Posted on 04/16/2006 11:29:43 AM PDT by JCEccles
Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."
The latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans."
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Toss in Ted Holden and you have a trinity.
Not nearly as flawed as the idiotic anti-evolution arguments which are made against it... Such as:
First it is assumed that as the magma is mixed in the chamber before it is erupted out it is an equal mix all the materials are equal within the batch, every time it erupts.
No it isn't. Where did you "learn" this bit of stupidity?
Second there is not one that can prove that the dying magnetic field has an effect upon the decay rates of these radioactive elements.
ROFL! No one said that it does. Just how confused are you?
It has been said that the magnetic field fluctuates and is not dying,
...because there is massive and overwhelming evidence of that, plus it occurs according to the laws of physics, unlike the bizarre anti-evolution handwaving which tries to dream up fantasies to the contrary.
well if there is a mysterious energy source recharging the magnetic field
It doesn't take any "mysterious energy source", nor does the Earth's magnetic field fluctuate due to any kind of "recharging". We'll add basic physics and electromagnetism to the subjects which anti-evolutionists are entirely ignorant about.
then it must also recharge or slow the process or even speed the process.
Try again. No "recharging" is involved.
Not enough data to assume the age of the earth at billions of years
Uh huh. Sure. Keep believing that falsehood if it helps you cling to your cherished false beliefs about the age of the Earth. Meanwhile:
- The Age of the Earth
- The Earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old. But how do they know the Earth is this old? Some of the lines of evidence for an ancient Earth are presented.
- The Geological Time Scale
- Few discussions in geology or evolution can occur without reference to geologic time. In this article, the standard time scale used by geologists is depicted and described. See also Niel Brandt's Evolutionary and Geological Timelines.
- Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
- Radiometric dating and stratigraphic principles are combined to establish the conventional geological time scale. Scientists apply these principles to date rocks, which can then be used to assign ages to fossils.
- Changing Views of the History of the Earth
- How did we go from thinking Earth was a young planet to the realization that it is ancient, with a four and a half billion year history?
- Isochron Dating Methods
- The isochron radiometric dating technique (and related ones) is widely used in isotope geology, and does not fall prey to many common creationist criticisms of radiometric dating. This essay introduces the technique and shows why it is so reliable.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
Radiometeric Dating Does Work!Are Radioactive Dating Methods Consistent With Each Other?
Breakthrough Made in Dating of the Geological Record
Formation of the Hawaiian Islands
How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism
when there is data the suggests a young universe.
No, there isn't, but there are a lot of creationist fallacies and misrepresentations along that line, such as some of the nonsense you try to pull here:
Saturn's rings are still unstable after billions of years.
Nope, sorry: Creationist Claim CE240: Saturn's Rings
Saturn and Jupiter still have enough heat left to measure that they lose heat faster than they gain it from the sun.
Yawn: Young-earth "proof" #10: Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly.
The sun is shrinking at a measurable rate.
So is the average IQ of young-Earthers: Young-earth "proof" #1: The sun is shrinking
The Shara grows at a measurable rate that suggests an age of approximately 4000 years.
Yeah, so? What does that prove about the age of the Earth itself? Oh, right, nothing -- there's a young desert on the old Earth. Young-earth "proof" #23: The Sahara desert is expanding
They studied the great coral reef after major destruction during WWII and learned it grew at a measurable rate that put it's age about 4000 years old.
Yeah, so? First, even a creationist should be able to see the fallacy of trying to use a growth rate which was measured "after major destruction" (i.e., at a time when the reef was repairing itself) in an attempt to guess what rate it might or might not grow at during times of equilibrium.
Second, the Earth is coming out of an ice age, obviously tropical creatures like corals are going to be springing up in areas that a few thousand years ago were too cold for them to have thrived in.
Finally, the same question applies here as to the Sahara item: Okay, so you've got a relatively young coral reef, what does this prove about the age of the Earth itself? Oh, right, nothing. So you've got a "young" coral on an old Earth. So? Big woop-de-doo. Corals don't live forever. Of COURSE they're going to be younger than the Earth they live on. Duh.
