ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[Nick Harman]

[

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this. I would bet that there are animals living today that we do not find with humans in the fossil record.

Nick

 

[Mojo]

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.

This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this. I would bet that there are animals living today that we do not find with humans in the fossil record.

Nick

Name one.

The fossil record is stratified. It all follows a pattern. All of the fossils of hominids found so far are a long way from all of the fossils of dinosaurs. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that they do not occur in the same strata. In fact, it would by highly unreasonable to assume that they do.

 

[Nick Harman]

I’ve already told you numerous times to work the math. If you’ve had basic algebra you should be able to work it. Even splitting the source to ½ from the earth and ½ from above (ie the water canopy) you still end up with an uninhabitable mess. “It’s not life as we know it.” – Bones Where did the water come from?

Ossai [/B][/QUOTE]

If it is as I say, the mountains raised up after the flood, then you are wrong, there is enough water in the oceans.

The bible also says the world is flat and that Pi=3. Do you believe those as well?

Does the bible teach a flat earth? Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)
It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The pi argument has been refuted as well.

Nick

 

[Nick Harman]

Name one.

The fossil record is stratified. It all follows a pattern. All of the fossils of hominids found so far are a long way from all of the fossils of dinosaurs. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that they do not occur in the same strata. In fact, it would by highly unreasonable to assume that they do.

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.

Nick

 

[Nick Harman]

I am signing off for the evening, it has been a pleasure. You all be safe and have a nice evening.

Serving a risen Savior who loves each and every one of you,
Nick Harman

 

[Mojo]

you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.

You have stated that "kind" is not the same thing as "species." You have stated that not every species was taken onto the ark:

Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.

So where did all the other currently existing species come from?

You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.

Actually, one definition of a species is that, if two animals are able to produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Animals of different species can sometimes produce offspring, but the offspring are usually infertile. Do you know what a mule is?

I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem. Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long. The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes. The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. ,

You seem to be waffling here.

Anyway, when you say that a "kind" can give rise to a variety of species, are you saying that one species can give rise to another, and that evolution is therefore possible?

 

[Mojo]

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify).

Well, next time you make a totally unsupported assertion, please could you make it clear that you are talking rubbish.

The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together

Which are not genuine, of course. Look up the references...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Started a new reply to get away from the picture.

You say you look at evidence. The truth is you look at facts and interpret them. Fact is that you are looking at bones. Interpretation is that it is evolving into a whale. That is not even close to a proven fact.

No. The "interpretation" is not that it is "turning into a whale". If you get your ideas from fundie tracts, then you will continue to talk ignorant gibberish like this. It is an intermediate form. That is a proven fact. If you have an alternative "interpretation" which says that it's the chorus line of the Moulin Rouge, then that's a disproven error.

Would you say that these bones prove they are turning into a whale, or is it more appropriate to say that many scientists believe this?

No. I would not say, and no-one believes, that those bones are turning into a whale. They aren't. They really aren't. Look at the photograph. Do you see any signs of them "turning into a whale"? They are, however, the fossil remains of an animal which is an intermediate form between land-dwelling animals and whales (has characteristics of both). Do you understand the difference?

* sighs, shakes head *

 

[Dr Adequate]

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.

This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this.

This is a fact. Yes, we know it. No-one has ever found a man in the same fossil layers of dinosaurs. This is confirmed by all the paeleontological evidence ever published, or, as you would put it, it is "an assumption". You know, like "we don't find any pigs with wings" is an "assumption".

Again, could you try to learn something about even one of the topics you lecture us on? Even your Bible quotes seem to be mostly borrowed from other people on this thread who posted them first.

 

[H3LL]

Hello again Nick.

I'll try yet again.

I would like you to show us what makes the stuff you repeat on here science? (There is help in this thread if you want to read it).

Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.

If you can't.

I T I S N O T S C I E N C E

Therefore it's just a story. Nothing more, nothing less. No more valid as science than a fairy tale.

So, in case you missed it:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.</center>

That's:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.</center>

or if you prefer:

<center>If what you say follows the scientific method. Show us how.</center>

How about:

<center>Science follows a certain method. Show us how what you say follows the scientific method.</center>

Or:

<center>Science is called science because it follows a scientific method. In what way does what you say follow a scientific method?</center>

I prefer the first. It was:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.</center>

That's:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.</center>

You may have got the idea that I want you to

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method.</center>

So show us please.

When you have shown us we can start to take what you say seriously and not understand that it is a just a story and you think it's a nice story.

Thank you.


PS - Please show us how what you say follows a scientific method.

PPS - I hope I'm a bit more visible this time. We shall see.

PPPS - This link might help: scientific method.

