Idiotic Creationist post...

Great Debates
161

Try amphioxus again (for inverts to verts). Although, note that it is not a true intermediate, since it is an extant genus; however, it provides vital clues as to what the “true intermediate” was like.
And, as tomndebb mentioned, Archaeopteryx* is far from being “horrible at best” - it possesses features of both dinosaurs and birds (and it is not alone in possessing those features. See “maniraptorans”)

**

Sorry, but you’ll have to do better.

**

We also call those dinosaurs! Minus the feathers (which are diagnostic of birds), Archaeopteryx would have been mistaken for a small dinosaur.

**

First: you are aware of the processes involved in fossilization, correct? If so, then you should realize that fossilization is a rare occurance, and only a very small fraction of the organisms which ever lived have been fossilized.
Second: you are aware of the geological processes of “erosion”, “subduction”, and “obduction”, right? If so, then you realize that even if an organism manages to leave a fossil, these processes can, and do, destroy countless numbers of them, before we ever see them.

We don’t find intermediates because of geology and the way fossilization works, not because they did not exist.

**

I thought you said we didn’t have any intermediates!
And of what consequence is it that amphioxus is small (one does not need a microscope to see one, by the way)? And the “backbone” is only suspect to those who don’t comprehend biology (it’s called a “notochord”, by the way).

**

The Genesis account also claims that the sun and moon weren’t created until the “fourth day”, and that their purpose was to “…be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…”. Yet there were supposedly three “days” before then…how were they measured? How long were they?

162

You are probably right, Tom, but I was trying to give IGTA the benefit of the doubt. The earliest I think it is proper to talk about human evolution begins with out last common ancestor with a living species. So if he is willing to really stretch the definition of humans, he could begin there. However, I doubt IGTA or any other creationist would recognize that 5 million year old human progenetor as human. It would be fully ape.

Come to think of it, I forget when human ancestors supposedly become “fully human” according to creationists. IIRC, all of the Australopithicians are fully ape while Neanderthal is fully human. It seems that Homo habilis and Homo erectus shift their human/simian status from specimen to specimen and from creationist to creationist.

163

On reflection of couple of posts about the size of the universe and the problems with light traveling a finite speed crossing it in 6000 years, I have realized something.

It would seem that if a creator created the universe in 6 days some 6000 years ago, the thing to do would just let all the light start off at that time and just let it get there when it gets there. What a beautiful and unambiguous message you would be leaving behind for your imperfect children to find. They would look at the nite sky and find new stars appearing every day. He could do nothing at all and leave a situation that the simplest and most obvious explanation would be that universe was only 6000 years old and as it gets older we get to see more and more of it every day.

The only reason I can think of to take any other course would be to hide the fact of creation from intelligent beings. To suppress and hold in ignorance his own creatures.

164

Let’s see… With Andromeda, and assuming the same 5.5 days time, and a maximum starting distance of roughly 6000 light years (Since the light has gotten here, obviously), then it would have had to travel at… Roughly, a little more than 140 MILLION times the speed of light (Unless I pulled a stupid and did the math wrong) durring that time to get to its correct possition. I would think red-shift would be so severe that it would be invisible to the human eye.

165

**

That is roughly what I was saying with a 22 or 23 octave redshift… But, you don’t have to travel away at your stated speed if the intervening space in actually exanding. It gives the interesting way to get farther away from something and not travel at same the time. So, I was helping IGOTA again by providing the means not to break the speed of light also. But the red shift would still exist, but it would be due to stretching as opposed to doppler shift.

166

Oh, but see, it was a miraculous inflation that didn’t affect the photons! :rolleyes:

167

IGOTTHEANSWERS wrote:

<cough> pikaia <cough>

168

**

Matthew 5:22

“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. *But anyone who says, You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”*

Funny how fundamentalist “Christians” can so often be so focussed on Genesis but don’t give a damn about what Jesus said.

See you in hell, IGOT! We’ll keep it warm for you. Oh yes, we certainly will…

-Ben

169

[Moderator Hat: ON]

OK, it’s time to call a time out here!

First, we have IGOTTHEANSWERS shooting off insults like “The idiot polycarp” and “he’s a spineless weasel” and the like.

Later, he made things even worse with “I should have used ignoramous instead of idiot is probably what your saying. Moron might be closer.”

Finally, he said: “PS I’ll try to keep the name calling down since its a distraction to most of you.”

Let me be clear: You will not “try to keep the name calling down” – you will stop the name calling immediately. Because if you don’t you will be outta here.

I also need to add another note. In the middle of all of this, Tomndebb responded once with “do not resort to name calling, child,” which is rather ironic – calling a name while telling somebody else not to namecall.

