+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 38
Latest: Dave Pugner
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 6604
Total Topics: 206
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 4484 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
We have often published on the finding of intact organic matter, especially in dinosaur fossils.

Creationists would not normally have access to the original samples in order to send them off for C14 dating, but like you we would be confident that it would still have C14 in it, and so would be much less than 100,000 years old (FYI, the upper limit of getting a datable specimen is not quite as low as 30,000 years).

Whenever we do have organic specimens that are supposed to be millions of years old, like fossil wood in Triassic sandstone, they should be 'undatable' (infinite radiocarbon age, since no detectable C14) but invariably they return an 'age'.

The age itself will always be in the tens of thousands of years (25kya to 55kya) not the actual age of c. 4.5kya but this is because of the way in which the Flood affected the C14/C12 balance by burying most of the biosphere in a relatively short timeframe.

Agelbert NOTE:  :-[ I was wrong about the max C14 date. I stand corrected to 100,000 years.  ;D
But that's still quite a difference from millions of years! I will report here when my Creation Scientist brothers and sisters get to test some of that blood in the mosquito's gut.

Surly, meanwhile here's an article from a Creationist scientist's POV about those Skulls in Georgia you posted an article on that discusses possible false assumptions about hominid skulls.


New Dmanisi skull threatens to bring the house down  :o

by Peter Line


Photo from Georgian National Museum.
8301-fig1
Figure 1. Cranium D4500 unearthed in Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~546 cc. Along with its mandible (D2600) they together are known as Skull 5.

Published: 29 October 2013 (GMT+10)

Details of a remarkable fifth Dmanisi cranium (D4500), recovered from a site in Dmanisi, Georgia containing the ruins of a medieval fortress, were published in the journal Science on 18 October 2013.1 The cranium was recovered in 2005 and, together with a mandible (D2600) found five years earlier, constitutes a complete adult skull (together referred to as simply Skull 5). All five Dmanisi skulls are dated by evolutionists to around 1.8 million years ago (Ma), and it is said that “the five skulls were found close together physically, and they were all deposited within a few hundred years of each other in what had been a cave, now collapsed.”2

According to geo-archaeologist Reid Ferring, who dated the site, all “five individuals were found in underground dens where carnivores had probably dragged their carcasses”, with the dens later collapsing.3 The cranial capacity of 546 cubic centimeters (cc) for Dmanisi Skull 5 is the smallest of the Dmanisi sample, with cranial capacities of skulls 1 to 4 reported to be between 601 to 730 cc.4

In 2003 it was reported that the D2600 “mandible is far too large to fit comfortably with any of the crania yet discovered.”5 Hence, expecting to unearth a huge cranium to go with the massive D2600 mandible (lower jaw), one of the surprises was the fit of the enormous D2600 mandible with the smallest-brained Dmanisi crania (D4500). The researchers, led by David Lordkipanidze, stated that:

“D4500/D2600 combines a small braincase (546 cubic centimeters) with a large prognathic face and exhibits close morphological affinities with the earliest known Homo fossils from Africa. The Dmanisi sample, which now comprises five crania, provides direct evidence for wide morphological variation within and among early Homo paleodemes. This implies the existence of a single evolving lineage of early Homo, with phylogeographic continuity across continents.”6
The analysis of the Dmanisi skulls showed that:

“The skulls were as variable as African fossils traditionally classified in three different species—H. erectus, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis. If the Dmanisi fossils had been found in separate places in Africa, they could have been called separate species, Ponce de León says. Lumping them all into H. erectus suggests that the early Homo fossils in Africa may also belong to that same, single lineage.”7

A single lineage model would certainly require a major overhaul of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.

What appears to be essentially suggested by the authors of the new study is that Homo erectus (including versions such as Homo ergaster), Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis were all members of the same species, and that this single species evolved for a while as a single lineage, later giving rise to subsequent members of the genus Homo.

Whilst the new skull (Skull 5) got much of the usual publicity and accolades associated with any alleged ‘hominid’ fossil find that can be construed as providing support for the idea of human evolution, the ‘single evolving lineage’ interpretation of the findings by Lordkipanidze et al. did not endear them to everyone, particularly to splitters.

The latter being paleoanthropologists who believe that several distinct co-existing species of hominids gave rise to multiple evolving lineages. In fact, this single lineage idea has been described as “setting off a small ‘bomb’ in the field,” according to co-author Philip Rightmire.

Perhaps worried about the disarray the single lineage idea will bring to the field of human evolution, one of the doyens of paleoanthropology, Bernard Wood, is quoted by Brian Switek as arguing “that it’s unreasonable to ‘bring the whole bloody house down’ by lumping all early human fossils into a single lineage.”8 A single lineage model would certainly require a major overhaul of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.


Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig2
Figure 2. Cast of the large and robust mandible D2600 that fits the newly announced Dmanisi cranium D4500. Together they are known as Skull 5.

Rather than lumping Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis with Homo erectus, I have previously argued that they should instead be lumped in with the australopithecines, possibly as the same species as Australopithecus sediba, and I see no reason to change this assessment because of Skull 5.9

One reason is that one also has to consider the rest of the skeleton (the postcranial remains). Whilst there are no postcranial remains reliably linked to Homo rudolfensis,10 the only set of postcranial remains linked with Homo habilis sensu stricto that are associated with “taxonomically diagnostic cranial elements” is OH 62, and its estimated limb-length proportions are as ape-like as Australopithecus afarensis.11

In fact, one evolutionist has argued that although “living nearly a million and a half years after Lucy, the OH62 animal was more ape-like in form than she.”12

As for the Dmanisi specimens, an earlier study by Lordkipanidze et al. described the Dmanisi postcranial remains as having “derived features” that “include modern-human-like body proportions and lower limb morphology indicative of the capability for long-distance travel.”13 That the “Dmanisi individuals appear to have long legs and short arms based on the fossils that have been found,”14 is very different from the “relatively long arms still adapted for climbing in Homo habilis.”

Also, despite Skull 5 being described as having “had a number of primitive features: a long apelike face, large teeth and a tiny braincase,”15 the “skull’s vertically orientated upper face and the shape of the braincase distinguish it from Australopithecus.” The skull’s braincase has been described as “shaped like a typical H. erectus despite its small size.”16 Paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor argues the methods of analysis used by the team in the new study were not sufficient to infer that fossils from Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis were of the same species, as they did “a very general shape analysis of the cranium which describes the shape of the face and braincase in broad sweeping terms,” and according to Spoor the “problem is that those Homo species are not defined using such a broad overview of what their general cranial shape is.”17

It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution.

According to Melissa Hogenboom, Spoor adds “that the very specific characteristics that had been used to define H.erectus, H.habilis and H.rudolfensis ‘were not captured by the landmarks that they use’.” Spoor is further quoted as saying that the team “did not consider that the thick and protruding brow ridges, the angular back of the braincase and some details of the base of the cranium are derived features for H.erectus, and not present in H.habilis and H.rudolfensis.” Also, in another news article, Spoor “points out that Lodkipanidze’s analysis suggests even the much more ape-like hominins in the genus Australopithecus belong to the H. erectus group. It is not surprising then, that the new analysis misses the more subtle shape differences between Homo species.” Hence, it may well be that the similarities between the new Dmanisi Homo erectus skull and Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis are not as close as is perhaps suggested.

So, how to explain the Dmanisi fossils? As discussed in an upcoming paper dealing with robust humans (Neandertals, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus),18 written before the announcement of this latest find, if the LB1 Homo floresiensis cranium, most recently estimated to be 426 cc,19 belonged to a pathological robust human with cretinism, it raises interesting questions about similar pathology in other small-brained robust humans, such as the Dmanisi Homo erectus specimens. In this context it should be noted that a recent study using geometric morphometric comparative analysis reported that the sole LB1 Homo floresiensis cranium “shows particular affinities in neurocranial shape with the Dmanisi hominins”.20 It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution. According to evolutionary paleoanthropologist and anatomist Charles Oxnard:

Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig3
Figure 3. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen D2282 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~650 cc.

“It is remarkable that so many features similar to those normally present in great apes, in Australopithecus and Paranthropus, and in early Homo (e.g., H. erectus and even to some degree, H. neanderthalensis) but not in modern H. sapiens are generated in humans by growth deficits due to the absence of thyroid hormone. In other words, many of the pathological features of cretinism mimic the primitive characters of evolution making it easy to mistake pathological features for primitive characters. The differences can be disentangled by understanding the underlying biology of characters.”21

If a ‘modern’ human with cretinism can have many pathological features that mimic the so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution, it is highly likely that a ‘robust’ human with cretinism will have as many, if not even more such features. Cretinism may also explain the large morphological variability in the Dmanisi sample. That is because the bones of cretins are enormously variable, “as would be expected in a pathology with different degrees of affect, and conflation with associated conditions”.22

It is interesting that a lack of chin and a “large jaw compared with the rest of the skull” has been documented in one cretin skull (Dolega),23 as a large jaw (compared with the cranium) is a feature of Dmanisi Skull 5. That the Dmanisi specimens are found in the same locality may not be that unusual. For example, and from an evolutionary perspective, Oxnard suggests that in “seasonally mobile hunter-gatherer groups,” in prior times, cretin children would:

“… be ostracised as adults by the wider community due to their abnormal features and behaviours. Unable to travel easily with a mobile community, especially unable to help build normal temporary dwellings in such a community, adult cretins might well separate and shelter in caves. If there were a reasonable number of them (say, conservatively) 5% of all births, they might indeed shelter together.”24


Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig4
Figure 4. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen D2280 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~775 cc, but latest study appears to indicate cranial capacity has been revised down to 730 cc.

Alternatives to the above scenario are certainly possible, particularly as there is evidence that early people at least on occasion cared for the infirm. Maybe the cretins were cared for as a group by healthier members of the small, isolated group. As the Dmanisi specimens were located close together physically, and appear to have lived at the same time, it is possible that, as cretins sheltered as a group in a cave, they may have met some unsavory fate together, such as being caught in a cave collapse, or some other event. The above scenario is very speculative, and it may well be that the considerable morphological variation, as well as the extremely small brain sizes, evident in the Dmanisi Homo erectus population, were within normal limits of variation for robust humans, although I consider this option less likely.

If iodine deficiency disorders like cretinism are still a problem in some parts of the world today, despite modern medicine and information about iodine deficiency at our disposal, how much more of a problem could it potentially have been for early post-Flood/post-Babel human populations migrating to uncharted regions of the earth, most likely unaware of the problem (or cause of the problem)—and probably having their hands full just surviving day-to-day? Hence, robust human populations settling in any iodine-deficient regions of Africa, Georgia, China, Indonesia, etc. may well have had a high incidence of cretinism. The Dmanisi population were most likely derived from early post-Babel migrations, and given the difficult situations faced by such early settlers, it is not surprising that only simple stone tools are associated with the finds, said by evolutionists to be “manufactured according to much the same primitive Oldowan tradition that hominids in Africa were practicing nearly a million years earlier.”25 However, it may instead indicate that when these early settlers moved on they took their more sophisticated tools and items with them, and/or that they did not stay in the local area for any length of time, or some other explanation. We just do not know enough about these people to fill in all the blanks.


http://creation.com/dmanisi

 

« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 02:30:42 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2013, 07:54:15 pm »
Really interesting aricle, AG. And I am no expert, but I have a brown belt in using Occam's razor.

Thus,
Quote
It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of evolution.

Seems like one hell of a reach.

Arguments about C14 deposits and dating of samples, the effect of the flood and earth changes, etc. seem to be to certainly be arguable. to me it's odds-on that  should science surviuve the zero point, we'll learn just how wrong some of our assumptions are. given the history of science, it seems inevitable.

But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a theory shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional science...

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2013, 11:40:06 pm »
Quote
But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a theory shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional science...

I must admit I had a similar mental discomfort on the alleged cretinism. The young earth creationists are apparently trying a bit too hard to "fix the facts" around the biblical narrative.

That said, the disdain and dismissal expressed by evolutionary true believer scientists about creation makes me even more uncomfortable simply because they've got zero proof that we came from a mud puddle of amino acids.

I knew a priest that once told me God could do it any way He wanted to. I agree but  that is dodging the main issue of the FACT that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER provided proof that species (as in Darwin's book title) Originated from natural selection; it is, instead, a still to be proven theory that a single celled creature of some sort, AFTER it popped into existence, "evolved" by random mutations to produce multicellular creatures of incredible complexity that OTHER totally different multicellular life forms (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.) interact with at precisely the same time to provide a natural a set of symbiotic relationships biosphere give and take (e.g. bees could not exist without flowering plants that produce pollen. Said plants could not perpetuate the species without pollinators like the bees).

It is really a hell of a stretch for me to attribute that biochemical dance to random mutations. In fact, it's ludicrous.

To add insult to irrational pseudo science, the claim that, YEAH, that first single celled creature had nonliving amino acids randomly assemble themselves to produce several thousand lipids, proteins and energy processing functions in a reproducible mitotic fashion with EXACT duplicative DNA generation after generation, including various DNA self healing biochemistry that FIGHTS mutation to preserve the species without harm.

Think about that.

HOW, exactly, is something that was assembled by RANDOM amino acid, lipid and carbohydrate chemicals (the first single celled organism) is going to pattern said life form to RESIST mutations (change in DNA sequence)? If the process of "evolution" is basically a reversal of entropy where things get MORE complex, not less, WHY does every single living thing have, intrinsic to its cellular reproduction mechanism, all kinds of biochemical fail safes to AVOID change? It's not logical that RANDOMNESS produces a biological machine that FIGHTS randomness. It's one hell of a flight of fancy devoid of even a shred of logic.

