The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The article on the Neanderthal DNA is also quite interesting at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

It confirms that “Neanderthals came from a very small ancestral population” (shades of the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam here!!!).

…….and it also confirms that “this stocky, muscular human species was our closest evolutionary relative” – not very surprising in view of the fact that the Neanderthals were actually FULLY Human!!!!:eek:

Writing in Nature journal, Professor Svante Paabo and colleagues describe how they recovered more than one million base-pairs - the building blocks of DNA - by directly reading the genetic sequence.
Sounds like a very FRESH Neanderthal sample to me!!!!:D

Did you read the part where it said "mtDNA has confirmed that Neanderthals were indeed different from us"?
And dating from the genes indicates them to be 500,000 years old, which matches the radioactive dating. Two dating methods give the same result.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

JC wrote:

The article on the Neanderthal DNA is also quite interesting at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

It confirms that “Neanderthals came from a very small ancestral population” (shades of the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam here!!!).

…….and it also confirms that “this stocky, muscular human species was our closest evolutionary relative” – not very surprising in view of the fact that the Neanderthals were actually FULLY Human!!!!

Writing in Nature journal, Professor Svante Paabo and colleagues describe how they recovered more than one million base-pairs - the building blocks of DNA - by directly reading the genetic sequence.
Sounds like a very FRESH Neanderthal sample to me!!!!

Did you read the part where it said "mtDNA has confirmed that Neanderthals were indeed different from us"?
And dating from the genes indicates them to be 500,000 years old, which matches the radioactive dating. Two dating methods give the same result.

Personally, the thing I find quite revolting about this is the way it entirely ignores the immense amount of effort and intelligence that went into sequencing Neanderthal DNA - all of which collapses, in JC's delicate hands, to the idea that it means the specimens must be "fresh".

disgusted,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Personally, the thing I find quite revolting about this is the way it entirely ignores the immense amount of effort and intelligence that went into sequencing Neanderthal DNA - all of which collapses, in JC's delicate hands, to the idea that it means the specimens must be "fresh".

disgusted,
Scofflaw

I agree, this I find far worse than the actual rejection of any specific finding. The ignorance of the effort put into the tiniest aspects of these results.

From personal experience I've been reading up on the research I hope to be doing next year. Now the area I'm interested in is trans-niche, there is maybe about eight physicists who have looked into it in the course of the last twenty years. (The subject is only twenty years old) Even then only one has it as his "main research topic". All I expected to find was an article or two on it, instead I found four books on average about 500 pages long.

Now that is for some obscure topic in one sub-sub-area of mathematical physics. I can't imagine what kind of literature there is on "DNA in late hominids", which itself is backed up by the general literature on DNA sequencing in computational biology and late hominids in anthropology. Combined with the practical ingenuity in carrying it out. (Extraction of DNA, coding the folding scripts.....)
To ignore all of that and compress it to the word "fresh" is something that boggles my mind and demonstrates he couldn't be a scientist.

J C

Son Goku
why write stuff that is obviously incorrect? (Like dinosaurs are mammals) Stuff we'll instantly pick up on.

There may be plenty of ‘huffing and puffing’ – but no proof is forthcoming that I am wrong about some of the large Dinosaurs being Mammals!!!:D :rolleyes:

Please ‘pick up on’ – and answering my question:-
“What hairy, warm-blooded, close-limbed, quadrupeds do you know of that AREN’T Mammals?”:D


Son Goku
the fact that you modified wikipedia entries as your own work is obvious, yet wolfsbane seemed to suggest we were being pedants for pointing this out.

I have never claimed that ALL of the material I use is my own – we ALL work ‘on the shoulders of giants’ and use material from diverse sources.
I have NEVER denied that the specific material to which you refer, was from Wikipedia and Britannica and representative of the current scientific position. Indeed that was the REASON that I specifically used this material - because it was fully in line with the conventional scientific position (rather than any interpretation of my own)!!!

As for ‘modification’ – I am obviously free to add my views on the validity of the current scientific position on any issue – and you are free to disagree with me, if you so wish!!!:cool:


Son Goku
You could say the most ridiculous things and it gets accepted as "kicking evolutionist backside".

I am NOT in the business of ‘kicking anybodies backside’ – merely proclaiming the TRUTH with love and compassion!!!;)


Son Goku
I just don't get it. How can you be such a fountain of nonsense and people think it's logical and cohesive?

Perhaps, it is because I’m NOT a ‘fountain of nonsense’ and my comments ARE ‘logical and cohesive’!!!!:eek:

…….it may also be because nobody has successfully challenged ANY of my proofs of the invalidity of Evolution or the validity of Creation – and we are now over 4,000 posts into this debate!!!!:D

J C

Son Goku

Did you read the part where it said "mtDNA has confirmed that Neanderthals were indeed different from us"?
And dating from the genes indicates them to be 500,000 years old, which matches the radioactive dating. Two dating methods give the same result.

…….and did you read the part that said “this stocky, muscular human species was our closest evolutionary relative” ??

……….and did you see the picture of the Human Being, in the same article?:D

……….have a look at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

– none of this is surprising in view of the fact that the Neanderthals were actually FULLY Human!!!!

As for the dates, all that has happened is that the ‘gene clock’ and the ‘radioactive clock’ is calibrated using Evolutionist assumptions – so it’s not surprising that they all agree!!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
Personally, the thing I find quite revolting about this is the way it entirely ignores the immense amount of effort and intelligence that went into sequencing Neanderthal DNA - all of which collapses, in JC's delicate hands, to the idea that it means the specimens must be "fresh".

I don’t deny that great effort went into the sequencing of a sample that would seem to be several thousand years old, and I admire and salute the energy and ingenuity that was used in doing so.

My point is that the reason why such sequencing was possible AT ALL is because the Neanderthal sample certainly WASN’T 500,000 years old – as the observed rates of decay would rule out ANY intact DNA sequences at such an inordinate age!!!:cool:

pH

J C wrote:

Please ‘pick up on’ – and answering my question:-
“What hairy, warm-blooded, close-limbed, quadrupeds do you know of that AREN’T Mammals?”

Ummm ... Cynodonts?



Was there a prize?

J C

pH wrote:

Ummm ... Cynodonts?



Was there a prize?

Ah yes, the good old Cynodont - it looked like a Mammal and walked like a Mammal and had the teeth and braincase of a Mammal - do you know what pH, it WAS a Mammal!!!!!:eek:

Could you identify a LIVING warm-blooded, hairy, quadruped (that we all can fully examine) that ISN'T a Mammal?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Ah yes, the good old Cynodont - it looked like a Mammal and walked like a Mammal and had the teeth and braincase of a Mammal - do you know what pH, it WAS a Mammal!!!!!:eek:

Could you identify a LIVING warm-blooded, hairy, quadruped (that we all can fully examine) that ISN'T a Mammal?

