Can Evolution be Described as a Religion?

UTEOTW are you trying to directly address the point "Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD"?? Is that your "question"???

You have already admitted this in your own posts UEOTW!

Please adopt a single consistent - believable response. I would love to discuss this topic with you but you have to stop playing games and stick with the facts so far.

Get it?

Please adopt the new approach - of being serious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hmmm. In this post http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163 you said

</font>[/QUOTE][/quote]

I see... switch from the entropy problem I was speaking to above - and insert the horse problem that evolutionism "also" has.

An interesting bait and switch.

I will address this - but wanted to point out your "little trick above" - which you choose to do rather than respond to the specific point I raised.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So now on to "the switch" by UTEOTW switching FROM the quotes by ASIMOV to the quotes by Simpson. Notice that in the QUOTE UTEOTW provides from my post he DOES NOT show that my quote of Simpson is not accurate. RATHER UTEOTW shows MY SAME QUOTE in his own text.

Here is the post I made given IN the LINK UTEOTW points to above...


My EXACT quotes are given in bold type BOTH in the LINK UTEOTW points to above - and in the snippet I provide here.
=====================================
The reference to Eohippus is absolutely ludicrous. The whole “Horse Series” concept was completely thrown away by leading evolutionists starting in the 1950s!

The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the “Horse Series” drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Other eminent evolutionists agreed with him.
“. . . some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.” Dr. David M. Raup, Evolutionist, Paleontologist and Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. [Emphasis added - ed.]

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to todays much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.”
Boyce Rensberger, Senior Editor of Science 80, in “Ideas on Evolution Going Through a Revolution Among Scientists,” Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, sec. 5, p. 15. [Emphasis added - ed.]

=====================================

UTEOTW simply whines that I am not an atheist evolutionist as is Simpson when HE MAKES MY SAME POINT that the series portrayed in the book never existed.

Why is it that the fact that I am not an atheist evolutionist can be taken by evolutionists here as some some kind of "proof" that I misquoted the atheist in question?

Is there an honest response for this from the evolutionists??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[/quote]
Now, as you presented the quote, it appeared that SImpson was saying that there is not transistional horse series. When you see the full quote, you then see that Simpson has no problems with the horse series. He is pointing out that the simple pregression that was thought to be true when only a few examples of horse fossil were known was found to be incorrect when a large number of horse fossils were finally unearthed.
[/quote]

Wrong "again".

Simpson ADMITS that the series presented IN The books - you know -- the actual bones presented - never happened!!

EVEN his conclusion ADMITS this.

Obviously he is STILL a true atheist and STILL a devoted believer in that religious system in spite of the inconvenient DETAIL of the horse series.

Is there ANYONE who can look at those bones presented IN SERIES and claim "yes that series is perfectly accurate showing it exactly as it happened" -- no! Fantastically NO! And yet you slavishly choose to obfuscate and misdirect AS IF you have made some kind of point by doing so.

I never claim that Simpson does not still BELIEVE in evolutionism or that he does not still BELIEVE that since his faith dictates that all life evolved - so also did horses!

I simply point out the quotes SHOW that they have NO series showing that evolution today - but if we go back to when they were presenting the fraudulent data - they DID think they had THE REAL series to present in VISIBLE FORM to the world.

Come on UTEOTW - be serious for at least one or two posts!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed they are. What is amazing is that UTEOTW just admited as much in his post that I just responded to -- and yet you seem to be at a loss to either PROVIDE a quote or post from me and SHOW where the quote is NOT an EXACT QUOTE of Asimov when I quote him.

Why would you simply level charges without any evidence at all?? Simple - evolutionism demands such tactics. It is after all junk-science.

You seem to be living in a factless void anyway - I am not sure that you would experience much of a change after such an act on your part.

Your "tactic" of charging WITHOUT a quote at all to base it on - is pretty much the daily-standard for evolutionism eh?

I congratulate your consistent devotion to that religion. But I urge you to consider truth and light instead.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]UTE and others here think you are honest, but deluded. I think you are pathological. You have been shown that your quotations are lifted and cut directly from their contexts. When the very same snippets are put back into context, anyone with a single honest brain cell can see that something entirely different is intended.