PPPPS - If anything in this post is unclear. Please let me know. I and others here are very happy to help.

 

[Correa Neto]

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.

I am being ignored but I will go on.

I happen to know some paleontologists who work with ichnofossils (fossil tracks and footprints). Guess what: There are no human footprints associated with dinosaurs or trilobites.

YE "specialists" are wrong again.

You will not find hominid fossils older than 4 Ma. You will never find fossils of humans associated with dinosaurs, pterossaurs, mammalian reptiles, labyrinthodonds, giant fireflys, Burgess shale fauna, Ediacara fauna, etc.

BTW, Noah grabbed a pair of Australopithecus?Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)

"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain...snip..."

Ahem... CIRCLE ? The Earth is a CIRCLE ? What happened to the geoid? Circle = 2d geometric figure. The Bible is teaching that the Earth is FLAT !!!! Another shot in the foot.

And once again,

Do you realize that the Bible was assembled by men? I will not enter on the issue reagrading if the texts were or not inspired by god. I am just asking if you acknoweledge it was several times assembled -and edited- by men that were subject to failures. Do you trust these men?

Remember Madagascar. It has a unique fauna (are there loris anywhere else?). Even the fossils are different there. And also remember the fossil fauna in Antarctica, again quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, Nick, these footprints.

You don't give any references whatsoever

However, as with every other subject we've discussed so far, I know more about YEC nonsense than you do. Unlike you, you see, I've carefully studied the arguments of both sides with an open mind, and I remembered and understood what I read. It's just this little way I have.

So I should guess you're thinking of the "Paluxy Tracks". Am I right?

Now, if you take a look, you'll see that even your heroes on AiG list this under "Arguments We Think Creationists Shouldn't Use".

But you read it in a fundie tract, and even though you couldn't quite remember it, or remember where you read it, or cite one single fact to back it up, or say where these tracks were, you still passed this trash on as though it were gospel.

As I have said before, this is not honest behaviour.

 

[farmermike]

Has anyone else suffered slight bruising above the eyebrows from the gentle slamming of ones head against their desk?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are not giving an accurate account of the AiG material.

Now you're making stuff up about me, like the good Christian you are. I have given a perfectly accurate account of the AiG material. I wrote: "they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!" This was what I had just read on their site, as I mentioned in my post.. Here is a citation and a quotation.

This page from AiG : "It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence."

My account was perfectly accurate.

 

[Nex]

Has anyone else suffered slight bruising above the eyebrows from the gentle slamming of ones head against their desk?

Quite so.


Pardon me, Mr. Nick Harman. Could you PLEASE address the questions Correa Neto (who is FAR from invisible) has asked, and the points he has brought to light? At least the ones within the last 2 or 3 pages.

Pretty please?

Thank you.

 

[Nex]

[...] My account was perfectly accurate.

And adequate.

 

[H3LL]

Thanks Dr. A for the "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".

It would seem to show that Nick reads the AiG site as diligently as he reads this thread, our links and the bible.

That is:

Not very well, if at all.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Now tell us how you know the Bible is the word of God. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

Or alternatively...

What in the text of the Qur'aan would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the Qur'aan as anything other than literal. Allah's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Mohammed said, "this Qur'aan is from Allah." Someone said earlier that if the Qur'aan is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the Qur'aan is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts Allah. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Now tell us how you know the Qur'aan is the word of Allah. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

 

[Darat]

I am signing off for the evening, it has been a pleasure. You all be safe and have a nice evening.

Serving a risen Savior who loves each and every one of you,
Nick Harman

Hi Nick - How do you know the age of the Earth? I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.". Could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

 

[Ashles]

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.

Oh why didn't I get here in time to respond to that piece of nonsense.

Nick these are lies you are repeating. Are you happy with that?

The scientific evidence is very easy to get hold of, and the things you are claiming have no relationship to scientific knowledge. They are made up. Invented. Lies.

Does this not concern you?

They are not even claims from the bible (so you can't claim that God said them). They are fabrications by human beings who can't bear to face the fact that what the bible says is at odds with actual real observable facts, so they have to resort to lies. And you are happy to swallow those lies and regurgitate them, even though they just don't make sense.

Now you are claiming that the mountains just rose after the flood. That appears like you are completely out of logical reasonable arguments and are resorting (as was inevitable) to the simple "God just did it, okay?" response.

Also, it does not say anywhere in the Bible that the mountains rose after the flood. So how can you start assuming things you reckon were left out of the bible?

Does the bible teach a flat earth? Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)
It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Look up 'circle' and 'sphere' on the internet.
One of them is flat (2-dimensional), one isn't. See if you can find out which is which.