Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[gore3000]

I guess you call the above "proof" of evolution? Note that you do not give us any pictures and I bet you do not even have the vaguest idea what this species is. Do note however that they are still all called by the same generic name. - me -

Ah! Semantics! I can still find the thread in which you argued that because a platypus is called a duckbill, the bill must be a duck's bill.

No, not semantics. When scientists name a species, they have scientific reasons for it. It is not semantics therefore to say they gave them the same generic name. I asked you to back up your post, give pictures, tell us what the heck this species is and you start to turn it into a personal thing. Seems you cannot back anything you say Vade. When called on anything you start with irrelevancies and diversions.

[gore3000]

Almost. It can also show that the mutation took place after the chimp-human line split from the rest of the anthropoids but before the chimp-human lines split from each other.

Nice verbal foot dance, but it does not sell. Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps. That is not the case therefore this is a proof against evolution.

[VadeRetro]

I asked you to back it up several times, you have yet to do so. Give the proof and stop the nonsense. You cannot give proof so you evade and try to make me the issue.

Was even the "big, big" hint in my previous post wasted on you?

You should be an expert on evolutionary theory by now. Why would it be a dismaying, flabbergasting event to find evidence of mammary glands in dinosaurs?

I will tell you if you say, "OK, I give up."

But think about what it means for a 1-year anti-evolutionary veteran of these threads to admit he's clueless about how to apply the evolutionary model.

[Junior]

Scientists didn't name the species "duck-billed platypus," folks living in Australia did. It's just like "blue jay" is not the name scientists gave to the birds that attack my dogs, but rather the "common" name for that critter.

Duck-Billed Platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus Also Called: Duck-mole

The platypus has a flat, streamlined body. They have a muzzle shaped like the bill of a duck, webbed feet, and a tail like that of a beaver. The bill is not hard like that of a bird. It is actually an elongated muzzle covered with a leathery skin. The bill and feet of a platypus are black while the fur is usually a dark brown color. The platypus also possesses a spur on it hind legs that can be used to inject venom into another creature. In man this usually causes agonizing pain but can be fatal to smaller creatures. The platypus forages for food by diving underwater for up to 1.5 minutes and searching for food. While underwater, it stores any food it finds in cheek pouches. On surfacing, it sorts out what it found and eats it. When searching for food, the platypus is relying solely on its electrically sensitive bill to find food. The bill of a platypus can detect small electrical currents put out by the creatures that it eats. The platypus is a strong swimmer though not very fast. It swims by alternating movements of its front feet only. When out of the water, the webbing folds between its toes. The fur of the platypus is some of the most waterproof in the animal kingdom and the tail is used to store fat.

The platypus eats insect larvae as well as freshwater shrimp, bivalve mollusks, frogs and fish eggs.

The platypus is found in Eastern Australia in freshwater streams and rivers. Platypus live in burrows that they dig along the banks of streams and rivers that they use as a food source.

Hawks, eagles, owls, crocodiles, water-rats, pythons, goannas, foxes, dogs, and cats make up the predators of the platypus.

The platypus is primarily nocturnal. It is also a solitary animal and usually only comes together to mate (although you can often find several animals in the same general area.) During mating season, it is not unusual for male platypuses to become very aggressive. However, the platypus is usually a shy and wary animal.

The platypus is one of only two mammals that do not give birth to live young but lays eggs instead (the other is the echidna.) After birth, the young live on milk provided by the mother. However, the platypus does not have nipples. Instead, glands along the side of the mother secrete milk and the young platypus will lap it up. After six weeks the young have fur and may leave the nest for short periods. They are weaned by five months old.

The platypus has an electro-sensitive bill. They also have excellent senses of sight and hearing.

Source

[Junior]

Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps.

Huh? If the ancestor of humans and chimps broke off from the other apes, developed the mutation, and then split to form humans and chimps, only humans and chimps would have the mutation, and not the other apes -- which was precisely what was posted to you. Either you didn't read the post all the way through or you did not understand what was being said. Either way you should have asked for clarification before posting the nonsense above.

[gore3000]

The bones of warm-blooded animals have more passages for blood vessels than those of cold-blooded critters. Therapod dinosaur bones have lots of passages for blood vessels (like birds or mammals) when compared to turtle or lizard bones, which have fewer passages for blood vessels.

Okay, you gave an explanation, let's see the proof of it. BTW does that mean that mammals descended from dinosaurs? Does that mean that evo paleontology has been proven wrong again?

[gore3000]

Was even the "big, big" hint in my previous post wasted on you?

Just give the proof, stop playing games. Every time I ask you to give proof of a statement you start with these silly evasions. Cough it up. Cough up the proof that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands.

[medved]

Instead of pointing out any errors in my mathematics...

The error is in assuming a solar system governed by newtonian mechanics and laws as is our present system (the ancient system was chiefly governed by electromagnetic forces) and in failing to recognize the kind of argument which Robert Bass put forward involving planetary orbit stability in making nonsensical claims.

The assumption that you are mentally ill arises from the personal attacks, calling people you don't know anything at all about liars and worse on a public forum etc. etc. I would still advise you to seek professional help.

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: an arbitrary distinction is not a barrier.

gore3000: It is the evolutionists which create arbitrariness. Heck in one of the posts here they call changing the sex call of an organism the creation of a new species!

You seem to lose the thread of an argument rather quickly. Let me try staking down those flapping corners of your mind for you.

1) Creationists lump all demonstrated evolution as "microevolution," defining some "macroevolutionary" barrier which cannot be crossed.
2) "Macroevolution" is in fact an arbitrary distinction, defined all over the place depending upon to whom one is talking. Thus, it is like the legal age of majority, a legalistic categorization imposed by a beholder.
3) A categorization imposed by a beholder cannot function as a real-world barrier to change.

What is the barrier to prevent an accumulation of micro- changes becoming macro-, wherever you personally happen to place that dividing line?

[VadeRetro]

Just give the proof, stop playing games. Every time I ask you to give proof of a statement you start with these silly evasions. Cough it up. Cough up the proof that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands.

So you give up, right? Note that I did not say "proof." I said "provides a framework in which dinosaur mammaries are predicted out."

If you give up, say so. But think about it. This would be a good one to show that you can answer.

[VadeRetro]

You still haven't answered me. Have you always on these threads said Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur? So few of your brethren do. And how can there be any dispute at all over whether something is a dinosaur or a bird for gosh sakes?

[VadeRetro]

It is not a model. Mendellian genetics is science.

You have described how you think a mutation, once occurred, might spread in a population. Such an attempt, however poorly conceived, is a model. Yours is a poor one.

I asked you about recessive genes, which I don't see you allowing for.

Two black bears, which have--Tah dah!--black fur, mate. The resulting litter of cubs has one black-furred cub and one cub that is reddish "cinnamon" brown.

What happened there? I don't see your model allowing for it.

Are bears too far from home? Need a human example?

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his Tsarina, two non-hemophiliacs, begat Prince Alexei, a hemophiliac. Hemophilia is a hereditary disease. How did that happen?

No, neither Alexei nor the cinammon cub are new mutations.

[Lurking Libertarian]

In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish.

That's like saying that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas are "all primates." Actually, there is much, much more difference (both structurally and genetically) between an ostrich and a sparrow, or between a shark and a trout, than there is between a human and a chimp.

Anticipating your objection, I fully concede that there is a vast spiritual difference between humans and chimps, but that distinction is not in the realm of evolutionary science. My faith tells me that God created man in God's image, and that he did so from "the dust of the earth." Evolution tells me where that "dust" came from, and how that dust became (physically) human.

[Junior]

Is there any evidence that electro-magnetic forces played a larger role in the Solar System in the recent past than they do now? What caused the changeover? Why is the universe governed by different laws now than in the recent past? Why have no other researchers discovered evidence of this situation?

These are honest questions, the kind of questions any new, controversial hypothesis is going to have to answer.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Chimps are not ancestors of humans so the only way that both chimps and humans could have the exact same gene through descent is because a prior ancestor had it. Since the prior ancestor of both chimps and humans had to have this gene all apes should have this not just chimps.

The first statement is correct. The second is wrong. It makes the unwarranted assumption that a prior ancestor of both chimps and humans is a prior ancestor to all apes.

[Junior]

The assumption that you are mentally ill arises from the personal attacks, calling people you don't know anything at all about liars and worse on a public forum etc. etc. I would still advise you to seek professional help.

I've never called anyone a liar without having facts to back up my assertion. For example, if someone says I have never addressed a point of contention, and I know I have addressed that point of contention, and I know the other guy knows this, the only conclusion I can draw is that the other fellow is lying through his teeth. As for mental illness, I certainly am a bit eccentric (my major goal in life is to be an eccentric old man), but nothing that would excuse my actions in a court of law.

[VadeRetro]

. I asked you to back up your post, give pictures, tell us what the heck this species is and you start to turn it into a personal thing. Seems you cannot back anything you say Vade.

Actually, BMCDA's post I linked back for you earlier did have some nice pictures of the salamanders in the California ring species example. You have failed to comment and are still demanding same as if it were not on the thread already.

As ususal, you're not covering yourself with glory here.

BTW, just a reminder. When someone publishes a study or a summary of several studies that shows something you don't want to accept, you don't discredit it by demanding the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West be brought to you. If you don't accept the conclusions of the study, it's up to you to get out there and find something that refutes it.

[VadeRetro]

It makes the unwarranted assumption that a prior ancestor of both chimps and humans is a prior ancestor to all apes.

You're right. This assumption is not only unwarranted, but contradicted by the molecular data we have. Humans and chimps have viral introns in their DNA that no other primates share.

Human and Chimpanzee Functional DNA Shows They Are More Similar To Each Other Than Either Is To Other Apes. (Long PDF file.)

Humans and chimps are far more related to each other than either is to the orangutan. Humans and chimps are very close. When Humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are compared, one species stands out as far different from the others. That's the oranguatan.

[js1138]

There are many shell characteristics other than size that can be measured. In fact most shelled creatures are identified by their shell rather than by their internal parts. As for hair length, there are varieties of creatures that have naturally short hair and vice versa. This is not always a species difference, but it is an inherited difference.

[BMCDA]

Then why is the wiring in front of the light sensitive sensors, what advantage does this design have? Why is it a good design if the wiring (blood vessels and nerves) has to penetrate the retina? (This spot has therefore no lightsensors, hence it is called the "blind spot".)
I don't deny that the resolution of the eye is higher than that of present CCD panels but that's not the point. The resolution of a CCD panel can be at least in principle as high or even higher than that of the eye. In that case a camera with a resolution that equals that of the eye is better than the eye because the wiring isn't in the way. (Similar to the squid's eye where blood vessels and nerves are behind the retina)

Furthermore, why are the sensitivity curves of the "green" and "red" sensors practically congruent? That too isn't very intelligent IMO but that's just my opinion.