Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

T. Rex Teeth Take a Bite Out of Evolution
ICR ^ | July 17, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

Posted on 07/17/2009 9:28:19 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

A set of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex teeth was found in a rock layer that it had no business being in, according to evolutionary interpretations. Discovered in Hyogo, Japan, the teeth came from a 15-foot-tall dinosaur entombed in early Cretaceous rock, supposedly deposited 140 million years ago.

The problem is that T. rex dinosaurs of this large size are not supposed to have evolved until about 30 million years later. Thus, what is “known” about dinosaurs must undergo drastic revision.[1] Haruo Saegusa, a curator at the Museum of Nature and Human Activities, recently told JapanToday, ‘‘If the dinosaur belongs to the same era of the strata [early Cretaceous], the tyrannosaurus could have started to grow larger much earlier than previously thought.’’[2] The thought seems to be that merely adjusting evolutionary development backward will be enough to make the fossil fit the strata.

But the very concept of strata representing “eras” does not come from the strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, and it has been in vogue ever since, despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves, and stands in stark contrast to scriptural history. Young-earth creation geologists have long held that most sedimentary strata—including the Cretaceous layer in which these teeth were found—resulted from waterborne deposits during Noah’s Flood that may harbor fossils from a particular local environment, but do not represent a particular “era.”

The assignment of a certain number of “millions of years” to a rock formation does not derive from the strata either. It is another assumption that is used to prescribe what constitutes “valid” interpretations.

Radioisotope dating is used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, geologist John Woodmorappe cogently revealed that the radio dates are actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates already assigned from the geologic column diagram. ICR’s RATE research also conclusively demonstrated with independent lines of evidence that radioactive decay rates, widely used to bolster deep time, were dramatically accelerated in the past.[4]

Many other natural processes—like the recession rate of the moon, the decay of earth’s magnetic field, or the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals in granite—can be used, along with some basic assumptions, to measure the age of the earth, but these methods give maximum dates that are incompatible with evolutionary time spans.

Thus, the nineteenth-century strata/age/era correlation is in serious trouble. However, an oversized T. rex found in the “wrong age” and the “wrong time” doesn’t surprise creation scientists. If the rock that these T. rex fossil teeth was found in was indeed deposited during the year-long Noahic Flood, then it is easy to explain why a large dinosaur is found mixed in with smaller ones.

There never was an “era of smaller T-rex dinosaurs,” but there was an unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments, layering and sorting sediments and fossilizing the creatures buried therein.

References (for ref. links, go to original--GGG)

1. For recent examples of drastic evolutionary revisions, see Sherwin, F. The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 1, 2005, accessed June 25, 2009; Thomas, B. Data Derails Dinosaur Dominance Idea. ICR News. Posted on icr.org September 18, 2008, accessed June 25, 2009; Thomas, B. Dinosaur Fossil Erases 40 Million Years. ICR News. Posted on icr.org June 23, 2008, accessed June 25, 2009. 2. Teeth of tyrannosaurus ancestor dating back 140 mil years found in Hyogo. JapanToday. Posted on japantoday.com June 20, 2009, accessed June 24, 2009. 3. Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 27-49. 4. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). Posted on icr.org.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Japan; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last
To: WondrousCreation
If Tyrannosaurs walked the earth for so long (like 50 million years), how come they didn't evolve into something else?

Because they didn't exist for 50 million years, they were around for a few million years just before all the non-Avian dinosaurs, and most other species, became extinct. When something is dead it stops evolving.

151 posted on 07/18/2009 5:54:29 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ("men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

the shiny thingy...slowly back away.

Surely there’s a deprogrammer in your area?


152 posted on 07/18/2009 12:39:56 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

I don’t have any idea how old the earth is...what I DO know though is you sure as hell don’t either and no one gave you liberals the keys to science or appointed you gate-keepers of what is or isn’t acceptable.

IF ANYTHING the liberal NEA, ACLU track record speaks for itself!


153 posted on 07/18/2009 12:43:16 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

I’m not a liberal. I’m to the right of Attila the Hun. I just happen to have a background in Science and know bullsh#t when I see it.


154 posted on 07/18/2009 1:34:56 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Apparently not. Conservatives don’t sue opponents into silence, they beat them with the truth and ideas. Not so for evolution. Or pretty much for that matter any anti-God biased indoctrination in failed liberal gubmint schools.

I’m sorry but the NEA, ACLU and liberal professors simply aren’t on the conservative side, no matter how you try to spin it.


155 posted on 07/18/2009 3:25:22 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
It appears that Brian Thomas failed to understand what he was writing about, or perhaps is knowingly promulgating a misunderstanding. The fossils found do not belong to T. rex, and do not force T. rex to be "adjusted." Instead, they are an ancestor of T. rex. All they demonstrate is that T. rex's ancestors had reached a certain size earlier than previously believed. This is a new data point, but not a challenge to the model. (We're still waiting for the T. rex with a bunny rabbit in its stomach.)

