Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Bonedigger

Admin Team
  • Content Count

    1,422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Bonedigger last won the day on July 13 2013

Bonedigger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About Bonedigger

  • Rank
    Admin Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    52
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Colorado

Recent Profile Visitors

459 profile views
  1. Bonedigger

    Look What I Found!

    I'll keep this relatively short, as this is not exactly on-topic. If you want to go more in depth on it, then start a thread for it. You are confused. Believing that the majority of the fossil record was deposited by the Flood is not the same thing as, nor does it justify, falsely claiming that Hyracotherium and Equus have been found in the same layers, i.e. strata. Nowhere have they been found in the same strata. Let's see. Why don't I start with the dentition. Eohippus has a full compliment of incisors, three on each side above and below, and they are normal "cropping" incisors, just like any modern horse. Hyraxes have a single, hypseledont (ever-growing) upper incisor "tusk" on each side, that is more like that of a rodent, or even an elephant. They have two incisors per side in the lower jaw, but they are spatulate and procumbent, and don't resemble the teeth of Eohippus or a modern horse at all. Eohippus has upper and lower canines, hyraxes do not. Eohippus has three premolars and three molars, lacking the first premolar of a "standard" placental mammal dentition. Hyraxes have four premolars and three molars. In Eohippus, the premolars are simple teeth with a single primary cusp. In hyraxes, with the exception of the first, the premolars are "molariform", meaning they have the same complex cusp and ridge pattern as the molars. In Eohippus, the upper molars have a typical "quadrate" pattern, with four principal cusps--paracone, metacone, protocone, and hypocone, and the cross ridges (protoloph and metaloph) connect to the outer ridge of the tooth at the parastyle and mesostyle, respectively, typical of any horse. Hyraxes also have a "quadrate" tooth, but the protoloph connects directly to the paracone, and the metaloph connects directly to the metacone, giving it a π shape, more similar to rhinos than any horse. Should I continue?? In short, claiming that Eohippus/Hyracotherium is just a hyrax, something I see all the time in creationist websites, amounts to nothing more than ignorant hyperbole. No. Classically, the horses have been divided into three subfamilies: Hyracotheriinae-small "primitive" horses with four toes on the manus (front foot), three toes on the pes (back foot), and low crowned browsing teeth with various degrees of molarization of the premolars. Anchitheriinae-medium sized "browsing" horses with three toes on both front and back feet, low crowned browsing teeth with the premolars completely molarized. Equinae-various sized "grazing" horses with high crowned teeth with cement, and either three toes per foot or completely monodactyl (one-toed) like the extant horse. To go any further into it than that would require a much bigger post in a thread devoted to the topic. Why that's simple. You just measure/categorize a bunch of characters, feed them into a program that forces them into some sort of evolutionary/common descent "tree", find the tree that requires the least number of ad hoc evolutionary changes, and then pretend that you have determined what really happened in history. Like I said. If you want to go into this in depth, then start a thread for it, rather than continuing to hijack this one with topics that have nothing to do with the speed of light (the topic of this thread).
  2. Bonedigger

    Look What I Found!

    So you reckon linking to some propagandist blogs is "correcting" me ? As usual they depend on outdated material from many decades ago. I've already told you that horse fossils are no longer viewed as a linear, ladder like sequence (because we now have much more extensive fossil record) but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Plus there are "untruths" included in there, for example it states that the basal Hyracotherium is found in the same layers as the modern genus Equus, that is wrong and of course they don't reference such claims so that anyone can check. Typical. I'm afraid I have to agree with wibble on that one. See, for example, my post here. As much as it pains me to say this, while horse evolution has many problems, with all the hours I have spent studying the horses, both as an undergrad and after, most creationist arguments regarding horse evolution are just a hodgepodge of misrepresentations and straw men, and demonstrate nothing but a profound lack of knowledge on the subject.
  3. Bonedigger

    New Member: Perpetual_Student

    Welcome to the forum.
  4. Bonedigger

    Old Earth - Gap Theory

    That doesn't really work with Genesis 1:16 though. There is one (non-infinitive) verb in verse 16--'asah (וַיַּ֣עַשׂ--and He made), and there are three definite direct object indicators (Hebrew 'et-- אֶת)...one for the sun, one for the moon, and one for the stars. So, rather than being a side note, the stars are tied to the verb of God "making" at that time just as much as the sun and the moon. In a way that's more consistent with Genesis 1 (and some current creation models being bandied about, although three days too early). The only "clock" (i.e. inertial frame of reference) used in Genesis 1 is the earth, so any statement in opposition to Genesis 1 about the timing of the creation of the stars must be expressed with the earth as the frame of reference, or it's just a straw-man argument. Russell Humphreys argues for gravitational time dilation (i.e. the earth being suspended in gravitational no-time while the rest of the universe is being processed). Jason Lisle, contrary to the way it is sometimes portrayed, argues that the convention used in Genesis is an anisotropic synchrony convention, where the timing (i.e. simultaneity) of the creation of the stars is based on when the observation is made (on earth), not when the event happened locally (i.e. according to an Einstein synchrony convention). One of the ironies I've noticed about the whole distant starlight problem (I study bones, not physics) is that it seems to be a case of "wanting to have your cake and eat it too". The whole problem is expressed in terms of newtonian/galileian mechanics (where time and space are assumed to be absolute and the speed of light is infinite), with no regard for relativity and the problem of simultaneity that a finite speed of light creates when dealing with the question of simultaneity (i.e. the relative timing of events). Jason gives an interesting example in his paper where, using the earth as your inertial frame of reference and an ESC (Einstein synchrony convention), a galaxy created on day four at thirteen billion light years from the earth with the earth moving toward it, six months later with the earth orbiting the sun and headed in the opposite direction, would appear to have been created 2.6 million years earlier. And, even stranger, a galaxy created on day four at thirteen billion light years from the earth with the earth moving away from it, six months later would appear to not yet have been created for another 2.6 million years. Still puzzling through relativity and its affect on distant starlight and simultaneity.
  5. Bonedigger

    Old Earth - Gap Theory

    That's my problem with it too, although, when I was a gap theorist, I was one more for theological reasons, than scientific. When I started examining both its scientific problems (e.g. invoking a pre-Adamic global flood to harmonize with a geological methodology that presupposes and requires no such event, whether Noachic or pre-Adamic), and its theological problems (e.g. postulating that a pre-Adamic earth was ruled by angels for billions of years until Lucifer fell when the Bibles clearly states that the devil sinned from the beginning 1 John 3:8), I abandoned it as an untenable position, and began to do some serious study on the whole issue of origins.
  6. That's enough of this nonsense. Shera Do, if you are determined to become a problem member, you will be treated like one. Bye bye.
  7. Bonedigger

    The Opera Browser Says This Site Is Malicious

    (Sarcasm noted.) No, it's a practical perspective. You have no clue how close this site came to being shut down for good. Would you like to see what that would be like?
  8. Bonedigger

    The Opera Browser Says This Site Is Malicious

    Let me just say that you should be thankful the site is still online and leave it at that...
  9. Bonedigger

    The Opera Browser Says This Site Is Malicious

    Check your browser settings under Options/Security. Is "Remember logins for sites" checked? If not, then you will have to login again every time you start a new browser session in Firefox.
  10. Bonedigger

    The Opera Browser Says This Site Is Malicious

    One thing I might add...the insecure connection warning you get in Firefox has nothing to do with the phantom redirect you get when visiting the site from a google search. In a recent upgrade, Firefox added a check for a secure (HTTPS) connection anytime there is a log in field on the page. This site does not have an SSL certificate, so an https login is not practical. If you find the pop up annoying and want to disable it and know what you're doing, go to "about:config" (and if you don't know what that is you don't know what you're doing), find the line "security.insecure_field_warning.contextual.enabled", and toggle it to False.
  11. I use Photobucket myself, just because that was the first image hosting site I registered at, specifically for this forum. The advantage to uploading images to an external hosting site and embedding them here go beyond just the fact that they don't count against your upload limit here. Guests (lurkers) can also view them, which is why I usually recommend doing that. When you upload an image directly to the forum, only members who are logged in can view the image (because the forum treats it as an attachment, which cannot be downloaded by guests).
  12. Bonedigger

    Scientist Refused Access To Grand Canyon

    Uh. Ahem. No. Snelling is a degreed geologist.
  13. Bonedigger

    Quote Embedding Now Enabled

    Hmm. Interesting. If your options are set for you to be notified if someone quotes one of your posts, the notifications continue even if it's a second or third layer quote (i.e. you get notified if someone quotes a post that quoted you).
  14. Bonedigger

    Quote Embedding Now Enabled

    WOW ! ! ! I've been doing that for some time. Are you sure it was disabled? One other thing, the ten quote limit doesn't see to include embedded quotes. I made a post in the last couple days that had 12-13 quotes counting the embedded ones. You could do it manually if you wanted, but the forum did not automatically retain the inner quote, at least not on my end. While I was in "there" changing the setting, I noticed that the quote limit is now set to 20, not 10. I don't know if I changed it a while back and forgot, or if Isaac changed it before I came along after an upgrade allowed you to specify the maximum number of quotes (it didn't before).
  15. Bonedigger

    Quote Embedding Now Enabled

    ...and deeper. Unless there's a specific reason for so many quotes, I would recommend keeping it to only two or three levels of nested quotes.
×

Important Information

Our Terms