PDA

View Full Version : Things Evolutionists Hate



Prince
2002-Mar-14, 09:04 AM
http://www.frankcaw.com/science.html

informant
2002-Mar-14, 09:14 AM
Now, now... It was only an innocent joke. Don't take it so bad. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ToSeek
2002-Mar-14, 01:09 PM
Things evolutionists hate:

Creationists bringing up the same old arguments for the zillionth time despite having been thoroughly refuted (including 1-6 and 10 on the linked list.)

Creationists bringing up arguments that have nothing to do with evolution (including 7, 8, and 9 on the list.)

Creationists who tell lies, such as that Piltdown Man still appears in textbooks (see item 13).

The argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how that could happen, therefore God [who is even more amazing than any of these mechanisms] must have done it"). See items 6, 7, and 8.

Prince
2002-Mar-14, 01:25 PM
Evolutionists unable to refute any Creationist argument, except by "special pleading". This by Milton, a non-Creationist:

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism-faq.htm

ToSeek
2002-Mar-14, 02:38 PM
On 2002-03-14 08:25, Prince wrote:
Evolutionists unable to refute any Creationist argument, except by "special pleading". This by Milton, a non-Creationist:

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism-faq.htm


Creationists whose only arguments are anti-evolution and never bother to put together an integrated theory of their own that explains all the appearances (fossils that associate at different levels, stars billions of light years away, etc.)

I don't intend to post on these topics any more. This is not an appropriate discussion for this board, and I'm surprised the BA hasn't shut it down already. (And, before you comment, I know it was started from the "evolutionist" side, though not by me.)

Wiley
2002-Mar-14, 02:46 PM
On 2002-03-14 09:38, ToSeek wrote:

I don't intend to post on these topics any more. This is not an appropriate discussion for this board, and I'm surprised the BA hasn't shut it down already. (And, before you comment, I know it was started from the "evolutionist" side, though not by me.)



Since creationists have to deny astronomy and cosmology as well as evolutionary biology wouldn't that make it relevant?

I am only being half serious. But as long as the exchange remains civil, I have no problem with it. Then again, these "debates" rarely remain civil.

ToSeek
2002-Mar-14, 03:05 PM
On 2002-03-14 09:46, Wiley wrote:
Since creationists have to deny astronomy and cosmology as well as evolutionary biology wouldn't that make it relevant?


I think it would be entirely on-topic to discuss astronomy and cosmology from a creationist perspective; however, so far we haven't. I just don't intend to make any more posts on biological issues, which is what most of them have been so far.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-14, 03:41 PM
I will give these threads a chance to get on topic. Creationism is a definitely on-topic for astronomy, as long as astronomy is the topic. I won't mind too much if the threads stray a bit, but I won't let them get into a full-blown debate on evolution. There are other boards for that.

Bob S.
2002-Mar-14, 04:21 PM
The only issues that appear to be on topic are items 8 & 9, cosmology questions showing evidence for a big bang and lack of evidence for an oscillating universe. Hey, at least the author isn't trying to prove the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

ToSeek
2002-Mar-14, 04:30 PM
On 2002-03-14 11:21, Bob S. wrote:
The only issues that appear to be on topic are items 8 & 9, cosmology questions showing evidence for a big bang and lack of evidence for an oscillating universe. Hey, at least the author isn't trying to prove the Earth is only 6,000 years old.



My question is why does the big bang theory prove creationism, as the link seems to assume.

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-14, 05:18 PM
My question is why does the big bang theory prove creationism, as the link seems to assume.
Maybe, because the universe was "created" by the BB. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Wiley
2002-Mar-15, 04:46 PM
On 2002-03-14 08:25, Prince wrote:
Evolutionists unable to refute any Creationist argument, except by "special pleading". This by Milton, a non-Creationist:

http://www.alternativescience.com/darwinism-faq.htm


Thanks for the link, Prince.

This web site is somewhat refreshing in that does not reiterate the same tired creationist misconceptions. This guy as actually read the talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org) FAQ. He's completely and utterly wrong, but at least he's original.
He presents some very good and misleading strawman (sic) arguments. It's good reading just so we're not surprised these deceptive arguments.

Dunash
2002-Mar-30, 12:36 PM
An atom exploded 15 billion years ago and created the sun, moon, and stars, the earth, all plant and animal life, and human beings. The unfathomably complex design and function and beauty in all that exists is an accident.

Such is what you and I and most of the literate world--have been aught is what real science "knows". Ths is the basis of our "knowledge" about he Origin of all that exists, ourselves included.

The fascinating thing about this impossible Origins Scenario is that its premise has not been and annot be proven. That premise--that foundation upon which all else rests--is the never observed oncept that the earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually. All that we see and
actually know about day and night, seasons, etc., is readily accommodated by the earth being tationary and the sun going around every day.

In short, the rebirth of the truly cientific non-moving earth cosmology is the Achilles Heel of an incredible pseudo-scientific mythology which began with Copernicanism, which paved the way for arwinism, and which grew to Big Bangism.

It is, of course, no wonder that the very mention of such a challenge to the sacred Theoretical cience Establishment seems unthinkable...and no wonder that every tactic and slur imaginable ill be used to thwart the opening of this BIG can of worms. Indeed, we shall continue to see
efforts to connect the Geocentricity Movement to "flat earth" advocates and "Bible Creationists" "crackpot alchemists") who "can't distinguish between science and philosophy", etc.

This--and much more--is to be expected. After all, the entire edifice of modern man's
"knowledge"--which is devoted to getting rid of a sovereign Creator God--is what is being decided y the well-advanced attempt to replace the Creation Scenario in Genesis with the Naturalistic reation Scenario handed down from on high and fed to generations of youths in "science"
textbooks.

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-30, 04:22 PM
...handed down from on high and fed to generations of youths...
It seems to me that (by your reasoning) the only difference between creationism and science is which "on high" is doing the handing down and feeding.

Silas
2002-Mar-31, 03:40 AM
On 2002-03-30 07:36, Dunash wrote:

This--and much more--is to be expected. After all, the entire edifice of modern man's
"knowledge"--which is devoted to getting rid of a sovereign Creator God--is what is being decided y the well-advanced attempt to replace the Creation Scenario in Genesis with the Naturalistic reation Scenario handed down from on high and fed to generations of youths in "science"
textbooks.


Yes; and the saddest of these efforts is the twisting of the Flat Earth as explained clearly in Genesis by the pagan Greek fantasy of a spherical earth, having no point of suspension and no absolute of "up" or "down."

However, I'm glad that you reversed your opinion about earthquakes. It takes a big man to admit when he was wrong.

(Okay, I'm being sarcastic...but everyone here gets the point: if Genesis is the source of infallible knowledge, then the world is flat. Also, the moon only shines at night... Also rabbits chew their cud... Also...)

Of course, now that earthquakes are not caused by jiggling stars, this means that earth no longer has an unique position in the cosmos, and Einstein/Mach applies to any astonomical object whatever.

You lose some, and you lose some.

Finally, what the possible link is between Copernicus and Darwin, I can't even begin to grasp.

Have a nice Easter.

Silas

chknjetski
2002-Apr-01, 12:59 AM
Both sides (evol. and creat.) have massive flaws. The thing that gets me is that it is either black or white with you folks. For example, the earth is either 6,000 years old or billions of years old (or whatever). There are countless possibilities for the origin of existence. Perhaps BOTH are true. Maybe some creator made/let humans evolve from the initial spark of life.

PS - Where are the people who believe that we are a scientific experiment of some superior species.

PPS - Is there a gravitational force pulling the outer reaches of our universe?
(For the BA - /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

Firefox
2002-Apr-01, 01:24 AM
PS - Where are the people who believe that we are a scientific experiment of some superior species.

I guess you could say some Intelligent Design advocates are in favor of the idea we were created by an advanced society. The problem, however, is how did the advanced society arise?

As for the rest of your statement, you're entirely correct. The only thing you haven't realized is that there isn't much evidence, if any, for "in-between" theories that you're suggesting. There's a vast amount for Big Bang cosmology as there is no real empirical evidence for Christian-based creationism.

By the way, even if another age were determined for the Earth, how does that affect the age of the universe?

Bob S.
2002-Apr-01, 05:32 PM
On 2002-03-30 22:40, Silas wrote:
(Okay, I'm being sarcastic... Also rabbits chew their cud... Also...)

