Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am idebted to a Creation Science colleague Mats Molén, who has researched the Horse Series.
It is now believed that the horse series comprises at least three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled 'Eohippus'. The 'Eohippus / Oligohippus Hyracotherium' appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals that are similar to tapirs.
Equally, supposedly “Early” horses have been preserved in strata from the same evolutionary age as several “later” horses.
Hyracotherium/Eohippus and Orohippus, for instance, appear in the fossil record at the same time as Epihippus. Mesohippus and Miohippus appear together with Merychippus and Parahippus. Almost all other horses (with a possible exception of one or two)—Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus and possibly also Miohippus—are represented at the same time during much of the period when they have been found as fossils.
The Horse Series therefore has just about as much scientific validity as that other great artistic creation of Evolutionism ... the Crocoduck!!!:eek::D:)
Yes, this would be Mats Molen the geologist. A man with no education in morphology, genetics, taxonomy etc. commenting on the evolution of Eohippus doesn't add anything to this debate. Especially not from a man who claims that the earth is 10,000 years old and that T. Rex was herbivorous.
I don't suppose that you'd care to actually define what a kind is and list some examples.Creation deals with the production of both the Universe and life - The Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution claims to do the same ... but here we find no answer to the fundamental question of how nothing could blow up to produce everything ... in any kind of 'bang' ... big or otherwise!!!.
Not this again. You shouldn't keep repeating the same arguments once they have been shown to be full of **** JC. As for the "how nothing could blow up to produce everything" comment, I have already asked you not to introduce any more strawmen. That is not what the big bang theory says and I don't know whether it's deliberate ignorance or simple misunderstanding that causes you to say that it does. My generosity in giving you the benefit of the doubt is wearing thin.You cannot have a physical effect without a cause ... its one of the 'pillars' of scientific investigation ... and this means that all physical effects must logiclly have an ultimate cause.
First off all, it's perfectly possible to have a physical effect without a cause.
Casimir Effect
Radioactive decay
Secondly, there are enough different scientific lines of argument on the go. Let's not bring Kalam into this.The Second Law applies to both 'open' and 'closed' systems ... and whether the energy is locally or remotely produced ... it must be harnessed by an intelligently designed system, if it is to reduce entropy locally.
Entropy will always increase when energy is dissipated in the absence of an intelligently designed system that is capable of capturing and utilising it.
Sometimes, the only appropriate response is ridicule.There is no 'shaking of the etch-a-sketch' ... once conceived, it is appointed unto man to die once ... and then the judgement.
Again, can we leave out your spurious religious claims until we've dealt with your spurious scientific ones.The Second Law ultimately applies to the entire universe.
Oh, no you don't. Are you working your way through a list of redundant creationist arguments, JC? First of all, while there is some debate about whether the universe can be considered an isolated system from a thermondynamical point of view, for the sake of argument, however, let's assume that the universe is an isolated system. The overall entropy of the universe tends to increase. The heat death of the universe is inevitable, no one is denying that. However, you are tacking on this requirement of uniformity where none exists. The overall entropy of the universe will increase but this does not mean that entropy everywhere always increases. It's perfectly possible to have a local entropy increase balanced by a decrease somewhere else.
Just stop now before we have to get into the maths of this and you really embarass yourself.0 -
-
On Transitional Forms
Since you seem intent on rehashing this long refuted creationist twaddle, JC, I thought that I'd add my two cents.
First of all since we started into this line of debate with T. Roseae, I thought that I'd start off with another amphibious tetrapod.
Ventastega
Ventastega was a tetrapod which lived in the late Devonian period c. 375 mya. It was a primarily aquatic tetrapod like Tiktaalik.
As for the fossil itself, here is a photograph of the fossil remains.
and here is how the pieces were mapped to reconstruct the skull:
The analysis of the cranial features as well as a detailed phylogenetic analysis allowed the researchers to place Ventastega into the phylogenetic tree as shown below:
Finally, since you are a scientist you can easily assess the original research here:
Ventastega curonica and the origins of tetrapod morphology
Evolution in the Devonian
The first tetrapod finds from the Devonian (Upper Famennian) of Latvia
Dinosaur-bird transition
The thing that you seem to misunderstand, JC, is that you're looking for an individual fossil that's an intermediate between two of your "kinds". The thing is though, there isn't one, there are lots and lots. Take the dinosaur-bird transition. Before I get specific about individual species, let's stay with some general facts.
First off, there are many well documented species that form a transitional spectrum between dinosaurs and birds including, but not limited to:- Eoraptor
- Herrerasaurus
- Ceratosaurus
- Allosaurus
- Compsognathus
- Sinosauropteryx
- Protarchaeopteryx
- Caudipteryx
- Velociraptor
- Sinovenator
- Beipiaosaurus
- Sinornithosaurus
- Microraptor
- Archaeopteryx
- Rahonavis
- Confuciusornis
- Sinornis
- Patagopteryx
- Hesperornis
- Apsaravis
- Ichthyornis
- Columba
(A) Ornitholestes
(B) Archaeopteryx
(C) Sinornis
(D) Chicken
There are other confirmation methods as well such as molecular biochemistry and genetics.
Now, before I move on to a specific example in this group, some of the research for you to digest:
Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution
The evolution of dinosaurs
Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution
Archaeopteryx
First off I thought that I would discuss the intermediate features of Archaeopteryx since that was your main beef with Tiktaalik.
