New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[f.Christian]

I watched a tv special about ayres rock in australia and it was the most convoluted evolution bs I'd ever seen .

My theory -- explantion is ...

it's an underground blowup - out --- through a soft spot hole in the earth's crust - plate !

If evolution was true and these were plates turned sideways ... their would be some fossil evidence in them and my theory would make their presence nearly * impossible * --- they could be drawn in from the surface and resurfaced in the extruding process !

* Here it is * ...


Most of the canyons and gorges (( revealing layers forming below surface cambrian layers )) actually formed by drying - shrinking cracks ... water naturally flowing through them because of their lower elevations - depth (( evo erosian phooey )) !

At some point plates collapsed upon themselves forming rocky mountains and some fragmenting - opening allowing islands and mountains to protrude - rise above and through the plate valley - ocean floor edges !

Heating and cooling would have changed the size of the earth ... probably hot --- very small !

Starting to cool forming a surface crust ... getting larger again --- and then like a cake bubbling rising up sections and with more cooling drying cracks !

Towards the center top middle half of the geologic column life forms appear fully formed ... cambrian explosion --- nothing below !

There are ... * NO precambrian fossils * ---

except for worms - mollusks (( unless the earth was hollow and they floated to the surface )) !

While the top layers were being formed from flooding and volcanic activity ... most of the column layers were formed from below and at the same time forming most of the above ground ... i.e., buttes - hills - mountains -- surface plate geography we see today --- not enough time for all this evolution nonsense that wouldn't be possible with unlimited time anyway --- pure fantasy- fiction !


Cambrian plates are on mountain tops and rising mountains would raise plate and ocean floors to various elevations !

All this geology and life washing out of a mudball is OBVIOUSLY an evolution hoax -- legend !


Also catastrophic cosmic collisions would interrupt evolution so many times over a long period of time it would also make evolution IMPOSSIBLE !

[Lurking Libertarian]

dust-of-the ground placemarker

[Right Wing Professor]

I read the paper, commented that their results were at variance with the literature, and gave the charitable explanation they were looking at a damaged sample. In fact, they were well aware of the literature, had failed to acknowledge a discrepancy with it, failed to note a major anomaly in their data, and omitted to note that if they used the data before temperature cycling, they got a result identical with those of the 'uniformitarians' they deride. In other words, I assumed incompetence, when a more careful read suggests malice.

[Right Wing Professor]

My mistake: that should have been to 'All'. Sorry.

[Right Wing Professor]

Just to add that if you'd like me to write this up in a more polished form for your forum, I'll be happy to.

[Ichneumon]

It helps to think of a species as a cloud of dots clustered around a central point we'll call "Norm."

Norm!

(Sorry, but if I didn't do it, you know someone else would have.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

The one on the left is probably a "species." The one seated is more like a "kind." Neither looks like an "ilk."

[Ichneumon]

Score one for Reason, Ping!

You might want to read post #1820 before you declare premature victory.

Also note that although MM's post was long on general declarations of evolution's demise, it contained no examples, and no specific evidence. It was just a diatribe that the reader was expected to take on faith.

People can (and have) written similar diatribes against Christianity -- does that prove anything?

Furthermore, for some perspective check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Creationists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contais quotes predicting the crash of evolution from 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. But surely, they're finally right *this* time, eh?

[null and void]

Ooh! Oooh! You ran out of unsigned 16-bit integers!

Ummmm, actually I don't think I ever posted to that thread.

They ran out of unsigned 16-bit integers...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Creationists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840...

You're forgetting it takes millions of years for wildly successful theories to fall. The punk-eek version of "evolutionary crashing" (a.k.a., ec) requires mechanisms that have not yet been completely described or understood in the creationist/ID model of anti-science. ;)

[js1138]

The longest crevo thread I've seen trailed off around 6000 posts.

[js1138]

65535 Ooh! Oooh! You ran out of unsigned 16-bit integers!

On the Apple/Linux threads, MySQL is considered a serious competitor to SQL Server. Using a 16 bit counter for records doesn't look like real software to me.

[VadeRetro]

Does evolution or does it not postulate that man slowly evolved from apes (or an ape-like ancestor which we share with apes). I believe I have seen a ton of drawings like that.

What does this have to do with your statement that we evos are saying that some humans have been miscegenating with "part-apes?"

This is yet another clue that you don't have any idea how evolution works. Statements along the lines of "A horse does not [turn into/give birth to] a cat" are another.

[VadeRetro]

Thanks, A-G! We got off on that tangent because "The return of the creator" was supposedly going to fix a lot of the scientific shortcomings of YECism. I'm going to have to just not go into the theology. Rather, I'll say that such statements do not fix any shortcomings in the here and now.

[Right Wing Professor]

Here's another interesting little fact about one of the co-authors of the Humphrey's paper. John R. Baumgardner, of Los Alamos National Laboratory, co-authored this paper in 1998

Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models

Hans-Peter Bunge,* Mark A. Richards, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, John R. Baumgardner, Stephen P. Grand, Barbara A. Romanowicz

Abstract: Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep-mantle structural heterogeneity imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150- million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.

What sort of ethics does a scientist have, when he can on the one hand author papers claiming the earth is no more than 6000 years old, and on the other author another that discusses geological processes over a 150 million year time-scale? Which of the two papers he co-authored does he not actually believe?

[VadeRetro]

And He isn't limited to communicating to you the way you demand. He is God, you know, and you are not.

In my life, I've heard more from Santa and the Tooth Fairy. God would appear to be very limited indeed in communicating with me.

[AndrewC]

[Right Wing Professor]

Journal reference: Science v 280, p. 91 (1998)

[VadeRetro]

TalkOrigins is not "objective" on the evolution-creationism question. Scientists who take the trouble to rebut creationist nonsense get web-published on TO. Creationists get published on AiG.

Note that if nobody answers creationists on a given point, it's supposedly because "There IS no answer" or "There's a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE" to ignore creationism. But any person, any organization, any site that takes up the challenge and shoots down the nonsense is dismissed out of hand for "not being objective." Catch-22. To not answer you is bad. To answer you is worse.

You keep screaming that we have dismissed AiG out of hand. Well, I do, in a way. I've seen their crap enough times that I often don't need to reread the linked articles before responding. Nevertheless, if I answer you on an AiG article, what is posted to you addresses the text of their statements.

You just dismissed three of four articles in Patrick's post to you with an ad hominem on a whole site and all of the probably scores of authors published thereon. (Or did you in your religious horror not even check to see that the Tree of Life Project is not associated with TO?) You have not addressed in any way the content of Patrick's post, only his choice in web sites to support his position.

[VadeRetro]

You are still judging the work before you have even seen it. This group of scientists has spent 5 years working on studying discrediting radiometric dating.

Creationists always get their man, in their own minds.