creationism or discredit evolution.

"A therapod origin for birds must be Berkley’s pet view of evolution."

Ha ha ha! Yeah, that's it, only Berkley supports the therapod to bird link.  Right.  I refuse to argue against your more ridiculous points.  

"So it is impossible for any structure other than a feather to leave an impression that looks like a feather?  Since we often find the fossilized remains of many species together in the same location, is it possible that both birds and dinosaurs (or some other reptile) died at the same time and place only to have the more fragile bird decay or have its fossil be mostly destroyed, thus leaving feather impressions on a reptilian fossil?  I’m not saying that this has actually happened anywhere, but I am saying it could. "

You have a habit of not endorsing an arguement, then argueing for it.  "I’m not saying that this has actually happened anywhere, but I am saying it could. "
You tell me what other structure could leave an impression that looks like a feather.  
From here: dinofeathers

"Scientists reported in the June 25, 1998, edition of the journal Nature the discovery of two new fossils from Liaoning, China. The early Cretaceous Liaoning site is already known for its spectacularly preserved fossils of soft tissue including feathers on specimens of Confuciusornis and possible protofeathers on Sinosauropteryx. The two new animals, named Protarchaeopteryx robusta (robust first ancient-wing) and Caudipteryx zoui (Zou Jiahua's tail feather), also have feathers preserved but add to the list of incredible Liaoning discoveries for a different reason: they are, according to the authors, the first dinosaurs preserved with unambiguous feathers that are not in the clade Aves, the clade commonly referred to as "birds."

The animals were covered with feathers, including down, like those of Archaeopteryx and modern birds, with central rachis, radiating vanes and barbules. Unlike those of Archaeopteryx and all flying birds, the primary feathers of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx were symmetrical, indicating they were incapable of sustained powered flight. The feathers covered their bodies and formed "wings" on their forelimbs and large fans on their tails. "

Notice were they say 'unambiguous' feathers. Then there is the fact that on these feathered dinosaurs there are anchor points for the feathers on the bones of the arms, so no, your assertion that bird and dino fossils were mixed and that accounts for feathered dinos is wrong.  Some dinosaurs most definitely did have true feathers.

"So are you saying Archaeopteryx is a true bird and not a dinosaur-bird intermediate?  Isn’t this what many Creationists say?"

Typical creationist, love to twist the facts, put words in peoples mouths, anything for their cause.  No I'm not saying Archaeopteryx was a true bird, I still maintain it was a transitional.
Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx were unmistakably dinosaurs, with feathers.  Where do I claim that archaeopteryx was a true bird?

"He and his colleagues doubt that the creatures could fly because they had relatively short forelimbs,

You mean like ostriches?"

No, like a therapod dinosaur.

"short feathers

You mean like penguins?"

No, genuine feathers, read the description again.

"and a body twice the size of Archaeopteryx.

Since when do scientists use size to determine what is and is not a bird?  "

They're not using it to determine whether or not it's a bird, read it again, they state the body size to support the idea that it could not fly.

"How, when and where did I say the mechanism for micro and macro were not the same?  Natural selection acts upon pre-existing genetic variability.  The only reason I say macroevolution (something like reptile to bird) is impossible is because nature does not have enough genetic variation.  Mutations, the ultimate source of all genetic variability, are usually harmful."

No, most mutations are neutral in and of themselves, the environment they occur in determines if they are harmful or beneficial.  However, I noticed that you say "usually harmful", does this mean you agree that some can be beneficial?  This is all macro evolution requires and it has been observed...

Hey, it's getting late, I'll get to the rest of your points in the near future.  But before I sign off, thanks for the interesting debate, I know I get worked up at times, but I am enjoying our exchanges and look forward to more of the same.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:59 AM on June 5, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact that what is the earliest mammal is not universally accepted, and the fact that this earliest mammal has been pushed back in time by the discovery of new fossils tells me that anything accepted as a reptile-mammal transition is only temporary.

what are you going on about?

If I gave you a color scale from black to white:

B---W

Could you classify every intermediate point as specifically either black or white? No.

Which is exactly why you cannot simply classify all fossils as being "Mammals" or "Reptiles" when many lie in the intermediate.


