Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Creationists, explain to me why humans and dinosaurs....

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
The point is that they [ID] won't be able to offer any "new lines of thinking" for science, or not any worthy ones anyway.


Again, I accept your belief in this. I am not here to dissuade your feelings on this. I am not as certain of this as you are. Perhaps, someone committed to the concept if ID, will offer up a new line of thinking. I am confident it will not support the premise of ID, but it might shed light on something else.
Back to top
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ID's utility has all but run out.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CryxicKiller wrote:
ID's utility has all but run out.


Perhaps.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Since ID is merely a combination of creationism and modern science, wouldn't any new lines of thinking be able to be created from those two?
Back to top
joeyjock
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no... because intelligent design IS creationism
it's not a blend of the two
intelligent design uses only the lingo of modern science but none of its principles so there can never be an incorporation of thought
it is inexorably anti-scientific in its premises
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can live with that.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you wish to talk about the layers then evolutionists will lose quickly. Polystrate fossils alone show how quickly the layers were placed down, thus disproving the general age of the layers themselves. While you think about that also think of a way to explain the cambrian explosion, were the fossil record goes from only single celled organisms to all forms of life?
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
If you wish to talk about the layers then evolutionists will lose quickly. Polystrate fossils alone show how quickly the layers were placed down, thus disproving the general age of the layers themselves.


From talkorigins.org

Quote:
Some creationist presentations include claims about "polystrate fossils". The term, which is not a geological term, is used by creationists to describe fossils that intersect several rock beds, usually in sedimentary rocks. However, "polystrate" tree fossils were not problematic for conventional geologists of the 19th century, nor are they a problem for 20th century geologists.


Get with the times ...


InherentLogic wrote:
While you think about that also think of a way to explain the cambrian explosion, were the fossil record goes from only single celled organisms to all forms of life?



... just in case you are like cornopean (or maybe you are cornopean), here are some tidbits ...

Quote:
The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004)


So, no it didn't go from "only single celled organisms to all forms of life".

Quote:
Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.


... again, not all forms of life. And please, please note that these arguments have been refuted since the early 1990s and before. If you are going to paste headlines from creationist websites you should do some investigating first and see if that headline has been thoroughly refuted as these have.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
the cambrian explosion, were the fossil record goes from only single celled organisms to all forms of life?


That's actually not true.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
actually its not from talk origins, or anything like it for that matter, but nice try.

Also debating about minor details in age is irrilevant due to how quickly we now know the layers were deposited.

"If it really took millions of years for the sediment to be laid down, the trees would have rotted away long before they could fossilize. But there's no sign of decay. Each tree must have been covered all at once -- 40 feet of sediment laid down all at one time.

That dramatically collapses the standard time table."

If you have trouble doing the math over the total amount of sedimentary layers of strata ill help you out.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is absolutely ridiculous from any scientific standpoint."
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
THIS POST IS TO ANSWER JESUSLOPEZ

In Glen Rose near the Paluxy River (Texas) innumerable footprints of various dinosaurs can still be seen in the chalk today. The huge footprints of Brontosaurus, weighing about 70 tons, are still clearly preserved in many places. There, too, Tyrannosaurus Rex tracks can be found. The Brontosaurus footprints are perhaps the most impressive among all the other dinosaur prints. When filled with water, a small child could easily take a bath in them.

Several geologists and other scientists have found what appear to be human footprints quite near to these dinosaur footprints in the chalk, which they photographed and duly published.(2) A film exists on some of these discoveries(3) and attracted much attention in the USA.

How are we to interpret such discoveries? If they are factual it would appear that brontosaurus existed contemporaneously with man, which is, of course, absolute heresy from a Neodarwinian view. After the formation of the dinosaur footprints in the then soft chalk, the chalk could not once again after millions of years have become soft so as to be able to receive later human footprints without at the same time damaging or eradicating the earlier dinosaur footprints. The human footprints and the dinosaur tracks are both equally clearly imprinted on the chalk, so that interim softening is out of the question. We can draw only one conclusion: the Brontosaurus and the human footsteps were formed simultaneously. If this is true, then humans and dinosaurs must have been contemporaries. If, however, according to present-day popular geological assumptions, the dinosaurs really did become extinct 70-120 million years ago, then man must already have existed 70-120 million years ago. The only alternative is that the dinosaurs still lived 1-10 million years ago - which the average geologist will scarcely admit - or that the allegedly human tracks are faked. The consequences of these alternatives are far reaching.

If, according to Darwinian theory, man developed via the amphibians, the reptiles, and the mammals, then this development must have required a great deal of time. However if man lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, he must himself either be as young or as old as they are. If he is as old as they are alleged to be, his evolutionary family tree will have automatically been reduced by some 70-120 million years. Precisely this time span reduction of the evolutionary tree cannot, however, be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution. His entire ladder from primeval cell to man required at the very least 600-700 million years in order to allow development of the primeval cell up to man by chance and selection. If man, however, lived at t he same time as the dinosaurs, then approximately 20% of the required evolutionary time span has been lost. But just this reduction by 20% is fatal according to mathematical probability theories on an evolution based on chance and selected mutations. If man and the dinosaur are considered to be geologically equally young, other grave problems arise for the evolutionary tree.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
"The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life


A:

Actually, it doesn't.

Pasteur's (and others) empirical results were summarized in the phrase, Omne vivum ex vivo (or Omne vivum ex ovo), Latin for "all life [is] from [an] egg". This is sometimes called "law of biogenesis" and shows that life does not currently spontaneously arise in nature in its present forms from non-life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

B:

It's generally not a good idea to try to use a scientific law to make a point like that. Laws are like anything else; they can be invalidated. They're also less rigorous than theories.

Example: the law of "conservation of matter".
In reality, there is no conservation of matter, but the people who came up with that idea didn't know it at that time.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
THIS POST IS TO ANSWER JESUSLOPEZ

In Glen Rose near the Paluxy River (Texas) innumerable footprints of various dinosaurs can still be seen in the chalk today. The huge footprints of Brontosaurus, weighing about 70 tons, are still clearly preserved in many places. There, too, Tyrannosaurus Rex tracks can be found. The Brontosaurus footprints are perhaps the most impressive among all the other dinosaur prints. When filled with water, a small child could easily take a bath in them.

Several geologists and other scientists have found what appear to be human footprints quite near to these dinosaur footprints in the chalk, which they photographed and duly published.(2) A film exists on some of these discoveries(3) and attracted much attention in the USA.


First, when you copy and paste something, it would be much appreciated if you'd link to the original source so the rest of us can read it.

Here's your source (as far as i can tell):


Second, those are not human footprints.

According to the standard geologic timetable, humans did not appear on earth until approximately 60 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. Nevertheless, for many years claims were made by some strict creationists, and continue to be encouraged by a few individuals, that fossil human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.

However, initial critical work in the early 1970's,[1] and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings.


Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately geologists disagree with your journalist^^
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 7 of 10

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites