Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, we do use a lot of big words.....

It would help if you actually knew what they really meant when you use them. You will not know what they mean by looking at how they are misused by various creationist bullshitters.

I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

Creationist arguments are already maximally dumb, dumbing it down further is an impossibility.

However, a person could certainly try, and in the process he certainly could make himself look even dumber then is already implied by the fact that he believes these arguments in the first place.

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='104822' dateline='1289448102']
Anything posted by jesus freaks is hard to read. In the case of creationists its damn near impossible.

Yes, we do use a lot of big words. I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

Here's a big word for you:

Oxymoron = creation science

Good day
[/quote]

Like that proves anything lol. An assertion without evidence is just an assertion, how about you try and prove that to be an oxymoron?

I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists using logic, I know you are not a fan of logic but I really think it is important.

Premise 1: A Scientist is an expert in Science, especially the fileds of physical and natural sciences.
Premise 2: Jonathan Sarfati has a doctorate degree in Physical Chemistry and is an expert in this field.
Conclusion: Jonathan Sarfati is a Scientist.

Premise 1: A creationist is someone who believes the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible.
Premise 2: Jonathan Sarfati believes the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible.

Conclusion: Jonathan Sarfati is a Creationist.

Combine are two logically valid conclusions into a new syllogism and we get...

Premise 1: Jonathan Sarfati is a Scientist
Premise 2: Jonathan Sarfati is a Creationist.

Conclusion: Someone can be both a Creationist and Scientist. Therefore your "oxymoron" has been refuted using logic. Too easy.

(Definitions of "Scientist" and "Creationist" taken from Dictionary.com)

---

OGM's Responses, in bold: Let me tell you something. I've seen many creationists such as yourself poo poo such widely referenced journals and then reference them as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you know of anothewr journal of invertebrate paleontology with more references, more widely read in the profession, I'm all ears, bud.

Ugh, your response was a formatting nightmare to respond to, I suggest you play by the same rules the rest of use play by. It makes things far more user friendly on here, and more enjoyable for all. Peer reviewed journals are a good reference to use, but saying that they are the only valid scientific reference is where you make your mistake. As I pointed out in a different post there has been loads of great scientific work that was never published and loads of scientific crap that has been published. So to treat them as if they are infallible as you do is what I have a problem with. I’ll quote them when I think the article is scientifically sound, but I don’t worship them as may lay people do.

No sir. You made the claim that the biblical "kinds" equates to families. There is no evidence in the bible or anywhere else that that is the case. I rather doubt that anyone living at the time even had a clue as to the linean concept of animaly families. What they clearly understood was that there ware distinctions between animals such as goats and sheep, and that these clearly cannot mate (breeding sheep, after all, was a common profession in biblical times, and is even referenced in the Bible). Secondly, to say that 'kinds' "it depends on the animal, but it USUALLY matches up with the Family" is rather meaningless since it doesn't provide any sort of foundation for a classification scheme that is based on reality. What's more, nowhere in the Bible is this 'kind' classification scheme even elaborated upon. You folks made this crap up and then wonder why ever other scientists gets a chuckle out of it. It's sad, really.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible was written before our modern classification system, so of course it is not going to line up directly with a classification system that is often revised and created by fallible men. We can make an inference as to what “kinds” meant by just looking at the genetic limitations of specific animals, and yes it is different with different animals. For canines the Biblical “kind” falls at the family level because no matter how much “tweaking” you do, you will never end up with anything other than a canine. It’s not hard to figure out. Your argument is rather silly anyways because even when you take “kinds” to mean species (which it obviously it didn’t) all the known land species that would have to be taken onto the ark still only take up 36 percent of the total space. So even when we stoop to play your silly games, we still win.

Name one creationist who has published an argument for creationism in a reputable peer reviewed science journal. I want names and article citations, please.

Well at least you said please haha. Here is another silly game that is played by Evolutionists that Creationists still win when they stoop to play it. First of all, even if there were no Creationists published in secular journals that would not mean that their argument is invalid. That being said, there are plenty who have been published, here is one…
Siegfried Scherer article titled, “Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 104.
You’ll find if you read this article he points out that many components of the photosynthetic system can only be explained by creation. Yes, he is a young earth creationist.
Since you said only to name one, I guess that’s all I have to do. There are hundreds though; one Creation Scientist has been published over 30 times in your beloved journals, so this is a bad argument to use against us. Let’s see if you can pass your own test, “Please name one Evolutionist published in a peer-reviewed creation journal.”