Shouldn’t evolutionists expect everything to be an intermediate?  If natural selection is always in effect, then gene frequencies are constantly changing.  If gene frequencies are always changing, then evolution is always occurring.  If all organisms are in the process of evolving, then isn’t every organism an intermediate?  If reptiles evolved into mammals, aren’t mammals now evolving into whatever mammals will become?  Did evolution stop once mammals originated?  

Here are some examples: http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

The characteristics this website uses to examine fossils are:

lateral temporal fenestra
lower jaw dentary
teeth
lower jaw: post- dentary bones
middle ear & jaw articulation

There is nothing here about fur, mammary glands or blood temperature- all undeniable characteristics of mammals.  Using only bones and teeth to determine a classification leaves open the possibility that a type of organism with both reptilian and mammalian bones and teeth existed in the past.  Consider the duckbilled platypus.  It lays eggs like reptiles and birds and it has the face and feet of a bird.  Isn’t it possible that the platypus is the last representative of a type of animal that has reptilian, avian and mammalian characteristics?  Why isn’t the platypus in classified in a class by itself?  Why are the reptilian mammal fossils classified as intermediates and not as a unique class of animal?

Don’t you understand that any dating method is worthless if it is based on unfounded assumptions or if it does not always work the way evolutionists say it works?
What unfounded assumptions? Can you explain why these assumptions are unfounded?


Assumption: The C14 to C12 ratio is constant for all locations ant for all time.  This is false because certain organisms, such as shellfish and reeds, concentrate C14 and the radiocarbon dating technique cannot accurately date these organisms.  Furthermore, the carbon ratio in the atmosphere has not been constant.  Some event around 1,500 BC severely disrupted the C12-C14 ratio.  Many archaeologists and historians now realize that C14 dates for some artifacts (especially from ancient Egypt) do not match the chronological dates that have been assigned to them.  

Assumption: Radioactive decay rates have been constant.  This cannot be proven since humans have not been constant observers of decay rates.

Assumption: Radioactive parent elements cannot enter the system and decay daughter elements cannot leave the system through any process other than radioactive decay.  Neutron capture can make some elements radioactive and some decay products can diffuse out of rocks.

You obviously propose we should be assuming something else about radio-dating instead - Perhaps that decay rate isn't constant (for example).
Could you please explain why such an assumption is more logical than the current assumption?


The assumptions about radiometric dating proposed by creationists are often based on observed fact.  Evolutionary assumptions are based on our inability to observe the entire historical record.  Creationists can point to shellfish and other aquatic organisms whose carbon ages are far above the observed age and therefore we know that carbon ratios, or decay rates are not universal.  Creationists can use potassium-argon dating to find radiometric ages that do not match the observed ages of certain rocks (Hawaiian lava) and this tells us that, if the ratios are constant, decay products can leave a system by means other than radioactive decay.  Since these processes have been observed in the present why can’t creationists assume that they have happened in the past?



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:47 PM on June 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shouldn’t evolutionists expect everything to be an intermediate?  If natural selection is always in effect, then gene frequencies are constantly changing.  If gene frequencies are always changing, then evolution is always occurring.  If all organisms are in the process of evolving, then isn’t every organism an intermediate?  If reptiles evolved into mammals, aren’t mammals now evolving into whatever mammals will become?  Did evolution stop once mammals originated?  

Technically, every organism that reproduces is an intermediate between its parents and its children, but scientists know that when people speak of intermediates, they are looking for some significant change among a group, not just a single family.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:12 PM on June 6, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The fact that what is the earliest mammal is not universally accepted, and the fact that this earliest mammal has been pushed back in time by the discovery of new fossils tells me that anything accepted as a reptile-mammal transition is only temporary.  The further back we can find the first “true mammal” and the use of arbitrary characteristics to define a mammal (and therefore a transitional organism) tells me that none of what Darwinists claim can be accepted as absolute fact."