Its bone structure was reptilian, as was its cranial arrangement. Computer Simulations and the structure of its knee joints show it didn't walk like a mammal.

Yet another comment plucked out of thin air.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Computer Simulations and the structure of its knee joints show it didn't walk like a mammal.

What DID it do then - 'walk on the wild side' - or something???:D :eek:

The Cynodont looks like a 'glorified Rat' with a pointy tail to me!!!:D

Another 'missing link' that isn't a link at all!!!:D

BTW this thread is far and away the most posted-to thread on the Boards with 4,300 posts versus the next highest with a puny 1,708 posts over on the Politics Forum.

Who says that Christianity isn't interesting and the 'origins question' compelling????

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Ah yes, the good old Cynodont - it looked like a Mammal and walked like a Mammal and had the teeth and braincase of a Mammal - do you know what pH, it WAS a Mammal!!!!!:eek:

Emphasis mine:

"The term "cynodont" refers to a broad group of extinct mammal-like reptiles, the Cynodontia. These include the direct ancestors of mammals. In the Petrified Forest, Arizona area only two molar teeth of a large cynodont have ever been found. This animal has been modelled on fossils of another cynodont found in South Africa called Thrinaxodon (thrin-AX-oh-don).

Thrinaxodon lived a little earlier and was about the size of a cat. The teeth from the Petrified Forest were similar to Thrinaxodon's but suggested a much larger animal. Thrinaxodon's teeth were varied with canines, incisors and molars which are mammalian features. Small holes in the bone of the snout suggest whiskers. The presence of whiskers implies body hair and suggests cynodont was warm blooded.

Being half reptile and half mammal the cynodonts represent the missing link between these two groups. The cynodont and Placerias were distant relatives but the cynodont was more mammal-like."

...but I'm sure you prefer the black and white version.

JC wrote:

Could you identify a LIVING warm-blooded, hairy, quadruped (that we all can fully examine) that ISN'T a Mammal?

Hmm. Could you show us the ancestral forms of Kinds?

dismissively,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Personally, the thing I find quite revolting about this is the way it entirely ignores the immense amount of effort and intelligence that went into sequencing Neanderthal DNA - all of which collapses, in JC's delicate hands, to the idea that it means the specimens must be "fresh".

I don’t deny that great effort went into the sequencing of a sample that would seem to be several thousand years old, and I admire and salute the energy and ingenuity that was used in doing so.

My point is that the reason why such sequencing was possible AT ALL is because the Neanderthal sample certainly WASN’T 500,000 years old – as the observed rates of decay would rule out ANY intact DNA sequences at such an inordinate age!!!:cool:

Sigh. There weren't any fully intact DNA sequences. Also, observed rates of decay are asymptotic (look it up if you need to).

regards,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

The Cynodont looks like a 'glorified Rat' with a pointy tail to me!!!:D

So all this nonsense about teeth and jaw structure that is used in classification should be done away with and replaced with the far more scientific "show it to J C and see if he thinks it looks like a rat" classification technique.

BTW this thread is far and away the most posted-to thread on the Boards with 4,300 posts versus the next highest with a puny 1,708 posts over on the Politics Forum.

Who says that Christianity isn't interesting and the 'origins question' compelling????

Sadly you can't even get that right, people are far more interested in "posting something about the previous poster (limericks optional)" than this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246970

J C

Scofflaw
"The term "cynodont" refers to a broad group of extinct mammal-like reptiles, the Cynodontia……………………..

……………….In the Petrified Forest, Arizona area only two molar teeth of a large cynodont have ever been found……………….

……………..Being half reptile and half mammal the cynodonts represent the missing link between these two groups.

OK, so “in the Petrified Forest, Arizona area only two molar teeth of a large cynodont have ever been found”.

…….so presumably, all this particular Cynodont ever wanted for Christmas was his two back teeth!!!!:D

Seriously though, making taxonomic decisions about what an animal looked like on basis of two teeth is a bit risky don’t you think??

…….calling it a ‘missing link’ on the basis of two teeth reminds me of the ‘Nebraska Man missing link’ that was identified on the basis of “an ape-like tooth” – that turned out to belong to a PIG!!!:D
Read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man


Scofflaw
...but I'm sure you prefer the black and white version.

No, I like a bit of COLOUR myself!!!!:D


Originally Posted by JC
Could you identify a LIVING warm-blooded, hairy, quadruped (that we all can fully examine) that ISN'T a Mammal?

Scofflaw
Hmm. Could you show us the ancestral forms of Kinds?

So I am correct then, that ALL warm-blooded, hairy, quadrupeds are MAMMALS!!!!:eek:

My question was one of Classification – and yours is one of forensics – but I will answer it nonetheless!!!

A good example of ‘an ancestral form of a Created Kind’ would be your good self, Scofflaw – ALL Human Beings are an Original Created Kind!!!!:cool:


BTW, did you also know that Evolutionists haven’t a clue about SEX???!!:D
The origins of the male and female genders are still very much a mystery to them.

For example, an article in New Scientist (180/2424:44-47,6 December 2003) said “the (origin of sex) is one of the most intractable problems in (Evolutionary) Biology. Over 30 different theories have been suggested for solving it ……but most have little evidence to support them and none has yet provided a satisfactory answer”

So there you have it – Evolutionists have as many IDEAS about sex as the ‘Karma Sutra’ – but NONE of them actually work!!!:eek:

In theory, there may be no difference between Evolutionists and Creationists, on sex -- but in practice, there IS!!!!!!

……and so, if you want a ‘Sexpert’ – consult a Creation Scientist!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw

Sigh. There weren't any fully intact DNA sequences.

Can I quote from the article at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

“Writing in Nature journal, Professor Svante Paabo and colleagues describe how they recovered more than one million base-pairs - the building blocks of DNA - by directly reading the genetic sequence. “


pH
So all this nonsense about teeth and jaw structure that is used in classification should be done away with and replaced with the far more scientific "show it to J C and see if he thinks it looks like a rat" classification technique.

Not quite, but if you are going to classify something based on one or two teeth, please show me the animal first - and I will tell you what it is - by looking at the rest of the animal!!!!

Classifying an animal on the basis of dentition can help differentiate between the dietary habits of different Mammals. However, it is a pretty ineffective way of definitively identifying a Mammal in the first place!!!:D

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

…….calling it a ‘missing link’ on the basis of two teeth reminds me of the ‘Nebraska Man missing link’ that was identified on the basis of “an ape-like tooth” – that turned out to belong to a PIG!!!:D
Read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

... I am genuinely dumbfounded. I mean I know you contradict yourself quite often but this absolutely astounds me.