Say, just how simple-minded does someone have to be to be a young-Earther, and swallow these goofy "arguments"?
The oldest living tree is about 4000 years old.
See above. I can't believe how dumb these things are, and why you can't see their flaws yourself.
Hey, Einstein, the oldest living cat is about 20 years old -- does that mean the Earth can't be older than 20 years old?
The Niagara could only be approx 10000 years,
Yet again, you're trying, in an idiotic and obviously flawed manner, to figure the total age of the Earth by looking at ephemeral features on it which come and go, as the Earth and the things on it change due to erosion, climate change, limited lifespans, etc. Nice try. Hey, I have a gully in my back yard that's only about 2 years old -- quick, how old does that make the Earth?
less when you factor in the water receding from the Great Flood of Noah's day.
What flood would that be?
Problems with a Global FloodYou'd really benefit from reading these, too, and actually learning something for a change:Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?
Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust
Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood
The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce
The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?
Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model
Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood
While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
Young Earth IndexI can not answer for the one's who claim to believe in Jesus yet do not believe his word to be 100% true, we will all have to answer to God in the end.How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Problems of Young-Earth Creationism (by a creationist!)
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/youngearth/
Young-Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon
And I can not answer for people who are under the bizarre notion that Jesus stated what the age of the Earth was.
How do you Creationists explain what happened to all the "early men" or "apes" - whichever you think they are; e.g. Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus, Heidelbergensis, Homo Habilis, Neanderthal and all the other hominids. My answer is that they died out as mankind evolved into more efficient humans who then surplanted the earlier hominids.
Since you do not believe that anything evolved - what is your explanation as to who these hominids were and where did they go?
I would guess that my MS and several hours toward my PhD do make me a grade school drop out,
I regret to inform you that your "MS and several hours toward your PhD" in [some conspicuously unspecified subject] do not change the fact that on the subject of evolutionary biology, you do indeed have a ridiculous grade-school level of competence.
Did you actually believe that waving around the fact that you have an MS degree in [unknown subject] was going to rescue your numerous elementary screwups concerning biology?
I am sure that your education is superior to mine
On this topic, yes it is.
Evolution - of what?
Of living things.
Species die out as a matter of fact there have been at least three almost total die outs of all species.
Yes, although this poses no problem for evolutionary biology, as you seem to be trying to imply.
I do not believe that humans evolved from apes because apes are still here.
ROFL!!!! Congratulations, that's the *fourth* grade-school level, incredibly simplistic misunderstanding you've made on this topic in your two posts on this thread.
It's as goofy as saying, "I do not believe that dachshunds descended from dogs because dogs are still here".
Clue for the clueless #1: "Apes", like "dogs", is a higher level of classification than "humans" or "dachshunds". Even if evolution required that parent species vanish in order for a new species to arise (and it does NOT, see below), it could still be the case that humans evolved from a *particular* species of ape which is no longer here, while OTHER species of apes continued to exist. You sort of "forgot" about that simple concept, eh?
Clue for the clueless #2: New species do not necessarily totally replace the species from which they evolved. In fact, most of the time they evolve from a SUBPOPULATION of the parent species, producing TWO species, not one -- the original species continues to exist. You sort of "forgot" that obvious scenario too when you made your gradeschool-level "analysis". There's a reason it's called the "tree of life" -- because it BRANCHES, it doesn't just march down one single lineage.
Further there have been several humanoid species, over millions of years time, which did not interbreed but died out.
...which is exactly in accord with the predictions of evolutionary theory. Did you imagine it wasn't?
But then it it impossible to try and educate someone who believes that we and other species have evolved from inferior species.
You mean, it's impossible to try and dissuade someone from believing what overwhelming amounts of evidence along multiple indpendent cross-confirmnig lines indicate, by waving around childish creationist fallacies which have flaws so obvious even a child could recognize them.
You know, most folks would realize that a prerequisite to being able to critique a topic would be to LEARN the most basic things about it first, but apparently that never occurs to you and your fellow anti-evolutionists.
