Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[KrazyHorse]

Zealot: take your example to the extreme.

What if the world doesn't exist and God is merely convincing you through his infinite power that it does? What if the world was flat 3000 years ago but is round now? What if God simply changed the strength of the weak nuclear force 5000 years ago so that everything from before this date looks like it's more ancient than it actually is?

If you want to argue for creationism from a religious standpoint then go ahead. If you want to argue from a scientific standpoint then don't explain inconsistencies away by divine appeal.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
In fact, the creationists cannot even admit that this arrangement exists, because it contradicts Genesis (birds evolved from land animals, grass appears after the dinosaurs died, and so forth).

I asked before:

Where in the world are those fossils that show how birds appeared, and that they evolved from land animals? And why did feathers appear?

[KrazyHorse]

Congratulations. We haven't found every link in every chain. So what? Why are there so many examples of transitional fossils? Why does radio-isotope and geological dating show that there are animals alive today that weren't alive 100 million years ago while there were animals alive 100 million years ago that aren't alive today. Complaining about individual "missing links" is like if I found a jigsaw puzzle, put it together again and could easily see that it was a picture of a tiger, while you come along and tell me it's a picture of a flower because I can't find 5 pieces out of a thousand.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
You are not making any sense here(or in any post you have made).You have not been able to offer ANY refutation to any of the points made by us "evolutionists" here but like David Lynch you seem to think if you throw enough nonsense at us no one will notice the lack of substance and then mistake you for someone of reasonable intellect or even genius.

Reasonable intellect? I have a recommendation for one of the best universities in the world and you say that doesn't demand reasonable intellect?

Also,when you constantly write off another's argument with a statement like "these [b]kids[/i] crack me up!" or something similarly,thinly disguised insult you concede that reason and rational are not on your side.

See your bold letters above? I guess the 'evolutionist' tactics in here are getting to me starting to use them myself, huh? Just look at Guynemer. There's been nothing but revealed insults from him all along. And I can mention others.

And of course you end your part in the debate by saying something like "I have done this before and now I'm tired of it so I won't reply any more".Typical creationist tactic designed to absolve you from ever having to address the holes in your argument or the irrefutable logic and evidence presented by others.

Holes in my arguments? You're throwing insults and not providing any substance for them here. You're saying I'm a creationist? I didn't say that. You're drawing unsubstantiated conclusions. Who's being irrational?

I have posted a lot in here all day and yesterday and even Guynemer thinks it's too much. It is streneous. That's why I ask Zealot and others to reply. They answered some of the questions directed at me.

Anyways, your first post was interesting. But why do you think your one post will convince anybody. I'm sure the arguments convinced you, but ppl are different. And some might need more

[DinoDoc]

I haven't read this thread but a few questions spring to mind

Bear with me if this has already been covered.

Can I ask a few questions of the creationists? Good.

1) What are your core objections to evolution and please leave abiogenesis out of it becuase they are two different theories?
a) In what way do you feel that God is incompatible with Evolution?

2) What would it actually take to convince you of the validity of the theory?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Tolls
re: published PhDs
I'm sure he (and the other PhDs on ICR) have published in peer reviewed literature, but I would lay money that Kurt Wise's thesis did not deal in any way with a 6000 year old earth...which was my question, how many creationist articles are there in peer reviewed literature? If they have evidence then it will be printed, but they never do...in fact I don't htink they submit the bloody things in the first place!

Guess what? So do I!

as for:
"Why would evolutionist magazines bring in something that oppose their views. Be rational. "
Smacks of conspiracy here...and I'm the one who isn't being rational?

Not a conspiracy. But some evolutionists, at least in here for instance, think that creationists are stupid uneducated ppl. Who would accept papers from them?

The intermediates thing was pure and simple pointing out to you that you brought up intermediates, unlike your statement.

No I didnt say that. I brought it up.

And you can rest your case, that's fine, doesn't prevent me from replying to some of your comments...

There's no rest for the wicked.

...oh one more thing...I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:

"You see here's your problem: You haven't followed this thread very closely.

I never said "Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?" "

No, it's true, you didn't...but Zealot did, and that is who Osweld was replying to...now who isn't following the thread?

You? At the beginning of those lines he wrote the name Lars.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Zealot
I asked before:

Where in the world are those fossils that show how birds appeared, and that they evolved from land animals? And why did feathers appear?

In museums. Do you prefer to believe they don't exist?

If so, why do you believe that?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you want to argue for creationism from a religious standpoint then go ahead. If you want to argue from a scientific standpoint then don't explain inconsistencies away by divine appeal.

I expose from a scientific standpoint evolutionist inconsistencies, and then I'm acused of not be giving evidence of creationism. I try to show how reasonable is the existence of a Divinity, and I'm accused of not arguing from a scientific standpoint.
Uff...

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

In museums. Do you prefer to believe they don't exist?

If so, why do you believe that?