I don't understand your first point.  Since we have not found every fossil ever formed, it is well within the realm of possiblity that the earliest mammal is yet to be discovered, but why would this invalidate all the other already identified reptile/mammal intermediates?  And explain to me why you claim (incorrectly) that arbitrary characteristcs are used to define a mammal?  Are you claiming mammals can not be identified by their skeletal structure?  On what authority do you make this claim?  Because there are probably a couple of thousand zoologists who would vehemently disagree with you.  The fact is every creditable paleontologist and zoologist concurr, mammals evolved from reptiles.  You have shown me no empirical evidence that refutes this.  You quibble over what was the first mammal as if this refutes evolution when it does not.  You have been presented with overwhelming evidence of reptile to mammal evolution and you try, unsuccessfully, to discredit the sources.  You try to use National Geographic as a source to back up your claim that reptiles did not evolve into mammals, yet every article I read from their web site clearly says that mammals arose from reptiles.  Every other legitimate scientific website says the same thing.
From here:
reptiletomammal

"Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian. Through dozens of intermediate steps they evolved into mammals by the Late Triassic, some 225 million years ago. All the steps are evident in fossils:  
Step-by-step, palaeontologists can see the switch from peg-like reptilian teeth to the differentiated teeth of mammals (incisors, canines, molars).  
Step-by-step the complex reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.  
In reptiles, both today and in the past, the jaw joint lies between the articular bone at the back of the lower jaw, and the quadrate bone in the skull.  
In mammals, on the other hand, the jaw joint is between the dentary and the squamosal element of the skull.  

Most amazing of all is the evolutionary transition to the mammalian middle ear.
In reptiles, as in amphibians and fishes, there is a single hearing bone, the stapes, which is simply a straight rod that links the eardrum to the hearing structures of the inner ear and the brain.
Mammals, including humans, have three ear ossicles (small bones), the malleus, incus and stapes (or hammer, anvil, and stirrup). "

As I said, the scientific community, the experts, are agreed, mammals evolved from reptiles.

"Consider the duckbilled platypus.  It lays eggs like reptiles and birds and it has the face and feet of a bird.  Isn’t it possible that the platypus is the last representative of a type of animal that has reptilian, avian and mammalian characteristics?"

First off, the platypus does not have avian characteristics.  It does not have a real ducks bill or feet.  So no, it is not the last representative of an animal with avian, reptilian and mammilian characteristics.  But it does have reptilian and mammilian characteristics, just as evolution predicts.

"Why are the reptilian mammal fossils classified as intermediates and not as a unique class of animal?"

Because they blend characteristics from both reptiles and mammals.  They are obviously intermediates.  All the experts agree.  In a previous post you make many wrong asertions and try to use them to discredit reptile to mammal evolution in particular and evolution in general.  The classic "straw man' arguements.  For instance:

"After giving a laundry list of transitional and cousin fossils Hunt mentions a “GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time.”  This is a complete paleontological record showing how reptiles turned into mammals?

Hunt next comments: “The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals.”

So, like I said, the reptile to mammal to man transition is not a settled issue."

Settled as in every link is known?  No, you are right there, we haven't found every fossil ever formed.  Continued discoveries will strengthen the chain, we see this happen every year, the evidence gets better and better, the Theory of Evolution gets stronger and stronger.  But more than enough evidence has been found to settle the issue that mammals did evolve from reptiles.  Despite your song and dance, you show no evidence to the contraty.

"These ear bones would serve no purpose if the animal who had them lacked a brain and nervous system capable of detecting the vibrations caused by soundwaves and then interpreting what the sounds meant.  Natural selection is supposed to be random- I have never known a Darwinist to claim that evolution is in any way directed.  Everything is supposed to evolve by chance.  So how can two traits, one dependent upon the other, come about together?"

No evolutionist has ever claimed that evolution is in any way directed?  Once again, you do not understand evolution.  Of course it is directed, natural selection is not random, nature (the environment) SELECTS the traits that allow a population to thrive.  From Talkorigins:
talkorigins

"Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. "

Your arguement is wrong, the mechanism (the ear bones) and the means to interpret them (brain and nervous system) could evolve together and that's just what happened.

"Chewing food is simply a way to make swallowing it easier"

Wrong.  Breaking the food into smaller pieces makes it easier to metabolize, energy is much more quickly extracted for the animal and is able to be used more efficiently.  Reptiles do not chew their food, they spend a great deal of time in a torpor after a meal digesting their food.  Birds tear their food and many have stones in their crop to facilitate a more efficient metabolism.  And of course mammals chew their food to release more energy more quickly.  So you are wrong again, the evolution of mammilian teeth was very important to supporting a higher metabolism.

"Assumption: The C14 to C12 ratio is constant for all locations ant for all time.  This is false because certain organisms, such as shellfish and reeds, concentrate C14 and the radiocarbon dating technique cannot accurately date these organisms.  Furthermore, the carbon ratio in the atmosphere has not been constant.  Some event around 1,500 BC severely disrupted the C12-C14 ratio.  Many archaeologists and historians now realize that C14 dates for some artifacts (especially from ancient Egypt) do not match the chronological dates that have been assigned to them. "

You're wrong here.  The experts who use C14 dating do NOT assume the C14 to C12 ratio is constant for all places and all times.  They know that it can vary and can calibrate their testing to account for this.  
From here:  C14dating

"What complicates matters is that the level of carbon-14 levels has not been steady through time. During some periods, a particularly active sun pummels the Earth with more high-speed particles. Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field changes how many of those particles are deflected away. Changing temperatures may also alter the balance.
    Ancient tree rings have allowed scientists to calibrate the carbon-14 clock back to 9400 B.C. The layered growth of coral reefs pushes the calibration back another 12,000 years, but runs into another problem. Deep ocean waters dilute the carbon-14 levels, making reefs seem older than they are.
    Cores taken from Suigetsu’s lake bottom avoid that problem. Counting the thin white layers of dead algae, each less than a millimeter thick, gave the researchers the year, which could then be compared to the date obtained by carbon dating, back to 43,000 B.C.
    “It’s an excellent piece of additional information,” says Minze Stuiver, a carbon-dating expert at the University of Washington.
    The new results don’t radically change any carbon dates, just narrow the uncertainties of how long something has been dead. "

The problems you claim affect C14 dating are known and understood and compensated for.
Ready to admit your mistake?

"Assumption: Radioactive decay rates have been constant.  This cannot be proven since humans have not been constant observers of decay rates."

I got this from "Radiometric dating, a Christian Perspective"  by Dr. Roger Wiens, from here:
radiodating

"Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives."

So the evidence is, once again, overwhelming that radioactive decay rates do not change.  Your creationist claim is disproven.

"Assumption: Radioactive parent elements cannot enter the system and decay daughter elements cannot leave the system through any process other than radioactive decay.  Neutron capture can make some elements radioactive and some decay products can diffuse out of rocks."

From here again: Christianradiometric

"Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about."

Read the rest of the article if you want a more in depth explaination, but it disporves your assumptions quite nicely.  As I said before, the reason you deny radiometric dating is not because of any empirical evidence, it is only because it destroys your interpretation of the Bible.  When it comes down to a choice between reality and fantasy, you choose fantasy.

"The assumptions about radiometric dating proposed by creationists are often based on observed fact.  Evolutionary assumptions are based on our inability to observe the entire historical record.  Creationists can point to shellfish and other aquatic organisms whose carbon ages are far above the observed age and therefore we know that carbon ratios, or decay rates are not universal.  Creationists can use potassium-argon dating to find radiometric ages that do not match the observed ages of certain rocks (Hawaiian lava) and this tells us that, if the ratios are constant, decay products can leave a system by means other than radioactive decay.  Since these processes have been observed in the present why can’t creationists assume that they have happened in the past?"

You've confused things by a large margin.  Creationists assumptions are not backed up by fact, they are desperate fabrications based on willful ignorance and pseudoscience.
You say, " Creationists can point to shellfish and other aquatic organisms whose carbon ages are far above the observed age and therefore we know that carbon ratios, or decay rates are not universal."
But experts know that aquatic creatures can not be accurately carbon dated and so they do not date them with C14 dating methods.  From here:aquadating

" The method doesn't work on things which didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures, since their carbon might (for example) come from dissolved carbonate rock. That causes a dating problem with any animal that eats seafood. "

All your assertions on Potassium-Argon dating methods are also incorrect. From here again:
Christiandating

"There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths."

Once again, known problems that creationists try to exploit in a dishonest attempt to fool the general public.

I'll end with these points from "Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective"

"There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.
All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple."



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:21 AM on June 7, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest,

Yes there are "flat earthists" and and "illusionists" etc. Creationists are none of them. Do you think W. Von Braun did just imagine the Apollo-program? Mind you he was a Bible-student together with Isaac Newton Copernicus etc. and lots of others who simply
were not able to get the high flying "scientific" ideas of evolutionists.
What a naivety!


(Edited by Gabor 6/17/2003 at 4:58 PM).


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 1:26 PM on June 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gabor, almost all Flat Earthers definitely are a form of Creationist.   But anyways, the point was that some people will continue to deny obvious facts until the end of time.

And how can you expect people who lived before the ToE was developed to have accepted it?  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:36 PM on June 8, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think W. Von Braun did just imagine the Apollo-program? Mind you he was a Bible-student together with Isaac Newton Coprenicus etc.

Was Herr von Braun a Bible student while he was using slave labor to developed Germany's V1 and V2 rocket program?  Germany used these weapons mostly against civilian targets; they were a weapon of terror, not war.  If the likes of von Braun have to be included in the creationist community, I may have to re-evaluate my own membership in that community.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:43 PM on June 9, 2003 | IP
Gabor

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Herr" Von Brown was forced by Hitler to work
on rocket developments because of his exceptional ability shown at the unuversity where he was studying mechanical engineering. He did not do that because he was a fascist neither was he an evolutionist and racist as the "fuhrer" was.


-------
Gabor
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:28 AM on June 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Herr" Von Brown was forced by Hitler to work on rocket developments because of his exceptional ability shown at the unuversity where he was studying mechanical engineering. He did not do that because he was a fascist neither was he an evolutionist and racist as the "fuhrer" was.

Von Braun joined a rocketry club in 1927.  Such clubs were popular in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.  A main source of funding for these clubs was the German army.  The army supplied this funding because it wanted to promote development of new weapons without attracting international attention.

Von Braun met the German army’s chief of artillery in the spring of 1932 (before Hitler came to power) and von Braun’s group demonstrated liquid fuel rocket that summer (Hitler still not in power).  The test failed and the Germany army was not impressed.  But the chief of artillery offered continued research funding providing that the work was conducted in complete secrecy.  The group as a whole turned down the offer, but von Braun accepted.  
Von Braun then, later in 1932 (Hitler was still not in power), joined the army’s rocket artillery unit.  Von Braun built weapons for the army and the army agreed to pay for his university education.  And then, 3 months later, Hitler became Chancellor. With the Nazis in firm control funding for von Braun’s research flowed freely.

Von Braun joined the Nazi party in 1938 and was commissioned an officer in the SS a year and half later.

Germany did not begin attacking allied targets with the V1 and V2 rockets until June 1944.  However, the V2 was fully developed by 1942.  An air raid by 600 RAF bombers in 1943 was a severe setback for the Germans and the SS assumed total control of the rocket program- which became dependent upon slave labor.

More than 20,000 slave laborers died at Dora, an underground concentration camp/V1 factory located in Thuringia.  Von Braun visited this camp and was reported to be "completely unperturbed" by piles of corpses at the camp.


Von Braun joined a rocketry club in 1927.  Such clubs were popular in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.  A main source of funding for these clubs was the German army.  The army supplied this funding because it wanted to promote development of new weapons without attracting international attention.
Von Braun met the German army’s chief of artillery in the spring of 1932 (before Hitler came to power) and von Braun’s group demonstrated liquid fuel rocket that summer (still before Hitler came to power).  The test failed and the Germany army was not impressed.  But the chief of artillery offered continued research funding providing that the work was conducted in complete secrecy.  The group as a whole turned down the offer, but von Braun accepted (before Hitler came to power).  Von Braun then, later in 1932 (before Hitler came to power), joined the army’s rocket artillery unit.  Von Braun built weapons for the army and the army agreed to pay for his university education and then 3 months later Hitler became Chancellor.  With the Nazis in firm control funding for von Braun’s research flowed freely.

Von Braun joined the Nazi party in 1938 (before Germany started World War II) and was commissioned an officer in the SS a year and half later.

Germany did not begin attacking allied targets with the V1 and V2 rockets until June 1944.  However, the V2 was fully developed by 1942.  An air raid by 600 RAF bombers in 1943 was a severe setback for the Germans and the SS assumed total control of the rocket program- which became dependent upon slave labor.

More than 20,000 slave laborers died at Dora, an underground concentration camp/V1 factory located in Thuringia.  Von Braun visited this camp and was reported to be "completely unperturbed" by piles of corpses at the camp.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:54 PM on June 11, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He did not do that because he was a fascist neither was he an evolutionist and racist as the "fuhrer" was.

No, no, no!  Hitler was a christian!  He said so himself:

" My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922 "

So by your reasoning, Christianity is evil, after all, it was Hitlers religion and he used it to justify the atrocities he inflicted on the world....



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:04 AM on June 13, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.