So what is the reason to try.
Well, if you're going to do it as poorly as you do here, with as little knowledge, and via the most elementary of misconceptions, yeah, why bother?
Buy the way I am not a creationist but neither do I believe that the present science of evolution is correct.
Well sure, if your head is full of gross misrepresentations about "the present science of evolution", such as the ones you spew here, it *is* going to look pretty silly and hardly the kind of thing that anyone could believe was correct. But then, that's exactly how the anti-evolution propagandists planned it -- by presenting such a cartoonish misrepresentation of science that anyone swallowing it would think, "man, how can anyone believe something that dumb"? But it's the *misrepresentation" that is dumb, not the actual science.
If so how come the Crock and the Alligator and several other species have not evolved but remain the same as they were during the age of the dinos no matter what piece of land they are on?
They did evolve, actually. Try learning your science from science journals (gasp!) instead of creationist tracts.
These other humanoid species that your mentioned died out there was no assimilation into our species as different species cannot interbreed.
Yes, so? Thanks for agreeing with evolution.
The human species has evolved in their abilities to communicate, write, read, and if one reads the history of the ancients there is not much that we now do that they did not do except for technology. The writings of Pliny (BC) even mention that the earth is round, medical instruments that were used then are almost like the ones used now (they had pain killers in the form of codeine). We have evolved in our ability to utilize knowledge so our lives have become much better in some aspects.
Over a few thousand years, yes. Over vaster periods of time, our bodies and brains evolved drastically.
But I still do not subscribe to the scientists that try and trace human being back to a distressed ape.
That's because you're unaware of the vast evidence which overwhelmingly indicates, beyond any reasonable doubt, the truth of that conclusion, not to mention even vaster mountains of evidence indicating the validity of evolution and common ancestry in general.
Your anti-evolution pamphlets sort of "forgot" to tell you about that, didn't they?
Alas, it does appear that you spell at a fourth grade level as well.
As well as being consistently wrong.
"The idea that causes may interact with one another is now standard in mathematical physics; it is a point that has had difficulty in penetrating the carapace of biological thought. In fact, within the quasi-totality of observable phenomena, local changes interact in a dramatic fashion; after all, there is hardly an issue of La Recherche that does not contain an allusion to the Butterfly Effect. Information theory is precisely the domain that sharpens our intuitions about these phenomena. A typographical change in a computer program does not change it just a little. It wipes the program out, purely and simply. It is the same with a telephone number. If I intend to call a correspondent by telephone, it doesn't much matter if I am fooled by one, two, three or eight figures in his number." Marcel Schutzenberger
Since it would seem that you do not know or understand anything about creation there are some things that your should know:
1. The Universe began with a tremendous growth spurt according to Science News and the detailed studies by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe:
The growth spurt expanded from subatomic scales to the size of a grapefruit in less than a trillionth of a second (no one knows why but this developed into the universe that we know today).
2. The new data states that the ingredients of the universe are: 4.4 % ordinary matter (that is of course what we, the galaxies, solar systems, planets and all other life is made of); 22 % invisible material known as dark matter (no one knows what this does); and 74% of a mysterious entity called dark energy (Could be the driver for life and the creation of the Universe but then no one knows what dark energy or dark matter is so no one can be sure what they are or what role they play in the daily life of the cosmos).
3. Physics that I have studied say that the speed of light is the ultimate speed that can be accomplished, but the speed of subatomic to grapefruit size in a trillionth of a second (some say much quicker, like a trillionth or a trillionth) would seem to be slightly faster that the law of physics allows, was it the dark energy that allowed this law to be bypassed, or was it the dark matter, or was it something else?
4. No one knows why the growth spurt decided to take place, or why subatomic matter decided to expand to a grapefruit size and then to a universe but I guess we can find a skeletal remain that will explain the whole Big Bang. (Which I believe is the way the Universe Started but the reason for the Big Bang has not been determined by science and individuals can make their own decisions as to what or why the Big Bang occurred. However, a Big Bang conforms to most of the creation documents recorded throughout history from Mesopotamian creation to Genesis and beyond).
5. There was void and chaos and suddenly there was matter. If the Universe was created this way why not life and its individual species? But then that would not conform to the THEORY of evolution, and we do not know if this theory is true or not, just as the idiots in the middle ages taught that the earth was flat when the ancients knew it was a sphere.
6. While life evolves to conform to its environment, or not and dies out, what and why life was created is still a scientific THEORY, there is NO proof that one species evolved into another species, there is proof that species evolved to conform to their environment.
7. Just as we are now being deluged with false carp about global warming and the attempt to convince people that it is something new, we know for certain that the earth was much warmer 2000 to 2500 years ago by the records of the Vikings and their settlements in Iceland and Greenland (which did not have the ice it has today). And as I was being taught in school many years ago that a new Ice Age was soon upon us but now the warming in taking over. Go figure what THEORY if correct.
Since it would seem that you do not know or understand anything about creation there are some things that your should know:
1. The Universe began with a tremendous growth spurt according to Science News and the detailed studies by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe:
The growth spurt expanded from subatomic scales to the size of a grapefruit in less than a trillionth of a second (no one knows why but this developed into the universe that we know today).
2. The new data states that the ingredients of the universe are: 4.4 % ordinary matter (that is of course what we, the galaxies, solar systems, planets and all other life is made of); 22 % invisible material known as dark matter (no one knows what this does); and 74% of a mysterious entity called dark energy (Could be the driver for life and the creation of the Universe but then no one knows what dark energy or dark matter is so no one can be sure what they are or what role they play in the daily life of the cosmos).
3. Physics that I have studied say that the speed of light is the ultimate speed that can be accomplished, but the speed of subatomic to grapefruit size in a trillionth of a second (some say much quicker, like a trillionth or a trillionth) would seem to be slightly faster that the law of physics allows, was it the dark energy that allowed this law to be bypassed, or was it the dark matter, or was it something else?
4. No one knows why the growth spurt decided to take place, or why subatomic matter decided to expand to a grapefruit size and then to a universe but I guess we can find a skeletal remain that will explain the whole Big Bang. (Which I believe is the way the Universe Started but the reason for the Big Bang has not been determined by science and individuals can make their own decisions as to what or why the Big Bang occurred. However, a Big Bang conforms to most of the creation documents recorded throughout history from Mesopotamian creation to Genesis and beyond).
5. There was void and chaos and suddenly there was matter. If the Universe was created this way why not life and its individual species? But then that would not conform to the THEORY of evolution, and we do not know if this theory is true or not, just as the idiots in the middle ages taught that the earth was flat when the ancients knew it was a sphere.
6. While life evolves to conform to its environment, or not and dies out, what and why life was created is still a scientific THEORY, there is NO proof that one species evolved into another species, there is proof that species evolved to conform to their environment.
Just as we are now being deluged with false carp about global warming and the attempt to convince people that it is something new, we know for certain that the earth was much warmer 2000 to 2500 years ago by the records of the Vikings and their settlements in Iceland and Greenland (which did not have the ice it has today). And as I was being taught in school many years ago that a new Ice Age was soon upon us but now the warming in taking over. Go figure what THEORY if correct.
I suggest you pick up a copy of Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: the Age of Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings by G. Brent Dalrymple. It goes through the history of the first attempts to date the earth and summarizes a variety of modern methods. It's intended more for the layman so it's not terribly difficult to read.
FYI, we discussed this just last week. Feel free to look up the threads or just Google the Big Bang and "cosmic inflation" some time. Try reading for content this time.
May Jesus bless you.
I have personally obtained radiocarbon dates on human populations going back some 9,000 years and non-cultural dates over 13,000 years. How do you explain these?
If you believe that everything in the Bible is true, including the creation story, when were the plants created? In Genesis 2, God creates man when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In Genesis 1, he creates the plants according to their kinds on the third day, three days before he creates man. Which account is true? When were the first plants created?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.