Exactly. A sterling example of creationist "research" here.

Brian Thomas definitively identifies these isolated teeth as belonging to the species, "Tyrannosaurus rex," even thought the simple, reptilian teeth of carnivorous dinosaurs are not sufficiently distinct to make species, or often even generic, designations. Thomas (ICR "Science Writer," with the caps in the original, and no "a" preceding, so presumably the official science writer there) is apparently too ignorant to know this, even though dinosaurs are a primary topic of writing and "research" at ICR.

(To ignorance and incompetence, we can most likely add hypocrisy: Not bothering to check just now, but who would lay a bet that Thomas hasn't derided "evolutionists" in print for the 80 year old misidentification of the "Nebraska Man" pig tooth?)

But it rapidly gets even worse. He goes on to describe this (supposed) T.rex as of a "large size," even though (as the news article he quotes actually states!) it's only about half the size of a T. rex.

Everything he writes about dinosaurs in this ICR piece is wrong, even ignoring his inability to accurately read the short news article which is his source. For instance Thomas says the dinosaur was "15-foot-tall," when the article actually has it "estimated to have been about 5 meters [about 16'] long.

Then Thomas peppers the rest of the article with appeals to long debunked young earth arguments like, "the recession rate of the moon, the decay of earth’s magnetic field, or the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals in granite."

Perhaps even more revealing than Thomas', and the ICR's, shoddy, slapdash work and utterly embarrassing performance in this article, is that not one of the FR creationists posting here is the slightest bit ashamed or taken aback, but instead are obviously pleased with and proud of this piece. That tells you all you really need to know about antievolutionism.

156 posted on 07/18/2009 5:57:24 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks
Have you noticed that most of the time the evos can’t contest with facts. For example, I still haven’t seen an inteligent evo answer to the irreducibly complex systems, that’s why they resort to name calling and drive by posts.

No. I haven't noticed that.

Specifically, as to the ID argument that "irreducibly complex systems" (systems in which each part is functionally crucial such that no part can be removed) cannot possibly be assembled in stepwise, incremental fashion, with each intervening step useful and functional in itself -- this has been cogently disproved and debunked many, many times in print. Two or three dozen examples are linked HERE.

157 posted on 07/18/2009 7:22:05 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Conservatives don’t sue opponents into silence, they beat them with the truth and ideas. Not so for evolution.

You seem to have this backward.

Evolutionary theory got into textbooks solely because it first succeeded in the open marketplace of scientific ideas; because it withstood and continues to withstand the withering process of scientific review.

It is creationists and IDers who demand that their ideas be included in science textbooks and curricula on what amounts to a basis of intellectual affirmative action; i.e. in the absence of those ideas having first prevailed in professional scientific debate, indeed despite the near universal refusal of creationists and IDers to even SUBMIT their ideas to such scrutiny (instead sticking to popular books, seminars and the like).

As an "evolutionist" I would actually insist -- were it to be the case at some future date that evolutionary theory were to fail in science, and some other more successful theory (creationistic or otherwise) replace it -- that evolution then be EXCLUDED from curricula, and that the new theory be added to curricula.

We "evolutionists" support evolution not because we support evolution, but because we support science, and the chips fall where they may.

Curricula ought, so far as in accord with sound and effective heuristics, to accurately and objectively reflect the actual content of science. (By actual content I mean those theories, principles and other ideas actually utilized and implicated by working scientists in the ongoing production of original research. I.e. not just "what scientists believe," but what they do.)

To present in curricula ideas which have NOT earned standing in science as though there were part of science is to lie to students. It's the lying we object to.

158 posted on 07/18/2009 7:45:06 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

How about taking a very risky step and reading “A case for a Creator” and “A case for Christ” by Lee Strobel and then getting back to me.


159 posted on 07/18/2009 8:48:30 PM PDT by 05 Mustang GT Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

I guess Global Warming is a settled science since scientists tell us so and itis being taught in public schools?


160 posted on 07/18/2009 9:07:34 PM PDT by 05 Mustang GT Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; metmom; GodGunsGuts
Conservatives don’t sue opponents into silence, they beat them with the truth and ideas.

You seem to have this backward.

Wow, ummmm no no, this is FR, perhaps you're lost!?

But more to the point, again, it's not the Christian normal people that are suing to get their ideas across, they get their ideas across, or try to and then it gets shut down, and a sure fire way to understand this is by looking at what happens right here! Lies, insults, attacks, deceit, strawmen, misrepresentations and projections.

Pretty much ANYTHING to stop the message from getting out.

If liberals here could sue GGG they'd no doubt be doing exactly that!

But no, the only people getting it backwards are the liberals.