Gross fact alert (and straying off topic)
Rabbits do, sort of, depending on how you define it. Same basic idea of letting the food pass through them twice to get the most out of it.
Source: http://biology.unm.edu/biology/biol489/lagomorpha.htm
"Plant eaters either have a long intestine with a single stomach (nonruminants) or they have stomachs with multiple chambers (ruminants). In ruminants (artiodactyls, e.g., bovids, cervids, etc.) fermentation occurs in the foregut or stomach. The food is regurgitated and chewed several times (rumination or "chewing its cud"), rate of passage is slow, and cellulose utilization is high. This relatively relaxed process works for Artiodactyls as they often are large in size and occur in groups.

However, rodents and lagomorphs require a faster system that doesn’t expose them to high predation risk. They belong to the group of non-ruminants (including perissodactyls) that rely on hindgut fermentation in the cecum (blind chamber) and colon beyond the stomach. The food is chewed once, rate of passage is more rapid, and cellulose utilization is lower than in ruminants. Hindgut fermenters must eat more food to get the same amount of energy and protein.

Hindgut fermenters process less forage when they first ingest a plant and to increase their efficiency, rabbits, rodents, and some shrews (Blarina) re-ingest their feces, a process known as coprophagy. Lagomorphs produce two kinds of fecal pellets: one kind is somewhat green or black, coated with mucus, and is eaten directly from the anus. These pellets contain essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber. The second kind of pellet, which we commonly see, is brown or tan and fully digested. Coprophagy occurs twice daily in many rabbits and prevention of coprophagy results in a 15-25% reduction in growth."

Can you see Bugs Bunny doing that? Ick.

chknjetski
2002-Apr-01, 05:57 PM
On 2002-03-31 20:24, Firefox wrote:
The only thing you haven't realized is that there isn't much evidence, if any, for "in-between" theories that you're suggesting. There's a vast amount for Big Bang cosmology as there is no real empirical evidence for Christian-based

If there were a "vast amount" of conclusive evidence would we even be having this discussion? Why can't we just accept that we don't know (and probably never will)?

Prince
2002-Apr-01, 06:59 PM
Kaptain K isn't mentioned in the Bible so he doesn't not exist. So let him be quiet and devote his life to kaptaining his boat in
his bathtub.

David Simmons
2002-Apr-02, 01:32 AM
On 2002-04-01 12:32, Bob S. wrote:
[quote]
Hindgut fermenters process less forage when they first ingest a plant and to increase their efficiency, rabbits, rodents, and some shrews (Blarina) re-ingest their feces, a process known as coprophagy. Lagomorphs produce two kinds of fecal pellets: one kind is somewhat green or black, coated with mucus, and is eaten directly from the anus. These pellets contain essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber. The second kind of pellet, which we commonly see, is brown or tan and fully digested. Coprophagy occurs twice daily in many rabbits and prevention of coprophagy results in a 15-25% reduction in growth."

Can you see Bugs Bunny doing that? Ick.



What do you mean "Ick?" This is just a much a part of the Intelligent Designer's intelligent design as is eating peaches and cream. It should be celebrated and not dismissed with an "Ick."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-04-01 20:34 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Apr-02, 01:40 AM
What do you mean "Ick?" This is just a much a part of the Intelligent Designer's intelligent design as is eating peaches and cream. It should be celebrated and not Icked.


"I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it."

1/4 on topic, it isn't the same as "chewing the cud."

1/2 on topic, who cares; the writers of Leviticus did not know, and could not know, and thus their errors are of no consequence.

3/4 on topic: we've learned more since then. Knowledge has increased. There was no "golden age" of wisdom. With a surprising quality of monotonic increase, humankind's knowledge has advanced, century by century, until, today, we know trillions of times more facts than were known in the time of the Phraroah of Exodus.

Even better, we know tons and tons of things that are *not* true, and we can set them aside as simply wrong.

Bertolt Brecht, in his life of Galileo, said, "Science is not about the search for everlasting truth; science is about putting limits on everlasting error."

How do you carve a statue of an elephant? Take a large block of marble and chip away everything that doesn't look like an elephant. That is how science has progressed over the centuries.

Silas

David Simmons
2002-Apr-02, 05:17 AM
On 2002-04-01 20:40, Silas wrote:

Bertolt Brecht, in his life of Galileo, said, "Science is not about the search for everlasting truth; science is about putting limits on everlasting error."

Silas


Along this same line, Britsh mathematician and philosopher William Clifford said, "Truth is not that which we can contemplate without error, rather it is that upon which we can act without fear."

That might not serve for the 12-cylinder religious and philosophical deep thinkers, but I think it fits scientific truth quite well.

The absolutists among us never seem to appreciate the tentative nature of knowledge and truth.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-04-02 00:19 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-02, 05:44 AM
The Biblical "Arnevet" is the angora rabbit (Dryctolagus cuniculus) which regurgitates its food in the early morning and eats it again. Of all the 1000s of species, only the pig has the characteristics of having true cloven hoofs but not chewing the cud. How could Moses in the desert know this with such certitude? Was Moses a zoologist? Maybe there was such a species in the depths of the Burmese jungle? Moses couldn't know this. But the Writer did.

David Simmons
2002-Apr-02, 01:42 PM
On 2002-04-01 13:59, Prince wrote:
Kaptain K isn't mentioned in the Bible so he doesn't not exist.

The existence of Kaptain K is clearly implied in Genesis 9:1. You know, the one about "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."


So let him be quiet and devote his life to kaptaining his boat in
his bathtub.

A real thigh-slapper.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2002-04-02 08:43 ]</font>

Bob S.
2002-Apr-03, 03:21 PM
What do you mean "Ick?" This is just a much a part of the Intelligent Designer's intelligent design as is eating peaches and cream. It should be celebrated and not dismissed with an "Ick."

Pun alert!
Ruminating on the dietary habits of bunnies is not a great pleasure for me, though masticating the chocolate variety certainly is. 8-D

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob S. on 2002-04-03 10:22 ]</font>

Wiley
2002-Apr-03, 04:41 PM
On 2002-04-03 10:21, Bob S. wrote:
Pun alert!
Ruminating on the dietary habits of bunnies is not a great pleasure for me, though masticating the chocolate variety certainly is. 8-D

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob S. on 2002-04-03 10:22 ]</font>


Cud it out! No more puns!

Diogenes
2002-Apr-03, 09:08 PM
On 2002-04-02 00:44, Prince wrote:
The Biblical "Arnevet" is the angora rabbit (Dryctolagus cuniculus) which regurgitates its food in the early morning and eats it again. Of all the 1000s of species, only the pig has the characteristics of having true cloven hoofs but not chewing the cud. How could Moses in the desert know this with such certitude? Was Moses a zoologist? Maybe there was such a species in the depths of the Burmese jungle? Moses couldn't know this. But the Writer did.


In the depths of a Burmese Jungle? And when would this become a dietary issue for the Israelites?

Silas
2002-Apr-04, 12:55 AM
On 2002-04-03 16:08, Diogenes wrote:
In the depths of a Burmese Jungle? And when would this become a dietary issue for the Israelites?


No, fair's fair, I get his point. His claim is that the Bible is always right, and if we think otherwise, we don't have the infinite knowledge to understand.

That's completely fair... It's also operationally meaningless. To begin with, it depends on interpretation, but, worse, it is an appeal to ignorance.

Example........

Appeal to Ignorance: two plus two is five.

Standard response: no, it's four.

Appeal: You don't know for sure; there are infinite numbers of circumstances in the universe that you can't imagine. Perhaps in the vicinity of a black hole, or in the distant reaches of some far galaxy, two plus two is five. Perhaps it's true under the extreme pressures at the center of a supernova; perhaps it's true in the far future or the distant past. Until you can show me all of space and time, you can't deny what I have said.

end example........

There are two classic responses to this:

1) The response of operational practicality: What you say may be so, but here and now, and in all of the portions of the universe we can explore, two plus two is four.

2) The response of satire: Why, yes, in fact, I think you are right; there are regions of space and time in which such things may be true: the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or even a naked contradiction of the form 'A is Not A.' There might even be a place where the rhetorical appeal to ignorance is considered respectable.

Silas

Diogenes
2002-Apr-04, 02:47 AM
Silas,
The last thing we need here is someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about.

Silas
2002-Apr-04, 02:42 PM
On 2002-04-03 21:47, Diogenes wrote:
Silas,
The last thing we need here is someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about.


Good point... I'll start throwing in terms from astrology to leaven the lump... After all, the Circular Aspect of the Conjugal Node is approaching the constellation of Frazetta (talk about your heavenly bodies!)

I wonder if the Bad Astronomer's publisher would want a book on "Bad Rhetoric?"

Silas

Phobos
2002-Apr-05, 09:59 PM
I *love* the arguments which refer to the fossil records. According to the bible the universe is too young for such fossils to exist so it seems a bit rich to site them against evolution.

Phobos

Prince
2002-Apr-06, 09:29 AM
The geological strata lie perfectly flat upon each other, in smooth conformability, showing that they were laid down in
quick succession without delay, not slowly over untold aeons. Fossilisation does not occur today, and the very existence of perfectly preserved fossils implies swift
mineralisation before the carcasses had time to decay. This can only be explained by catastrophic diluvial action and
immediate burial under sediment ie. The Flood, only thousands of years ago. The well known `Geological Column' of the text books (Cambrian,Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Miocene etc.etc.)
looks neat, but in fact exists nowhere on earth. The earth's crust is actually one continuous bed of contemporaneous
fossils, utterly devoid of "missing links", and its slicing `to order' to show supposed
succesive ages is arbitrary and fictitious.

informant
2002-Apr-06, 12:10 PM
Geology is certainly not a straightforward thing to do. Real life science seldom is.

For instance, I once watched a documentary of archeology that showed the ruins of an ancient city (Roman, I think), and I was impressed at how the city was in such a good state, all things considered - until they showed how those buildings had originally been found - in tiny scattered fragments that had to be reattached like a gigantic puzzle! It took a lot of patience, a lot of time, and a lot of expertise to do it!

So no, nature -and in this case geology - does not give knowledge "already made". Serious geology isn't "easy". But that doesn't mean that it's a fake, either.

Quite the contrary, I have learned to suspect "knowledge" that is presented as obvious and easily acquired - why would it take so long for people to figure it out, if it were that easy?

P.S. This is getting off topic.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-04-06 07:12 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-06, 08:09 PM
Despite 160 years of searching worldwide, exasperated palaeontologists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the
gaps between the phyla, classes, or even species. The fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly, existed contemporaneously, and in their fully developed complex form, right from the beginning.

Firefox
2002-Apr-06, 09:35 PM
On 2002-04-06 15:09, Prince wrote:

Despite 160 years of searching worldwide, exasperated palaeontologists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the
gaps between the phyla, classes, or even species. The fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly, existed contemporaneously, and in their fully developed complex form, right from the beginning.



......wait, you're saying they haven't found any transitional forms when they've found many?

DStahl
2002-Apr-06, 10:02 PM
Prince: " The geological strata lie perfectly flat upon each other, in smooth conformability, showing that they were laid down in quick succession without delay, not slowly over untold aeons. Fossilisation does not occur today, and the very existence of perfectly preserved fossils implies swift mineralisation before the carcasses had time to decay."

Man, this is just plain wrong. I have seen plenty of bent, deformed, and fractured strata. In Henry Coe State Park, southeast of San Francisco, one sees thinly bedded strata bent, contorted, and offset by small faults. Just north of Roseburg, Oregon, there's a big roadcut through gray siltstone layers that have been bowed upward in a massive arch. Where I-5 crosses the McKenzie River northeast of Eugene, Oregon, there's a fine example of an unconformity--a basalt layer resting on tilted, truncated sedimentary beds. Your assertion about strata is just plain wrong.

So is your claim about fossils. Along the Oregon coast one finds clamshells embedded in consolidated sand, not yet stone, along coastal bluffs. At Bastendorff Beach (I think it was) I have found similar shells in consolidated sandstone, shells still in their original calcified form. Inland along the South Fork of the Coquille River I've found fossil shells, again still mostly calcified, in very hard grey sandstone. At Eugene I've found clamshells in soft sandstone, with the shells deteriorated to limey powder. And I've found fossil clamshells in which the shell itself has been completely replaced by silicates. To me this is the clearest possible evidence demonstrating the formation of fossils over time. Since I've seen and collected this evidence myself, my opinion is very firm: the idea that all fossils formed contemporaneously and none are forming now is absolutely wrong.

Unlike high-energy physics, almost anyone can observe geology first-hand. To me it seems amazing that you can make claims like those above when it is so easy to go out and see, with your own eyes, absolutely contrary evidence. Amazing stuff! Wonderful stuff!

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-06 17:07 ]</font>

Karl
2002-Apr-06, 10:42 PM
On 2002-04-06 15:09, Prince wrote:

Despite 160 years of searching worldwide, exasperated palaeontologists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the
gaps between the phyla, classes, or even species. The fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly, existed contemporaneously, and in their fully developed complex form, right from the beginning.


Absolutely, completely wrong. That's the problem with believing creationinst sources, plus having nothing to do with astronomy. . .

http://www.gcssepm.org/images/fossil_a.gif

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

2002-Apr-06, 11:10 PM
[quote]
On 2002-04-02 00:44, Prince wrote:
The Biblical "Arnevet" is the angora rabbit (Dryctolagus cuniculus) which regurgitates its food in the early morning and eats it again.

Disgusting. But then a sick joke hit me.
Do you remember the old Folgers Coffee jingle? Good to the last drop?

Karl
2002-Apr-07, 12:26 AM
On 2002-04-06 15:09, Prince wrote:

Despite 160 years of searching worldwide, exasperated palaeontologists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the
gaps between the phyla, classes, or even species. The fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly, existed contemporaneously, and in their fully developed complex form, right from the beginning.



I'm sure you can find a dozen creationist web sites where you can cut and paste the statement that there is no replenishment source for short term comets, so the world must be 6000 years old. Wouldn't that be more appropriate here?

Silas
2002-Apr-07, 12:45 AM
On 2002-04-06 19:26, Karl wrote:
I'm sure you can find a dozen creationist web sites where you can cut and paste the statement that there is no replenishment source for short term comets, so the world must be 6000 years old. Wouldn't that be more appropriate here?


Cool! I need to expose my ignorance; what is the replenishment source for comets? Do they keep wandering in from the Oort cloud? I'd presume that Jupiter would mess up their nice orbits... How long will it take us to "use up" the Oort cloud?

Silas

DStahl
2002-Apr-07, 12:57 AM
Ya know, the bit about not being able to observe evolution in action or the formation of fossils is a nice example of muddled logic. One might just as well assert that trees do not grow.

Huh?

Consider: one finds a young oak tree. Wishing to see it grow, one watches it for a while. Nothing much happens. One goes away, and comes back a year later: the tree is larger! Again, one watches carefully to catch it in the act of growing. But after several days one is disheartened, hungry, and suffering from sleep deprivation. One may repeat this exercise as often as one wishes, and never can one catch the tree in the act of growing.

The only conclusion, according to the logic used by anti-evolutionists, is that while one is not looking the tree is replaced by a different, larger tree. Since we can never directly observe slow processes like tree growth, evolution, the formation of fossils, etc, then they must not exist.

Sheesh.

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-06 20:07 ]</font>

Karl
2002-Apr-07, 01:05 AM
On 2002-04-06 19:45, Silas wrote:

Cool! I need to expose my ignorance; what is the replenishment source for comets? Do they keep wandering in from the Oort cloud?

Nah, short term comets are from the Kuiper Belt. Long term are from the Oort cloud.



I'd presume that Jupiter would mess up their nice orbits... How long will it take us to "use up" the Oort cloud?

Silas


Current list of Trans-Neptunian Objects (Kuiper Belt) (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/lists/TNOs.html)

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html

Until 1992, no Kuiper belt objects had been observed directly, since then, hundreds of them have been. Despite this, Walt Brown (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences50.html#1012468) states that:

There is no evidence for a distant shell of cometary material surrounding the solar system, and there is no known way to add comets to the solar system at rates that even remotely balance their destruction.

Edit to fix tags.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-06 20:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-06 20:08 ]</font>

Prince
2002-Apr-07, 07:44 AM
WRT Karl's Jaw(s):

Comparative Dental Anatomists are still taught that the mammalian TMJ came from reptiles. Yet this confidence is grotesquely misplaced:
"Some reptile supposedly scrapped the original hinge of its lower jaw and replaced it by a new one at a different point.
Then some of the bones on each side of the lower jaw broke away from the biggest one. The jaw bone to which the lower on each side was originally attached is supposed to have
forced its way into the middle part of the ear, dragging with it three of the lower jaw bones, and these together with the reptile middle ear bone formed themselves into a
complete new outfit. Evolutionists cannot explain how the incipient mammals contrived to eat while the jaw was being rehinged, or to hear while the middle and inner ear was
being rebuilt. It is indeed pathetic that educated men should believe that changes such as the above took place in
the past by the slow action of natural forces" (Douglas Dewar, "The Transformist Illusion", p.55).

Karl
2002-Apr-07, 09:17 AM
On 2002-04-07 03:44, Prince wrote:
WRT Karl's Jaw(s):

Comparative Dental Anatomists are still taught that the mammalian TMJ came from reptiles. Yet this confidence is grotesquely misplaced:
"Some reptile supposedly scrapped the original hinge of its lower jaw and replaced it by a new one at a different point.
Then some of the bones on each side of the lower jaw broke away from the biggest one. The jaw bone to which the lower on each side was originally attached is supposed to have
forced its way into the middle part of the ear, dragging with it three of the lower jaw bones, and these together with the reptile middle ear bone formed themselves into a
complete new outfit. Evolutionists cannot explain how the incipient mammals contrived to eat while the jaw was being rehinged, or to hear while the middle and inner ear was
being rebuilt. It is indeed pathetic that educated men should believe that changes such as the above took place in
the past by the slow action of natural forces" (Douglas Dewar, "The Transformist Illusion", p.55).



Can snakes eat?

From the link (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm) which you obviously didn't read:

The creationists, of course, cannot admit that such a transition exists, hence they are forced to assert that no such transformation is possible (without acknowledging the detailed fossil evidence which demonstrates that it occurred in precisely this manner). Because the fossil evidence of the transition from therapsid to mammal is extensive, detailed and well-studied, it is not surprising that most creationists make no mention of it. Those criticisms which have been directed at this transitional series (such as Gish's light-hearted comment about the poor mammal who couldn't hear or chew because his jawbones were being dragged around) are vacuous and do not stand up to analysis. The entire series of therapsid transitionals are each fully functional, completely capable of chewing their food and detecting airborne sounds (just as modern snakes eat with a double jaw joint and detect sounds through bones connected to their skull and jawbones).

Again, wouldn't you rather talk about astronomy?


Fix tags.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-04-07 05:19 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Apr-07, 07:15 PM
On 2002-04-06 19:57, DStahl wrote:

. . . The only conclusion, according to the logic used by anti-evolutionists, is that while one is not looking the tree is replaced by a different, larger tree. Since we can never directly observe slow processes like tree growth, evolution, the formation of fossils, etc, then they must not exist.



And don't forget to note that the expansion of a gigantic oak tree massing several tons from a tiny acorn weighing less than an ounce, the former vastly complex, the latter ridiculously simple, obviously violates the laws of thermodynamics. Clearly, trees are "living miracles" that science can't explain.

to Karl: excellent summary of the reptile/therapsid/mammal transitions. Isaac Asimov once suggested that the Asutralian platypus might be considered a living Therapsid: is there any current sympathy for that view?

Silas

David Simmons
2002-Apr-07, 08:42 PM
On 2002-04-06 17:02, DStahl wrote:
Prince: " The geological strata lie perfectly flat upon each other, in smooth conformability, showing that they were laid down in quick succession without delay, not slowly over untold aeons. ...

Man, this is just plain wrong. I have seen plenty of bent, deformed, and fractured strata. In Henry Coe State Park, southeast of San Francisco, one sees thinly bedded strata bent, contorted, and offset by small faults. Just north of Roseburg, Oregon, there's a big roadcut through gray siltstone layers that have been bowed upward in a massive arch. Where I-5 crosses the McKenzie River northeast of Eugene, Oregon, there's a fine example of an unconformity--a basalt layer resting on tilted, truncated sedimentary beds. Your assertion about strata is just plain wrong.


On state highway 14 on the outskirts of Palmdale, CA there is a cut where the road crosses the San Andreas earthquake fault. You should see the bend, twisted and otherwise distorted strata there.

Not far southwest of there are the Vasquez Rocks. Huge, layered slabs sticking up that have been tilted up at angles of 10 to 20 degrees from the horizontal.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-07, 09:56 PM
I think this has wandered sufficiently off-topic. If you want to discuss astronomy as it relates to creationism, please do so by starting a new thread. I am locking this one.