J C wrote:

Now would you tell me exactly where Eanthropus and Hesperopithecus now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview – even though they were originally claimed to be ‘missing links’???

You've already claimed that Nebraska man (aka hesperopithecus) was something which the theory of evolution couldn't explain, you then TROLLED me when I pointed the fact that he was a pig out to you, now you say this?

This wouldn't, in truth, be so inexplicable had you not responded to me with some inane bull****.

You're a serious asshat. Grow up.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Seriously though, making taxonomic decisions about what an animal looked like on basis of two teeth is a bit risky don’t you think??

Er, if that is "risky" then what is making a judgement about entire species developing overnight from massive destructive mutations of their genetic code which happen in tandum through the entire population at the same time, a process that has never been observed in nature or in fossil records or even has ever been put forward an explination of how it could actually happen and which contradicts every biological experiment or research done in the last 100 years, a process which has mysterious just stopped happening everywhere just before the time that people started looking at these things, and which is based solely on a specific reading of a specific religous text.

Bit more "risky" don't you say JC :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
"The term "cynodont" refers to a broad group of extinct mammal-like reptiles, the Cynodontia……………………..

……………….In the Petrified Forest, Arizona area only two molar teeth of a large cynodont have ever been found……………….

……………..Being half reptile and half mammal the cynodonts represent the missing link between these two groups.

OK, so “in the Petrified Forest, Arizona area only two molar teeth of a large cynodont have ever been found”.

…….so presumably, all this particular Cynodont ever wanted for Christmas was his two back teeth!!!!:D

Seriously though, making taxonomic decisions about what an animal looked like on basis of two teeth is a bit risky don’t you think??

Surely, JC, your thinking is not so selective as to quibble with the cynodont's transitional status on the basis that you incorrectly believe it to be only represented by a couple of teeth - but use it as an example of hairy dinosaurs anyway? Wouldn't that be rather intellectually dishonest - which as a scientist I'm sure you wouldn't be?

Anyway, there are, as I'm sure you'll know by the time you finish reading this, rather a lot of cynodont fossils - sufficient to draw up distribution maps. The cynodont's transitional status does not rest on these two teeth - if it did, how on earth would we know it was hairy?

JC wrote:

…….calling it a ‘missing link’ on the basis of two teeth reminds me of the ‘Nebraska Man missing link’ that was identified on the basis of “an ape-like tooth” – that turned out to belong to a PIG!!!:D
Read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

Funny how all the Creationist chestnuts are the old chestnuts, eh JC? Let's just quote from the page you reference (do you actually read them?):

Wikipedia wrote:

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii never achieved general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted within five years of its discovery, this episode has been seized upon by the creationist movement as an example of the scientific errors which they allege undermines the credibility of palaeontology and hominid evolution.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
...but I'm sure you prefer the black and white version.

No, I like a bit of COLOUR myself!!!!:D

I wonder do you yourself even know what you intend by your remark?

JC wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
Could you identify a LIVING warm-blooded, hairy, quadruped (that we all can fully examine) that ISN'T a Mammal?

Scofflaw
Hmm. Could you show us the ancestral forms of Kinds?

So I am correct then, that ALL warm-blooded, hairy, quadrupeds are MAMMALS!!!!:eek:

All living examples are currently classified as part of the class Mammalia, although there is a body of opinion that holds that the Monotremes (echidna, platypus) should be classified as mammal-like reptiles.

JC wrote:

My question was one of Classification – and yours is one of forensics – but I will answer it nonetheless!!!

In the forensic (palaeontological) sense, of course, all possibly-endothermic hairy quadrupeds are not classified as mammals.

JC wrote:

A good example of ‘an ancestral form of a Created Kind’ would be your good self, Scofflaw – ALL Human Beings are an Original Created Kind!!!!:cool:

Really? How come we don't live 900 years then? You've repeatedly said that even humans represent a degenerate form as a result of the Fall - where in the fossil record, then, or even the mummified record, are our less degenerate ancestors?

JC wrote:

BTW, did you also know that Evolutionists haven’t a clue about SEX???!!:D

I'd consider that offensive (were it not for the source!). I've managed to breed, thanks - and I believe in general I have delivered satisfaction.

JC wrote:

The origins of the male and female genders are still very much a mystery to them.

Oh! You were being funny. I see.

JC wrote:

For example, an article in New Scientist (180/2424:44-47,6 December 2003) said “the (origin of sex) is one of the most intractable problems in (Evolutionary) Biology. Over 30 different theories have been suggested for solving it ……but most have little evidence to support them and none has yet provided a satisfactory answer”

Again, I am mystified. This is a problem for evolution, but not, apparently, for Baraminology? You're aware, perhaps, that we are trying to explain observations rather than dictating reality - so currently open questions are just that - currently open questions.

JC wrote:

So there you have it – Evolutionists have as many IDEAS about sex as the ‘Karma Sutra’ – but NONE of them actually work!!!:eek:

In theory, there may be no difference between Evolutionists and Creationists, on sex -- but in practice, there IS!!!!!!

……and so, if you want a ‘Sexpert’ – consult a Creation Scientist!!!!:eek:

I am forced to decline your generous offer.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw

Sigh. There weren't any fully intact DNA sequences.

Can I quote from the article at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm

“Writing in Nature journal, Professor Svante Paabo and colleagues describe how they recovered more than one million base-pairs - the building blocks of DNA - by directly reading the genetic sequence. “

Of course you can...however, as so often with your quotes, the above does not mean what you take it to mean, because, as so often, you have not looked any further than a phrase that apparently agrees with you. Allow me to correct part of your misunderstanding:

The genome of Neanderthal is not easy to decode because the available samples are few and far between, and degraded through thousands and thousands of years. This is less of a hindrance to Paabo than you would expect. His partnership with 454 Life Sciences provides him with sequencing equipment ideally suited for the job. The equipment works on efficiently sequencing small segments of DNA, no more than a few hundred base pairs long. Neanderthal DNA fragments have only a hundred or so pairs remaining in sequence after all these years. This length is ideal for the 454 Life Sciences machines. By sequencing many fragments, each sequence can be “plugged into” the bigger framework of the very similar human genome based upon known references in the chain.

I wouldn't rely on the BBC for technical information, unless you are prepared to put a little time into checking they are correct. The DNA fragments that have been sequenced are just that - fragments.

40,000-100,000 years is as far back as we have been able to go with DNA, and the specimens used in these cases (Neanderthal, Mammoth) have been from very cold regions. Amber preserves DNA for much longer, but we don't get dinosaurs preserved in amber very often...