Yeah, I know shocking to liberals!

161 posted on 07/18/2009 9:55:12 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks
How about taking a very risky step and reading “A case for a Creator” and “A case for Christ” by Lee Strobel and then getting back to me.

Although I stopped collecting about a decade ago, I have a couple hundred antievolution volumes in my library, and have read all or portions of most of them. I also used to attend local meetings of an antievolution group, and twice attended national creationism conventions. I'm probably more familiar with antievolution literature than your average antievolutionist.

I don't have Strobel's book, but from the summary here it doesn't look like there is any ground covered that I am completely unfamiliar with.

162 posted on 07/18/2009 10:30:25 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks
I guess Global Warming is a settled science since scientists tell us so and itis being taught in public schools?

The fact that the earth has warmed slightly over the last century is pretty much settled. An "anthropomorphic" cause therefore is not at all settled, and is heavily debated WITHIN the scientific community.

The algoresque curricula simply LIE about the scientific status of this debate. In fact this is a very close analogue to creationism. algoresque global warming propaganda has been inserted into curricula by politically motivated activists rather than as the result of it's having actually prevailed within science. In the exact same way creationists and IDers use popular and political pressure tactics demanding the insertion of their views despite their failure as actual science.

By seeking to have antievolutionism represented in textbooks and currical on the basis of intellectual affirmative action, you're only validating the methods of econuts, leftists, gratuitously aggrieved ethnic groups, and other identity groups looking to have curricula shaped in their interest.

The most effective stance in opposing such crap is to insist on high, hard-nosed and uncompromising standards of intellectual and academic integrity in all subjects. This is the attitude conservative should take, but they can't do that if they're playing the same game as econuts and leftists.

163 posted on 07/18/2009 10:46:41 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
by looking at what happens right here! Lies, insults, attacks, deceit, strawmen, misrepresentations and projections.

All of which may be irritating, but not nearly so irritating as whining about it. Get over your victimhood already. And your hypocrisy. (The most cursory examination of your own posts quickly demonstrates that you give as good as you get in all cited respects.)

Sorry to all. Usually I ignore both insults and whining, which I think by far the best policy since both the rude and the whiners (and especially the rude whiners) ultimately only crave attention. I'm probably foolish to think an occassional comment will do any good, so I'll henceforth return to ignore mode.

164 posted on 07/18/2009 10:53:47 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Oh please. Like creationists haven’t used the courts to try and get their “science” taught in schools or in textbooks.
Truth and ideas? Truth #1 is that no scientific theory can start “well something miraculous happened and the evidence is a book” written in 300 AD and you have to take it on faith. Thats religion. Creation makes a great religious story ( guess what I DO believe that a Creator was involved in the beginning of the Universe ).

You have no scientific argument.


165 posted on 07/19/2009 5:07:47 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; Stultis

Never argue with an idiot.. they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.


166 posted on 07/19/2009 6:17:50 AM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

Actually, I was not talking so much about anti-evolution as about opening oneself to God. I, personally, grew up in a communist country, was indoctrinated in marxist-leninist ideology, including and especially evolution, because my PhD work was in the field of biological sciences, but at the end, if you are really open to exploring the possibilities, the evolutionary theory doesn’t quite cut it. I realize, that to atheists, questioning evolution seems like attacking their religion, but so be it.
The reason I usually don’t post on these threads is that they turn very ugly real fast, and generally it’s not the believers in creation and ID that start it.
I appreciate you staying polite and will be praying for you.


167 posted on 07/19/2009 7:47:50 AM PDT by 05 Mustang GT Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; DevNet

“Well then maybe you should discuss this w/ DevNet (see post 54) and get one or both of your stories corrected. And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.”

—I’m not positive, but I believe DevNet may have been referring to xenoliths. Lava flow may contain rocks dragged up from within the earth that haven’t melted, which are called xenoliths. Since such rocks are just random rocks dragged up, they can be of thousounds, or millions, or billions of years old, while the lava they are contained in is very young. Fortunately, such xenoliths are easy to spot (thus the name - “xenolith” - foreign or strange rock that sticks out like a sore thumb).
When you were talking about the million year old rocks found in 200 year old lava, were you referring to the study done in Hawaii using K-Ar dating? IIRC, that was a study done specifically to date xenoliths. The xenoliths SHOULD date much older than the lava flow, since the xenoliths ARE rocks while the lava hasn’t hardened into rock yet - so by definition, the xenoliths must be older.

I believe the layering you are referring to from St. Helens are the layers of unsolidated ash from the pyroclastic flow. It was well known that volcanoes can create many layers of such ash in a single eruption long before 1980. Other examples of such are known around the world, such as Cathedral Rock in Oregon, which has many layers put down instantly from an eruption millions of years ago. The difference between these layers and other layers is, well, these are just layers of volcanic ash. If there was a layer of limestone in there, and a layer of shalestone imbedded with fossils and footprints, than that would be interesting.