Take the amoeba, for example. How come they are still around after "billions" of years? Some "evolved" and some didn't? ???  Or do they just pop out of mud puddles every 15,8 million years to take up the slack from the ones that "evolved". ::)

What about Escherichia Coli, affectionately know as a fecal coliform  ;D. We intelligently REDISIGNED IT to make insulin but for billions of years it never randomly came up with that skill on its own. And while we are at it, E. coli, although IT can (and does - that's one test they perform on water to see if it is potable - fecal coliform count) live outside our gut, WE CANNOT live without a large number of several species of gut bacteria. We simply cannot get our vitamins, minerals and energy without them and we die of malabsorption.
 
Evolutionists claim that, OF COURSE, the bacteria came first and we came much later. That runs straight into my earlier question (How come some of them "evolved" and some didn't?). We just made use of the dumb ones to get our metabolism going, right?  ::)   

Surly, first causes and the basic allegedly irrefutable premises that form the foundation of Evolutionary Theory DO NOT EXIST in nature. How come?

And I haven't even touched on the fact that the amoeba has a symphony of organelles that must all be present (and work together in a certain, very precise way) or it does not function. That's the elephant in the "random mutations" room.

Evolutionists claim that, given enough time, anything can happen. That's where the statistical myth that a hundred monkeys on typewriters could write Shakespeare by chance came from.

It's not true. Here's why.
EVERY TIME the monkeys hit a key, the EXACT SAME PROBABILITY of hitting that key exists. So, let's say that, after a million years and some very durable monkeys tapping away, a sequence of letters and spaces (100 of them - one for each monkey) produces a line in a Shakespearean play. According to evolutionists, a million years or so later you will get the second line and so on.

That is TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC malarkey. >:(

Between the first line and the second line, all the intervening events MUST be considered valid sequential events. So what we actually got was one line, followed by endless goobly gock, followed by another line. That is called FACTORIAL in probability and statistics,

Factorial math destroys the random positive mutation hypothesis of natural selection. WHY? Because for every potential "evolutionary advantage" (random positive mutation) that pops up, 98 times as many negative destructive mutations attempt to fight their way in to destroy the DNA. So, getting back to the monkeys, if it took one million years to type the first line of Shakespeare, in order to type the SECOND line RIGHT AFTER the FIRST line (we are going AGAINST ENTROPY HERE), you need 98 times as many more years (first period factorial of the second period). So now we are at 99 million years for two lines. To get the first three lines in consecutive fashion, you need 98 times the 99 million years. That comes to nine billion, 700 million years!

ONLY if positive mutations were the 98 to 2 rule (or better) in nature would Evolutionary Theory be plausible. But what we observe (see gamma radiation experiments on life forms) is destructive mutations out the wazoo until the DNA self repair mechanisms are overcome.

Negative mutations being 98 to 2 in a universe where entropy (disorder) is always tearing away at ORDER is logical and expected. That's our universe. Things are always unraveling, not self assembling.

What looks like a reversal of entropy, the ORDERED growth from plant seed to mature plant, is not a defeat or reversal of entropy. WHY? Because of the intricate set of instructions in the seed's DNA that directs the growth in a deliberate, complex and repetitious manner generation after generation. Plant DNA is lengthy and complex.

It can, however, be argued that a plant's DNA is less complex than an amoeba's (amoeba's have more DNA than WE DO!) but scientists believe it just has a lot of repetitive sequences as backup systems. By the way, all that DNA in such a "primitive" life form is another huge "evolutionary" question mark (God has a great sense of humor!    ).

At any rate, plants, because of their many different vascular systems, functions and sizes, are certainly more complex than an amoeba.


Amoeba simplified anatomy

The odds of a hundred thousand or so monkeys on typewriters coding up the DNA sequence of an amoeba ALL AT ONCE (because ALL the cell systems organelles have to work TOGETHER right from the start) involve more time than we have, even if this universe is 14.5 billion years old.

I don't know HOW God did it, but there is NO scientific basis for the fairy tale of wishful thinking called the Theory of Evolution.

If you want some great laughs about the pretzel logic that evolutionary "scientists" use to explain a particularly difficult issue (for evolutionists) about cell anatomy and physiology, Google "origin of mitochondria".

There is NO WAY a cell can function without it. Yet, the ridiculous claim is made that cells DID exist without it and, one fine evolutionary day, this BACTERIUM EVOLVED into a cell organelle called a mitochondria by sneaking into a cell! When it got there, it started doing what a mitochondria does (provide energy for absolutely every one of the thousands to millions of biochemical reactions in the cell in order to oxygenate, ingest nutrients, manufacture proteins, enable cell division, fight off invaders and get rid of waste. What does the mitochondria get in return? A code change in the DNA so that a new Mitochondria is produced with a new cell.