JC wrote:

pH
So all this nonsense about teeth and jaw structure that is used in classification should be done away with and replaced with the far more scientific "show it to J C and see if he thinks it looks like a rat" classification technique.

Not quite, but if you are going to classify something based on one or two teeth, please show me the animal first - and I will tell you what it is - by looking at the rest of the animal!!!!

Classifying an animal on the basis of dentition can help differentiate between the dietary habits of different Mammals. However, it is a pretty ineffective way of definitively identifying a Mammal in the first place!!!:D

Interesting - but it seems that Creationists are able to do so!

On June 15, 1987, Carl Baugh, the leading proponent of widely debunked Texas "mantrack" claims, found a fossil tooth near some dinosaur tracks at his Paluxy River excavation site near Glen Rose, Texas, southwest of Fort Worth. He immediately proclaimed the tooth human and even named its former owner "Little David" ("Creation Evidences from the Paluxy" [CEP], 1987; Hastings 1987a, b; 1988), and some creationists continue to tout this "human" fossil today.

In fact, mammalian teeth are distinctive, and it is a perfectly normal way of definitively identifying mammals, and retiles, and fish, and so on, in the skeletal and fossil records. Your ignorance is, as usual, impressive - it is worth bearing in mind, though, that the entirety of human knowledge is not actually represented by your knowledge - although the reverse is necessarily true, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Diogenes wrote:

Oh I wish boards had a poster of the year award.

Scofflaw your wit is drier than January in the Kalahari, and your composure and intelligence in the face of monumental stupidity and ignorance is staggering.

Well, I'd like to thank JC, first and foremost.

flattered,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Gosh. you wind down a little for Christmas, and the stuff just builds up...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Well, "to name the only two areas of research" would be more accurate.

Creation Scientists operate across the ENTIRE spectrum of modern science from Astrophysics to Zoology and from Molecular Biology to Geology and Baraminology!!!:cool:

Er, no - all but Baraminology are part of mainstream science. They may have "Creation Scientists" working in them, but they are not fields of "Creation Science" per se, which Baraminology is (also Flood Geology).

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.…….because, if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question is what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this.

Indeed, the fact that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution

Scofflaw
You see that first paragraph, where you have "if", as in "if very large..."? Now, look at your second paragraph - no "if", but a sudden assumption that what was proposed in the first paragraph has magically become true in the intervening whitespace.

My ‘if’ in the first paragraph DIDN’T refer to the FACT that large mammal Dinosaurs existed – the ‘if’ referred to the invalid Evolutionist claim that these Dinosaurs existed supposedly 300 million years ago!!!

……and here is the thing – WHY did many scientists believe that these Dinosaurs were lizards, when even a cursory examination of their anatomies would show them to be four-legged, close-limbed, hair-follicled, warm-blooded Mammals???!!!

That would be on account of the fact that only a tiny handful of dinosaur fossils preserve anything that is interpretable as hair. There are, for example, no "hairy" stegosaurus fossils, or hairy T.Rex's. Then there's the problem that the vast majority of dinosaurs didn't walk like mammals, or even have their legs articulated in a way that would allow them to do so. Finally, the majority of dinosaurs appear to have been cold-blooded.

By the way, is it a little indelicate to point out that you are confusing "warm-blooded" and "endothermic" - a junior school mistake, of course, which you would hardly be making?

JC wrote:

…….equally, WHY did many scientists believe that these Dinosaurs were alive 300 million years ago when they were obviously alive in recent historic time as proven by the articulating limbs and DNA containing blood-cells found in some Dinosaur fossils???

Because that's a personal fantasy of yours, rather than reality. There are well-preserved structures in the bones, if you reread the accounts, or the scientific papers, or anything not from the National Enquirer:

"While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues."

p349, Schweitzer, et al., "Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex" (1997C)

How did you get from "some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues" (true) to "articulating limbs and DNA containing blood-cells" (false)? Did you have to click your heels together three times, or was wishing sufficient by itself?

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
That's the sort of thing that makes me laugh - a complete inability to tell fact from fiction

Could I suggest that it is the Evolutionists who have the difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction.:eek:

Hence (*HTF) in the original. Short for "Hostage To Fortune".

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
1. Evolution does not contain any notion of being "gradual and upwards" - it is thought to be punctuated rather than gradual, and contains no sense of "up".

Fair enough, this definition of 'Evolution' would be accepted as valid by a Creation Scientist, who knows that post-Creation ‘Devolution’ was ‘horizontal’ or ‘downwards’ and involved rapid punctuated Speciation.
However, if you are an Evolutionist who believes that ‘Evolution’ accounts for the supposed spontaneous UPWARDS transition from ‘Muck to Man’ and all points in between your admission that “Evolution does not contain any notion of being "gradual and upwards"” is actually a very profound admission.

The Tao says: when something lacks an "up" direction, it also lacks a "down" direction - lacking both of these, "horizontal" has no meaning.

JC wrote:

Indeed I would go so far as to say that it is an acceptance that gradual ‘Darwinian Evolution’ from primordial chemicals to Man is scientifically invalid.:eek:

I'm sure you would. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it would be characteristic of you to do so. I'm never sure whether SINAD or SNR is the better measure, though.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
2. The reason the dinosaurs were assumed originally to be reptiles was because they looked like reptiles (at the time palaeontology was dominated by a now-discarded paradigm whose name I will not mention out of politeness). I attended my first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture about 20 years ago now.

3. Classifying dinosaurs as Reptilia is not the same as calling them reptiles.

OK, so I’ll take this as an acceptance by you that some of the large Dinosaurs were MAMMALS!!:D

Why? Did you perhaps mistake my pointing out your confusion of classification terminology with a statement that classification itself is somehow invalid? One giant leap for logic, one small step for JC...

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
4. You may want to read this, which suggests that dinosaurs were not in fact endothermic, but that the bigger ones simply lost heat so slowly they were effectively warm-blooded.

…..and how did the largest Dinosaurs GAIN heat – if they weren’t endothermic?

You see, here is the thing – there is a maximum size that all cold-blooded creatures can grow to, in order to efficiently acquire enough heat from the environment – and it is limited by their surface to volume ratio.
All smaller creatures have high surface to volume ratios, and larger reptiles use flattened body profiles, frills and ridges to increase their surface to volume ratios.
However, the largest Dinosars, like the Brachiosaurus had very large, smooth and rotund body profiles – with a consequent very SMALL surface to volume ratio – and therefore an inability to absorb sufficient heat from the environment - so they had to be warm-blooded, as a result!!!!.:eek:

Cellular metabolism generates heat. Big animals with small surface areas lose heat more slowly. You may find this diagram useful:



It's a plot of crocodile and dinosaur body temperatures against log of body mass. This sort of thing is quite common in science. (*htf)

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
5. The question "where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this?" demonstrates an ignorance so profound as to induce mild hysteria, considering your claims to reject evolution on the basis of understanding and evidence.

6. Mammals are in any case known to be coterminous with the dinosaurs. I am rather surprised you didn't know this, but I am also kindly, so I will throw you some information that suits what you are trying to pull here rather better than your current ludicrous claims:

Both Mammals and Man were co-existent with Dinosaurs!!!

Oh? Can you perhaps provide some evidence? Try not to use anything already debunked.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
So you see, there is no need for you to claim that the dinosaurs were actually mammals in order to have large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Instead I give you (ta-da!) real large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Some of them even ate dinosaurs...[/I][/B]

I am fully aware of the latest findings that LARGE Mammals lived alongside and actually ate Dinosaurs !!

But, I am going further, and pointing to the fact that that some of the LARGEST Dinosaurs were THEMSELVES Mammals.

I am also pointing to the fact that because large mammal Dinosaurs existed, this completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution ‘from reptilia to mammalia’ over supposedly the past 300 million years!!!!!!

This: "entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution" doesn't exist. If you look back up the page a couple of paragraphs (you may either raise your head or rotate your eyeballs) you will see where I have already said this, and you have agreed with me (albeit for entirely the wrong reasons).

Please try not to contradict yourself too obviously within the same post. It lowers the tone.

JC wrote:

So rather than tiny Shrews being the only Mammals present during the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’ – the largest Dinosaurs were themselves large MAMMALS!!!!

As I have said, this runs a ‘horse and four’ through the entire thesis of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’!!!!:)

You don't get this evolution thing at all, do you? No-one makes the claims you are attacking here, except yourself....and if you want to do that kind of thing, it is usually done in private.

JC wrote:

Robin
'Science' magazine has published its list of the ten most important advances of 2006. An old thread favorite has turned up at number seven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm (Hybrid speciation demonstrated in the lab)

You’re doing my work for me, Robin!!!!!:)

Science magazine has just published a report of speciation in Butterflies – actually an example of instantaneous speciation in the Animal Kingdom, that matches the ‘Triangle of U’ Speciation within the Plant Kingdom!!!!

It again shows the mechanism of rapid Speciation in action, within Created Kinds, as predicted by the Creation Science Model of Devolutionary post-Creation Speciation !!!!:cool:

The CSMDPCS, for short. Hmm. It should really be CSMDPCRS for Rapid Speciation, though. I suppose you could refer to it, casually, as the DPCRS Model, though. Of course, it's only a model.

JC wrote:

Certainly not. Many creatures are BOTH tightly specified AND capable of the pre-ordained Devolution of their genomes.
In other words Critical Amino Acid Sequences exist – which produce the tightly specified protein structures that are observed to be required in living processes and instantaneous speciation is also observed to produce new plant and animal species RAPIDLY.

It’s analogous to an intelligently designed and tightly specified computer Operating System being able to roll out enormous varieties and combinations of pre-programmed screen saver and desktop designs – but if anybody decided to make random changes to the OS, the computer would rapidly crash!!!!!
So intelligently designed life and computers are BOTH capable of rapidly producing variety – but within very tightly specified parameters!!!
:eek:

I'm not sure this would even pass a spam filter.

JC, you continue to lower the bar on the Turing Test,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
BTW this thread is far and away the most posted-to thread on the Boards with 4,300 posts versus the next highest with a puny 1,708 posts over on the Politics Forum.

Who says that Christianity isn't interesting and the 'origins question' compelling????

pH
Sadly you can't even get that right, people are far more interested in "posting something about the previous poster (limericks optional)" than this.

Sadly, it is you who doesn't have your facts straight!!!!
Have a look (at your own link) here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246970

Please note that the thread ‘Posting something about the previous poster (limericks optional)’ is actually a MEGAMERGER of several other threads including:-
‘Something about the poster before you’, ‘Something about the poster after you’, ‘Something we should know about Someone else’ and multiple other threads.

So ‘The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy’ thread is far and away the most posted-to SINGLE thread on the Boards with 4,300 posts versus the next highest with about 1,700 posts over on the Politics Forum!!!!
……….and we haven’t even got to the Prophecy yet!!!!:eek:


Fallen Seraph
You've already claimed that Nebraska man (aka hesperopithecus) was something which the theory of evolution couldn't explain, you then TROLLED me when I pointed the fact that he was a pig out to you, now you say this?

…….My point should be obvious to you :–

The identification of a Cynodont by Evolutionists on the basis of two teeth doesn’t carry much scientific validity.
‘Nebraska Man’ was identified (by Evolutionists) as a ‘missing link’ on the basis of “an ape-like tooth” – that turned out to belong to a PIG!!!


Originally Posted by J C
Seriously though, making taxonomic decisions about what an animal looked like on basis of two teeth is a bit risky don’t you think??

Wicknight
Er, if that is "risky" then what is making a judgement about entire species developing overnight

There is NO scientific problem with an ‘entire species developing overnight’ - look here for an example:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm (Hybrid speciation demonstrated in the lab)
……this shows that speciation can be very rapid or instantaneous – and hybridisation experiments proves that it is widespread within Created Kinds.

I quote from the above ‘Science Magazine’ article :-

"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."

"In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish. "

"Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves. "



Originally Posted by JC
For example, an article in New Scientist (180/2424:44-47,6 December 2003) said “the (origin of sex) is one of the most intractable problems in (Evolutionary) Biology. Over 30 different theories have been suggested for solving it ……but most have little evidence to support them and none has yet provided a satisfactory answer."

Scofflaw
Again, I am mystified. This is a problem for evolution, but not, apparently, for Baraminology?

Yes indeed, explaining the gradual emergence of the various observed irreducibly complex SEXUAL processes and anatomies is yet another insurmountable problem for Evolution.

Creation Science has no such difficulty, as Direct Creation is both THEORETICALLY and ACTUALLY capable of producing male and female organisms and their sexual processes!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
You're aware, perhaps, that we are trying to explain observations rather than dictating reality - so currently open questions are just that - currently open questions

I am of course aware that Evolutionists are 'grappling' with the problem of sex – and they are currently unable to explain HOW it arose !!!:D

The ‘explanatory power’ of Creation Science is therefore superior to Evolutionary Science on the issue of sex – just like it is on practically every other issue in Biology!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
Neanderthal DNA fragments have only a hundred or so pairs remaining in sequence after all these years. This length is ideal for the 454 Life Sciences machines. By sequencing many fragments, each sequence can be “plugged into” the bigger framework of the very similar human genome based upon known references in the chain.