Remember, just because one person is breaking the conference rules doesn’t make it okay for anybody else to do so also.

David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

170

TOMNDEB and DR LAO
You two aren’t getting it. Make your calculations for only 500000 years. The numbers are still off the charts. Now about your constant claims of slow pop. grow or neg., wheres your proof. Without coming up with any fantastic stories use what you see and know today. Empirical data is what my evolutionist always pushed,“what we can read and study and examine TODAY.” But thats always been the evolutionists game. It takes wild stories to make everyone of their theories work. Achem’s razor-simplest solution is the one. Whether its a comet cloud, wierd pop. fluxes, animal kinds instantly giving birth to other animal kinds… the list goes on. Evertything evolutionists believe can be found NO where in science or nature only in fantasy.
erosion numbers cite-PF Steidl, ‘planets, comets and asteroids.’
Russell Humphreys, ‘evidence for a young world.’
PS Speaking of Niagra falls, the water flowing over Niagra is eating it away. Do your figures on that and Niagra would be a flat river by now.
It doesn’t take a rare situation to fossilize. Go to any volcano eruption site and you’ll find fossils all over. We have fossilized hats, shoes, food such as ham, trees. It might be worth it to take a trip to Mt. st. Helens and they tell you how quickly things can be fossilized.
Archeoptryx had a breast bone, wings and feathers. No other animal has a breast bone but birds. I don’t kow ho told you it didn’t have feathers because it looks clear from the fossil it had feathers. Using simple logic with all that we can asume it flew but evolutionists probably have a far fetched story for that one too.

Darwins Finch
The outlying areas of Israel were under constant attack and the wanted the raids to stop so they asked the ammonite leader what treaty could they make to stop the raids. He told them to cut out the right eye of all Israelites. Saul heard this built up and army and proceeded to wipe them out.
PS Is our discussion going to switch to Bible history under pressure of unability to back up evolution?
SCOTTH
As the universe scrolled out and stars were laid, they weren’t frozen in that spot, they continued to stretch out with the expanding universe which took one day to be created. The hubble has shown no signs of any kind of centralized galaxy site which would be expected with a centralized explosion with evolutionist. Instead we see evenly spaced galaxies in pairs throughout the galaxy. Which goes entirely with creation plan. Get ‘starlight and time’ by Dr Russell Humphreys. Its an $8 book and it will open your eyes to the truth and what the evolutionary astronomers have been hiding.

Darwins Finch
Amphiouxis provides ‘clues’ to true intermediate. What your saying is we don’ have an intermediate and believing there is an intermedite when no evidence shows this is faith in something unseen and complicates finding truth because your ignoring simplest explanation.
Archeoptrx-visited again- AS I stated earlier bone-head (its a pun not name calling) only BIRDS have breast bones. The face might be reptilian but it flew.
And I see you don’t understand fossilization either. Looks like you’re just copying what others wrote. check fossilaztion above.

BEN
You won’t see my in hell. You won’t see anyone in hell.You definitely hear them. So much for what you know.

171

gotcha moderator

172

birds have wish bone. Just like archyoptryx

173

Hold on a second. You are the one claiming that an old Earth is impossible because there are not enough people, therefore the burden is upon you to show that the population growth rate has remain positive and constant in the past. All I need to show is the nearly self-evident fact that populations do not always have to grow. Sweden currently enjoys a zero to slightly negative population growth. During the middle Europe showed many years of negative growth because of the plauge. It does and has happened. Unless you can show that humans must have had a constant and positive population growth in the past, then it is impossible to conclude that the current human population is inconsistant with an old Earth.

I thought we covered this. This is not part of evolutionary theory. Saying this once is ignorance, saying it again after being corrected is willful deception.

Does this strike anyone else as hilarious? Where do you live, IGTA, that volcanic eruptions are not rare events? Especially Mt. St. Helens sized eruptions?

Hmmmm… that kind of makes a funny sound when I hum and tap my sternum:

174

OK, wishbone, whatever. What is your point? What, pray tell, do you expect a transitional species to look like if not contain some unique elements of one group of organisms and some unique elements of another group of organisms? The whole point about Archaeopteryx is that it contains some parts only found in birds and some parts only found in reptiles. That is how know it is transitional! The fact that it has a wishbone supports that claim.

175

So the observations of people can run counter to a given literalist interpretation, huh? That doesn’t exactly help your position.

176

Simple. Look at the actual populations (and their recorded growth rates) that were noted for places like Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, the African Veldt, Temperate North America, Temperate South America or any other region where people had not yet adopted the intensive agriculture of China or Mesopotamia. Those regions show little to no growth between the first arrival of Europeans (aside from negative growth from European-introduced diseases) and the eventual settlement by European-immigrant farmers. The period between European contact and European invasion lasted anywhere from 75 to 400 years, depending on the region. Throughout that period, the Europeans recorded no growth among the indigenous peoples.

To the potential claim that the world population would simply have grown at European or Chinese rates beginning in 4004 BCE, it should be pointed out that the large growth in Europe, itself, did not begin until the development of the mortarboard plow in the middle ages. All the actual evidence points to slow growth. Where is any evidence for faster growth?

And, as Dr. Lao has noted, you are the one claiming the odd notion that we could populate the world beginning in 4004 BCE, where is your evidence?

Hey! I like this kind of information! When I get to look at actual data rather than unfounded assertions, I can learn a lot.

It turns out that the people claiming a young earth (Humphreys) are (surprise!) using a bait-and-switch calculation.
V.V. Gordeyev came up with one set of numbers showing the rate of sedimentary accumulation.
W.W. Hay independently came up with a rate of subduction.
However, Hay’s rate of subduction is based on a different and lower estimate of the accumulated sediment. If one applies the subduction rate (the speed with which the ocean floor is being pushed back into the mantle) that Hays identified to the amount of sediment that Gordeyev figured was on the ocean floor, the numbers match the amount of sediment that is actually on the ocean floor. So, when the data is looked at honestly, it supports the old earth.

And, of course, the Niagra River is wearing away its channel. No person denies this. That is why the falls are where they are and not at the escarpment several miles downstream. The problem is that Hovind claimed that the wearing rate is 5 feet per year. Since I have visited Niagra Falls every few years since I was a child, I can assure everyone that the falls are not 150 farther upstream than they were when I first saw them. (There are tunnels that run from the visitors center to the back of the falls so that people can stand behind the falls and watch the water. Had the river been receding at a rate of even 1 foot per year, those tunnels would have been washed out and flooded years ago.)

And, as Dr. Lao has noted, this

is simply a lie, just as the “14 million years” of human development is a lie. It has already been poined out that no supporter of Evolutionary theory would make either claim. Any further repitition of this statement would tend to confirm that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

177

You know, IGOT, I’m still waiting for your answers to the eleven stumper questions. I mean, you really do have the answers, right?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83694
-Ben

178

[QUOTE]
**SCOTTH
As the universe scrolled out and stars were laid, they weren’t frozen in that spot, they continued to stretch out with the expanding universe which took one day to be created. The hubble has shown no signs of any kind of centralized galaxy site which would be expected with a centralized explosion with evolutionist. Instead we see evenly spaced galaxies in pairs throughout the galaxy. Which goes entirely with creation plan. Get ‘starlight and time’ by Dr Russell Humphreys. Its an $8 book and it will open your eyes to the truth and what the evolutionary astronomers have been hiding. **

[QUOTE]

Wow, I gave you the most benificial set of numbers to support your claims and you immediately chucked them in the trash. Clearly, you have no understanding of what you are claiming happened would make things look like today. Truly, I am assuming you really don’t understand what Dr Humphreys book says either. I just can’t bring myself to believe that he would have published anything that takes no more than high school level physics to utterly detroy. But, to be fair, I will get your suggested book this very day and get back to you.

But for now, in a nutshell. If the universe was created at some very small size 6000 years ago and inflated to its present size in one day the light that would be in transit would have been redshift to essentially 0 frequency. AND you would get exactly the picture I described above in which every day more stars would appear in the heavens today. We would be able to see to a distance of roughly 6000 light years and every day would let us see a bit farther.

Are any of the other posters here actual profession Astronomers, AstroPhysicists, etc? Do you guys see anything wrong with this basic assumption? Can any of you envision a method to make the universe the size it is in one day 6000 years ago that would enable us to stars 4 billion light years away other than to actually create every ray of light by hand put them on their way here to make it APPEAR the universe was as old as we can see across?
As far as seeing signs of some type of centralized galaxy site as you suggest, if you understood current theories, you would know they don’t predict that at all. Also, evenly space galaxies is NOT what we see. We actually see huge empty spaces between “sheets” and “filaments” of galaxies.

I won’t even get into the fact of the Cosmic Background Radiation and what that implies about the accuracy of our understanding of the history of the universe.

Well, off to the bookstore… I am so excited, I haven’t bought my self any comic books in years.

179

hmmm,
This

was supposed to be:

However, Hay’s rate of sediment removal is based on a different and lower estimate of the accumulated sediment.

180

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *

Of course, there’s no problem for mainstream science if the erosion rate at Niagara Falls is 5, 50, or 500 feet per year. All that affects is the possible age of Niagara Falls. The age of Niagara Falls has no connection with the age of the Earth. Many of Hovind’s claims are of this nature.