Jump to content


Photo

Proving Prints In Paluxy River Are Frauds.


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:58 AM

I'm glad you think it was a good presentation, but what about the evidence Taikoo?  What would account for the denser rock around the human footprint?  How could a carver cause the rock around the print to become more dense?

View Post


Thanks for calling me Taikoo, AFJ! its a nickname my friends gave me.

Regarding evidence. The jury of course needs to hear good arguments from both sides, and to avoid making a premature decision etc... you know how it goes.

After having everything about my story humiliatingly shredded, then how good clean kids, no priors etc could not be guilty, couldnt DO such a thing, I thought the jury would come back with "not guilty". But you know, they really did weigh everything and they came back with the right decision.

Im not remotely qualified to assess the evidence shown in that video, esp the scanning part.

There were some odd details in the story, but you know, a lot of stories have odd details.* Referring to the above, mine did too.

So, anyway, I did look at the video, thought about it overnight, and this morning did a bit of a web search.

let the jury also consider each of the points made here.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

i would say that at best, the results are inconclusive and that in the absence of an examination by disinterested parties a person could say that nothing has been proven by this object.

Is that fair minded enough?

*one detail that struck me is that the fellow with the museum has been involved with "discovering human footprints", and making unverifiable claims for some years.

it reminded me of what i read about Joseph Smith, and how he had for years been searching for buried treasures, and using seer stones.... before he "found" the gold books, and used seer stones to "translate" them. A lot of intelligent sincere people believe this story.

Show me the books. Show me footprints that have been properly analyzed by people who know how to do it and arent trying to promote their museum or ideology.

#42 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:26 AM

Thanks for calling me Taikoo, AFJ!  its a nickname my friends gave me.

Regarding evidence.  The jury of course needs to hear good arguments from both sides, and to avoid making a premature decision etc... you know how it goes.

After having everything about my story humiliatingly shredded,  then how good clean kids, no priors etc could not be guilty, couldnt DO such a thing, I thought the jury would come back with "not guilty".  But you know, they really did weigh everything and they came back with the right decision. 

Im not remotely qualified to assess the evidence shown in that video, esp the scanning part.

There were some odd details in the story, but you know, a lot of stories have odd details.*  Referring to the above, mine did too.

So, anyway, I did look at the video, thought about it overnight, and this morning did a bit of a web search.

let the jury also consider each of the points made here.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

i would say that at best, the results are inconclusive and that in the absence of an examination by disinterested parties a person could say that nothing has been proven by this object.

Is that fair minded enough?

*one detail that struck me is that the fellow with the museum has been involved with "discovering human footprints", and making unverifiable claims for some years.

it reminded me of what i read about Joseph Smith, and how he had for years been searching for buried treasures, and using seer stones.... before he "found" the gold books, and used seer stones to "translate" them.  A lot of intelligent sincere people believe this story.

Show me the books.  Show me footprints that have been properly analyzed by people who know how to do it and arent trying to promote their museum or ideology.

View Post


So you can't make a conclusion on this because it isn't peer reviewed. But they have tried to get people down there with little luck. The people that have come have come with a scoffer's attitude--not at all objective--as has been discussed on this forum.

Perhaps the competition element is coming into play between evos and creats here.

One fact--Carl Baugh is not credentialed from an (government) accredited institution, so he is labeled. Might I add that home schoolers, and private school students have higher SAT scores than public school students.

A government connected endorsement on someone's education does not necessitate a better education.

#43 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:28 AM

There no doubt are more tracks around the bend and and beneath the overburden on either side of the river, extending to unknown distances.  The tracks are found of course, where the river exposed that layer of rock.

With regard to the tracks following the river, the rock is a type formed in shallow marine environments such as a bay or estuary. The tracks that are parallel to where there is now a river are logically going to be parallel to the river.  Not all of them are pararllel.

I think it is unsuitable in the extreme to say that my statement  about evolution and the Nobel prize is a lie.   

This statement:

If scientists really believed that they would be looking for the rest of that tracks that go under the bank.

Is like what I said about the Nobel, a statement of opinion.  Tho i must say, my opinion has considerably more basis.  The greatest scientific discovery possibly of all time surely would get the Nobel.