Two points that YOUR above quote confirms:-

1. That Neanderthal DNA does indeed have intact DNA sequences ("a hundred or so pairs remaining in sequence") – which was my original point.

2. The Human genome is “very similar …… based upon known references in the chain” – which again proves my contention that Neanderthals were Human Beings!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Well, I'd like to thank JC, first and foremost.

My pleasure Scofflaw!!!!:D


Scofflaw
The reason the dinosaurs were assumed originally to be reptiles was because they looked like reptiles (at the time palaeontology was dominated by a now-discarded paradigm whose name I will not mention out of politeness). I attended my first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture about 20 years ago now.

If you mean that Creation Scientists like the Founding Director of the London Natural History Museum, Sir Richard Owen, believed that ALL Dinosaurs were reptiles – you would be WRONG!!

Over 140 years before your first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture, Sir Richard Owen (who coined the name "dinosaurs" in 1842) speculated that some of them were active and warm-blooded.:cool:
See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm-bloodedness_of_dinosaurs


Scofflaw
The Tao says: when something lacks an "up" direction, it also lacks a "down" direction - lacking both of these, "horizontal" has no meaning.

And WHAT has that got to do with ‘upwards Muck to Man’ Materialistic Evolution ???


Scofflaw
This: "entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution" doesn't exist. If you look back up the page a couple of paragraphs ……………………………….. you will see where I have already said this,

One thing at last we agree on – that ‘Gradual Upwards Evolution’ doesn’t exist.:)

…………….so the only type of ‘Evolution’ that exists is therefore NS and Speciation within Kinds – neither of which can account for the origins of the living creatures we observe around us today!!!:)


Another ‘Icon of Millions of Years’ bites the dust

When I was a young student I was assured that the Diamond was ‘proof positive’ that the Earth was billions of years old. I was told that Diamonds required the appliance of enormous heat and pressure over millions of years to form.
…….and indeed Wikipedia still maintains that natural Diamonds are between 1 and 3 billion years old – see here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond

However, the following article on Popsci.com confirms that “perfect single-crystal diamonds of more than two carats (the average engagement ring Diamond is less than a carat)” can be churned out IN A DAY!!!!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/301306492d68b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

……….and so another ‘Evolutionist’s Proof’ for billions of years collapses!!!

…….and during the past year, scientists have mastered the ability to grow 10-carat single crystals with a colour and clarity that surpasses mined diamonds.
Within a decade, they’ll also be cheaper thereby allowing the first diamond semiconductors to hit the market in 2011!!!!!!

Another example of the predictions of Creation Science - that Diamonds were formed RAPIDLY (and therefore could be manufactured successfully) – producing commercially important results!!!!:D

pH

J C wrote:

[
pH
Sadly you can't even get that right, people are far more interested in "posting something about the previous poster (limericks optional)" than this.

Sadly, it is you who doesn't have your facts straight!!!!
Have a look (at your own link) here :-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246970

Please note that the thread ‘Posting something about the previous poster (limericks optional)’ is actually a MEGAMERGER of several other threads including:-
‘Something about the poster before you’, ‘Something about the poster after you’, ‘Something we should know about Someone else’ and multiple other threads.

So ‘The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy’ thread is far and away the most posted-to SINGLE thread on the Boards with 4,300 posts versus the next highest with about 1,700 posts over on the Politics Forum!!!!
……….and we haven’t even got to the Prophecy yet!!!!:eek:

Is there anything that you won't argue about, lie about, or redefine the facts when you're shown to be wrong? That thread is the single thread with the most posts according to boards.ie stats, this thread isn't even in the top 5.

If you don't like 'merged' theads have a look at this one :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=248957

You are wrong about this in the same way as you are wrong about everything else you post.

violatom

stop looking at everything the wrong way JC (very cute name by the way). The reason we don't have any "close legged quadrupeds" or whatever you called them that are not mammals today is that mammals are the predominant life form today that filled an evolutionary niche when previous similar animals BECAME EXTINCT. Heard of the peppered moth? Look it up, evolution in action in a nice simple way that even you might understand.

pH

violatom wrote:

stop looking at everything the wrong way JC (very cute name by the way). The reason we don't have any "close legged quadrupeds" or whatever you called them that are not mammals today is that mammals are the predominant life form today that filled an evolutionary niche when previous similar animals BECAME EXTINCT. Heard of the peppered moth? Look it up, evolution in action in a nice simple way that even you might understand.

And before we get a tired old rehash of the "That peppered moth stuff was proved to be a fraud years ago", may I pre-empt J C with.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

J C, if you have any 'scientific observations', please restrict them to science's *current* understanding of these moths, science is after all self-correcting, as it doesn't have the benefit of being written by God and therefore correct by definition.

I know this still comes as a shock to you, but our scientific knowledge evolves over time, mistakes are made and then corrected and new theories come along which explain things better than old ones. It's called progress. It's why the vast majority of children these days survive childbirth and infancy, why you have a life expectancy of more than 45 and why you can type this stuff on a computers for all of us to read.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Fallen Seraph
You've already claimed that Nebraska man (aka hesperopithecus) was something which the theory of evolution couldn't explain, you then TROLLED me when I pointed the fact that he was a pig out to you, now you say this?

…….My point should be obvious to you :–

The identification of a Cynodont by Evolutionists on the basis of two teeth doesn’t carry much scientific validity.
‘Nebraska Man’ was identified (by Evolutionists) as a ‘missing link’ on the basis of “an ape-like tooth” – that turned out to belong to a PIG!!!

Except as pointed out, we have far more complete cynodont fossils (the reference in my quote is to one specific locality), identification of organisms from teeth has been standard practice since the 1800's, "Nebraska Man" was never widely accepted, etc etc.

But heck, you just go on digging with whatever stick you have the wrong end of now.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
For example, an article in New Scientist (180/2424:44-47,6 December 2003) said “the (origin of sex) is one of the most intractable problems in (Evolutionary) Biology. Over 30 different theories have been suggested for solving it ……but most have little evidence to support them and none has yet provided a satisfactory answer."

Scofflaw
Again, I am mystified. This is a problem for evolution, but not, apparently, for Baraminology?

Yes indeed, explaining the gradual emergence of the various observed irreducibly complex SEXUAL processes and anatomies is yet another insurmountable problem for Evolution.

Creation Science has no such difficulty, as Direct Creation is both THEORETICALLY and ACTUALLY capable of producing male and female organisms and their sexual processes!!!:cool:

AKA "God did it". All the explanatory power of a wet sock.

JC, we can turn to "God did it" whenever we like. Science does not do so, because the work of science is finding answers - and "God did it" is not an answer, but a full stop. If Creation Science were a genuine science, you would try to find out how God did it. Without that, all you have is a cop-out.

If, on the other hand, "God did it" is a perfectly acceptable answer, then we can simply say "it happened", which is just as good. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander - either hold yourself to our high standards, or hold us to your low standards.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You're aware, perhaps, that we are trying to explain observations rather than dictating reality - so currently open questions are just that - currently open questions

I am of course aware that Evolutionists are 'grappling' with the problem of sex – and they are currently unable to explain HOW it arose !!!:D

The ‘explanatory power’ of Creation Science is therefore superior to Evolutionary Science on the issue of sex – just like it is on practically every other issue in Biology!!!:cool:

I am fairly certain that you don't understand what 'explanatory power' means, since you are crowing over something for which you have not given an explanation...only an assertion that "God did it".

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Neanderthal DNA fragments have only a hundred or so pairs remaining in sequence after all these years. This length is ideal for the 454 Life Sciences machines. By sequencing many fragments, each sequence can be “plugged into” the bigger framework of the very similar human genome based upon known references in the chain.

Two points that YOUR above quote confirms:-

1. That Neanderthal DNA does indeed have intact DNA sequences ("a hundred or so pairs remaining in sequence") – which was my original point.

I think your original implication that full DNA sequences were present is quite clear - your retrospective ass-covering is equally obvious.

J C wrote:

2. The Human genome is “very similar …… based upon known references in the chain” – which again proves my contention that Neanderthals were Human Beings!!!!:D

You are entitled to draw the line wherever you like, of course, since "human being" is not a technical description but a legal one. Neanderthals are currently classified as a different species, and evidence of interbreeding is highly dubious.

"The papers estimate that human and Neanderthal genomes are at least 99.5 percent identical. "There's maybe a three-million base pair difference between Neanderthals and humans, compared to the 30- to 50-million base pair difference between chimpanzees and humans," Rubin said. "

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The reason the dinosaurs were assumed originally to be reptiles was because they looked like reptiles (at the time palaeontology was dominated by a now-discarded paradigm whose name I will not mention out of politeness). I attended my first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture about 20 years ago now.

If you mean that Creation Scientists like the Founding Director of the London Natural History Museum, Sir Richard Owen, believed that ALL Dinosaurs were reptiles – you would be WRONG!!

Over 140 years before your first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture, Sir Richard Owen (who coined the name "dinosaurs" in 1842) speculated that some of them were active and warm-blooded.:cool:
See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm-bloodedness_of_dinosaurs

Yes, I am aware of that - there has always been speculation that they may have been warm-blooded.

How did this all come as news to you?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The Tao says: when something lacks an "up" direction, it also lacks a "down" direction - lacking both of these, "horizontal" has no meaning.

And WHAT has that got to do with ‘upwards Muck to Man’ Materialistic Evolution ???

Yes. You are confused.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
This: "entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution" doesn't exist. If you look back up the page a couple of paragraphs ……………………………….. you will see where I have already said this,

One thing at last we agree on – that ‘Gradual Upwards Evolution’ doesn’t exist.:)

…………….so the only type of ‘Evolution’ that exists is therefore NS and Speciation within Kinds – neither of which can account for the origins of the living creatures we observe around us today!!!:)

Again, no. Nothing in what I have said can be taken to mean what you have decided here. For the nth time, I would suggest that you go out and buy "Evolution for Dummies" (HTF) or somesuch book, and actually find out what you are supposed to be arguing against.

J C wrote:

Another ‘Icon of Millions of Years’ bites the dust

When I was a young student I was assured that the Diamond was ‘proof positive’ that the Earth was billions of years old. I was told that Diamonds required the appliance of enormous heat and pressure over millions of years to form.
…….and indeed Wikipedia still maintains that natural Diamonds are between 1 and 3 billion years old – see here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond

However, the following article on Popsci.com confirms that “perfect single-crystal diamonds of more than two carats (the average engagement ring Diamond is less than a carat)” can be churned out IN A DAY!!!!
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/301306492d68b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

……….and so another ‘Evolutionist’s Proof’ for billions of years collapses!!!

…….and during the past year, scientists have mastered the ability to grow 10-carat single crystals with a colour and clarity that surpasses mined diamonds.
Within a decade, they’ll also be cheaper thereby allowing the first diamond semiconductors to hit the market in 2011!!!!!!

Another example of the predictions of Creation Science - that Diamonds were formed RAPIDLY (and therefore could be manufactured successfully) – producing commercially important results!!!!:D

Hmm. Whoever told you that was talking rather loosely. Diamonds are not regarded in any way as "proof" that the Earth is billions of years old, any more than any other mineral. I think you'll find that Wikipedia is talking about the age of the terrain in which diamonds are found - the ancient (1GYa - 3GYa) shield terrains - however, the most recent natural diamonds are about 45 MYa, not billions of years old.

Again, that this comes as news to you is perhaps the most illuminating thing:

Wikipedia wrote:

The first artificial diamonds were synthesized by Henri Moissan in 1893 by heating charcoal at high temperatures with iron in a carbon crucible in an electric furnace, in which an electric arc was struck between carbon rods inside blocks of lime. The iron contracted on rapid cooling, generating the high pressure required to transform graphite into diamond. This experiment was successfully repeated by Ruff in 1917, which resulted in the production of very small diamonds, the largest of which measured 0.7mm. In 1926, Dr. Willard Hersey of McPherson College read journal articles about Moissan's and Ruff's experiments and replicated their work, producing a synthetic diamond. That diamond is on display today in Kansas at the McPherson Museum.

So, er, we've known that diamonds can be created in less than "millions of years" for about 30 years, and the diamonds produced have been used in industrial applications (lasers, drill-bits) all that time. Were you under a rock?

Now, turning to your ridiculous assertion - Creation Science has no basis for predicting that diamonds can form in periods shorter than, say, a thousand years. Certainly, it would have to predict that diamonds form within the available timescale, but you have jumped from the constraint "within six thousand years" to "in a day" with no reasoning whatsoever.


I don't know, JC. Honestly, your assertions are becoming very rapidly more obviously ridiculous - there's been a marked deterioration over the last couple of weeks. I'd miss you, but perhaps you need some time off to recharge?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

And before we get a tired old rehash of the "That peppered moth stuff was proved to be a fraud years ago", may I pre-empt J C with.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

J C, if you have any 'scientific observations', please restrict them to science's *current* understanding of these moths, science is after all self-correcting, as it doesn't have the benefit of being written by God and therefore correct by definition.

I know this still comes as a shock to you, but our scientific knowledge evolves over time, mistakes are made and then corrected and new theories come along which explain things better than old ones. It's called progress. It's why the vast majority of children these days survive childbirth and infancy, why you have a life expectancy of more than 45 and why you can type this stuff on a computers for all of us to read.

Although that last bit is only progress in a technical sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Er, if that is "risky" then what is making a judgement about entire species developing overnight

There is NO scientific problem with an ‘entire species developing overnight’ - look here for an example:-

Well, A) well done for providing another bit of evidence in support of evolution :rolleyes:, and secondly, you left out about the part about dropping entire chromosomes overnight.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Creation Science has no such difficulty, as Direct Creation is both THEORETICALLY and ACTUALLY capable of producing male and female organisms and their sexual processes!!!:cool:

You are forgetting the best part of Creationism JC, you never have to explain the HOW, or the WHY your deity would do this. Isn't it brilliant!

Why did God design something this way? Who cares! How did he actually make these things? No idea!

Ah the science of ignorance (or the ignorance of science). It is like a warm fuzzy blanket that you can wrap your own stupidity around.

Of course everyone knows it wasn't God that did this, it was the giant supernatural badger who created the world. In 19 days, not 6. And he did it 2.3 million years ago. Why did he do this? No idea! How did he do this? Don't care! You can't prove me wrong, there for I am going to put this, and only this, in text books. Maybe I will open a theme park ... :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Of course everyone knows it wasn't God that did this, it was the giant supernatural badger who created the world. In 19 days, not 6. And he did it 2.3 million years ago. Why did he do this? No idea! How did he do this? Don't care! You can't prove me wrong, there for I am going to put this, and only this, in text books. Maybe I will open a theme park ... :rolleyes:

Currently competing with:

Type of Creation:

Abrahamic:
* Flat Earthers
* Geocentrists
* Young Earth Creationists
o (Omphalos)
* Old Earth Creationists
o (Gap Creationism)
o (Day-Age Creationism)
o (Progressive Creationism)
o (Intelligent Design Creationism)
* Evolutionary Creationists
* Theistic Evolutionists
Raelians
Scientologists
Panspermia
Catastrophic Evolution
Vedic Creationism
American Indian Creationism
Origin from Cosmic Egg, by Separation of Earth and Sky, from Primordial Being, by Divine Struggle, Emergence, Creation by Spoken Word, Repeated Creation, diverse other myths.

Age of the Earth/Universe:

* Maya civilization - August 11 or August 13, 3114 BCE
* Judaism - September 22 or March 29 3760 BCE[1]
* James Ussher (1654) - 23 October 4004 BCE[2]
* Maria de Agreda - 5199 BCE.
* Lord Kelvin - 20-400MYa
* Helmholm & Newcomb - 100MYa
* John Joly (TCD) - 90MYa
* Big Bang theory - age of the Universe between 11-20 billion years, with the most widely quoted figure being 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.
* Radiometric dating - the world (planet Earth) 4.55 (± 1%) billion years ago.
* Puranic Hinduism, 77,760 billion years ago (50 "years of Brahma")
* Scientology - trillions of years
* Eternity - Postulate made by a number of groups including historical and contemporary scientists and certain New Age idealizations that the universe has always existed, so there is no "beginning" of the universe (though the Earth and other celestial objects may have come into being closer to the current day). One such former scientific theory is the steady state theory. Buddhists and Hindus however believe in a Cyclic Universe consisting of endless cycles of the Universe expanding, contracting and subsequently reforming.

And so on and so forth....

cordially,
Scofflaw

smemon

does it matter about finding out the exact date and time the earth was created :rolleyes:

do we have nothing better to do?:)

stop looking back at stuff we can't change or have any influence on. The Bible is old news, you read it once and move on... read it longer and you'll just start to ask questions... analyse things in unecessary detail.

Woul you read the Irish Independant dated 23rd January 1988, time and time again for the rest of your life?? No you wouldn't

God is the adult version of Santa Clause.

Scofflaw

Creation Science's Baraminology - the study of Created Kinds

As you may or may not know, Baraminology is an attempt to classify living organisms into Created Kinds. The main research method is to definitely identify one representative of a Kind (so the Dog, Canis familiaris, is definitely a member of Dog Kind), and to include others based on whether they can cross-breed.

At face value, this seems a reasonable approach, given Creationism's starting assumptions. After all, the capacity to cross-breed is closely related to genetic compatibility, and can therefore be used to identify related organisms. In turn, all the creatures within one Created Kind are thought to have descended from the exemplar of the kind that boarded the Ark.

So, can that work? Unfortunately not.

You see, the idea that genetic proximity demonstrates relationship is an "evolutionist" idea, based on incremental changes that randomly alter the genome by mutation. The more changes -> the longer the genomes have been separated -> the longer the two organisms have not been interbreeding.

This simply doesn't apply in the Creationist framework. All modern organisms are "degenerate" descendants of original Created organisms - and they have got that way through loss of genetic information. In the Creationist framework, diversity can only come from pre-existing genetic information.

Now, if you think that through, it means that the original Created creature of a Kind (call it Proto-Dog), will have had a genome which we will represent like this:

Gene1-Gene2-Gene3-Gene4-Gene5-Gene6-Gene7-Gene8-Gene9-Gene10

...and its descendants are free to have any part of that genome. Assuming that odd numbered genes are useful to the Wolf, and even-numbered genes are useful to the Dingo, and we'd have the following genomes:

Wolf: Gene1-Gene3-Gene5-Gene7-Gene9
Dingo: Gene2-Gene4-Gene6-Gene8-Gene10

Now, how could we possibly tell from their genomes that these two are related? We can't possibly tell by breeding studies or genetics that they both belong to a Kind, unless we have the original Proto-Dog genome to work with (and, despite JC's claims of lepping T.rex bones, we don't seem to have a single preserved example of such a thing).


So, Baraminology turns out to have a hidden fatal flaw - no-one bothered to "correct" the evolutionist assumption it relies on - and when you do, poof! the whole "science of Baraminology" turns out to have been impossible all along.

Am I surprised? Not at all. All "Creation Science" has so far turned out to be as closely related to real science as the posturing of actors in a sci-fi movie, and for the same reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

violatom

Is the sun a man/god in a chariot riding across the sky? Easy explaination if you are living in ancient Egypt: the priest said so. But then science came along and said no, thats not quite right. Its a ball of fire that orbits Earth. Then science evolved further and said no, not quite right, we are actually going round the sun. A classic example of why we should not listen solely to religious figures!