Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[ahayes]

Your thread sounds like multiple evidences for the missing link but please tell me, show me. Also you probably realize that we are most likely looking for missing chains not links...

Explain yourself. We have multiple transitional species, what do you want?

Then in the last 2 paragraphs you indicate just about everything the www.creationscience.com debunks. If it were truly just one or two anomolies than I would never bother posting replies to this crevo thread. Please re-read the scientific method and stick to things that can be presented truthfully - please.

All of the explanations I've seen for these things from creationists are complete nonsense. If it so obvious what the solutions are, tell me. I looked at the site you mentioned but don't see anything but the usual hand-waving.

It appears you wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and attached itself to your rear.

[Right Wing Professor]

Also I've always found learning easier when someone wasn't speaking/writing to me in such a condescending manner as is evident throughout most of your replies.

You wrote a lot of dumb things, with apparent certitude.

[ahayes]

mlc9852 is female? Alas!

[Diamond]

...was on a loose block of rock, is not available for examination, and many of its features are indicative of a posed if not wholly artificially created imprint.

You are certain that it is a fraud. Let's stipulate that it is not properly documented, at least as far as we know. How might that rock have been artificially created?

How about this?

"The fossil tracks that MacDonald has collected include a number of what paleontologists like to call ‘problematica.’ On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared--as though it took off and flew. 'We don't know of any three-toed animals in the Permian,' MacDonald pointed out. ‘And there aren't supposed to be any birds.’ He's got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. ‘Yeah,’ MacDonald says reluctantly, ‘they sure do.’ Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian."
("Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts," The Smithsonian, Vol. 23, July 1992, p.70.)

And from FreeRepublic a poster purporting to be Jerry MacDonald posted that he thinks the footprint is a fraud (because of a lack of consecutives, etc) but the poster also posted this:

[excerpt]"...A second point. And a better one. The problematica that I discovered, one of the best of which can be pictured in the Smithsonian Magazine report (July 1992). Clearly mammalian in shape, with a style of locomotion similar to a bear -- the pidgeon-toed front feet, the universally depressed tracks, the appearance of nails, not claws. And five consecutives. I call them mammal-like, and the trackmaker is mysterious."

Curiously, what the poster says in the next sentence does not seem to agree regarding the number of different kinds of 'problem' tracks as MacDonald is quoted in the Smithsonian above:

"But, There is only one trackway like this out of the thousands of tracks and trails that I have excavated. [emphasis mine] Osteologically, the vast majority (99.9 percent) of these trails match all the animals believed to have existed in the Early Permian."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1498415/posts

Cordially,

[Al Simmons]

"I've never said people who believe in a literal Creation aren't "real Christians"."

Oh. OK. Then its just my ex. "What ever happened to the notion of Christian charity?"

Young-Earth Creationist posts are charitably allowed on FR, despite their obvious, and embarassing, disconnection from reality.

"Or have we finally decided that there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture?"

Ummm...no. I think you got lost somewhere on your way to the religion threads. This thread is about SCIENCE, which is a completely different discipline.

[Al Simmons]

Ugh. Sorry about the last post to you. It seems that in my haste I only read the last part of your reply to the person to whom my sarcastic remarks should have been directed.

Mea Culpa.

[2nsdammit]

Oh, come on now, it's a legitimate source - for lies, mischaracterizations, faulty logic, outright denial, and oft-debunked dogma!

[Liberal Classic]

My answer: Top is Homo sapiens, bottom is Pan troglodytes.

[Right Wing Professor]

Oh, come on now, it's a legitimate source - for lies, mischaracterizations, faulty logic, outright denial, and oft-debunked dogma!

My mistake. It's a one-stop shopping bonanza for worthless junk!

[Right Wing Professor]

My answer: Top is Homo sapiens, bottom is Pan troglodytes

You are absolutely correct! As the first correct winner, you win a one week fun-filled vacation in 'Dr.' Kent Hovind's Dino Adventure Land, as soon as the State of Florida allows him to re-open it. (Transportation, accomodations, admission, and food extra)

[2nsdammit]

It's exactly like that. Read one of Elsie's quote-mined Biblical regurgitations, and comapre them with other threads' equivalents. You will see the same stuff over, and over, and over...