168 posted on 07/19/2009 8:47:42 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: kingpins10
When science tells me a rock that is known to be 200 years old from a volcanic eruption is 4.5 million years old according to radiometric dating, I have a problem with that.

I'd have a problem with that too if that's what "science" actually said, but since it's not what science says, there's no problem. Competent radiometric dating of recent lava flows yield recent results, as expected. The dating methods work.

No one can seem to explain this fact.

I can explain it just fine. The "creation scientists" who gathered the samples and ran the tests lied, in order to have a dishonest excuse to try to discredit radiometric dating methods.

The dating methods, when used correctly, yield accurate and reliable results. When purposely used *incorrectly*, as was done by creationist Austin during the "RATE" project, unsurprisingly yield incorrect results.

Here's a post I wrote about this on another thread:

In layman’s terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!

No, in layman's terms Austin the creationist is either a fool or a charlatan (perhaps both).

"In layman's terms", here's what he did wrong (I'll leave it to you to decide whether he did so out of dishonesty or incompetence):

1. He chose an analysis lab which CLEARLY STATES that its analysis equipment is not sensitive enough to correctly measure samples less than two million years old. Read that again until it sinks in.

2. Austin then took the first set of measured results, WHICH INDICATED LESS THAN TWO MILLION YEARS OLD, and rather than doing what an honest scientist would have done (which is say, "ah, these results are below the lower bounds of the testing equipment, thus they're just reporting equipment noise"), instead Austin ran around in circles and tried to ridicule K/AR dating for giving him out-of-bounds results that made perfect sense.

3. As for the 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya sub-sample, Austin sort of "forgets" to inform the reader that almost without exception lava rock contains what are known as "inclusions", which are bits of older crystalline mineral mixed in with the fresh lava flow. A volcanic eruption is a violent and hardly "clean" event and pulverized (but unmelted) minerals are incorporated into the lava as it flows up and outward from the volcano. These inclusions will produce K/Ar dates older than the date of the lava flow because they are, indeed, *older* than the lava flow. A real scientist (unlike, say, Austin) will take a great deal of care to extract inclusions from his sample before sending it to a lab to determine the date when the lava itself flowed, and/or hand-pick a "clean" lava sample which has relatively few inclusions compared to the flow as a whole. That's because they *want* to get as valid a date as possible for the lava flow. Now, guess what Austin didn't do? Gee, now guess *why* he didn't do it? Can you say, "*trying* to get an apparently invalid date so as to have a cheap, dishonest excuse to allege that there's something 'wrong' with K/Ar dating"?

As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out" and Austin (unlike the honest scientists who *want* to produce valid dates) had no interest in getting a clean result -- the more "garbage" the result, the more he could claim a creationist "success". So he *submitted* garbage as his sample (i.e., a sample with inclusions, to a lab unable to date anything younger than roughly two million years).

As Henry Barwood notes, "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure)."

For more details, see: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.

Here is a link showing similar problems with the Rubidium-Strontium dating method. Where one set of rocks are dated much older than they are known to be.

Exact same issue (lava rock with inclusions) submitted by the exact same creationist "researcher" (Steven A. Austin). He appears to be a one-trick pony.

Whether such problems have been identified in all radiometric dating methods, I do not know.

"Such problems"? Yeah, if you submit "dirty" samples for testing, you get "dirty" results. So what else is new? Honest scientists clean their samples first. Creationist "scientists" don't, then try to discredit the testing methods when they get bogus results. Go figure.

But it certainly casts significant doubt on it.

The only thing it "certainly casts significant doubt on" is the honesty/competence of "creation scientists".

Now, "kingpins10", I'm curious to know whether you've learned anything about the reliability and honest of "creation scientists" from this experience. And I'm curious to know if you're in any way upset that they lied to you.

See also:

Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data

RATE Project Turns to Deception

R.A.T.E.: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research

Creation Science Exposed: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth [R.A.T.E.] Essays Revealing the Truth Behind the Young Earth Claims

Bad Science

So to correct your comment, "When a CREATION SCIENTIST tells you that science tells you a 200-year old rock is 4.5 million years old, I have a problem with the gross dishonesty of the creation scientist." You should too. Creationists lie over and over and over again about science because they see it as a threat to their beliefs.

Trying to "learn" about science from creationists is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore, and for exactly the same reasons.

Anti-science creationists are shameless propagandists and liars. They've been caught at it over and over again. By their fruits you shall know them.

169 posted on 07/19/2009 9:39:01 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels; DevNet; goodusername
And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.

The astute reader will note that I explained these so-called "anomalies" to BrandMichaels back in May, in this post, and even provided him with numerous links to further documentation, and yet now here he is pretending that he has never been made aware of how the creationists manage to dishonestly produce these "anomalies"... Why do you suppose that might be?