---

What evidence, where? I posted a link that discusses the the evidence for the various theories on the extinction of the dinosaurs. Did you ignore it, or what? I can post what I think happened, but it would simply be a regurgitation of what has already been said widely in the literature. No, I don't agree with all of it because I think it is more complex that many think it is. And Statler, your entire argument rests on the presumption that everything science has discovered in the last 500 years is wrong because the Bible contradicts it, or rather because it contradicts the Bible. And the Bible, according to you, is the word of God almighty. So no you didn't actually say that "God did it". You didn't have to. That argument is self-evident in every one of your posts.

---

So you don’t know what happened to the Dinosaurs? I didn’t think so. I do. You remind me of the child in math class who yells at another student who has figured out the math problem. “No silly, the answer is not 4! I don’t know what the answer is myself, but I know it’s not 4!” -pretty ridiculous really.

You have a bad habit of posting strawman arguments. You didn't say in your analogy that computers evolved through natural means, or even that evolutionists claim such, and no one here is making that suggestion either. So why are you making this stupid suggestion? That computers have evolved from a common ancestor is undisputed. If you want to hold onto the false impression that this is somehow incorrect, be my guest.

Well I said, “Common Ancestor”. I think it was pretty clear I was using this from an evolutionary perspective (since that was the subject of our discussion), however the only other use would be a direct common ancestor (so one related through birth). Since computers neither evolve through natural means nor give birth I think it is pretty obvious my original argument stands. The common codes used in computers indicate common designers rather than a common ancestor.

Man breeds animals and plants. They can do so because traits have the ability to bre3ed true if we manipulate them properly. Take modern bananas, for instance. They have been altered for centuries and have been so changed that they bear little resemblence to their wild ancestral predecessors. The raits they possess have been selected for by man. If artificial selection can do that in a relatively short period of time, imagine what natural selection could do in billions of years. And what it has done is to generate all the diversity of the natural world that we see around us.

Pretty bad example actually, the breeding of bananas is only acting on the genetic material that was already present in the banana. No new information at the genetic level has ever been increased, not even in bananas. Your argument could be used to say that races of people are different “degrees” of human because they have different phenotypes expressed. I am not comfortable with this argument when it is used with people or bananas. Look at dogs, we have artificially selected for traits in dogs for centuries, yet dogs are all dogs. There are genetic limitations with the genes of animals that can never be crossed. So rather all Darwin did was help us understand how we got all the species of life on Earth from the “kinds” of animals brought onto the Ark. Thanks Darwin!

You did, in fact, say that it doesn't affect morphoplogy. You should re-read what you wrote. And you are wrong about that, of course, just as you are wrong about your claim above that there has never been a natural increase in information at the DNA level, or one that affects morphology. A sponge has less genetic information than a fish, and both certainly have rather different morphologies. And yet, both share snippets of genetic information, as do all forms of life on the planet. That said, as I pointed out before, there is no principle in genetics or in the theory of evolution that says that increased information, diversity, or complexity is a requirement. All that is required is that adaptations occur that enhances the ability of a species to survive and reproduce. If that means becoming less complex or diverse, then that's what happens. If it means becoming more complex and more diverse, then that happens as well. Evolution contains no "arrow".

Now you are just being dishonest. Here is my original quote, “…until you can show us a beneficial mutation that increases information and effects morphology you have no leg to stand on…” Hmm, what is the subject of the sentence in regards to effecting morphology? Is it DNA as you assert? Nope! It’s mutations. So stop trying to tell me what I said and didn’t say.

If you are going to make extraordinary claims such as all life on Earth descended from a single celled organism you are going to have to provide extraordinary evidence. One such evidence would be your mechanism for achieving this claim “natural selection” actually doing what it would need to do. If we are gong to get from a single celled organism to humans, we are going to have to see mutations that increase information- since humans are significantly more complex than this alleged ancestor was. So have we ever observed a mutation that increased and produced information? The answer is still no.

It would be like me saying, “This ball got all the way up to the top of that building by itself….my evidence for this is look…*drops the ball*…see when I drop the ball it moves by itself!”.
The sharp person would then say, “Wait a second, you said the ball got UP to the top of that building by itself, but every time I observe you dropping it, it only moves down.”

So if you are going to claim that life went from simple to complex by natural selection then you have better have numerous cases where it has been observed to increase information and not just reduce or move it. You don’t even have numerous cases, you have zero cases. So to believe in such a thing is more an instance of blind-faith, so you may be even more of a religious person than I.