No, your opinion would be demonstrably wrong. There has yet to be found any data inconsistent with human tracks at Paluxy. Thus, with the controversy surrounding the tracks, and a clear approach to possibly solving the controversy and with it possibly the greatest scientific discovery of all time , the scientists... do nothing. The reason they don't excavate the rest of the trail is because any scientist that validates the data if it tends to show human tracks, will in my opinion lose their name and most likely their career. In your opinion they don't do it because they might get the Nobel.

Your opinion doesn't make sense.

I think a more accurate statement about the tracks would be something like this:

If any scientist thought any tracks found to date were human then there would be great interest in finding more.  

I did note in a bit of reading that some of "human" trackways show side toes in some of the prints.  I also found that a lot of research papers have been done on the Paluxy trackways.

Yes, there has been some research on the Paluxy trackways. That's how we know there is no data that is inconsistent with human tracks yet.

In shallow marine water of course, you get tidal action, and when an animals is partly floating you will get shallower prints.  There are dino tracks to be found that clearly show that only the front of the toes touched bottom as the animal half paddled, half walked along.

The research done on where the river was or where a shoreline was or how a shoreline must become a river has yet to show anything conclusive. So that would need to be done as well to find out what really happened.

I noticed btw in looking at a few pictures that there are at least 3 clear photos showing drastically differently shaped "human" footprints.  How does this seem to you?

There is no conclusive data available. That is why ICR says not to use Paluxy as an example of human footprints with dino footprints. ICR does not say the data so far is inconsistent with human tracks at Paluxy.

Regardless of specifics of what you or others think has "falsified" evolution, or, what scientists would do etc, I think there is a general concept that you have expressed.  I am going to guess at it, and invite you to state in your own words what it is you think.
This is my guess:  That you believe scientists are out to protect and prove a preconceived "dogma" about evolution.  That they ignore or hide evidence that would refute their dogma. 

Is that accurate?  If not, my apologies;  If it is, then could you please state this concept as clearly and completely as you can?

Oh... one more thing.  Do you think that creationists are out to prove and protect a preconceived dogma?

View Post

Scientists ignore evidence that would refute their dogma. This isn't because of an active conspiracy, but a worldview protected by academia and the peer review process. This is proven by both the Sternberg case and the Marcus Ross account.

Creationists cannot protect their dogma. Creationists have no influence in academia or the peer review process. To prove their case creationists simply try and call for more research.

#44 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:39 AM

No, your opinion would be demonstrably wrong. There has yet to be found any data inconsistent with human tracks at Paluxy. Thus, with the controversy surrounding the tracks, and a clear approach to possibly solving the controversy and with it possibly the greatest scientific discovery of all time , the scientists... do nothing. The reason they don't excavate the rest of the trail is because any scientist that validates the data if it tends to show human tracks, will in my opinion lose their name and most likely their career. In your opinion they don't do it because they might get the Nobel.

Your opinion doesn't make sense.
Yes, there has been some research on the Paluxy trackways. That's how we know there is no data that is inconsistent with human tracks yet.
The research done on where the river was or where a shoreline was or how a shoreline must become a river has yet to show anything conclusive. So that would need to be done as well to find out what really happened.
There is no conclusive data available. That is why ICR says not to use Paluxy as an example of human footprints with dino footprints. ICR does not say the data so far is inconsistent with human tracks at Paluxy.
Scientists ignore evidence that would refute their dogma. This isn't because of an active conspiracy, but a worldview protected by academia and the peer review process. This is proven by both the Sternberg case and the Marcus Ross account.

Creationists cannot protect their dogma. Creationists have no influence in academia or the peer review process. To prove their case creationists simply try and call for more research.

View Post

Well said, Yorzhik. As far as these tracks--Our moderators have allowed some liberty here--but I agree that it is not wise to use this as evidence on other "less friendly" sites. It is sad that there may be an earthshaking discovery literally buried in Texas. How long will it remain that way and what can we do to call for more research?

I've never been there, but I'm sure somewhere the locals are digging. Things always look different "on the ground" than they do in the media or books. I've learned that from personal experience.

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:13 AM

Present a fake, of course it will be seen as one.  Not much predicting required.

View Post

Nonsense. There is no law of nature that requires fakes to be seen as fakes. How splendid it would be if it were so! Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man automatically seen as fakes. Evolutionism automatically seen as fake science. Fraud would have difficulty getting a toehold, one imagines.

Try this on for size. Present evidence to liars in denial of reality, and they'll reject it. This's got observational support.

As for the reason, " doesnt match example' that is of course just opinion stated as fact.

View Post

???

Are you claiming the "opinion" that the prints all "match" is a valid one then, or just jibbering?

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:35 AM

Well said, Yorzhik.  As far as these tracks--Our moderators have allowed some liberty here--but I agree that it is not wise to use this as evidence on other "less friendly" sites.  It is sad that there may be an earthshaking discovery literally buried in Texas.  How long will it remain that way and what can we do to call for more research?

I've never been there, but I'm sure somewhere the locals are digging.  Things always look different "on the ground" than they do in the media or books. I've learned that from personal experience.

View Post

I disagree with the contention creationists shouldn't use the evidence. The evaluation performed by ICR is from the 1980's, and could've been more thorough. AIG pretty much references that single evaluation and gives up.

That evaluation is out-of-date; it does not consider all the evidence - it didn't even consider all the evidence available at the time. There is no reason to withhold these discoveries from potential seekers-of-truth. There is much to be learned, not the least of which is the dependence of "science" upon history.

Things can get ugly when the amorality card is played time & time again: countless slanders may be leveled against every creationist involved. Guess what? Any argument-from-spam can be turned against itself, and the slanders are lame. It doesn't take the brightest bulb to understand that a case which must be built on spam cannot be strong.

Another bonus, in the long run, is the fact that Kuban & co. change their websites so frequently. In a short-term discussion, this may not be easy to demonstrate; but consider the case of an honest man returning to debate the same issue a couple of years later, and finding everything they said before has changed. For this individual honest man, the benefit is obvious.

#47 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:30 AM

So you can't make a conclusion on this because it isn't peer reviewed.  But they have tried to get people down there with little luck.  The people that have come have come with a scoffer's attitude--not at all objective--as has been discussed on this forum.

Perhaps the competition element is coming into play between evos and creats here. 

One fact--Carl Baugh is not credentialed from an (government) accredited institution, so he is labeled.  Might I add that home schoolers, and private school students have higher SAT scores than public school students. 

A government connected endorsement on someone's education does not necessitate a better education.

View Post



I did of course specifically say that there is no conclusion possible on the evidence presented. Dont put words in my mouth about "peer reviewed". Not fair and not true.

If it is real, then the finest minds could either, reasonably, say its impossible to say for sure, or that it is real. You dont, i dont know, which it is.

i think we can agree on that. I do see though that some here have drawn a conclusion or two.

first, that it is real

second, that no scientist would agree that it is real, no matter what.

neither of these is a reasonable conclusion.

I absolutely agree that a college degree doesnt make someone smart or give them a better education. it is an individual thing. Also of course, amateurs of all sorts have made any number of interesting and valuable discoveries.*

Darwin himself was hardly an old greybeard, or even much of a student in college. More of a go-to guy, liked to go hunting etc, as i understand it.

There is a certain element of truth in the idea that the scientific community has ideas that are not readily dislodged, but the idea that new info that contradicts older ideas will be automatically ignored-especially for ideological ideas-is a poor and weak argument that tends to be greatly overplayed.

In the extreme, I have seen claims that there is a world wide conspiracy, as one told me, that satan and his minions have clouded the minds of scientists and brought them into this conspiracy. That is about what what would be necesssary tho, to get that many thousands of highly competitive people on the same page, and ignoring fine research possibilities for the sake of dogma. As another poster put it, "the slanders are lame".

It would not be a quick easy sell, falsifying some aspect of Einsteins theories, or any other well founded scientific theories. Why would it be? You have to prove your data is solid. Do that and even the mighty Einstein will topple. That is the nature of science.