Oooh - and please don’t forget to explain how all the layering that represents just one volcanic eruption differs from all other layering worldwide where each layer represents much longer time spans.

It differs from *some* other volcanic eruptions, but not from "all other layering worldwide" -- not every volcanic eruption is completely identical to all others. Duh. Some are fast, some are slow, some are massive, some are on a small scale, some produce mostly ash, some produce huge amounts of lava, etc. Geologists study each historical flow to determine what particular kind it was and how long it took.

This is all taught in Geology 101 -- you know, the same junior-high level class where they teach that rock formation has been ongoing during the life of the planet, and is still taking place today, a very elementary and basic fact you appear to be totally unaware of, given your jaw-droppingly uninformed post #67 in this thread...

Look, if you're going to attempt to find a flaw in modern science, wouldn't it help if you bothered to *learn* some first? If perhaps you managed to miss basic science in school somehow, for pete's sake, there's still WIkipedia to fill in the huge gaps in your knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_rocks

I mean, at least try to learn as much as the average 14-year-old... That'd put you at least two years ahead of the average anti-evolutionist, in my long experience. The vast majority of them are grossly ignorant of the fields they attempt to attack; I am constantly having to explain even the easy stuff to them, introduce them to the kind of thing most grade-schoolers already know. The few others know better but are grossly dishonest (e.g. Austin).

Is anyone else getting dizzy from all this circular logic?

Just yours and that of a lot of other anti-science creationists.

170 posted on 07/19/2009 9:59:31 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks; Ichneumon
but at the end, if you are really open to exploring the possibilities, the evolutionary theory doesn’t quite cut it

I happened to go in almost exactly the opposite direction.

I was open to exploring the possibilities. This would have been somewhere around 1980 or '81, I think, I had read one or two creationist books. I wasn't really convinced to adopt a fully antievolution view, but I did think that the creationists probably had some objections that were sound. (In the posturing and presumption common to young men, I then smugly considered myself an "anti-Darwinian" evolution skeptic, even though I had only read about Darwin, and never Darwin himself, nor any really important scholar of Darwin.)

So, anyway, I got my hands on some more creationist material, read it very carefully, picked out some of what seemed to me the most promising arguments, and then headed to the library (actually a couple local university and medical libraries) where I spent about two or three weeks tracing all the footnotes out to original research sources.

Although it turned out to be a valuable and enlightening experience for a young man, at the time I was shocked by my results. Not a single one of the seemingly promising objections I investigated had a scintilla of validity. They were all based on multiple and egregious misrepresentations of fact and theory. (See Ichneumon's #169 for an absolutely representative example of the kind of thing I found, although IIRC I only looked at one or two examples of a young-earth argument. One, though, also involved xenoliths. In this case the creationist, Henry Morris, didn't do his own dating, but simply lied about what a mainstream scientist did, i.e. suppressing the fact that xenoliths were the intentional target of the dating and pretending it was the surrounding lava that was dated.)

So, ironically (as it seemed at the time) I came out of my in-depth encounter with creationist literature with a fairly high confidence, which I did previously possess, in the essential soundness of modern evolutionary theory, and a perception of antievolutionism as pathologically dishonest.

171 posted on 07/19/2009 12:16:42 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
The astute reader will note that I explained these so-called "anomalies" to BrandMichaels back in May, in this post, and even provided him with numerous links to further documentation, and yet now here he is pretending that he has never been made aware of how the creationists manage to dishonestly produce these "anomalies"...

Ah, yes. The self cleaning blank slate. The name of the perp is new to me, but otherwise the phenomena is only too familiar. Thanks for keep'n em honest (ar at lest limiting the mendacity) Ich!

172 posted on 07/19/2009 12:22:43 PM PDT by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks

“Actually, I was not talking so much about anti-evolution as about opening oneself to God.”

Evolution and all faiths, including Christianity, are perfectly compatible. Evolutionists are open to God. All but a few noisy, cultish Christians are open to evolution.


173 posted on 07/19/2009 4:00:29 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; Ichneumon; Ira_Louvin

Thanks for your reply goodusername (and you too Ira). I learned a few things from both. But too be honest I still see too many problems for evolution too be fact or beyond criticisms. I may again be showing naivete but why don’t new lava rocks establish a base point then for the ratio of father/daughter elements in the radio isotope dating?

Ichneumon - I won’t bother to reply directly to your post in 170 as it is too heavily sprinkled w/ half-truths and insults. I’ve yet too see any of the facts you present as ‘geology 101’ taught in public schools nor does the average 14 year old present same. Surely you’ve noticed there are quite a few things neither creation nor evolution can describe satisfactorily - any honest assessment does show this at least.

The point I failed to describe previously about the worldwide layering is that most of it has to have been laid down by flood rather than volcanic activity, just the same as most fossils show a quick burial which is the best explanation for polystrate fossils. And the best explanation for soft-celled fossils as well as DNA fragments and soft tissue remains is a young earth of no more than 10,000 years.

Also I have read both Ichy and Ira links and simply see too many problems sprinkled in again w/ the facts. Lastly, not too many FR folks consider wikipedia a good source nor talkorigins.


174 posted on 07/20/2009 5:29:29 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Our view of the facts do not agree. We will agree to disagree then.


175 posted on 07/20/2009 11:08:12 AM PDT by kingpins10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

“Thanks for your reply goodusername (and you too Ira). I learned a few things from both. But too be honest I still see too many problems for evolution too be fact or beyond criticisms.”

—That’s fine - I’m not so much into converting or proselytizing, I just like to help with aiding understanding, and learn things myself along the way.
Having knowledgeable skeptics is required if science is to progress.

“I may again be showing naivete but why don’t new lava rocks establish a base point then for the ratio of father/daughter elements in the radio isotope dating?”

—Each dating method is slightly different, but in the case of K-Ar dating, a fresh rock shouldn’t have argon because it’s a gas that can escape. And once hardened, new K can’t get in, and Ar can no longer escape. Thus once hardened, the rock is like an hourglass, with K at the top becoming Ar and flowing to the bottom, both trapped in the hourglass, and all one needs to do is look at the ratio of the two to see how much time has passed.
In essence, each time the rock melts, the sand is allowed to escape out of the bottom of the hourglass thereby resetting the timer to zero.
(Of course, there can be conditions that add complications to this dating method, but those conditions are easily identifiable and other methods are readily available).


176 posted on 07/20/2009 2:46:49 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; metmom

All of which may be irritating, but not nearly so irritating as whining about it. Get over your victimhood already. And your hypocrisy. (The most cursory examination of your own posts quickly demonstrates that you give as good as you get in all cited respects.)

Sorry to all. Usually I ignore both insults and whining, which I think by far the best policy since both the rude and the whiners (and especially the rude whiners) ultimately only crave attention. I’m probably foolish to think an occassional comment will do any good, so I’ll henceforth return to ignore mode.


Let’s see, I point out all the whining and rude insults coming form the Michael Newdow types and this makes me the one whining and insulting and rude?

Interesting.

OK, have it your way...Michael Newdow whines and rudely insults, I whine and rudely insult Newdow and all his liberal FReeper ilk...

and NOW, guess what....yup that’s right, you’re whining and be insulting and rude now.

So I guess that would make YOU the super-duper whiner and rude insulter!

Congratulations! (For whatever it was you were searching for, you know this one and only (HOEPFULLY) time!


177 posted on 07/22/2009 5:03:46 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; tpanther
Oh please. Like creationists haven’t used the courts to try and get their “science” taught in schools or in textbooks.

Try to get creation getting taught BACK into schools as it used to be for how many hundred years.

Sure creationists are trying to get creation BACK into schools after it was forced out by lawsuits from the evo side.

Evolution only has the monopoly these days and has for years. Poll after poll has indicated that the majority of the parents who pay the taxes and whose children attend the schools, want ID and creation taught alongside evolution. Only a few are asking for a monopoly and they're the using the lawsuits to have evolution only taught.

Of course people are going to fight back against tyranny. Control of the local schools belongs in the hands of the local community and if they want creation and ID taught in addition to evolution, there's simply no reason, in a free country, that that shouldn't happen.

So save your *Oh please* about creationists trying to get creation back into schools. What else would you expect after it had been strong armed out? That creationists are going to roll over and play dead while the evos use the judicial system to run roughshod over them? Think again.

If the judicial system is what the evos understand, then that's what is going to be used back.

178 posted on 07/22/2009 5:25:46 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: 05 Mustang GT Rocks; Stultis
How about taking a very risky step and reading “A case for a Creator” and “A case for Christ” by Lee Strobel and then getting back to me.

And if that's too much to ask, there's always the movie.

179 posted on 07/22/2009 5:27:37 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; 05 Mustang GT Rocks; metmom; GodGunsGuts; CottShop; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; ...
The fact that the earth has warmed slightly over the last century is pretty much settled. An "anthropomorphic" cause therefore is not at all settled, and is heavily debated WITHIN the scientific community.

The algoresque curricula simply LIE about the scientific status of this debate. In fact this is a very close analogue to creationism. algoresque global warming propaganda has been inserted into curricula by politically motivated activists rather than as the result of it's having actually prevailed within science. In the exact same way creationists and IDers use popular and political pressure tactics demanding the insertion of their views despite their failure as actual science.

Ohhhhh no you don't; the ultra-liberal no God, no intelligence, no design, no debate allowed in anything algore is on your side of this debate, not ours.