You have got to be kidding! Is that all you can say?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, that is the creationist view. There is no non-Biblical basis for acceptance of creationism or rejection of evolution. All creatioists are either religious fundamentalists or victims of fundamentalist propaganda.

Easy answers. You have em all don't you. You have narrowed down the rejectors of evolution to 2 kinds of seemingly crazy ppl!

Only religious fundamentalists assert that there are no transitional fossils (or very few transitional fossils). It is a creatioist lie, pure and simple.

Likely. After all the creationists believe in the 9th commandment: You must lie.

Stephen J. Gould is not a moron (nor is he a creationist, of course). But Dr. Kurt Wise IS a religious fundamentalist. He freely admits that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution: he chose to reject it ONLY because it contradicts his religion. Here is what happened after he took a pair of scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible that contradict evolution:

". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."

This is only about how he converted from evolutionism to creationism. See your bold letters? Where does he admit that the evidence support evolution?

You are lying, Lars. Nobody here has DENIED that most mutations are not beneficial (actually most are pretty neutral, but the "horrid" ones greatly outnumber the beneficial ones). That's where natural selection comes in.

Lying? Me being a raving lunatic religious bigot? That's right we believe in the commandment "You must lie". I didnt know that, neither that I was a mad religous terrorist. Because that's next, right?

There is nothing "improbable" about evolution. So far, you have not demonstrated any real grasp of "statistics and probabilities".

Funny, being one of the best students at it in university. But there's a great conspiracy going on. The great uni's like Harvard, Northwestern, etc are crap. Any more amusing stuff? Wanna resort to rethoric or semantics perhaps?

West Virginia take me home to meet the evolved hillbilles of the mountains.

[Zealot]

Dinodoc, why don't you first answer to SkeleTony69's question?

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
Incidentally...what is an "evolutionist"?I have met evangelical christians who believe the theory of evolution as well as atheists,buddhists etc..How do I identify an evolutionist?What sort of characteristics do all evolutionists have in common?

Then I might answer your question.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Zealot, let me remind you of what you said earlier:

This is not true, Rogan. I never discarded the fossils! Neither do I know anyone who has! If someone does that and proclaim himself to be a creationist, that's his problem.

Therefore I have something for you to consider:

ARCHAEOPTERYX.

This is a clear transitional fossil between land animals and birds, and you've promised you won't "discard" it. So how will you deal with it?

You haven't answered MY question, Zealot. Why on Earth do you choose to believe such fossils do not exist?

[SkeleTony69]

Zealot and Lars, There is a clear pattern here of you misrepresenting science or displaying monumental ignorance of evolutionary biology,followed by clear and precise refutation by several "evolutionists"(as you call them/us) as well as pointing out flaws in the creationist argument which you ignore comepletely in order to quibble over what you percieve to be some minor insult(and/or deliver insults yourselves).

As I said,it is a hard thing to admit you are wrong or to admit that something you spend considerable time and effort justifying or defending may be inaccurate but it does you no good to cover your ears and pretend you don't hear it.

If something more probable and accurate than the theory of evolution comes along to explain how life on earth developed then I will be the first to admit it.That is the nature of science and reason(though I am NOT claiming to be a scientist)...to change according to new information and relevation.The nature of religion/creationism is stasis."We already have all the answers...God did it!".Convenient but hollow.

Just try and answer even some of the "simple" things I brought up in my first post in this thread.

And about the transitional fossils...I will have to do a cut & paste here since I am not a scientist and you would no doubt want your queries answered by someone better qualified...

"TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS





"There are no transitional fossils" is the battle cry of the ignorant Creationist. I will comment briefly on the history of this argument, show the various transitional species of human ancestors, and finally show the existence of transitional hominid individuals, between species.



Around the 16th century, people thought they were completely separate from the animal kingdom. At that same time, the great apes, the gorillas and orangutans, the chimpanzees and other monkeys, were all unknown. When the great apes were discovered, a fierce debate raged as to whether these creatures were a strange race of men, or just another animal. An English physician, Edward Tyson, wrote a book in 1699 concerning the anatomy of apes. Tyson listed 48 physiological characteristics that made the ape similar to man, and 34 characteristics that, on the other hand, connected the ape more closely to the animal kingdom.

The point I am trying to make is that the ape is, in a sense, a transitional form between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. Creationists can't accept that, however, and demand a transitional form between man and apelike ancestors. When Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon remains were first found, creationists demanded transitionals between them and an ape-like ancestor, and between these human ancestors and present day humans.

Present day knowledge from the fossil record show the following progression from modern humans to ancient ancestors, as the table shows: Name
Looks Brain Size in cc's. # of specimens Dates Tools
Ramapithecus Small, no forehead, very apelike very small 20, mostly jawbones and a few skulls 12 million years old None
Australopithecus Half-Ape, half human, slight forehead, upright walk 600 cc. 800 specimens, mostly skulls, a few near complete skeletons 4 million years old None
Homo Habilus Slightly human head, bigger brain 725 cc. 200, mostly skulls, some hips and femurs 2 million years old Stone tools
Homo Erectus Larger brain, almost human head 1000 cc. 1500+ fossil specimens, some very complete skeletons 1 million years old Stone, and Fire.
Homo Sapiens Some look more human than others. 1350 cc. Tens of Thousands 350,000 years old All












.



Homo erectus discoveries demanded that the creationists employ a more refined strategy. Homo erectus is just as human as us, sloped forehead and all. Or, they were diseased humans. Or, perhaps they were apes, eaten by humans, and the tools found with them are simply what the humans used to carve up the apes. The fact is, H. erectus has an apelike head, human dentition, an upright walk. This ape-headed, walking creature also used tools and made fires. Over a thousand fossil specimens have confirmed this.









Homo Habilus is a transitional form between H. Erectus and the Australopithecines. H. Habilus has a smaller brain capacity than H. Erectus, 725 cc as opposed to 950 cc. The slope of the forehead is greater, and only stone tools are found at the Habilus sites. There is no evidence of fire use by H. Habilus.







When the Australopithecines were found, the initial thoughts were they were knuckle walkers, like apes. Creationists took the position they were just extinct apes. However, finds of australopithecine hips, femurs, and other bones indicate it walked upright--while having the unmistakeable head of an ape. Australopithicines are transitionals between older, knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors, and the more modern, tool using H. erectus.





Transitional Hominid Individuals:
There are quite a few fossil finds which don't translate well into one species or another. These are called "transitional individuals", and are intermediate in characteristics between an older type and a more recent specimen.



The Omo skulls, found by a team of Paleontologists led by Richard Leakey in Ethiopia in 1967 are skulls with a large (1430 cc) cranium capacity, but which preserve features of H. erectus skulls such as a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges. This is regarded as an early example of a human, even though it has characteristics of an H. Erectus specimen. It is over 100,000 years old.

Vertesszollos skulls were found in 1965 in a site in Hungary. The thickness of the skull and the one-piece brow ridge are features of an H. Erectus, but the brain capacity is modern: 1400 cc. The brain, though large, is configured in a more primitive manner than modern humans. It is an extremely early, and very primitive, example of H. Sapiens, but with distinct H. erectus features. It is about 400,000 years old.

The Petralona skull, about 400,000 years old, is from a cave in ancient Greece. It is an H. erectus skull with some advanced features normally found only in modern humans.

Ngaloba skull is an an early H. sapiens specimen found in sandstone and clay deposits in Tanzania in 1976. It has mostly human features, while retaining some archaic H. erectus features in its shape. It is about 120,000 years old.

Tautavel skulls originated in the Arago cave in southern France, excavated in 1964. The skull has features of both H. erectus and Neanderthals, and is a transitional fossil between the two species. It is about 300,000 years old.

Creationists use the same strategy with Archeopteryx. It's just a bird. In fact, Archeopteryx is fossil bird with reptilian characteristics. It could just as accurately be described as a fossil reptile with bird-like characteristics.







Transitional Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals



There are many transitional forms at all stages of evolution. Here are a few of the more interesting ones:

An ancient transitional species between invertebrates and vertebrates is the Jamoytius, a sea creature similar to the modern lamprey. Its "backbone" was a stiff, unsegmented tissue known as a notochord.

Acanthodes is a primitive jawed fish. Jaws, a major evolutionary development, originated from bony gill arches.

The Osteolepis is a bony fish, with a skull and jaw structure very analogous to early land-dwelling vertebrates. This is a lobe-finned fish, different from the lungfish, and indicates that this is the transitional form from sea creatures to the early amphibians, not lungfish.



Seymoura and Lyccaenops are early reptiles with amphibian characteristics, and are almost exactly half amphibian, and half reptile. They are transitional forms between amphibians and reptiles.

The Synapsids are a subclass of early reptiles that bridge the gap between reptiles and primitive mammals.







Conclusion:
Isn't this exactly what we would expect from the fossil evidence, if humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor? If life evolved gradually, from simple sea creatures without jaws or backbones, to large brained, tool-using mammals?

On the other hand, if humans were created by divine fiat, why does the fossil record show a slow and gradual progression from creatures who neither walked upright nor had large brains, through upright-walking, small brained creatures, and then to large-brained, tool using, upright walking creatures, and finally to modern humans?

If you want, you can visit your local museum of natural history, and verify everything on this page. Or, if you're intellectually lazy, you can continue to believe that humans were created by the impulsive act of a lonely Hebrew deity. "



I will point out that the "anti-religious" sentiments of the author are his alone.I am only positing that his science is spot on as far as I can tell but I would be happy to be shown differently.

Rogan Josh-You should know full well why anecdotal evidence is not given any weight in scientific method.

[SkeleTony69]

Sorry the pictures,I forgot about so it reads kindof weird but if any are interested I can post a direct link to the site.

[DinoDoc]

The essay on talk origins is better and avoids the anti-religious sentiment.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