[mlc9852]

**** ***

[ahayes]

Here are the last three paragraphs of my previous post:

So, some things that would indicate evolution is not true. If evolution is not true and YEC is we would expect to see a complete mixup in the fossil record--Permian creatures fossilized with Quaternary ones, no sorting of microfossils, and no lines of evolution with increasing complexity and specialization (we see these with foraminifera, ammonites, horses, stegosauri, etc.) The genetic data would be all mixed up and we wouldn't be able to use nested heirarchies based off multiple genes to organize phylogenies. The ERV and pseudogene data that indicates common ancestry of apes and humans would be absent.

In the geologic data we would not find sedimentary rocks containing fossils overlaid with igneous rock that indicates it was formed on dry land. Since YEC say in general that fossils were laid down during the Flood, overlaying igneous rocks should be in the form of pillow lava indicating deposition under water. Since coal seams were supposed to originate from vegetation mats deposited during the Flood, we would not see dinosaur tracks across coal seams indicating these originated as peat in swampy areas. Likewise, we wouldn't see fossilized rootlines growing down into the coal from when in the swamp trees grew in it. There would not be the sharp divisions in the stone we see caused by long-term variations in the levels of certain elements, such as the drastic change from green Permian rock to red, iron-rich Triassic rock. Since all fossils are supposed to have been deposited in the Flood, every fossil should carbon date to the same recent age.

Everything that we see indicates an old earth and old universe, and all of the fossil and genetic evidence indicates evolution and common descent. What's more, observation of living animals and examination of their genomes has provided us with a huge amount of information on by what mechanisms evolution could occur. We have come to see that mutations are not universally negative and that information can be added to a genome. We can observe natural selection occuring in front of our eyes. These observations provide all of the information needed to conclude that evolution can and did happen.

I've skimmed through the book on the site you suggested. None of these topics was tackled in the slightest that I could see. You're welcome to take a crack at it.

[mlc9852]

"You will see the same stuff over, and over, and over.."

Well, that's what evolutionists do!

[GourmetDan]

Identify one unstated/unknown assumption in radioisotope dating.

Here are several:

1. The amount of 'daughter' element present initially.

2. That the system has been sealed since it formed.

3. That the radioactive decay rate has always been the same.

[2nsdammit]

Perfect example of the deliberate lies and mischaracterizations! Thanks!

You know full well that I was refering to Elsie's posts.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Yes, we have 5 females and two males. One of the males was from a different breeder than our females. He gets 4 wives. The other male is too closely related to three of the females. He only gets 1 wife though. He's precious, but by breeding standards, his head is a little too big and his shoulders are too narrow. I still think he is beautiful. Not everyone wants to pay $2500 for a horse. If somebody just wants them for pets, and not to show, there is no reason to pay that much. His babies will be quite a bit less, and still adorable. We have to keep detailed records of their lineage. If we keep any of the babies, we will buy another male when they are old enough to breed.

[Al Simmons]

Why, how nice of you to tell me "love you". How Christian of you.

[Liberal Classic]

**** ***

Okay. Here is an example of scientific scholarship typical of Answers in Genesis:

Buddy Davis is nearing the completion of his work on the 40-foot Tyrannosaurus Rex model he is creating for the museum! When you walk into his workshop and come face to face with this beast it inspires frightening memories of movie scenes with people running from the ferocious, apparently starved, giant. However, we know from the Bible that God created all animals, including dinosaurs, to be vegetarians. It was only after sin and the resulting curse were introduced that animals began to eat each other. Before that there would have been no reason to fear a 40’ long, 12’ tall T-Rex!

And people wonder why mainstream science is critical of "creation science." It isn't science, it's theology. This teaching belongs in Sunday school, not science class. That's all this is about.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

Daisy, our collie, was abandoned and abused. When we first brought her home she was very timid. I'd make a point to take her walking for an hour or so each day. It was casual walking. We'd got to the back pasture and sit for awhile, then go to the creek. She started warming up to us fairly quick. She had this habit though of running off for a couple of days at a time, like she was bored. Once we got cattle and horses that stopped. She is hysterical to watch with them. Her herding instinct is really amazing. The kids and I are incredibly bonded to her. There's nothing like a big dog to wrestle and play with.