Along with Chrissy-Fit Matthews and his ilk spewing spittle on the lens with his "settled science" nosensical godless liberal rants about evolution...and this is where you're getting confused...algore exclaimed "the debate is over" Hissy fit "the science is settled".

By seeking to have antievolutionism represented in textbooks and currical on the basis of intellectual affirmative action, you're only validating the methods of econuts, leftists, gratuitously aggrieved ethnic groups, and other identity groups looking to have curricula shaped in their interest.

There's projection and then there's 'this takes the cake projectionism'. Congratulations for the most obvious disconnected projection I've seen in some time!

Uhhhh....NO. Evo-cutlists ARE the liberal left. The only way this so-called theory can stand at all (and forget on it's own two feet) is via lawsuits and shutting down debate and dis-honestly misrepresenting the actual facts and of course liberals bleating 'settled science' and 'the debate is over' nonsense.

But oh no sir...the NEA, ACLU and various other nutty liberals parrot the same insane tripe and demand the rot that is evolution be indoctrinated in public schools period. Ala algore and his 'debate is over' lunacy.

NO dissent, no debate, no questioning or examining the cult is allowed.

All intellligence and design is simply not allowed!

EPIC FAIL stultis, epic fail, and I'm not sure even most liberals will buy such obvious projection!

What's next, algore and Hissy-fit are bible-thumping evangelicals? GOOD GRIEF!

180 posted on 07/22/2009 5:53:57 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; 05 Mustang GT Rocks; tpanther
The most effective stance in opposing such crap is to insist on high, hard-nosed and uncompromising standards of intellectual and academic integrity in all subjects. This is the attitude conservative should take, but they can't do that if they're playing the same game as econuts and leftists.

And the only way that is going to occur is through the heavy hand of government regulation and that is NO conservative position to take. No one can call themselves conservative and advocate for that kind of hard line government control of anything.

That sort of advocacy for government control is exactly what earns the evos the label of liberal, whether you guys see it or care to admit it to yourselves or not.

Private schools and home schools do not have that kind of government regulation in what they teach and they consistently outperform the public school sector in every area, on standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores.

The public schools with their government enforced monopoly of evolution only have yet to demonstrate their academic advantage over the unregulated private schools and home schools.

You have nothing on which to base your contention that "high, hard-nosed and uncompromising standards of intellectual and academic integrity in all subjects" confers any advantage.

If you make contentions with absolutely no basis in fact like that, when all the evidence points in the other direction, why, then, should we take your word for it when you try to tell us things about science? By making statements like that about education in the presence of contrary data, you've demonstrated that your judgment is under question. If you can't get that right, why should we trust what you have to say in other areas?

181 posted on 07/22/2009 6:50:20 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; metmom
Oh please. Like creationists haven’t used the courts to try and get their “science” taught in schools or in textbooks.

Well DUH, we have to respond to all the myriad lawsuits from liberals knocking themselves over to remove God from our society in general so yeah...if liberals hi-jack the judicial system it doesn't leave normal people too much alternative!

And remember there was a time in this country when God was welcomed in science class and science in general.

(guess what I DO believe that a Creator was involved in the beginning of the Universe ).

Then why bend over backwards to exclude Him from His own creation???

182 posted on 07/22/2009 6:51:59 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Thanks for the ping!


183 posted on 07/22/2009 9:29:28 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Creation is RELIGION NOT SCIENCE. Period.

When you get Creation “back in the schools” will it be the Christian Bible version only, or will you fight to get the Chinese, African, Mayan, Hindu, etc etc etc Creation myths taught as well?


184 posted on 07/23/2009 4:16:54 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Well, if you don’t want everybody’s creation account taught, then don’t teach ANYBODY’S. Evolution included.

Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and atheist. Why should theirs get priority just because they think they have better evidence for it? That’s simply a matter of opinion.


185 posted on 07/23/2009 8:46:30 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Well, if you don’t want everybody’s creation account taught, then don’t teach ANYBODY’S. Evolution included.”

—Considering that the class is “science class”, why not just teach what the leading theories are among scientists? That’s how science progresses. People learn and understand what the theories are so they can be improved upon, replaced, or disproven.

“Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and atheist.”

—And the vast majority of Christian scientists, and probably most Christians period worldwide, (including likely most Christians in America, depending on what poll one believes).

“Why should theirs get priority just because they think they have better evidence for it? That’s simply a matter of opinion.”

—Imagine that - giving priority to a theory believed by the vast majority of scientists - in science class. Next people will start going to historians to decide what to teach in history class, and to mathematicians for what to teach in math class, etc.


186 posted on 07/23/2009 9:35:48 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and the atheist. It’s a no God, no intelligence, naturalistic creation account.

Secular humanists and atheists have no other option for an explanation of how the universe and life came into existence.

Just because some who call themselves Christians choose to believe it, doesn’t affect that at all. People are free to believe what they want.


187 posted on 07/23/2009 9:44:16 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Evolution is the creation account of the secular humanist and the atheist. It’s a no God, no intelligence, naturalistic creation account.”

—There’s nothing in the theory that says there’s no God or intelligence, and it’s believed by the vast majority of Christian scientists and probably most Christians worldwide, and the co-founder of Darwinism (Wallace) himself wasn’t an atheist. So what sense does it make to say it’s an atheist theory? It’s an utterly empty groundless claim.


188 posted on 07/23/2009 9:53:21 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No evolution is a scientific theory, thats the basic difference. When you can come up with a creation theory that has some basis in science, you can try and get it accepted and taught as such. Until then creation belongs in the classes on religion.


189 posted on 07/23/2009 3:17:20 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
No evolution is a scientific theory, thats the basic difference.

If origins is a religious issue, then teach origins and evolution in religion classes as well.

The ToE being labeled as a scientific theory is not enough justification to oppose the wishes of the majority of the parents and use the judiciary to strong arm the theory into a the position of being the only option taught in schools, no matter how much evidence you think that there is to support it.

190 posted on 07/23/2009 3:46:30 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Kozak; tpanther; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; Gordon Greene; ...
When you get Creation “back in the schools” will it be the Christian Bible version only, or will you fight to get the Chinese, African, Mayan, Hindu, etc etc etc Creation myths taught as well?

Think about it Einstein. If we're talking about getting creation *back in the public schools* then obviously it's the creation account from the Bible, or you don't know you're history very well.

Funny how when someone says they believe in creation, they're immediately crammed into the YEC, geocentrist, flat-earther, moon landing is a hoax box created by the evos, but when someone proposes having creation taught in public schools, all of a sudden, there's a bazillion brands of creationism to choose from.

Perhaps you can explain to me how this country was able to produce such a plethora of scientists and make such incredible strides in science and technology for all those years that creation was taught in schools across this nation. How was science able to make such great strides before the ToE was introduced and virtually all the scientists, who essentially laid the very foundations of modern science, believed the creation account of the Bible?

And show us how teaching evolution only in public schools has improved our science ranking and educational standing in the world.

191 posted on 07/23/2009 3:54:32 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
For more Creationists Answers to the DINO question
192 posted on 07/23/2009 3:57:42 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
It wouldn’t occur to you to actually contest the article and disprove it, now would it?

Seeing how the article puts forth no facts to support its claims, there is nothing to dispute. Just another ICR non-science bloat.

193 posted on 07/23/2009 3:59:57 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kingpins10
When science tells me a rock that is known to be 200 years old from a volcanic eruption is 4.5 million years old according to radiometric dating, I have a problem with that. No one can seem to explain this fact.

Where does science say that?

194 posted on 07/23/2009 4:00:41 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And show us how teaching evolution only in public schools has improved our science ranking and educational standing in the world.

And for comparison, let's look at the scientific and educational standing of countries that teach theistic creation.

195 posted on 07/23/2009 4:02:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
I don’t have any idea how old the earth is...what I DO know though is you sure as hell don’t either and no one gave you liberals the keys to science or appointed you gate-keepers of what is or isn’t acceptable.

Select one:

A. The earth is less than 10,000 years old
B. The earth is between 10K and 1 million years old
C. The earth is more than 1 million years old.

196 posted on 07/23/2009 4:04:26 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Let's NOT teach creation in schools at all. Not YEC, Mayan, Darwinism, neo-Darwinsim, OEC, Big Bang, Little Bang, No Bang at all, Etc.

But it's not creation being taught in the schools that the evolutionists (”there is no such thing as Darwinism, evolutionist!”,)find objectionable, it's any doctrine except their creation doctrine.

197 posted on 07/23/2009 4:18:31 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Let's NOT teach creation in schools at all. Not YEC, Mayan, Darwinism, neo-Darwinsim, OEC, Big Bang, Little Bang, No Bang at all, Etc.

Will we have to scrub geology, astrophysics, palentology, archaeology, etc. of any reference to a date prior to an actual observed event?

198 posted on 07/23/2009 4:23:53 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Look at homeschooling, which is by and large Christian.

Most of them teach evolution along with creation and ID, something the liberals and you evos want to deny public school children around the country.

SAT/ACT homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp

Standardized test scores homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp


199 posted on 07/23/2009 5:06:55 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
No, you just won't be able to in any way suggest Darwinism or more broadly, evolution has taken place in any way shape or form at any time or is in some way detectable by any means or is responsible for the material universe in any part.

But of course your personal beliefs are your affair so long as you don't mention them in front of a class.

If creation is not to be taught then let's get it out of the classroom now.

200 posted on 07/23/2009 5:51:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-227 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson