Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[ahayes]

I tried that in my calc class regarding differential equations, but it didn't fly.

[Diamond]

This is where you're wrong. The skeleton of a modern human in one million year old strata.

That, by your defintion would be impossible, and so inevitably such a skeleton would simply be defined either as non-modern, or not found in one million year-old strata. Such as: or or

Make no mistake about it,... They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.
Tim White

The distinctinve spores of a flowering plant in two-million year old strata.

What? I think even evolutionary theory posits flowering plants in existence long before 2 millions years ago.

Cordially,

[music_code]

This will involve posting the "skulls" photograph that Mamzelle hates so much, so don't tell her, OK?

Hey, skull-man...perhaps you shouldn't read this link and the ones that follow. It seems that your skulls aren't sequential at all, nor are they accurately categorized.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

[2nsdammit]

Nice pictures! What are they? What is the context?

[Coyoteman]

Hey, skull-man...perhaps you shouldn't read this link and the ones that follow. It seems that your skulls aren't sequential at all, nor are they accurately categorized.

I have examined your link:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

All I see is opinion based on religious belief. The opening line is "When the fossil evidence is viewed from a creationist's point of view..." It goes downhill from there.

For example, point #1 of a list of five is "Modern humans have existed for 4.5 million years, which is before the australopithecines existed by the evolutionists time scale." This is given with no supporting data whatsoever. The closest thing to support is the line,

At the bottom of Bed I in the Olduvai gorge is a circular stone structure 14 ft. in diameter made by humans, similar to those in use today by the Okombambi tribe of Southwest Africa. That means true humans were around 2 million years ago by the evolutionist's time scale, before Homo erectus and the Australopithecines (Lubenow, 1992, 172-173).

This is not convincing: the claim of modern humans at 4.5 million years is not supported by claiming they were there 2.0 million years ago. And that claim is based not on fossil evidence, but on "a circular stone structure 14 ft. in diameter" attributed to humans, but not documented as such.

Your claims, and those of this website, are not standing up to the least bit of scientific scrutiny.

Admit it, you have come to the conclusions you are posting based on your religious belief, not on scientific evidence. You (and the creation sites) are trying to twist the evidence to fit your beliefs. I call this "Pretzel Science."

So far, your scientific credibility is approaching zero. Care to try again?

ps. Do you ever read any of the actual science websites, or is your entire education in this field based on creationist sites?

[Conservative Texan Mom]

That was my point too. I don't know if you read my reply. I also still believe it's choices that have consequences. People use all kinds of ideas, be it religion, or Darwinism, or who knows what else, to justify a choice. If the choice is motivated from hate, it's probably not going to have lovely consequences.

Hi!

[Virginia-American]

...It's somewhat sad to hear people say they believe fraud is the norm, rather than the exception, and downright disturbing to hear people make claims that evidence is "suppressed" by some sort of conspiracy....

Remember, a lot of these people come from nonscientific backgrounds where fraud is much more common.

[Chiapet]

It qualifies with respect to the "creationism" part, but what about the "brain" element?

Ahhh, that is a problem. I suppose he would have to requisition it back from whatever lab he kindly donated it to for study.

[betty boop]

...both highly erudite men who are not fools....

I don't dispute Pinker and Wilson are highly erudite men, and I don't recall saying I thought they were fools. I just don't think either of them has worked through the implications of their "philosophical naturalism," and it is plain to me that both men are constructing systems that are designed from the get-go to obviate the necessity of God. I do not think that good science can start from a categorical bias like this. Especially in light of the fact that God is not an "object" for science at all. FWIW.

I'm glad you're still talking to me though RWP. You know, we can always just cordially agree to disagree.... Obviously, we do not look at the world in the same way; but this is hardly a rare occurrence these days. Just possibly we might learn something from each other.

[donh]

A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. By transitional forms, we mean intermediate forms of life appearing in the fossil record that are "in-between" existing types of organisms found today or in the past.

Once there were only two fossils standing between eohippus and horse, now there are about twenty, occuring in a graded sequence, inside a graded geological sequence, predicted, and then found, and creationists are now happy to claim that every single pair of them have a "fossil gap" between them. The argument doesn't rest on continuous evidence, it rests on inductive reasoning about the fossils that we do see, to explain why they have so much in common, along what looks like a graded continuous spectrum of forms, chemistry, morphology and function. Do you reject the law of universal gravitation because there are large gaps between stars for which no evidence exists. Why are you so concerned about fossil gaps, when the deceitful, left-wing, athiestic stellar gaps are so much larger?

[betty boop]

now, are you going to answer the challenge? ... be aware, I intend to rebut any answer you give to the challenge, showing how "right" is indeed defined by the might of the one making the definitions.

I accept your challenge, King Prout! And look forward to your rebuttal. Unfortunately, I'm having a busy day today, and will not have the time to write until this evening. Thank you for your patience!

[ahayes]

First of all, we will not find transitional species for every transformation. These often occurred rapidly in small populations and thus fossilized remains are likely to be rare or absent. This isn't an issue, though, because the transitional species that we have found pose quite a problem for YEC and support the theory of evolution.

At the bottom of the geological column in the so called Cambrian rocks are found highly complex creatures: trilobites, worms, sponges, jellyfish, etc., all without ancestors. It's as though you "turned the light on" in the fossil record. These are highly complex life forms appearing on the scene without forerunners.

The Cambrian explosion has been found to not be as explosive as thought. Many organisms found there did have precursors, but these were not discovered earlier because they were small and soft-bodied and thus not easily fossilized. A mass extinction event at this time allowed rapid radiation into multiple organisms. Due to the short duration of the radiation many early organisms would not be preserved.

Insects - When found in the fossil record, they are already developed without ancestors.

The fossil record for the origin of insects is very poor because insects are small and their exoskeletons easily biodegrade. They evolved in the Devonian. The earliest insects we have are primitive wingless hexapods related to springtails, bristeltails, the tiny diplurans, and others. Wings evolved rapidly in the Carboniferous, and their origin is uncertain.

Invertebrates and vertebrates - Transitional forms leading to vertebrates are absent even though the transition supposedly took millions of years. It is theorized that life passed through a stage where a creature possessed a simple rod-like notochord. This has not been found.

This will come as quite a surprise to the invertebrate chordates.

Fish to Amphibian - Fin to feet... Evolutionist glibly cite a Fish --> Amphibian --> Reptile --> Mammal progression in their theory, however there is a large gap in the fossil record between fish and amphibians.

This gap is rapidly being closed, only a few weeks ago a fossil fish with jointed forelimbs was reported, this is a transitional species to the evolution of tetrapods.

Mammals just appear in the fossil record, again without transitional forms

This is disgusting. Mammals evolved from Permian cynodonts through a series of protomammals.

The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record.

Not true.

And finally, dinosaurs. Again there is the absence of transitional series leading to these giants.

Again not true. Dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs. Two transitional species with intermediate traits are Herrerasaurus and Eoraptor.

The most often cited "example" of a transitional form is the Archaeopteryx which has been touted as a reptile to bird transition. However, this creature is controversial and enveloped in dispute.

I suppose you could say it is "controversial and enveloped in dispute" just because creationists don't like it. Among scientists it is agreed to be an actual organism transitional between reptiles and birds. The only debate there is whether birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs or if they split off before theropod dinosaurs diverged. All agree it is a transitional form.

[ahayes]

It seems that your skulls aren't sequential at all, nor are they accurately categorized.

Well, aren't you glad he told you!

[Right Wing Professor]

No, I'm talking. I just don't need to be pinged to follow-ups to dreck. I feel bad for going off so shrilly on Heartlander; better I ignored his post. And usually, if I want an argument, I'll go looking for one.

The process by which many scientists, IMO, come to philosophical/metaphysical naturalism is by observing the success of methodological naturalism. If you don't seek supernatural explanations in your scientific work, and you see the success of that approach, you have to at least consider why you need to draw a line between scientific work and everything else. Most of us didn't set out to eliminate deities. We just noticed they never appear. I doubt Pinker or Wilson set out to construct an atheistic system; they're just used to eliminating unnecessary entities from their model.

[Coyoteman]

It seems that your skulls aren't sequential at all, nor are they accurately categorized.

Well, aren't you glad he told you!

And here I could have saved six years of grad school! All those hours in the bone lab, wasted. Sigh!

[Conservative Texan Mom]

This view of Genesis jumped out and struck me from several verses being posted on these threads by YEC in support of their interpretation of Genesis. I saw something different though.

Here are the verses, they were all on one thread.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;

I found it so interesting that every verse, mentioned soul, or spirit. Then I began to wonder, just how does God define man? Is it possible, that "in His Image" is referring to an eternal spirit. This would certainly be consistent with the rest of the Bible since it's purpose is the salvation of our spirit. If that is how God defines man, then it would be possible that the bodies we inhabit took a long period of time to become as they are now, but Adam did not become a living Soul, until God created him in His Image, if His Image is an eternal spirit. Which, I'm finding a lot of support for that!

[ahayes]

Perhaps we should bestow upon him an honorary doctorate. They're quite the rage in some circles.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(When I tickled her, she would say, "Stop it, some more!"..)

That's cute!

[Liberal Classic]

I inadvertantly wrote:The distinctinve spores of a flowering plant in two-million year old strata.

You corrected me: What? I think even evolutionary theory posits flowering plants in existence long before 2 millions years ago.

Thanks for the correction. I meant to say two hundred million years.

[Liberal Classic]

School of Psychology, Massey University , New Zealand?

I can't find the exact source of the tracks.