Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 6:12 AM
225 online now:
caffeine, frako, Meddle, PaulK (4 members, 221 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,910 Year: 16,733/29,783 Month: 721/1,956 Week: 224/331 Day: 2/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Creation Evidence Museums...
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 117 (107030)
05-10-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by almeyda
05-10-2004 1:37 AM


Re: Another unsupported claim
almeyda,

There is no dating method that proves something to be 65 million yrs!..Its based on assumptions..Assumptions that the earth formed billions of yrs ago therefore layers means millions of yrs,dead bones means they extinct 80 million yrs ago..

OMG, no wonder you are so easily misled. There is nothing that proves anything in science. There is only evidence. And when that evidence is available in sufficient quantities it reduces the tentativity to such a degree it becomes unreasonable to withhold consent.

Everything in science is based upon assumptions. The question is, are they testable. In the case of radiometric dating the question is YES!

But why we're on the subject, what "evidence" (& I think that's worth a snigger at this stage) supports a 6,000 year old earth that isn't based upon assumption? Hell, what evidence is there for a 6,000 year old earth, at all?! I can't even say you have double standards because you haven't presented any legitimate evidence to apply different standards to.

Try this for size:

quote:

I have tried to push this a couple of times & not gotten very far, so I’ve formalised it a bit & given it a thread of its own, apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved.
http://www.ncseweb.org/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

“The K-T Tektites

One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.

The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimetres above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.”

1/
So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC worldview. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INACCURATE all at the same time!!

Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half-life constancy.

2/
The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.

64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YEC's)

The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).
Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is……..drum roll……..

92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1

Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?

If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?

Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small “contribution” by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.

3/
The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1

My questions to creationists are;

A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?

B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?

C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?

D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being “wrong” by the same factor?


Care to comment on the points raised?

Now, what is it now? Ah, yes, FOR THE SEVENTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.

Mark

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 04:26 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 107 of 117 (107032)
05-10-2004 5:32 AM


Any recent contact with the theme of the topic?
I haven't kept up with what's happening in this topic, but I do know that the original theme was rather shakey, and seemingly of very limited discussion potential.

I must suspect that most of what has happened since page 1 would have been better in topics elsewhere.

Might the various parties be interested in searching the index of active topics for better places for their discussions?

That said, someday I need to get this topic read, to find out what wild turns it has taken.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Lammy, posted 05-10-2004 5:38 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 111 by mark24, posted 05-10-2004 9:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3578
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 108 of 117 (107033)
05-10-2004 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Adminnemooseus
05-10-2004 5:32 AM


Re: Any recent contact with the theme of the topic?
Or, you could just ask someone that's been participating on this thread long enough that you trust to tell you what the heck is going on.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-10-2004 5:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 117 (107043)
05-10-2004 6:54 AM


...
We are arguing over which ones right Evolution or Creation..Yep that should update you to where we are...

MARK24 - Creationists arent as much based on assumptions because they can base it on what God says. And when this proves to be right they can almost call it fact. Yes in a way they can. As for science not all science is assumptions. Its pretty much fact that if we jump off a cliff we will go down. Evolution however relies heavily on assumptions because there isnt much experiments to prove such unless theres interpretation of facts and a framework. So if you review AiGs evidence and realise how consistent it is with what God says then you can say yes its true just like God said. What can evolutionists say? Besides there is no truth and we will never know truth. Creationists start with answers so its not science??? . What if the answers are consistent with the evidence? Does that still mean its not science?...


Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 05-10-2004 9:13 AM almeyda has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 110 of 117 (107064)
05-10-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by almeyda
05-10-2004 6:54 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

MARK24 - Creationists arent as much based on assumptions because they can base it on what God says.

And your assumption is that the bible is god's word, an untestable, unfalsifiable assumption, that renders any corollary argument or hypothesis as unscientific. Your argument disappears in a puff of logic. Wasn't that your objection, assumption? What is this, some sort of wierd double standard?

My assumptions are tested to a very high degree, & yours are pie in the sky. THAT is the difference between religion & science.

And when this proves to be right they can almost call it fact.

FOR THE EIGHTH TIME PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A 6,000 YEAR OLD EARTH.

Then, & only then, can we call it fact.

Its pretty much fact that if we jump off a cliff we will go down.

Nope, it's a testable assumption based upon observation.

Creationists start with answers so its not science??? .

Correct. You don't have the answers.

What if the answers are consistent with the evidence? Does that still mean its not science?...

But the answers aren't consistent with the evidence, you would have given me evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old by now if that were true.

At this stage I think it's fair to point out when it comes to the existence of scientifically valid evidence that would lead us to conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old; there is none.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-10-2004 08:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 6:54 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:46 PM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 111 of 117 (107077)
05-10-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Adminnemooseus
05-10-2004 5:32 AM


Re: Any recent contact with the theme of the topic?
Moose,

I'd let it run, it shouldn't go on for much longer & then it'll drop off of the bottom. Alternatively, if you so desire, I'll submit a new topic.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-10-2004 5:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 117 (107294)
05-10-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by mark24
05-10-2004 9:13 AM


Re: ...
Your assumptions are based to a very high degree?? All yous have are evolutionists opinions..And the facts? well they dont speak for themselves. And just about everything evolutinists say happened cannot be proven. Do you really see evolution in the fossil record? I would of expected a bit more evidence than what there is. But now they have punctuated quilibrium. Wow! thats such a great way to explain the absence of evidence. Makes sense if you ask me!. The fossil evidence actually fits the biblical frame better where animals dont change into complete different animals but stay in there own kind.

I really think that jumping off a cliff and going down isnt an assumption. As long as we are here on earth this will be fact. Evolution however cannot be observed or called fact. Just opinions and interpretations.

We start with answers so its not science? And you say correct you dont with answers??? I just said we do have answers because were basing it on the God who was there and you say we dont have answers? If the evidence is consistent with what God says which AiG proves then i think we have answers. Evolutionists just have we will never know truth. But creation is wrong! creation is not science!. You never know truth so you will never know evolution is fact or even happened.

And for the evidence ill have a topic up soon hopefully.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 05-10-2004 9:13 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 05-11-2004 3:51 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 117 (107351)
05-11-2004 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:46 PM


Re: ...
almeyda,

Your assumptions are based to a very high degree?? All yous have are evolutionists opinions..

Nope, I have provided evidence to the confidence of 70,000,000 : 1 PLUS that radiometric dating is accurate to within a percent or two. I have also provided evidence with a confidence limit of 13,272,064,019,753,086 : 1 that the YEC timeline is false. Not an opinion. A mathematical FACT.

And the facts? well they dont speak for themselves.

Unless you live in a world of coincidence, they do.

And just about everything evolutinists say happened cannot be proven.

Nothing is proven in science, so 70,000,000 : 1 will have to do.

Do you really see evolution in the fossil record? I would of expected a bit more evidence than what there is.

Really?

quote:

Testing Cladistics & Stratigraphy

Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.

“Stratigraphic Consistency Index

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), “mammallike reptiles” (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and “mammallike reptiles”. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), “mammallike reptiles” (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.

Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.

The average cladogram has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate.

C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!

n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodes

C(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12

There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.

5.68*10^323:1

568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of 300 cladograms enjoying a 60% corroboration with stratigraphy."


It is now incumbent on you to explain why evolutionary predictions are so clearly seen in the fossil record.

But now they have punctuated quilibrium. Wow! thats such a great way to explain the absence of evidence.

It doesn't, it explains stasis. See The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ Gould. Stasis is data.

The fossil evidence actually fits the biblical frame better where animals dont change into complete different animals but stay in there own kind.

So why are evolutionary predictions over 300 cladograms matching stratigraphy with odds of 5.68*10^323:1, then?

The fossil record is woefully incomplete, that's why there have been over a billion carrier pigeons at any given time & there isn't a solitary fossil of one.

Evolution however cannot be observed or called fact. Just opinions and interpretations.

5.68*10^323 is more than there are fundamental particles in the known universe. It doesn't get more FACT than this.

I just said we do have answers because were basing it on the God who was there and you say we dont have answers? If the evidence is consistent with what God says which AiG proves then i think we have answers.

In which case you don't have the answers, you just believe you do..

The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that the K-T Tektites are ~65 million years old of over 70 million to one. There are no untested assumptions.

The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that evolution occured of 5.68*10^323 : 1. There are no untested assumptions.

Please explain how these FACTS fit into a creationist scenario?

Creationism works by ignoring such massive (/understatement) falsifying evidence. The simple fact is you have no answer to the vast wealth of contradictory evidence that supports evolution, & at the same ime blows away a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Evolutionists just have we will never know truth. But creation is wrong! creation is not science!. You never know truth so you will never know evolution is fact or even happened.

And for the evidence ill have a topic up soon hopefully.

We both know you won't. You would have presented it here by now as you were asked, if you could. [altered by edit]

All of your answers have been to ignore the evidence presented, & simply assert sans evidence that the evidence equally supports creationism when it is patently untrue.

You are a living testament to the intellectual accident that is creationism. You wave away evidence without addressing it, & simply assert that what you say is true without evidence. If you accept a few illogical anecdotalisms, ignore valid contradictory evidence, then you think you are on intellectually safe ground in claiming "the evidence supports creation". You are not.

A woman is killed with a knife in a department store. Security guards apprehend the man after witnessing the crime, by their watches it occurred at 10 PM. The stores video equipment also records the crime & puts the incident at 22.01. Subsequent DNA evidence matches the suspect, as do fingerprints.

Your argument would be that video evidence can be tampered with, it can't be trusted. The mens watches requires too many assumptions to be be considered reliable; they go wrong, or had the wrong time to begin with. DNA? You don't think I trust the evolutionist conspiracy do you? No, the DNA could match at least 4 other men in the world, it must be thrown out on that basis. Fingerprints? Chuck 'em out. It is an assumption that everyones fingerprints are unique & so it must be inadmissible as evidence. Clearly the suspect is innocent. Good grief, they can't even pin down the time of the crime, who are they trying to fool?

Of course, in the real world, the tentativity of the hypothesis that the suspect is guilty is very, very low. So it is with radiometric dating & evolution.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-11-2004 06:52 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:46 PM almeyda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 4:12 AM mark24 has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8811
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 114 of 117 (107353)
05-11-2004 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by mark24
05-11-2004 3:51 AM


New Topic
We both know you won't. You would have done it by now.

alemyda has had new topic rights removed for the time being.

Though I suppose s/he could have posted to the correlations topic in dating if he had an explanation for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 05-11-2004 3:51 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by almeyda, posted 05-11-2004 4:47 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 116 by mark24, posted 05-11-2004 4:47 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 117 (107358)
05-11-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 4:12 AM


Re: New Topic
He.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 4:12 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3143 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 116 of 117 (107359)
05-11-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 4:12 AM


Re: New Topic
Ned,

Though I suppose s/he could have posted to the correlations topic in dating if he had an explanation for them.

It's not like I hadn't asked, why does it specifically need a new thread, why not here?

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 4:12 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 117 (110764)
05-26-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SweeneyTodd
04-08-2004 11:35 PM


Now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

Sweeney, I have been to the Creation Evidences Museum in Texas a few times - it's hilarious to hear people who are quite serious when they make idiotic claims such as:

Fire-breathing dragons are living dormant at the bottom of the seas, awaiting Armageddon.

Rattlesnake bites used to be beneficial to people "before the Flood".

The Earth was surrounded by a canopy of ice that was superconducting, ferromagnetic, and fiber optic.

Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and left footprints in what is now the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

Pre-flood humans would easily run 200 miles a day between what is now Glen Rose and what is now the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.

Self-proclaimed "Dr." Carl Baugh has built up quite a following at the Creation Evidences Museum, near Texas' Dinosaur Valley State Park near Glen Rose. Initially, Baugh's "museum" was in hut, then eventually moved to a mobile home, and the last time I went a few years ago, he had a double-wide trailer. Baugh's alleged science degrees are all bogus, from a series of unaccredited creationist "universities" - what are colloquially known as diploma mills set up by Baugh's friends, including at least 3 which were Churches. In fact, the picture of the "university" on Baugh's website is actually a photo of what was then Burleson Baptist Temple, which has been renamed The Church At Burleson, if I recall correctly (in Burleson, Texas). When I visited to check on Baugh's obviously bogus credentials, the church wasn't open that day - there were no signs indicating that the church was any kind of university from the outside, and nothing visible in the foyer that showed it to be a university. During the week, they did answer the phone with the university name. When pressed for details about the "university", they referred callers to creationist Clifford Wilson's "university" in Missouri, which was the source of their study materials.

The double-wide museum has a collection of fossils and sideshow paraphenalia (such as a suit from someone once billed as the tallest man in the world, if I recall). There's a mural on one side depicting creation as Baugh sees it, and a fish tank with some fish (Pacu?) that are either related to pirhanas or are a species of pirhanas that are larger than usual (maybe some that eat mostly fruit). Baugh has an idea fixee that "pre-Flood" animals grew larger, and apparently some of his followers believe the fish have grown to extraordinary size through some simulation of pre-Flood conditions. Baugh has a medical hyperbaric chamber in the trailer that had two poisonous snakes (the "pre-Flood" atmosphere was supposed to be denser since it was contained within the ice canopy shell surrounding the Earth). Baugh had an oscilloscope attached to it sweeping a trace across for visual effect, apparently, since the test connectors weren't actually connected to anything.

This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-27-2004 12:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-08-2004 11:35 PM SweeneyTodd has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018