If you believe in truth, then you will let the truth speak for itself. Instead you must resort to outright blatant lies. I refuse to have any part in your divisive, chaotic, and downright Satanic beliefs.

 

That is pretty funny TS - but also consisently "factless". Do you actually have a point that has facts to support it - or do you simply enjoy 'the void'?

If by that sad twist you mean "your quote is taken directly - word for word from the document and reproduced accurate - word for word in the section that you quote" - then you are right.

But if you mean "don't quote my precious atheist authors if there is ANY text before it or ANY text after it" then we could not quote scripture, or atheists or --- even you without reproducing the entire book.

However your devoted approach to your beliefs in evolutionism - presented in a factless-quoteless format - show that you do accept it as a religion.

And in doing so - you serve as a key case-in-point for this thread.

I congratulate you!

Wrong. Looking at the quote I gave - it is VERY CLEAR that even in the larger context - it STILL holds true. The ACTUAL series Simpson published DID NOT EXIST and UTEOTW found NOTHING in the broader quote to refute that.

What UTEOTW DID find was that SIMPSON is STILL a faithful BELIEVER in atheist evolutionism. (Something I never denied). And UTEOTW DID find that AS a true believer - SIMPSON still thinks horses evolved - but DOES NOT believe that the SERIES PUBLISHED shows that evolution.

This is clearly undeniable!

Since your posts reference no actual facts/quotes/proofs - I doubt you will be able to formulate a substantive response - but just in case.

In the mean time - I am enjoying your devotion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lies lies and more lies. How do you live with yourself? Look at the quote you lifted, and look at what it says in context. Hello?

Now the full quote is

Now, as you presented the quote, it appeared that SImpson was saying that there is not transistional horse series. When you see the full quote, you then see that Simpson has no problems with the horse series. He is pointing out that the simple pregression that was thought to be true when only a few examples of horse fossil were known was found to be incorrect when a large number of horse fossils were finally unearthed.

Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

This clearly demonstrates that you quote incorrectly in a manner than tries to make people seem to say things which they did not. It is dishonest. Nothing in the full statement sounds like your claim that they are wishing away some huge problem that they uncovered because they have to because they refuse to believe in God. You have not honestly quoted Simpson. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

"UTEOTW are you trying to directly address the point "Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD"?? Is that your "question"???

You have already admitted this in your own posts UEOTW!

Please adopt a single consistent - believable response. I would love to discuss this topic with you but you have to stop playing games and stick with the facts so far."

Please tell me where I have made the claim the archy was just a bird. I have always said the samething about it as the rest of science. It is a wonderful example of an intermediate.

If I have admitted such a thing, why have I posted so much information for you through the various threads on the mix of birdlike and reptile like features of the creature?

You are the one who keeps claiming that even the "atheist scientists" say that it is just a "true bird." YOu are the one who continually fails to meet the request to provide a citation for your claims. You are the one who told us that the German conference in the 1980s decided that it was just a bird. YOu are the one who avoids all attempts to get you to support that assertion. I have posted pages of data for you showing that archy is an intermediate.

You cannot even tell us why your "true bird" does not have a beak.

You cannot tell us why, if birds are unrelated to dinosaurs, that we recently found feather tyranosoids.

You cannot tell us about http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3762626.stm . They found a fossil of a very early bird that had yet to hatch. First off, the bird was prococial. This means that its bones and such were nearly fully formed. This is different than most modern birds (though some are like this) but it is how the theropod babies were hatched. In addition, the feathers are well formed where modern birds are normally born without fully formed feathers. Maybe just a downy covering.

You cannot explain this. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7010/abs/nature02898_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1097842186 . This time a dino with birdlike behavior.

And you certainly cannot tell us about the following reptile like features of your "true bird."

Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.

Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.

Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.

Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.

It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.

Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.

Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.

Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.

Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.

And though you will not give us a citation to support your claims about the conference, you cannot tell us why papers with titles such as the following would be presented at a conferenc where everyone thought the archy was just a bird.

Norberg, "Evolution of flight in birds: Aerodynamic, mechanical and ecological aspects."

Raath, "The theropod Syntarsus and its bearing on the origin of birds."

Schaller, "Wing evolution."

Peters, "Functional and Constructive Limitations in the Early Evolution of Birds."

Gauthier, "Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight."

Bock, "The arboreal theory for the origin of birds."

Rayner, "Mechanical and ecological constraints on flight evolution."

Peters, "Constructional and Functional Preconditions for the Transition to Powered Flight."

Taquet, "Two new Jurassic specimens of coelurosaurs (Dinosauria)"

Rietschel, "Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability."

Molnar, "Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a Survey of Proposed Early or Ancestral Birds."

 

"Indeed they are. What is amazing is that UTEOTW just admited as much in his post that I just responded to -- and yet you seem to be at a loss to either PROVIDE a quote or post from me and SHOW where the quote is NOT an EXACT QUOTE of Asimov when I quote him."

and

"If by that sad twist you mean "your quote is taken directly - word for word from the document and reproduced accurate - word for word in the section that you quote" - then you are right."

Bob does not seem to understand that it takes more than just putting the right words in the right order to have honestly quoted a source.

An example seems to be in order. Let's say you are discussing the existance of God with an atheist. If he were to quote the Bible as saying "There is no God" would you consider that to be an accurate quote? By the logic given by Bob, this would be considered a valid and reasonable quote since those very words in that very order appear in the Bible. But we all know that this is not an honest quote. God would not deny His own existance. But how would we show this. The easiest way would be to open the Bible and read the quote in context. When you read "The fool has said in his heart there is not God" then you see a different meaning and you see that the quote as presented was false. Even though the right words were there and in the right order. Even though it was an exact quote.

And so it is with Bob. In his Asimov quote, he gets the words right. He does not type them in the wrong order. He does not attribute to Asimov words that he did not say. But he still is not honest in his quote. If you take the text surrounding what Bob gives us, you get a different picture. Bob uses the quote in an unsuccesful attempt to show that evolution is not possible due to entropy. BUt he leaves out the part of the quote that shows that Asimov, his expert on the matter, comes to a different conclusion than Bob on the matter. If Bob thought that it really did not matter, then he would always give the full quote. But he does not. He knows that the full quote states just the opposite of what he is trying to say. So he leaves the offending part out. And changes the meaning from what Asimov intended to an extent that it becomes a false and dishonest quote.

Now that we have seen the truth about the quotes, would you please justify for us your claims on the archy conference or admit that you were mistaken and that they really did not decide that it was just a bird?

 

"I see... switch from the entropy problem I was speaking to above - and insert the horse problem that evolutionism "also" has.

An interesting bait and switch."

No Bob. The question of the honesty of each side had been raised. You happen to provide a great example of the inability of YEers to honestly deal with the subject matter. Asimov is one example. I continued on to another example; your horse quotes. There was no bait and switch needed. If you look above, you will see that I have expended a great deal of time and words on entropy. It is not a subject that I will concede.

"I will address this - but wanted to point out your "little trick above" - which you choose to do rather than respond to the specific point I raised."

Filling in the rest of the quote to show that your expert does not agree with your conclusions is response enough. Add to that the previous discussion about entropy and nothing more needs to be said. Your expert disagrees with you and no one has ever attempted to show how the inability of heat to flow flow from a cold resevoir to a hot one has anything to do with the evolution of man from our common ancestor with the other apes.

"UTEOTW simply whines that I am not an atheist evolutionist as is Simpson when HE MAKES MY SAME POINT that the series portrayed in the book never existed."

You had better go back and read more carefully. You claim that he says that the horse series never existed. The actual quote, in context, says only that the old, simple progression never existed. It is quite clear when you read the whole thing. A point you might want to consider carefully before you continue down this path. YOur quoting is not only suspect, it is also very easy to refute. Each time someone reads your quotes and then the truth, you lose a little credibility. Look at Travelsong's reaction. He is a mere lurker here and seems to be more on the fence than anything else. But he does not really have a very high opinion of your ability to treat the material honestly.

"Wrong "again".

Simpson ADMITS that the series presented IN The books - you know -- the actual bones presented - never happened!!

EVEN his conclusion ADMITS this."

You really need to sit down and read the full quote for comprehension. It is the simple progression that did not exist. His conclusion says that the horse sequence "is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented."

"I simply point out the quotes SHOW that they have NO series showing that evolution today - but if we go back to when they were presenting the fraudulent data - they DID think they had THE REAL series to present in VISIBLE FORM to the world."

Just where did they present fraudulent data? Never. What they did have was incomplete data. Furthermore, please look at the date on the quote and read the quote in context for comprhension. You will see that it is a fifty year old quote. I doubt that Simpson was psychic and could tell us what we would know about the horse "today." Again, the quote shows that the data they had at the time of the quote shows a bushy and jerky path which was different than the smooth path they assumed when they had incomplete data.

Which brings us to a further point. If you read the quote carefully you will see that the horse was not exactly the point of the statement. It was orthogenetics, the idea that evolution proceeds in a steady stepwise process. He was using the horse series to show that this is not normally the case. Read the middle paragraph again. YOu will see what I mean.

"That is pretty funny TS - but also consisently "factless". Do you actually have a point that has facts to support it - or do you simply enjoy 'the void'?"

I think the facts to validate his claim are in play. Travelsong may also misinterpret me. Slightly.

I think that in general that the people who argue the side of a young earth are honest but deluded. I think that most of the people in a leadership position are not honest. This has been dealt with elsewhere but I will gladly present examples. In the case of Bob, I have seen enough examples of continuing to use dishonest tactics even after the truth is exposed to doubt his honesty in the matter. This is simply a matter of opinion and context seems to indicate that he may have the same opinion of me. So be it.

"Wrong. Looking at the quote I gave - it is VERY CLEAR that even in the larger context - it STILL holds true. The ACTUAL series Simpson published DID NOT EXIST and UTEOTW found NOTHING in the broader quote to refute that."

Uh...No. Did you read the same thing I did? In the full quote he discusses trends that can be seen in the fossil record of the horse in the 1950s. Just how could he discuss trends in a series that did not exist?

"What UTEOTW DID find was that SIMPSON is STILL a faithful BELIEVER in atheist evolutionism. (Something I never denied). And UTEOTW DID find that AS a true believer - SIMPSON still thinks horses evolved - but DOES NOT believe that the SERIES PUBLISHED shows that evolution."

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel good. What I actually showed was that you did not quote SImpson in context. You took a very limited piece and presented it as if he said something different that what he actually meant.

"This is clearly undeniable!"

Nope. I just successfully denied it.

So, have you got that archy conference citation for us? I will accept also if you will admit that you were mistaken in your assertion.

 

A few odds and ends to wrap this round up.

First Bob has tried to resort to more quote mining. More quotes where he has been shown the error of the quote in the past. First the Raup quote. If you understood the discussion of the SImpson quote then you have liekly already noted the problem with this quote. If you go back and read the whole section in context, you will find that Raup was talking about how the change seen in the fossil record is not as gradual and smooth as Darwin might have supposed. Instead, we find that the record is "jerky." And in light of the jerkiness, the view of the evolution of the horse had to be modified but not dropped or abandoned. He is not speaking of the horse specifically, but the general nature of the fossil record. This is not doubt of the horse record by Raup. He is expresing the same ideas as Simpson. With few data points, some assumed a gradual and stepwise evolution was the norm. As the details have been filled in with increasing numbers of finds, we have discovered that the evolution of creatures proceeds in fits and starts and is not nearly as neat as was supposed.

When then move on to Rensberger. First off Bob seems to think that a newspaper writer should be a valid authority on evolution. Would you also go down to your local newspaper if you had a medical emergency? You are taking quotes about PE out of context. For instance, in the same article you also find

"Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes."

While talking about the controversy over PE, he later addresses exactly what you ar doing.

"No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth."

Also, a very similar article by the same author appeared in a different newspaper the previous day but without the quote you use. This suggests that the quote may not even be the author's.

And now a comment on entropy.

I happen to be reading The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene. He is a leading string theorist. Chapter 6 should be a must read for anyone who wishes to enter this debate on entropy even though he really does not consider evolution. I happen to have come to that chapter tonight. He uses the same kind of lay explanations for entropy as others. In this case the possibilities that exist if you toss an unbound copy of War and Peace in the air. But he takes great care to explain how entropy deals with the statistical possibilites of arrangement. I wish I could quote the whole chapter. I would encourage you to read the book. It is fascinating thus far. I now have a much better understanding of Relativity. If you are not interested, at least run down to your local library or bookstore and read the chapter. Anyway, a short quote from page 173 of the first edition hardback edition.

For the types of things that Bob tries to use, he uses an example where toys in a playroom are collected and put away but that the overall change in entropy is still positive due to the work done by those doing the cleaning. Another example shows how life increases by taking raw energy from the sun and converting it into heat and entropy.

Also, please take this opportunity to either support your archy conference claims or to admit that they are not valid claims.

 

Fraud, Hoax, Scholastic Dishonesty--

Piltdown Man--Hoax?

Nebraska Man--Fraud?

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny(E. Haeckel's version)--Scholastic dishonesty?

Lucy--??

Java Man--??

Most of this kind of witness would not hold up in a court of law.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

So you could not come up with any frauds that are used today to support evolution? This seems to be a problem for your assertion!

"Piltdown Man--Hoax?"

This was a hoax carried out in 1912. At the time of its discovery, it was held in low regard outside of England where it was found. Many of the objections at the time were that it seemed to be from two different animals. By the time of its exposure as a fraud in 1953, it was largely marginalized and ignored though it did still appear in many textbooks as an example of a "known" fossil. This is a good example of how even frauds are eventually weeded out by the scientific process and is an example of a reason to accept the findings of science and not object to them.

Do you know of any textbooks that still use Piltdown Man to prop up evolution?

"Nebraska Man--Fraud?"

A tooth was unearthed in 1917 and sent to Dr. Osborn. He mistakenly identified the tooth as belonging to an ape. While he was mistaken in calling the tooth apelike, he was careful and specific to point out that he did nott hink it to be closely related to humans or human ancestors. Most contemporary scientists were even more suspect than Osborn and doubted whether the tooth even belonged to an ape. For example, in 1924 George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in his two volume book Human Origins by referencing it only in a footnote and by saying of it "In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted." So Nebraska Man was never widely acceptable. The scientists of the day were rightly skeptical and were proved to be correct in their doubt. There was no fraud involved, only incompetence. It is another good example of science working.

Do you know of any textbooks that still use Nebraska Man to prop up evolution?

"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny(E. Haeckel's version)--Scholastic dishonesty?"

Two issues. First Haeckel basically drew some things more prominently than others in order to highlight some things. This is not exactly an uncommon or dishonest thing to do. We all tend to highlight certain things when trying to make a point. Though he seemed to have taken this concept too far in some aspects of his drawings.

As far as the other, comparative anatomy and embryology are legitimate lines of study when used correctly. For instance the cute little tails of human embryos or legs for snakes.

Now, just where do you see any of the fraudulent part of this being used in a modern text?

"Lucy--??"

Fossil AL 288-1 was found in Ethiopia in 1974 by Johanson and others. It is a skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis which is about 40% complete. Just what problem do you have with this famous scientific find?

"Java Man--??"

This is a Homo erectus found by Dubois in 1893. It is a good find. Just what objections do you have? Good thing you placed the question marks at the end.

"Most of this kind of witness would not hold up in a court of law."

You're right. Most would not. But 3 of the 5 would never be submitted in the first place. The other 2 would be submitted and would hold up.

So nothing fraudulent being used today. Your assertion is still without facts.

 

Since you submitted five examples that did not hold up, I thought I would submit five examples to see if you can defend them.

----------------------------

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

Now the good Dr. Snelling claims that he found a piece of wood in a Triassic era sandstone and had it dated. The Triassic was roughly 200 million years ago. But it C14 dated to about 33000 years old. Obviously this means C14 dating is flawed, right?

Nope. What it means is that Snelling took an iron concretion and presented it for dating. Sandstones tend to be porous and water can flow through them and deposit minerals in the sandstone. Iron concretions are one type of deposit that can be formed and they are known to geologists to give incorrect dates because they are not organic in nature and due to the flowing water are likely contaminated.

The head of the C14 dating group at Geochron Labs, where Snelling had the sample sent for analysis, told Snelling that the sample was not wood but likely an iron concretion. Snelling said to date it anyway. He also still reported the sample as wood and claims that this shows that dating is flawed. He will not submit his work to peer review nor will he allow others to inspect the sample.

------------------------

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

AIG claims that actual ed blood cells were found of a dinosaur. And since a blood cell cannot survive long, this must mean a young earth. But not so fast, my friend.

Now what was actually found was this. A very well preserved dinosaur was found. So well preserved that the fossils of the individual cells could be observed. (There are other interpretations, even less kind to the YECers.) Within these cells were a few organic molecules. They removed these molecules and had them tested. On the basis of a number of tests, they found that the compounds contained heme (the oxygen carrying group in blood cells) and concluded that the molecules were from the dinosaur tissue. The abstract reference is given below. So, a scientist reports then they found a well preserved fossil that contained fragments of heme and AIG reports that actual blood cells were found. Junk science.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291

--------------------------

The RATE group has proposed that C14 dating was inaccurate because they were able to obtain a young date from a diamond in a supposedly hundreds of millions of years old formation.

A little digging reveals that the age they got was about 57000 years. This is significant. Why? Because this is beyond the range of accurate ages possible for C14 dating. For a perfectly preserved sample, about 50000 years ids the limit. Beyond that, it becomes impossible to separate the C14 signal from the background radiation no matter how well shieled the lab. So a date older than 50000 years only means that it is older than 50000 years. No way to tell how much older.

The RATE people were clear to point out that the C14 found could not have been from contamination because it was locked inside a diamond. Whay they did not tell you was that background radiation will for small amounts of C14 even in a diamond.

So if you were to ask a geologists what date to expect if you were to carbon date a diamond (after he picked himself up off the floor from his laughing fit) I would expect him to predict that you would get the meaningless age of about 50000 years. When RATE gets this predicable answer, they turn around and claim that it means that dating does not work. Me thinks they are hiding something.

------------------------

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.

Morris based this on a legitimate paper [Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607. ] thatwas fdoing testing on some rocks from a recent lava flow in Hawaii.

Now, when rocks are heated to a sufficiently high temperature and are melted, the argon in the rocks escape. When the lava hardens into rock, the potassium-40 begins decaying into Ar-39. By measuring the ratios, a date can be determined. Now if the rocks are not heated sufficiently, the argon does not escape and the rocks will date older than they really are.

Funkhouser and Naughton were purposely removing xenoliths from the rocks that did not melt to see how much older they would date. Of course they dated as old because they had not been reset by melting. They also tested the bulk rocks and found that the ages were zero, as expected.

So Morris takes the data that measured too old, ignores the known reason that it dated too old, and then claims that radiometric dating does not work. If he actually read the paper, he should know better. It was easy to see and was even the purpose of the work. Just more YEC "junk."

----------------------

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/refuting-sg.PDF

Quote "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."

Would be interesting if true.

Actually human is identical to chimpanzee lysozyme. Harder to be closer than identical.

----------------

That was so much fun, how about another?

Dr. "Dino" Hovind himself said "Well, now, hold it. If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom [sic] C is closest to a sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks."

Now since humans and chimps have identical cyctochrome C, how can the sunflower be closer?

Here are the codes, BTW, for each.

Human:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Chimp:
mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

Sunflower:
asfaeapagd pttgakifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knmaviween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylktst a

-----------

One more? OK!

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-224.htm

"The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. The discovery of an "old age" in an obviously "young" series of lava flows has encouraged further research at ICR."

Basically what Austin is claiming is that isochron dating does not work because it yielded a date for a lava flow older than a lava flow that was underneath it. But there are some things that he is not telling the reader.

When selecting samples for isochron dating, they must be cogenetic, that is they must have been isotopically homogeneous. Austin selected samples that did not meet this requirement. Instead they came from four different flows and a phenocryst, a grain that was not melted when the lava flowed but that likely solidified in the magma chamber from which the flows came.

Even better is that geologists will sometimes deliberately choose non-cogenetic samples. Why? Because they can be used to determine the age of the common source material for the different flows. Austin is aware of this possiblity because he cites an article on this very thing. ( http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-178.htm , C. Brooks, D.E. James, and S.R. Hart, "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism," Science, 193 (17 Sept. 1976): 1086-1094.)

So what this means is that he was dating the lithosphere under the older flow. This was already known to be older than the other flow (it is underneath for the obvious one).

Austin incorrectly carried out an isochron dating, knew what his mistakes were, knew what he was actually dating, and still submits this as evidence that isochron dating does not work.

 

"And Man became a living soul"--Book of Genesis

Where does this phenomenon show up in the genetic code of the "chimp"? Can we compare this code to the human?

Did Adam have sufficient gene pool to include the orangutan or was it the other way around?(Maybe it is "none of the above.")

Why must we deny the Book of Genesis to carry on this discussion? Are we smarter than God?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

SO your frauds are not frauds and the YE frauds you do not even attempt to defend.

"Where does this phenomenon show up in the genetic code of the "chimp"? Can we compare this code to the human?"

The soul is not genetic. It is given to man by God.

"Did Adam have sufficient gene pool to include the orangutan or was it the other way around?(Maybe it is "none of the above.")"

It would be none of the above. Man, orangutans, and the other apes shared a common ancestor. This can be seen in the genetics and in the fossil record. You doubt it? Then feel free to go dispute this information in a logical way.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html?

No one else has volunteered thus far.

"Why must we deny the Book of Genesis to carry on this discussion? Are we smarter than God?"

Who is denying the Bible? It is a baseless charge. I only deny your interpretation. And I have the facts from the Creation itself to back me.

 

"Uncle of a monkey"

Now that we have figured out that we descended from a common ancestor-- along with everything else that was "created", what on earth are we doing here?

Also, what do we do about this "sin" question?

Do monkeys sin?

Is sin genetic?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Still refusing to acknowledge the frauds by the YEers, eh? You'll notice a contrast. You listed one fraud from 1912 that is no longer used and was never widely accepted, a mistaken identity from 1917 that was never widely accepted and no longer used, an exaggeration with some fact behind it from the 19th century that is no longer used, and two good scientific finds which you can tell us no problems with.

I on the other hand presented you not only YE frauds and deceptions, but for most of them I gave you links to current YE information where they are still being used. And not just fringe elements but groups such as ICR and AIG. The two without links would not be hard to provide evidence that they are still in use. All of the "facts" for YE are built on such junk. YOu have not even made an attempt to defend them. Because they are indefensible.

There are also plenty of links provided to you (see this post http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2897.html#000003 ) to justify my assertions. You have not even attempted to answer these issues. Follow the link and look at the threads. YEers have no answer except to pretend the data does not exist. But it does. And by continuing to ignore it, you show the weakness of a YE position.

"Uncle of a monkey"

Uh...No. Where did you get that idea? Monkeys did not descend from humans, though they do share a common ancestor. Care to see some of the evidence? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

"Now that we have figured out that we descended from a common ancestor-- along with everything else that was "created", what on earth are we doing here?"

Is this rhetorical? How does God's method of creation affect what we are supposed to be doing?

And if your quotes are supposed to imply recently created kinds, then answer me a question. Why is it that whales and dolphins have scores of genes for a sense of smell that have been reduced to junk DNA because they have no need for a sense of smell? Common descent habdles that question quite nicely. Do you think that an intelligent designer would do such a thing? Why? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9839455 Fish have a class of olfactory genes that are useful for detecting odors in water. Cetaceans lack this ability. They have only the genes for detecting airborne odors. And these genes are now non-functional. Does this sound like intelligently designed, recently created species? Should you not expect that with independently created kinds that the whales would have received those useful genes that the fish got and would not have received deactivated versions of the genes that land dwelling mammals have?

"Also, what do we do about this "sin" question?"

What about it? We can chose to sin or not to sin.

"Do monkeys sin?"

God did not give them a soul so they are incapable of making such a choice.

"Is sin genetic?"

No.

 

"God did not give monkeys a soul--"

But He gave one to man--this is your interpretation of what?

Are you getting this from the Book of Genesis?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Just to put a fine point on it, I am going back and giving you the links to where you find the other two frauds still in use. Let's remember, the first two are AIG, the next two you are about to receive, the next was also AIG, the next is Hovind, and the last is ICR. Mainstream YE, not fringe groups.

For the RATE group and diamonds see - http://www.icr.org/research/misc/aguconference.html

For Morris and those Hawaiian rocks see - http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap09.htm