And it is totally diametrically opposite to dogma which is about revealed information that has to be defended. Falsify the reality of Jesus, and Christianity crumbles. Show there was no flood and what happens to Christianity? Falsify anything you like in science, and science grows stronger, and moves ahead.


* i hung around a paleo lab / dept enough to be aware of all manner of odd calls from people who claim all sorts of discoveries. I was asked to go check out one, the farmer said he'd found a duckbill dinosaur. So, i went, and it was a horse. It had been buried for a while, but it was just a horse. He was kind of mad, and maybe he still thinks he had a dinosaur.

#48 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:33 AM

A little OT, but also a little relevant.

Ever hear of Acrocanthosaurus?

NC Museum of Natural Sciences explains
http://naturalscienc.../faqs/acro.html

Why haven’t I heard of this dinosaur before?

It’s very, very rare. Only four skeletal specimens have been found and most of the remainder are fragments or teeth.


Dr. Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum features one, yet it is omitted entirely from mainstream references, such as wiki's Acro article.

Naturally, Dr. Baugh has been the subject of edit wars at wiki.
http://en.wikipedia....&oldid=74252352
Shows where his educational background was clipped to remove his degree from Burton College. There was some back & forth. The current article omits this.

#49 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:54 PM

Just a point of order here:

Nobody can "prove a negative". It is not up to the one who hears about "Santa Claus" to be the one to disprove him. It is up for the one who claims Santa to be real to provide the evidence for Santa.

So the foot track people, which is considered to be unsubstantiated by several leading YEC sites and not to be used, have to show that their find is verifiable BEFORE they take it as evidence.

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:35 PM

Just a point of order here:

Nobody can "prove a negative".  It is not up to the one who hears about "Santa Claus" to be the one to disprove him.  It is up for the one who claims Santa to be real to provide the evidence for Santa.

So the foot track people, which is considered to be unsubstantiated by several leading YEC sites and not to be used, have to show that their find is verifiable BEFORE they take it as evidence.

View Post

Goodness! I had not expected the existence of the footprints to be challenged. The testimony of so many hostile witnesses seems to make it beyond dispute.

Do you propose a massive conspiracy, encompassing YEC's evolutionists and even hostile YEC's? Do you propose a "mass hallucination"? Just how are we to reconciles so many reports from so many sources with conflicting interests with your premise that they might not exist? Is there any precedent for a hoax of this scale in all of history?

I think the burden of proof has been more than met here. The footprints exist. I shan't even bother to add my own testimony.

#51 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 03 November 2009 - 05:03 PM

Well said, Yorzhik.  As far as these tracks--Our moderators have allowed some liberty here--but I agree that it is not wise to use this as evidence on other "less friendly" sites.  It is sad that there may be an earthshaking discovery literally buried in Texas.  How long will it remain that way and what can we do to call for more research?

I've never been there, but I'm sure somewhere the locals are digging.  Things always look different "on the ground" than they do in the media or books. I've learned that from personal experience.

View Post

No liberty required. I'm not arguing the tracks are human. I'm arguing that when you hear an evolutionist say "that's the whole point, to falsify theories" [in the context of evolution] or "anyone that showed evidence that falsified evolution would be famous"... it's a lie. Evolutionists will not investigate in a clear case where they should. And it only takes one example to prove those 2 statements a lie.

#52 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 06:41 PM

Goodness! I had not expected the existence of the footprints to be challenged. The testimony of so many hostile witnesses seems to make it beyond dispute.

That there is some sort of impression in the rocks is not at issue. What is at issue is are those impressions human, some creature or frauds?

Do you propose a massive conspiracy, encompassing YEC's evolutionists and even hostile YEC's? Do you propose a "mass hallucination"? Just how are we to reconciles so many reports from so many sources with conflicting interests with your premise that they might not exist? Is there any precedent for a hoax of this scale in all of history?

I claim nothing of the sort. However, if these "footprints" are human, and thes are over 30 years old, then why is there nothing new?

I think the burden of proof has been more than met here. The footprints exist. I shan't even bother to add my own testimony.

View Post

As I don't know you, your personal witnessing or testimony would mean little to me. Can you spot a fraud? Do you know what you're to be looking for when it comes to distortions made under the print by pressure from the weight of the thing that supposedly walked it?

#53 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:30 PM

No liberty required. I'm not arguing the tracks are human. I'm arguing that when you hear an evolutionist say "that's the whole point, to falsify theories" [in the context of evolution] or "anyone that showed evidence that falsified evolution would be famous"... it's a lie. Evolutionists will not investigate in a clear case where they should. And it only takes one example to prove those 2 statements a lie.

View Post



I was not lying the first time I said it. Here it is again.

Anyone who could falsify the ToE would be famous.

I will go further and say that it would be possibly the greatest scientific discovery of all time, to date. The consequences would be immense.

There are all sorts of people in fields like physics who would be embarrassed by evolution masquerading as a science...people are embarrassed enough by psychology...if it were the phony that some who dont know what it really is think it is.

IF a physicist saw his chance, say someone at the Univ of Beijing who could not care less about "evo/creo" debate, he sure as anything would publish his results falsifying evolution and nothing could keep the genii in the bottle.

Regards investigating a "clear case". That is how it seems to you. To the paleontologists it looks like wild goose chase. They have better things to do that chase every goose.


IF evolution was a big fake the evidence would be so abundant so universal that nobody would need to cling to a thin reed like a questionable-at-best footprint to try to prove something.

The truth cant be kept in a bottle any more than you can keep heat in a thermos. if someone gets a real human footprint, we will all know it.

The case for creationism needs something more robust than insulting the intelligence and honesty of professional who work in science.

We continue to wait for a creationist to bring in ONE piece of data for their side..

#54 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:42 PM

Anyone who could falsify the ToE would be famous.

But creationists accept micro-evolution and speciation within family taxonomy. So they obviously accept evolution as a fact, and evolution as science.

What they don't accept is macro-evolution or evolution of the higher taxa. All they have to falsify is macro-evolution. I agree anyone who did that would be famous, but it wouldn't falsify evolution, since micro-evolution is established and universally agreed upon, by creationists and evolutionists.

#55 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:43 PM

The only way to prove the Paluxy River tracks is to find more, and document them. Then and only then would the case finally be closed. Plus it would also raise a bunch of questions, and hopefully some evolutionist wouldn't say that some sort of dinosaur had human shaped feet.

Creation data is all the dinosaur fossils and all the geological formations formed by Noah's flood. That is the data, and it is in abundance. Evolutionist claim fossils as evidence for only their side, but this isn't the case. Creationist use these fossils also as evidence.

#56 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 03 November 2009 - 07:50 PM

But creationists accept micro-evolution and speciation within family taxonomy.  So they obviously accept evolution as a fact, and evolution as science.

What they don't accept is macro-evolution or evolution of the higher taxa.  All they have to falsify is macro-evolution.  I agree anyone who did that would be famous, but it wouldn't falsify evolution, since micro-evolution is established and universally agreed upon, by creationists and evolutionists.

View Post



Actually micro-evolution technichally isn't evolution because no new genetic information is created during the breeding process of speciation. Actually speciation hasn't been witnessed, only the production of different breeds has. Animals of 2 different species should not be able to produce fertile offspring, and that also says that they are not of the same breed.

I do not believe the production of a new species has been seen, but if anyone has any verifiable evidence that a new species that could not mate with another of like species that it supposedly evolved from, then please show it. If it produces fertile offspring with the like species... then it does not qualify as a new species only a different breed.

Gregor Mendel knew that no new genetic information was used during the breeding process. He also knew that every time he created a new breed that it technically wasn't new, because he was using existing genetic information each and every time. Why? Because we can take the same plants/animals, and breed an old breed from hundreds of years ago.

#57 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:03 PM

Creation data is all the dinosaur fossils and all the geological formations formed by Noah's flood.  That is the data, and it is in abundance.  Evolutionist claim fossils as evidence for only their side, but this isn't the case.  Creationist use these fossils also as evidence.

View Post

Creationist might use fossils as evidence. But its not scientific interpretation of the evidence.

For example, I could use the Sun rising every day as evidence for god Ra's love of me. My use of the Sun as evidence, does not mean I am making a scientific statement. I simply making corralations between natural phenomenon and my metaphysical beliefs.

Evolutionary biology, however, uses fossils to support theories in cladistics and phylogenetic trees. It doesn't use fossils to support the theory of evolution, because evolutionary theory is a fact. (Remember creationist and evolutionist agree on micro-evolution as fact. What evolutionary biology, does that creationist do not like, is search for the connections between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, in which fossils are used as one of component of data.)

So basically there is no conflict between creationism and "evolutionism" on the fact of evolution. The disagreement is on macro-evolution in which creationism do not understand how science interprets fossil evidence. Evolutionary biology does more than correlate fossils with a belief.

#58 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:14 PM

The only way to prove the Paluxy River tracks is to find more, and document them.  Then and only then would the case finally be closed.  Plus it would also raise a bunch of questions, and hopefully some evolutionist wouldn't say that some sort of dinosaur had human shaped feet.

Creation data is all the dinosaur fossils and all the geological formations formed by Noah's flood.  That is the data, and it is in abundance.  Evolutionist claim fossils as evidence for only their side, but this isn't the case.  Creationist use these fossils also as evidence.

View Post



Im all for doing more excavation, dig up the whole state until there is no more talk of it.

Creation data is the stuff caused by Noah's flood?

Do you have an explanation for why it is that the thousands and thousands of geologists all over the world who have spent their lives in study have never been able to find evidence for a great flood?

But a guy with no more depth of knowledge in the subject than a shoe clerk can just come along and find they are all wrong because a book he has says they must be wrong, and he can see how things Really are?

Really, is that a reasonable thing to think?

#59 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:34 PM

Actually micro-evolution technichally isn't evolution because no new genetic information is created during the breeding process of speciation.

New genetic information is not required for changes in a family taxa. Take the Ensatina escholtzii species of salamander family in the Sierra Nervada as an example.

http://www.pbs.org/w...2/l_052_05.html

Some interbreeding occurs between adjacent populations along the Pacific coast, but species at each end of the spectrum do not interbreed. They are reproductively isolated. By standard scientific definitions; a species is a set of interbreeding organisms. The populations at the end of the spectrum do not breed, even though they are of the same species.

Actually speciation hasn't been witnessed, only the production of different breeds has. 

The salamander is an example of speciation.

Animals of 2 different species should not be able to produce fertile offspring, and that also says that they are not of the same breed.

Tigers and Lions are two species of the Felidae family. They produce infertile offspring. Does that not suggest speciation occurred at some point in their biological history? Or do you have a reason why God made it that lions and tigers could produce hybrids.

I do not believe the production of a new species has been seen, but if anyone has any verifiable evidence that a new species that could not mate with another of like species that it supposedly evolved from, then please show it.

DNA testing show eight lines of ancestory to present day cats.

Gregor Mendel knew that no new genetic information was used during the breeding process.  He also knew that every time he created a new breed that it technically wasn't new, because he was using existing genetic information each and every time.  Why?  Because we can take the same plants/animals, and breed an old breed from hundreds of years ago.

View Post

Mendel didn't know anything about genes, so couldn't have commented on the subject. All Mendel's work showed is there was laws of inheritence, which turned out to be genetic. He also showed Lamarckian inheritance was wrong.

You're going to have to dig deeper than 19th century biology to show how micro-evolution does or does not work.

#60 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:43 PM

But a guy with no more depth of knowledge in the subject than a shoe clerk can just come along and find they are all wrong because a book he has says they must be wrong, and he can see how things Really are? 

Really, is that a reasonable thing to think?

View Post

I think it comes down to a lack of respect and lack of knowledge of what scientists have to study to become scientists.

If I had no respect for astrophysicists I would say they were wrong about there being nuclear fusion on the Sun, and that it is in fact Ra keeping us warm with his love for us. The fact that the Sun rises everyday, and my belief Ra is responsible is "evidence".

Unfortunately those astrophysicists have conspired to keep Ra's teaching out of the universities, and the public do not know they are being deceived by them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users