So how did the cell function without the mitochondria? It didn't. They know it but they don't want to talk about it.

 WHY? Because mitochondrial ATP (the energy molecule) synthesis for all cell activities has NOW (this year, as a matter of fact  ;D) been proven to be far more complex and pervasive in the cell than previously known. The mitochondria was thought to occupy a fixed location but it turns out it is very active moving around the cell in a very factory like and efficient manner. This gives more ammunition to the creationist argument that cells are irreducibly complex with too many exquisitely precise functions working in a complex dance of organelles to have been "pieced together" gradually by invading RNA or DNA plasmids (short sequences like the one we put into E. Coli to force it to make insulin) that broke through the cell wall.

The mitochondrial example itself is game, set, match for Evolutionary Theory simply because it proves the even a single cell could not have been formed randomly.

But evolutionists will continue to lie in their Procrustean bed because, as they love to say, "The alternative (God did it!) is unthinkable." 
 

Mitochondria and mosquito gut blood are at the top of my list of bags of worms for evolutionist true believers. I also want to go into some details on skull bone structure and facial reconstruction to show how the "missing link" GAME is played.  ;) I will report on any new findings.

I just scanned an article that seems to be another bag of worms in the making;
they found modern bird fossils with dinosaur fossils.
:o 
It will be entertaining, to say the least, to see how they try to dance around that one...
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Modern Birds found with Dinosaurs
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2013, 01:17:28 am »
Modern birds found with dinosaurs

Are museums misleading the public? ???

by Don Batten


Do you think the above represents some laughable and  silly creationist lie? If you DO, the JOKE IS ON YOU! :o

The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds with those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.

Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.

Every time you see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs.
 
In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.

“I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”

With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in Living Fossils).

It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important discrepancy: museums were not displaying what the scientists were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one single fossil of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site (see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an avocet.


An avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum (top) - a rare example of a modern bird (bottom) in such displays.



Sign at the American Museum of Natural History, 2011.

Contrary to the sign, Dr Werner discovered that many types of birds have been found with dinosaurs including ducks, loons, flamingos, albatross, owls, penguins, sandpipers, parrots, cormorants, avocets, as well as extinct birds such as Mononykus, Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis. While these extinct birds did have teeth, many other modern types of birds without teeth have been found. By leaving this fact out, the museum display misleads the public.

Dr Werner: “Museums do not show you these modern bird fossils nor do they put modern birds fleshed out with feathers in their dinosaur dioramas. This is wrong. Essentially, every time you see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these dinosaurs, :o  but this is not the case. I have never seen a duck with a dinosaur at a natural history museum, have you? An owl? A parrot?”

“Not only do they not display birds, but the prestigious American Museum of Natural History suggests the opposite in their dinosaur-to-bird placard. This display is extremely misleading and again does not mention modern birds with dinosaurs.” (See sign above) >:(

Are the museum displays just out of date, or are they purposely withholding information? “Two years after the release of Dr Werner’s book, the Carnegie Museum, the Smithsonian Museum and the American Museum of Natural History have still not corrected these discrepancies. >:(

From Dr Werner’s global investigations, this is a worldwide phenomenon with the museums; only one museum gave any hint that modern birds have been found with dinosaurs.

It should be noted that modern birds were not found in all dinosaur layers, only Cretaceous layers (not in Jurassic or Triassic rocks). Evolutionist paleontologist Dr Bill Clemens told Carl that the Cretaceous bird fossils were found when they went looking for modern animals in the Cretaceous layers to provide evidence that the asteroid impact hypothesis was wrong1 (this is the idea that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs ‘at the end of the Cretaceous’). The researchers were trying to establish continuity between the fossils in the rocks above the Cretaceous with those in the Cretaceous; so they were looking for modern creatures. Who knows what they would find if they looked hard in the other layers?

On CMI’s documentary, Darwin—the Voyage that Shook the World, Professor Phil Currie, palaeontologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, spoke about how a researcher’s ‘search image’ can affect what is discovered. “In spite of the fact that you think you have an open mind, very often your perceptions of what things should be, or your search image, or your cultural beliefs in some cases, will actually be working on your mind so that your eyes are open but they are not really open; they are missing something that could take you in an entirely new direction.”

More and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view.

When researchers are looking for dinosaurs they tend to not even notice the remains of other creatures and plants. And when they are found, they tend to be put aside as uninteresting. Finding a new ‘exotic’ dinosaur is much more exciting and publicity-worthy than finding a bird or a mammal that everyone is familiar with. And of course funding agencies are after exciting finds of a lost world, not ‘boring’ fossils of modern creatures that also subtly suggest that animals did not evolve.

In spite of all these factors, more and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view. There are so many examples (such as those discussed in Living Fossils), that it amounts to a strong confirmation that animals did not change significantly over time, that God made things to reproduce ‘after their kind’; providing a powerful challenge to the evolutionary story.

Related Articles
Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation

References and notes
There is ample evidence against the impact theory of extinction—see for example creation.com/iridium. Return to text.

http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 01:41:20 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

ashvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2013, 09:11:43 am »
I am pretty skeptical of the criticism of dating methods as well, which is typically used by YECs. Regardless of the validity of such dating methods, we still have independent evidence that the Universe, Earth and life are billions of years old, and that modern humans are at least tens of thousands of years old.

That being said, the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm is a total mess, as evidenced well by AG's posts.

I'd also like to add that this goes beyond a simple scientific discussion of origins, and rather has vast social, political, economic and ethical implications. AG started this thread with a quote from Darwin, so I'd like provide another one (from Descent of Man):

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2013, 02:58:50 pm »
Ashvin,
Hear!, Hear!

When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at facial reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic science and archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose of hominids, being composed entirely of cartilage, is never preserved. Consequently, the shape of the nose in those "scientific" pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces of the homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked like are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a missing link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further up) drawn that looks like a cross between a human and an ape. That is not science; that is wishful thinking. 

There is a lot more about  ape versus human skull features (special muscles apes have are reflected in upper braincase shape) but I need to do more research before I post on it.

Thank you for posting!
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2013, 09:23:22 am »
Fair enough. But,

Quote
When I get to it, I'm going to take a close look at facial reconstruction methods of craniums both in forensic science and archeology. WHY? Because I have read that the nose of hominids, being composed entirely of cartilage, is never preserved. Consequently, the shape of the nose in those "scientific" pro-evolution "reconstructions" of what the faces of the homonids from the skulls they have dug up actually looked like are a clear mark of a "hey looky here, this might be a missing link" agenda. Specifically, look at that nose (further up) drawn that looks like a cross between a human and an ape. That is not science; that is wishful thinking. 

If drawing such a reconstruction were your assignment, how would you proceed?  ??? ???

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2013, 09:14:29 pm »
Well, I still need to do more research on how they rebuild the muscles and skin on a cadaver's face with only a skull.

But here is the premise I would begin with: Muscles are anchored with tendons to the bones of mammalian skeletons and appearance follows their function.

Apes, for example, APPEAR to us to be stooped when they are in the normal position. They aren't stooped at all. You are seeing the way their musculature disguises the skeleton architecture. The upper body strength of apes and chimps is much greater than that of small monkeys and humans.

Small monkeys have a much more similar skull (except for the fact that it is tiny) to humans than to apes. If I were looking for an evolutionary cousin, I'd look for the creature with the most similar skull as matter of Occam's Razor. I would not be bound by Darwinian accepted assumptions with no scientific grounding except the Theory of Evolution champions' (not even the theory itself!) assertion that we descended from apes. They created a procrustean bed for evolutionary scientists by forcing archeologists to ALWAYS look for APE-like missing links.

And Surly, in nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!


Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).



comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.     Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation 
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." , they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." .

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species,...".

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."   

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.


THAT is honest science.


I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN, with some ball park figures and some skulls from MONKEYS, not apes, I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us (monkeys, not chimps or apes) would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.



Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata. I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

ashvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2013, 09:14:07 am »
AG, that was a very well-articulated and comprehensive breakdown of the flawed evolutionary paradigm!

I would suggest you submit it for publication at DD and elsewhere if possible.

Another obvious problem with Darwinain evolution is that it cannot explain the origin of mind/consciousness from mindless matter and energy. Likewise, it cannot relate mental similarities with physical similarities between species, even though that relation MUST exist if its materialist premises are to hold up.

Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2013, 07:02:47 pm »
I would say that this--

Quote
Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."     

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

Is the moral equivalent of resolving a cpmplex narrative by writing, "...and then they all got hit by a truck." Takes care of your complex plot issues, but ultimately unsatisfying.

So there are holes in evolutionary theory. So what?

IMO, there really important issues that face us in preserving God's creation have to do with embracing alternative fuels and putting the fossil fuelers out of business, a business that will long outlive either of us.

jdwheeler42

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2013, 07:31:33 pm »
Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.
Really?  Carl Sagan recently promoted that?  Well, if that's the really the case, then I'm definitely going to believe it...  ;)

Carl Sagan
Astronomer
Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science popularizer and science communicator in astronomy and natural sciences. Wikipedia
Born: November 9, 1934, Brooklyn, NY
Died: December 20, 1996, Seattle, WA

ashvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Darwin
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2013, 08:42:17 am »
Quote from: jdwheeler
Really?  Carl Sagan recently promoted that?

The key word you left out is "more", as in much more recently than Darwin's racist analysis. I believe it was in a 1990 paper.

The point is, Darwin's flawed ideas continue to have severe consequences, even in our supposedly post-eugenics societies.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2013, 04:01:37 pm »
Great Comments!

Surly, as Ashvin stated, the consequences of a flawed evolutionary paradigm are severly deleterious to rational  and logical thinking in modern society. Your "So what?" question fails to connect the negative consequences of a predatory capitalist, rampant planetary exploition with the Darwinian concept of a mad scramble for resources by amino acids self assembling in a totally random manner resulting in the giant truck that running us over now.  ;D It's MIGHTY convenient for the conscience free psychos that fathered GAME THEORY (a twisted view of interrelationships between sentient beings justifying any and all heinous and barbaric behavior in the quest for who gets the most toys "caloric intake, etc") to have DARWIN around to make everything jes' natural behavior. The evolutionary paradigm DID include cooperation as FAR more important than predation in the perpetuation of a species BUT the psychos quickly underplayed that so their planet trashing could have "scientific" backing.

Think about it, Surly. Darwin--> Wall Street "scientific" fig leaf hijacking-->Freud-->Game Theory, a PARADIGM DESIGNED REPLACE the GOLDEN RULE as the most rational and species perpetuating behavior (the "fittest") is PRECISELY WHAT IS BEHIND the LACK OF GUILT by the 1% for TRASHING THE PLANET! Altruism, cooperation, sustainability, holistic view of every process to see it value in the biosphere from the birth of new life to the decay of dead matter NESESSARY for that future new life is ABSENT from the modern paradigmatic view of SUCCESS. It's SUICIDAL and CRIMINALLY INSANE.

But they won't let it go because, because... THEY KNOW it will lead to GUILT, LIABILITY and an END to the con games denying reality. Love thy Neighbor as Thyself is not optional in the biosphere. THIS is the "WHAT" of the "So what?" question you asked.

Think about it.

Ashvin,
I have to develop this thread a little more before I try to publish some article or series of them that explains the harm this flawed evolutionary paradigm is doing to Homo Sap. I. as you do, am trying to proceed on intellect without any appeal to faith on the reader because most evolution true believers take off running when they smell a theist, never mind a fundy! I have to unpack evolutionary arguments using accepted wisdom in scientific articles written by evolutionists themselves to demonstrate the flawed logic and premises. It's a mine field but I have already hit some pay dirt in four areas of science that is actually pseudo science.

Here's one of them:

Forensic facial reconstruction is used by police departments to try to identify what a person looked like when only the skeletal remains are available.

Watch this video. There is a GIANT LIE in it. However, because the skull is a human skull of a recently deceased person, it works okay for the police.  However, it DOESN'T work AT ALL for the anthropologist digging up hominid skulls and having a facial reconstruction done. But I'm getting ahead of myself. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF1cVAb0J2Q&feature=player_embedded

That was fun, wasn't it?  :P

The LIE is that the skull provides the EVIDENCE for the NOSE SHAPE! This is significant. Notice they DID admit EAR shape is impossible to determine for a skull but DID say that about the NOSE. In fact, they SAID the NOSE CAN be reconstructed from the evidence on the skull. That is FALSE! :o

Here's a recent scientific paper on facial reconstruction. These scientists wrote a 3D program to reconstruct a face on a skull. They used a human cadaver skull. They had the actual face of the deceased person and made a mold of it to use for comparison with whatever their computer program produced. It's a fairly comprehensive document.





Here's the money quote:

in fact, facial reconstruction is not easy, because there are many facial variations. particularly according to the nutritional status of the individual and different rates and intensities of aging. Furthemore, the nose, eye, ear, lips, and chin probably cannot be constructed exactly from skull characteristics.
http://www.lirmm.fr/~subsol/JFS.0797.pdf


Think about that. This is a HUMAN SKULL. There is NO DOUBT of it. Now where in the blue blazes do the anthropologists in cooperation with artists and facial reconstruction experts get the NOSE, the LIPS ( EARS ARE covered with hair as a clever pseudo scientific admission that they don't know what the ears look like but WHY THE HAIR? Look at an ape or monkey! You SEE the ears! Why can't these people say "WE DON'T KNOW what the ears looked like."? Why the subterfuge if not to always try to look like they know it all? - ARROGANT, aren't they?) and the CHIN (don't forget all that hair!) of, for example, a Neanderthal skull, HUH???



I smell an evolutionist agenda RAT!  >:(

As you see, I am in to some deep stuff. It requires a lot of reading and logical thinking. PLUS, it requires the understanding that there are gate keepers defending the evolutionary paradigm that DON'T want knowledge like that above to get out. It wouldn't look good for anthropologists/hominid archeologists and certain imaginative artists they employ.

That article I just quoted is an example of tightly held knowledge. WHY? Go ahead and try to copy and paste from the PDF onto a post or a document and you will get gibberish. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and they are just trying to make sure someone doesn't copy their work... 

But, REALLY, you fellows out there that copy and paste often from PDFs, how often do you run into this encrypting? I've run into it before but very seldom.

At any rate, you can see that the public is certainly NOT being told the truth about how much evolutionist wishful thinking is being used in these facial reconstructions.

And PLEASE, feel free to copy and paste ANYTHING I publish here with or without attribution. Just make sure you provide the same scientific references I provide to keep the naysayers at bay,  ;)


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Expert mathematicians running probability and statistics for self assembling amino acids into all the proteins needed for life in a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM have stated that there hasn't been enough time if the universe is 14 billion years old or so for that to occur randomly.

They claim life is IMPOSSIBLE by random chance mutations in that time frame.

Evolution is great science fiction but it lacks any evidence whatsoever. I don't know how all this happened but so-called "evolution" certainly is not the explanation.

 
Quote
... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."43

Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44

More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45

"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46

"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47

"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48

"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem."49

]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50

Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule."

Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"

Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"

Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51

"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b]

Click below for full article and scholarly references:
The Origin of Life



True Believer Modern Sophisticated Evolutionists aren't going to take that low down attack on their Faith (whoops, I mean "scientifically proven, proven and super proven"   THEORY - So there you crazy fundies! ) laying down. High and mighty Evolutionists REACT--->                                                     BUT AFTER A WHILE, they get more active  ;)    What about the crusades and the inquisition?       What about the price of peaches in Denmark?            What are you, some kind of fundy nut?                 Whadaya mean, you never said anything about God or religion?                 Your probability math HAS to be wrong because DARWIN said so!  We are EVOLVED, WE are ADVANCED, WE are THE GREATEST!  And, what's more, WE are GOD! Yippee! Darwin and Freud freed us from silly guilt trips and showed us it's EVOLUTIONARILY ADVANCED to be the APEX PREDATOR and do any damned thing we want so we don't suffer needless neurosis.  Besides, the alternative is UNTHINKABLE.    What?!! Of course we respect empirical evidence and the science of probability and statistics! Whadaya take us for, a faith based Fundy? Of course it doesn't matter that there doesn't SEEM to be empirical evidence of evolution! They just haven't published it and you are wrong ,wrong, wrong! How can you have such a rigid mind? You fundies are all alike. You refuse to question your beliefs even if science conclusively proves otherwise...     
Agelbert awaits the futile, circular, self destructive, illogical, and dogmatic rebuttal fusilade.     

« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 05:00:38 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2013, 09:28:53 pm »
From a "discussion"  ;D at the Doomstead Diner about Evolution and the claim that cheationists are "magical thinkers". http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=2195.msg39190#msg39190

Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from Texas, I would know now! Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.   

Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and then.  ;D

It goes with territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with college professors and health care professionals for the last 30 years or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and continuous smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.

For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed on the issue of Christians in particular and believers in God in general maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as if you are discussing root canals or some other truth of your experience and profession.

Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening yourself up to debate.

If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.

Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas! You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a **** franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive, objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.

I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my questions about it logically.

I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is like flies on **** for them. They just cannot write without using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for the few years through thousands of generations in closed containers by varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in evolutionary circles because they are in the process of **** canning natural selection in favor of caloric forced gene expression - more fairy tales  ::)).

The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster than the other so that is EVOLUTION!  Give me a **** break here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.

WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it on its own, did it?

Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right (assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get ALL the protein sequences needed for life.

There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.

Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that, are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation, not evolution.

But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that allowed them to become more virulent did not change their species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of its original design. The process by which Streptococcus pneumonia  metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It is STILL  Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!

What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. Ther comes a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.

Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.

If Darwin had seen this short video, he would NEVER have tried to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story telling magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof that it is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the natural wordl" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary thinking, science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight change continuously through very sophisticated editing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0hZLDOb00&feature=player_embedded

HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY?
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 09:40:43 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 09:02:51 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 08:45:54 pm

Weird Science by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 07:59:13 pm

Special Sensory Perception by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 07:01:25 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 05:48:18 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
March 24, 2017, 02:39:47 pm

Money by AGelbert
March 23, 2017, 09:24:46 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
March 23, 2017, 07:56:31 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 23, 2017, 07:27:20 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial