Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 2:36 AM
20 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Problems with Genesis Creation
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 106 of 173 (396347)
04-19-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
04-17-2007 8:18 PM


Message 9: Pollen
I’m not a PhD geologist, so this may be a dumb question. If so please don’t be too harsh on me. If pollen were found in uncontaminated Precambrian rock would that overturn your argument?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 04-17-2007 8:18 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 04-19-2007 6:00 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 04-19-2007 6:16 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2007 9:20 PM jjsemsch has responded

    
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 107 of 173 (396353)
04-19-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Let's take a look at Noah's Ark, shall we?
quote:
Unfortunately I’ve never observed the mating patterns of dinosaurs, so I’m unable to classify which dinosaurs fall into created kind. Of the 668 named dinosaurs there are likely only 55 kinds.

This would peg kinds at around the familial level, if not higher. Since fertile interbreeding can only occur within genera at best, you're wrong on your estimate.

Edit: Let me count this out. Dinosauria contains the following named families.

1. Herrerasauridae
2. Coelophysidae
3. Ceratosauridae
4. Noasauridae
5. Abelisauridae
6. Megalosauridae
7. Spinosauridae
8. Sinraptoridae
9. Allosauridae
10. Carcharodontosauridae
11. Compsognathidae
12. Ornitholestidae
13. Tyrannosauridae
14. Ornithomimidae
15. Caegnathidae
16. Oviraptoridae
17. Avimimidae
18. Therizinosauridae
19. Dromaeosauridae
20. Troodontidae
21. Alvarezsauridae
22. Plateosauridae
23. Riojasauridae
24. Massospondylidae
25. Vulcanodontidae
26. Brachiosauridae
27. Camarasauridae
28. Saltasauridae
29. Rebbachisauridae
30. Dicraeosauridae
31. Diplodocidae
32. Nodosauridae
33. Polacanthidae
34. Ankylosauridae
35. Huayangosauridae
36. Stegosauridae
37. Heterodontosauridae
38. Thescelosauridae
39. Rhabdodontidae
40. Dryosauridae
41. Camptosauridae
42. Hadrosauridae
43. Pachycephalosauridae
44. Chaoyangsauridae
45. Psittacosauridae
46. Leptoceratopidae
47. Bagaceratopidae
48. Protoceratopidae
49. Ceratopidae

There. 49 families. However, monogeneric families are frowned upon, so let's add the dinosaurs that would create those.

50. Eoraptor
51. Dilophosaurus
52. Megaraptor
53. Gasosaurus
54. Sigilmassasaurus
55. Coelurus
56. Itemirus
57. Okay, there's no use going into Sauropodomorpha or Ornithischia, since Just grabbing the ones out of Theropoda allowed me to top 55.

Edited by Cthulhu, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 4:50 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Doddy, posted 04-20-2007 2:17 AM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 108 of 173 (396354)
04-19-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
I’m not a PhD geologist, so this may be a dumb question. If so please don’t be too harsh on me. If pollen were found in uncontaminated Precambrian rock would that overturn your argument?

It would certainly be something that needed explaining. So far the oldest flowering plants only date to about 140,000,000 years ago. The Cambrian period runs from around 550,000,000 years ago to about 490,000,000 years ago. Pre-Cambrian would be even earlier.

Grasses, which were mentioned only appeared around 65,000,000 years ago.

But all of these dates are simply based on the available evidence.

That is important.

All of these dates are based on available evidence.

The way knowledge is gained is by new evidence being found that calls the existing theories into question.

If pollens were found in layers earlier than 140,000,000 old, it would be an amazing discovery. It would certainly make folk re-evaluate current understandings.

But it would provide NO support for Biblical Creationism.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 5:31 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 109 of 173 (396358)
04-19-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
Why don't you open a new topic to discuss it?

It will definitely be informative. It will be yet another example of the kind of deliberate nonsense propagated by the cult of ignorance that Jar so often mentions.

Since you have probably fallen for it we'll need a separate thread to help you see where you have been misinformed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 5:31 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 110 of 173 (396368)
04-19-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Let's take a look at Noah's Ark, shall we?
. It was not necessary for Noah to take plants, bugs or sea creatures. Of all of the “kinds” of land vertebrates experts say there are only about 8,000 created kinds.

Ummm, why?

What plants, bugs or birds can survive underwater for 40 days? (especially after all those volcanos you mentioned).

And you still haven't explained why some sea creatures were fine while others were not.

Not to mention the whole "kind" thing. That a discussion in and of itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 4:50 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2278 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 111 of 173 (396372)
04-19-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Let's take a look at Noah's Ark, shall we?
quote:
So how many Tyrannosaurus rexes and other theropods have you studied to know their eating patterns? (Obviously that’s a rhetorical question, so please don’t respond) The answer is zero.

From their bones, one can deduce their size. From their size we can deduce within a range their daily caloric needs. From that we can deduce the necessary food requirements. This isn't hard, you're just ignorant.

quote:
From fossil remains we know that most dinosaurs were the size of chickens and the average dinosaur size was that of a dog.

You hear this where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs#Size

Guess what? You're wrong.

quote:
There were very few that got to the size seen in Jurassic Park.

True but on average the dinosaurs were significantly larger then mammals.

quote:
Another point you are overlooking is Noah would have taken young adolescent animals which would have been the perfect age for breeding after departing from the ark.

Except that a adolescent dinosaur was often the size of a large cow and put weight on very quickly. Not to mention that adolescent T-rexs and Allosaurus and other medium to large carnivores were large, powerful and not going to be cooped up for a year.

quote:
It’s also likely that Noah took eggs of large dinosaurs, which would require no food until after it hatched.

And who tended to these eggs in addition to every other animal?

quote:
From this we can conclude that only one pair of dogs exited Noah’s Ark.

So all crabs came from one set of crabs? All large cats came from one pair? Let's just ignore how genetic bottlenecks make this impossible and let's again ignore how a single pair of of each animal would need to rapidly produce and mature to provide prey for the carnivores.

quote:
It was not necessary for Noah to take plants, bugs or sea creatures.

If Noah did not, life would not exist. Please tell me what kind of land plant can survive being submerged in brine for a year. How about you do a experiment? Take some grass and submerge it in salt water. See how long it lives. Furthermore virtually all bugs breathe through their exoskeletons. Submerging them results in their death. As for marine species, very few can survive in brine. Not to mention pressure changes from salinity changes. And you can kiss the food pyramid goodbye as plankton hasn't got a shot in such conditions.

I do love how you refuse to address the various rebuttals


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 4:50 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 112 of 173 (396400)
04-19-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jjsemsch
04-19-2007 5:31 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
If pollen were found in uncontaminated Precambrian rock would that overturn your argument?

Are you getting ready to play "gotcha!" with the Hakatai Shale in the Grand Canyon? That one has been a non-starter for at least a decade: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html

Now, if real Precambrian grass pollen (or any pollen!) were to be found fossilized in a real Precambrian rock, my specific argument of Post #9 would suffer terribly, yes. The last century or so of scientists looking very hard at rocks has failed to show any up, but yeah, the first sample could be in the process of being removed from a rock by some underfed grad student at this very moment. If that happened, there would be great consternation among palaeontologists, and a huge scramble to find confirmation in other rocks and to find fossils of the parent plant that shed the pollen. And if these were found, the books would be rewritten, you can be sure. Precambrian Bermuda grass would be a difficult one....

But that changes my overall argument not at all! It's not just pollen. The last two centuries of study of the fossil record by some very bright people has found patterns there. These patterns include things like the never-once-yet occurance of a fossil crab with a fossil trilobite, or a whale with a mososaur, or a rugose coral with a fish that had jaws. I'm just a raw amateur at this, too - a pro could likely type such pairs all night.

It's not just that Genesis has the order of grasses vs. Great Sea Creatures wrong - Genesis has the whole time scale wrong! The fossils that you can go dig up yourself show it! They show that a single Big Flood could not possibly laid them down in the combinations (and lack of combinations) that you yourself could go find with just a rock hammer. Seymouria lived long, long before the first dinosaur ever breathed, and the rocks show it. Tyrannosaurus was long, long dead to the last specimen before the first mammoth or australopithecine ever was. The rocks show it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jjsemsch, posted 04-19-2007 5:31 PM jjsemsch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jjsemsch, posted 04-20-2007 12:27 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4072 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 113 of 173 (396454)
04-20-2007 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Cthulhu
04-19-2007 6:00 PM


Re: Let's take a look at Noah's Ark, shall we?
Cthulhu writes:

This would peg kinds at around the familial level, if not higher.

That's not good, if it applies to all species.

Family Hominidae - contains orang-utans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. And I've never seen a creationist able to expand their view of large baramin (orders or famililies as comparable to baramin) to humans.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Cthulhu, posted 04-19-2007 6:00 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 114 of 173 (396510)
04-20-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
04-19-2007 9:20 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
Are you getting ready to play "gotcha!" with the Hakatai Shale in the Grand Canyon?

Wow, you’re good! That’s exactly what I was going to do.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/fossil.asp

Also if that didn’t satisfy you I was going to show you this link as well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/coal.asp

It’s a discovery of pollen rich layers of coal up to 20 inches thick, found in Latrobe Valley Australia. They basically say that the evidence shows that the pollen was washed there by a flood and suggest that it was THE Flood. In fact they say that all coal mines give testament to the Great Flood, because the mechanism to produce large coal deposits is large amounts of water transporting and accumulating organic material and quickly burying said material with sediment before it begins to decompose.

And if these were found, the books would be rewritten, you can be sure.

Based on the fact that biology text books are still being used today that have Ernst Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings and pictures of dead peppered moths glued to trees, I doubt such a discovery would change the books any time soon.

The last two centuries of study of the fossil record by some very bright people has found patterns there.

There are also some very bright people on staff at AiG and ICR. I don’t discount the intelligence of secular scientists, but I have a different worldview than they do. The Bible is unchanging, but new discoveries change the theories about the past everyday. I’ve never seen a single genetic intermediate for plant evolution have you? Here is an article about the evolutionary tree of plants not having a single link supported by fossil evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/plants.asp

If every single question asked of me about Genesis Creation stumped me, what would you gain by that? What profit is it for a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2007 9:20 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Nuggin, posted 04-20-2007 12:39 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 117 by kuresu, posted 04-20-2007 1:04 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 115 of 173 (396514)
04-20-2007 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jjsemsch
04-20-2007 12:27 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
There are also some very bright people on staff at AiG

JJ, haven't you noticed that every time you link AiG, the response is not simply "they are wrong" but instead "They have lied to you, and here's how they lied in great detail."

IF the people at AiG are infact "very bright", clearly that intelligence is being used to deceive the people who visit the site.

Alternately, if the people are AiG are NOT trying to deceive, then their fundamental misunderstanding of the subject about which they speak pegs them firmly in the NOT "very bright" catagory.

Now, if you don't mind, get over to the JJ's definition of a Kind thread, we've been waiting for you for a couple days now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jjsemsch, posted 04-20-2007 12:27 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 3938 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 116 of 173 (396515)
04-20-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Parasomnium
04-18-2007 2:30 PM


Re: Some rebuttals
Based on that, you can say pretty much anything about dinosaurs, because they are not mentioned in the Bible at all.

Actually in Job chapter 40 the behemoth is a great description of a sauropod. Also the leviathan is a very good description of pterodactyls.

You could say they [Biblical authors] were generally pretty ignorant about natural history, period.

I’m sure the men whose hands physically wrote the words of the Bible may have been ignorant of natural history, but the Holy Spirit who moved through them most certainly was not.

2 Timothy 3: 16-17

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Parasomnium, posted 04-18-2007 2:30 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 04-20-2007 1:08 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 04-20-2007 1:17 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 117 of 173 (396518)
04-20-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jjsemsch
04-20-2007 12:27 PM


Re: Message 9: Pollen
Based on the fact that biology text books are still being used today that have Ernst Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings and pictures of dead peppered moths glued to trees, I doubt such a discovery would change the books any time soon.

you know, something tells me this is false. I definitely don't remember seeing anything drawn by Haekel in my bio textbook (Campbell, standard issue apparently, in colleges).

I also don't remember a single picture of those moths. Were both talked about? Sure--only to say that Haekel was wrong and that the moths provide a good example of natural selection working on traits.

If you have any issues with these two, we have whole threads devoted to them. try looking them up with the search function.

And yes, they would be updated. Why? Even my history book gets updated--I've got the '06 version, but they already have an '07. And nothing happened that would significantly alter an introduction to western civ. in the last year. If something did happen, it would be included without a doubt. I was using an 05 (maybe an 04) Campbell's Bio book when I took my bio class. They now have an '06 or '07 edition. If something earth-shattering for evolution (or evolutionary history) happened, it would be included.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jjsemsch, posted 04-20-2007 12:27 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 118 of 173 (396519)
04-20-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jjsemsch
04-20-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Some rebuttals
Also the leviathan is a very good description of pterodactyls.

Again, I don't know who has been feeding you such nonsense but they have done you a great disservice.

Look at some of the descriptions of Leviathan.

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?

There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce, great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent, Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the sea.

Can you see a pattern yet?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jjsemsch, posted 04-20-2007 12:45 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Doddy, posted 04-20-2007 8:11 PM jar has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 119 of 173 (396523)
04-20-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jjsemsch
04-20-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Some rebuttals
Actually in Job chapter 40 the behemoth is a great description of a sauropod.

With a navel? That's different for a critter that hatched from an egg!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jjsemsch, posted 04-20-2007 12:45 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Cthulhu, posted 04-20-2007 4:20 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 120 of 173 (396548)
04-20-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Coragyps
04-20-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Some rebuttals
Not to mention that sauropods and water did not mix. They were about as aquatic as a cactus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 04-20-2007 1:17 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019