---

Oh please. We wouldn't be having this conversation if your tirades weren't about denying even the most basic foundations of science. Your posts are nothing, if not anti-science. I admit to being anti-theology. At least I am man enough to admit it. You claim to be an Environmental scientist working for the USDA, which, I suppose, explains why the government is so screwed up. I've worked with many environmental scientists, being an environmental consultant myself. I know of none who hold the rather ridicuous opinions of science that you hold.



I challenge you to stand up in front of your peers and declare the follow:

1) Radioisotopic dating doesn't show that the Earth is old.

2) There was a worldwide flood thart proves the world is only 6,000 years old.

3) That Noah's ark was real.

Do that, and lets see how long you get to keep the lead in teaching your Continuing Education courses.


Dude, that is the definition of faith as recognized by nearly everyone but you and your podunk tribe of creationists.

---

Sounds like someone is jealous just because I actually work in my field, there is no need for that- I am sure if you try really hard and put your mind to it someone out there will hire you as a Geologist not just as a consultant.
Actually my colleagues do know my viewpoints; we discuss these things all the time. One of our soil scientists is a Buddhist and a few of our biologists are also Creationists. So just because you are a bigot doesn’t mean everyone else is. My Advance Evolutionary Biology Professor at University knew I was a Creationist too, but said he had more respect for me because I didn’t accept things at face value and was always looking for the “why”. That’s probably why he chose me over everyone else in the class to help him after I graduated with some post-grad work at the National Park nearby.
So “Faith” only has one definition that everyone agrees on? This is really easy to refute, let’s just look it up!
faith
  –noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.
Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. (Retrieved from dictionary.com)

Looks to me like it has eight different meanings, rather than just one like you said. You are trying to apply definition number 2 to Creationists when it looks like definition numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are the ways the Bible uses the word “Faith”. None of these definitions make someone “unscientific”, it’s obvious you can still do good Science and have faith in God (i.e. Newton, Kepler, and Bacon). So you can try and play this logically invalid game of equivocation, but it will always remain that, logically invalid.

Morphology is a foundation of comparative anatomy as well as many other biological disciplines. I guess you missed science class in the forth grade, huh?

So? Doesn’t mean it is based on proper logic, it’s still affirming the consequent which is a logical fallacy. Scientists are just as susceptible to the invalid logic bug as the next person. Btw, I didn’t go to “forth” grade, I went to “fourth” grade, I guess you missed English class in “fourth” grade, hahaha.
Here I will show you why it is invalid logic, because I am in a good mood today.
The Morphology argument:
P: All life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor so we should see common structures in organisms today.
Q: We see common structures in organisms today.
Conclusion: All life on Earth did evolve from a common ancestor.
It looks good on paper, until we realize that the problem arises when we assume “P” has to be the only sufficient cause for “Q”- which is certainly not the case. Let’s look at it expressed in a different way.
P: The day after I run, I expect to be sore.
Q: Today I am sore.
Conclusion: Therefore yesterday I ran.
Again, this is not valid because it is obvious that P is not the only cause for Q, I could be sore from playing football, or lifting weights. So that is why the Morphology argument is invalid. Morphology could be evidence for a common designer, not a common ancestor so you can’t use that argument. It’s also a circular argument, which is not in itself invalid, but does not move the logical process forward any.

Let me try to explain this one more time. The archosaurs are the ancestral group of all of the above classes of animals. They are neither birds, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, or crocodiles, but are the ancestral stock of all. And the ancestors of archosaurs were the tetrapods that came before them.[/b]

Everything I look at says that Dinosaurs ARE Archosaurs, so I don’t think you can say they came from Archosaurs, you are going to have to be more specific than that. Where are all of your intermediate fossils? I can’t find one example in any of your literature of something that was not completely dinosaur but was a link in the chain to dinosaurs. I thought this evidence was supposed to be overwhelming and easy to find?

---

OGM's response, in bold: Yes, I keep talking about meeting you because if you had any scientific curiosity whatsoever and were actually interested in learning from an expert in field geology, one would think that you would jump at the chance. I can promise you that you won't walk away from the experience without a different perspective. There is a huge difference between volcanic sediments and marine, lake, and stream/river sediments, as well as aeolian sediments. There are almost NO geolologists who disagree with the principal of uniformitarianism. The mechanical and chemical processes we see occurring on Earth are measurable, repeatable, falsifable, and there is no reason at all to suppose that they didn't occur in the past and/or won't occur in the future. That's the very odd thing about you creationists. In order for your narrow world view to work even in your own minds, you have to throw out even the tiniest bit of common knowledge in order to pigeonhole your god into the real world. I find it particularly wierd that you seem to be arguing that these rather common worldwide processes must have somehow mysteriously not been there in the past and just miraculously began functioning at some time fill in the blank__________________ preordained by fill in the blank____________________.
How difficult it must be for you to get anyone else to believe it.