Avian features
1. Opposable big toe - not found in any dinosaurs.
2. Feathers - kind of self-explanatory
3. Wishbone - two clavicles fused together
Reptilian features
1. Pubic shaft - The pubic shaft in archaeopteryx is elongated and plate-like, something not found in other archosaurs.
2. Neck - the neck connects to the skull from behind as in reptiles, not from below as in birds
3. Tail - Archaeopteryx has a long bony tail with no pygostyle.
Archaeopteryx is not as Duane Gish has commented, totally birdlike. In fact the list of reptilian features is a lot longer than its avian ones.
There are many more areas where the intermediate features become apparent such as muscle mass and wing flexibility, but since this post is long enough already I'm going to cut to the research:
Cranial morphology of Archaeopteryx: Evidence from the seventh skeleton
Structure and function of hindlimb feathers in Archaeopteryx Lithographica
Archaeopteryx feathers and bone chemistry fully revealed via synchrotron imaging
The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx
A short history of research on Archaeopteryx and its relationship with dinosaurs
Another point to be made here is that the evidence from individual fossils or groups thereof don't just add to our knowledge by themselves. The cumulative contribution of the fossil records also adds evidence. Take this for example:
We can see from the accumulated fossil record that the biodiversity of life increases through the geologic column. This is something that creationism has yet to provide an explanation for.
Creationism is an aporia, a road that leads nowhere. Even were its premises accepted, it does not further our knowledge of the natural world because the only answer it can ever give to a question is God just did it that way.
Now, JC, do you need to see more transitional fossils or shall I just get you a bucket of sand to stick your head in instead?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
... its gill structure is different just like the gill structures of flatfish are different.Actually it doesn't. For a start it lacks parts of the gill structure that other fishes have, IE it has a neck more like amphibians.
The whole of Evolution is also a bit of a 'windup' as well!!!:)Well TBH I was on a windup there to see how quick you'd spot it. Mr. Boo got there before me. They're fishes alright, but very different to the flatfish you used as an exampe or other bony fishes.
Another very significant difference between men and animals.Splitting my sides here Ted. Actually why do babies crawl? Surely a god would have designed us to be bipedal from shortly after birth. Most mammals can walk soon after birth. Not being able to makes us vulnerable. We're more like embryos for a year after birth to allow for that big brain to grow. Not a very clever design either.
All because of a common designer.Why do we have 5 digits on each foot? Hardly need all five for bipedal locomotion. A dog can out pace a human with only four digits hitting the ground(the fifth being vestigial). A horse makes do with just one. Yet all have the same basic five digit arrangement. Birds and bats ditto, though the former are fused, but still have five. Same again for cetaceans(the odd dolphin has been spotted with ill formed hind limbs. Even some snakes can have the remains of their five digits buried in their bodies. All because of a common ancestor.
Current Human heights range from over 8 feet down to less than 3 feet.The evidence you refuse to acknowledge. The fossil record and direct observation today.
Not even close. Sure there are holes in any theory. The big difference is that evolutionary theory admits these holes or gaps were they exist and seek to fill them with evidence. Creationists never admit to any gaps and there are so many gaps you could ride a blue whale through them with all the evidence of it's land based past with it. If one had a scales of evidence science trumps theology in a big way. As it should do. Theology should have no place in science and vice versa
So he was the one who planted the fossils to confuse us? Or was that your god? Neither makes any sense. If creationism was true then why would your god leave evidence of evolution. Hell our own evolution as a species. Homo Erectus is not us. Looks very like us, but you'd pick him or her out of a crowd as being very different, so what happened to them? Why are they not around today. Ditto for Neandertals. No doubt something like fallen angels or giants in the earth or some such nonsense. The latter a hard sell as most were under 5ft 5.
And giant skeletons have been discovered on every continent ... and if you don't believe the Bible, perhaps you'll believe the Discovery Channel.
You are correct that the devil is all talk ... and no ulltimate power.BTW as an aside you do realise that Lucifer/The devil evolved as a character in the story? In the very early torah/old testament god is both light and dark. The yin and yang(plus he has other gods around him). There's good evidence that the early peoples who we would describe as Jews believed god had a wife. Mrs Jehovah. The chatty snake in Eden wasn't called the devil, that reinterpretation came much later. Even naming the devil as Lucifer is not very clear. Early on he was an adversarial to mankind type. One who tested humanity and could be a judge of them. Of course god was at that stuff too, so they were sharing duties. Satan/devil wasn't just one entity, it was many, both angel and human. In the original Hebrew there is no word for singular "devil", it's always the plural "devils". The hebrew word itself comes from the word shaggy related to goats. Given the surrounding religions sacrificed goats and to goats, they were basically saying all other gods were lower entities. From Moses tales where he's not mentioned at all and the book of Job he's not mentioned at all. In Job's case he's against Job, not God. Again with the testing. What we see here is evolution from a polytheistic set of notions to a monotheistic one where stories are bent to fit. We also see this in Christianity and in Islam. The latter really ran with the old testament and jazzed up the characters. It's like Judaism 2.0. Christianity would likely have gone a similar way, but it ran into the Greeks and Romans and ceased to be a "pure" Jewish faith. Hence Christians don't circumcise their kids, nor have any kosher/non kosher Halal/ haram food. Both those notions did not go down well with the Greek Roman world. The devil as a thing is largely a Christian/Muslim construct.
... but the ones who believe that they are 'riding on the back of a turtle' ... i.e. directly descended from reptiles ... are Evolutionists ... and not Creationists!!!:)As for creationism, faith I can actually understand and if someone wants to believe the universe is floating on the back of a giant turtle in the void I say let them at it, but to argue scientifically and against the evidence of our own eyes that said turtle exists is beyond daft.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_-e_iSFE6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P42j9XltygThis discussion has been closed.
Advertisement