---

Oh! So that’s how it works? Well how about you meet me in China, and we can have a little discussion over tea and I can open up your eyes? If you were really interested in learning the facts you’d jump at the chance and buy a ticket to China and meet me there right? I am thinking you really don’t have that much evidence and you just want to meet me and hang out because you think I am cool. :-P

Well Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and increase volcanic activity are part of the global flood model, so I am not surprised at all that you find evidence supporting these things.

I don’t think you understand what Uniformitarianism is, it’s not the belief that events that happen today also happened in the past. It is the belief that ALL the rates we observed have been constant and uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history. So if we observe a creek in the bottom of a canyon, we can assume that creek carves that canyon, not something else. I actually think you will find that many Geologists don’t agree with this, and are moving away from the teachings of Lyell.

Let’s see what Stephen Jay Gould thought of Lyell and his uniformitarian principle that you seem to also adhere to,

“Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.”
- Stephen Jay Gould, from his book, “Natural History”.

Stephen Jay Gould also wrote in the American Journal of Science that the uniformitarian views you adhere to, that natural rates have always been constant, are false, which assuming that natural laws are constant rather than rates (which creationists do) is valid.

“Uniformitarianism is a dual concept. Substantive uniformitarianism (a testable theory of geologic change postulating uniformity of rates of material conditions) is false and stifling to hypothesis formation. Methodological uniformitarianism (a procedural principle asserting spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws) belongs to the definition of science and is not unique to geology.”

Another interesting quote, by Dr. Ronald West of Kansas State University concerning an argument you use a lot,

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” (from his article ““Paleontology and Uniformitarianism” Compass 45)

Your assertion that no secular scientists believe in a global flood or catastrophic event is refuted by Professor Nile Heribert-Nilsson’s following quote. (Nissan is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science).

“The insects are of modern types and their geographical distribution can be ascertained. It is then quite astounding to find that they belong to all regions of the earth, not only the paleoarctic region as was to be expected. … The geological and paleobiological facts concerning the layers of amber are impossible to understand unless—the explanation is accepted that they are the result of an allochthonous process, including the whole earth.”

Well, yes, you do. For one, you didn't answer my questions. And secondly, none of the above is evidence of a global flood. MOst are merely evidence of rapid burial, which have many different explanations, from river floods to scour and fill during massive storms (i.e., hurricanes), etc. Others are simply evidence of plate tectonics. While others are simple regurgitations of long refuted arguments. Now, would you mind answering my questions?

Wow, a very unspecific response. Kind of interesting that what you call “evidence for river floods” happen all over the Earth’s surface and even in areas where no rivers flowed. Kind of seems like a convenient way of ignoring the obvious implications of the evidence. Now it makes one wonder, “what evidence would you actually accept as evidence for a global flood?” I am starting to think the answer is none. You are becoming less and less objective as time goes on, or you are just becoming more and more honest in your response.

---

Yes, we do use a lot of big words.....

It would help if you actually knew what they really meant when you use them. You will not know what they mean by looking at how they are misused by various creationist bullshitters.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='105084' dateline='1289589081']
I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

Creationist arguments are already maximally dumb, dumbing it down further is an impossibility.

However, a person could certainly try, and in the process he certainly could make himself look even dumber then is already implied by the fact that he believes these arguments in the first place.

[/hide]

Again, a baseless assertion. How about you try something new? When you mention something, how about you actually point out what you are referring to? Give me a few examples where I have used big words incorrectly. Oh wait...you can't find any? Didn't think so.

[orogenicman]

Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

[orogenicman]

Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

You refuted nothing, dude. Creationism isn't science and never will be. It is fantasy promoted as science by evangelical liars like you.

---

Statler wrote

If we are gong to get from a single celled organism to humans, we are going to have to see mutations that increase information- since humans are
significantly more complex than this alleged ancestor was.

From wikipedia:

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids. With some exceptions,[1] a triplet codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code. The genetic code is nearly the same for all known organisms.

The only difference is that different species have differing amounts of code. And that amount of code varies depending on the number and type of mutations that arise. And those mutations arise due to selection, rather it be natural or artificial.

From talk.origins:

...anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


•increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
•increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
•novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
•novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2.A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
•Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
•RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
•Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3.According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4.The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

---

Statler wrote:

No new information at the genetic level has ever been increased, not even in bananas.

And you can cite the research that backs up this claim, right?

---

Statler wrote:

Looks to me like it has eight different meanings, rather than just one like you said.

No sir. You merely posted eight different ways to say the exact same thing. Congratulations.

Orogenicman wrote:

Morphology is a foundation of comparative anatomy as well as many other biological disciplines. I guess you missed science class in the forth grade, huh?

Statler wrote:

So? Doesn’t mean it is based on proper logic, it’s still affirming the consequent which is a logical fallacy. Scientists are just as susceptible to the invalid logic bug as the next person.

So morphology, in your view, is illogical, and has no place in science? And you wonder why no one here lends your arguments any credibility.

---

Statler wrote:

Everything I look at says that Dinosaurs ARE Archosaurs, so I don’t think you can say they came from Archosaurs, you are going to have to be more specific than that. Where are all of your intermediate fossils? I can’t find one example in any of your literature of something that was not completely dinosaur but was a link in the chain to dinosaurs. I thought this evidence was supposed to be overwhelming and easy to find?

From wikipedia:

Dinosaurs diverged from their archosaur ancestors approximately 230 million years ago during the Middle to Late Triassic period, roughly 20 million years ago.

Also:

http://www.physorg.com/news104073381.html

Transitional fossils is a bullshit argument creationists make because they refuse to accept the evidence that all species are transitional.

---

Statler wrote:

Oh! So that’s how it works? Well how about you meet me in China.

China doesn't have a creationist museum, dude. They are much smarter than that. Hey, I'm meeting you half way. Consider yourself forunate that I'm such a reasonable man.

[orogenicman]

Statler wrote:

Well Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and increase volcanic activity are part of the global flood model, so I am not surprised at all that you find evidence supporting these things.

WTF?

Statler wrote:

I don’t think you understand what Uniformitarianism is, it’s not the belief that events that happen today also happened in the past. It is the belief that ALL the rates we observed have been constant and uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history. So if we observe a creek in the bottom of a canyon, we can assume that creek carves that canyon, not something else. I actually think you will find that many Geologists don’t agree with this, and are moving away from the teachings of Lyell.

Most geologists don't agree with the above because that is NOT what uniformitarianism is. Uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Rates can vary, but the processes and physical laws remain the same (i.e., the processes and physics of erosion as they occur today are the same as they were 500 million years ago. The rates can vary). And Lyell didn't coin the idea, Hutton did.

---

Oh, and Statler. You are right that there is no evidence that you could ever present to convince me or anyone else here of a global flood because it simply doesn't exist and even the notion violates nearly every known law of physics. Sorry ole chap. Santa Claus still doesn't exist.

[Sam]

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

It kind of does if you 'refuted' a straw man argument, not what he actually posted.

You were proving that a creationist can be a scientist. What Orogenicman was saying was that Creation Science is an oxymoron. You gave it the good old 'College Try' though!

Cheers

Sam

[Thor]

We can make an inference as to what “kinds” meant by just looking at the genetic limitations of specific animals, and yes it is different with different animals. For canines the Biblical “kind” falls at the family level because no matter how much “tweaking” you do, you will never end up with anything other than a canine. It’s not hard to figure out.

And where exactly is the cutoff for a "kind"? Are eagles and toucans the same "kind"? (They're both birds!) Are a cobra and a python the same "kind"? (They're both snakes!) Are a bobcat and a tiger the same "kind"? (They're both cats!)

I asked you this once before and, not surprisingly, you ignored the question.

Your argument is rather silly anyways because even when you take “kinds” to mean species (which it obviously it didn’t) all the known land species that would have to be taken onto the ark still only take up 36 percent of the total space.

1) How do you come up with this figure?

2) How many total animals do you believe were on this fictitious ark?

So even when we stoop to play your silly games, we still win.

Yes, if you throw out all reason and logic, I suppose you win. Congratulations!

[Loki_999]

Wow... this is still going? Amazing.

[thesummerqueen]

Wow... this is still going? Amazing.

I know, right? I keep thinking I'll unsubscribe from the thread, but it's like watching a trainwreck.