1) In your first rebuttal, you made the below statement; “And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.”
Which whale(s) does this apply to and can you provide a diagram that shows the nasal passage moving up along the backside of the brain?
Answer 1)
I retract my statement about the whale blowhole. It is not behind the brain.
But Chris, I now wonder if you will retract your statement about the human coccyx. It is not vestigial.
After I corrected you on this, your response was to say:
“Apparently we don’t need a coccyx, given the existence of a Coccygectomy (the surgical removal of the Coccyx).”
This does not make it apparent that we don’t need a coccyx. If it did, then:
“Apparently we don’t need a frontal lobe to the brain, given the existence of a Frontal Lobotomy (the surgical removal of the Frontal Lobe).”
Everyone knows the usefulness of the frontal lobe. And you ought to know the usefulness of the coccyx.
It is the anchor for the muscles of rectum control, childbirth, abdominal organ support, and the lower back. We also need it to sit down.
If I was wrong about whale anatomy, you are wrong about human anatomy. Be honest. We await your retraction.
2) If hominids are not in fact our ancestors, perhaps you can clear some confusion by educating readers on which are ape and which are human (for reference, Chimpanzees have a brain size of roughly 410 cc, Gorillas 500 cc, and all of the hominids below were bipedal); Australopithecus Afarensis (375-550 cc), Australopithecus Africanus (420-500 cc), Homo Habilis (500-650 cc), Homo Rudolfensis (600-800 cc), Homo Ergaster/Erectus (750-1250 cc), Homo Antecessor (1000 cc), Homo Sapien (1200 cc), Homo Sapien Sapien (1350 cc) * Creation scientists are unable to agree amongst each other on which of these are apes and which are human, so your opinion may help create a concensus.
Answer 2)
Chris, why would you wish to use consensus to determine truth, when you know it does not do that. Indeed, evolutionists themselves cannot agree on the placement of these fossils in their story (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). You know that. So, why ask me? And the old brain-body weight-ratio theory on intelligence was dropped by both evolutionists and creationists decades ago. You know that, too. Why bring up rejected theories in your arguments? If you know better, then be honest about it. If you do not, then leave these matters to others. And how can A. afarensis be bipedal with a thumb on its foot? (National Geographic, 11/06) New theories by evolutionist researchers, on jaw measurements of afarensis (Science News, 4/14/07, p230) have just classified it as a gorilla – not my call, but theirs. And if A. africanus really is a million years after afarensis, then why is it more ape-like instead of more human-like? (National Geographic, 2/97) The stories don’t coordinate. And since evolution researchers have disqualified all the missing links you listed (except antecessor), then why do you mention them at all? And if by Homo sapiens you mean H. sapiens neanderthalensis, then remember … Neanderthals were people, too – evolutionists and creationists now agree on that.
3) Urban legends and proven hoaxes (like the Paluxy Tracks) aside, why do we not find any remnants of human civilization (agriculture, buildings, boats, chariots, armor, weapons, art work, etc) in anything except the upper layers? Shouldn’t the deposits from the flood have buried this all in place, and certainly lower than animals like the first reptiles (Carboniferous), Theropod Dinosaurs (Triassic), Mammoths (Pleistocene), Archaeopteryx (Jurassic)) that were fighting to make it to higher ground?
Answer 3)
Chris, who says Carboniferous-layer reptiles were “the first?” The only missing link amphibian-reptile fossil evolutionists point to is the Seymouria which is found only in Permian rocks clearly above other layers that contain true reptile fossils (Understanding Evolution [2000], p140).
I’ve already explained the creationist position on the fossil sequence in the rock layers: original pre-Flood habitats, the fact that dead birds and mammals float, and hydrodynamic sorting. What’s left? Shall I provide absolute proof that dinosaurs and humans lived together? Okay.
Dino fossils cannot be more ancient than 40,000 years, and indeed are more likely to be less than 4000. I’ll leave off all fossil interpretations, theories and opinions, and lean on the known laws of chemical kinetics … as verified by repeatable lab experiments for the rate laws, rate equations, and equilibrium constants of biochemical reactions.
In short, intact proteins have been found in dinosaur bones dated by evolutionary thinking at 80 million years old, when proteins are known to disintegrate in time frames 2000-fold shorter than that. Want proof? Sure.
Veins, red blood cells, bone cells, and muscle tissue … not fossilized but the real stuff, the original tissues … have all been found in dinosaur bones dated as old as 100 million years by evolutionary thinking (Science News, 3/26/05, p195; Science, 3/23/05; The Knoxville-News Sentinel, 7/28/2000, pA15; Earth, 6/97, p55-7). Fragile complex pigment biomolecules have even been found in supposedly 350 million year old fossils (see Ohio State Research News, 10/23/06 http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm ). There is no process known to prevent the disintegration of these molecules longer than 10-40 thousand years … which is well within the limits of the Creationary time-frames for the Flood (4300 yrs ago) and the origin of life on Earth (6000 yrs ago).
I don’t use theories or opinions that rely on the accepted reputations of so-called experts in their fields, Chris. I rely on data, evidence, and facts that can be documented. Evolutionary thinking is presuppositional thinking. Evolutionary thinking is inertial thinking, resistant in every way, to any data or observations that indicate scientific truth departing from evolutionary fantasy. This has been made clear from the manner and demeanor of this on-line debate from start to finish.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Answers
1) EIAF claimed geology proved faunal succession. I pointed out the Flood of Noah would've arranged fossils most in accordance with only the vertebrate evolution from water to land facet of the evolution story. What evidence is there then, for the evolution of invertebrates from water to land; particularly the insects?
While you indeed made the above claim, you never explained the gaps in appearance between reptiles and mammals that were fulfilling similar niches (among other contradicting facts).
Depending on which fossilized remains are considered true insects, the first known insects appear either in the Silurian (Aptergyota—resemble silverfish) or in the Devonian (fragmentary fossil evidence). They are plentiful in the Carboniferous period, however by this time they are fulfilling multiple niches on land.
A better example of invertebrates transitioning to land can be seen in the Arachnids, more specifically scorpions. Scorpions with book gills (like modern crabs) start to appear in the Silurian, but variations with book lungs (like spiders) in the upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous eras
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
Simply put, we don't find today's plants in the lowest layers. Plants themselves display faunal succession (see the extremely oversimplified list below). The first vascular plants show up in the Silurian period, trees show up in the Carboniferous, while Cactuses don't show up until the Cretaceous. It's difficult to argue that Cactuses start showing up in higher layers than trees because they were able to scramble to higher ground during the flood.
Quaternary -
Tertiary – First Redwood Trees
Cretaceous –First Cactuses and Palm Trees
Jurassic – Angiopsermophyta (first flowering plants and trees)
Triassic -
Permian -
Carboniferous – First Conifers
Devonian – Pteridophyta (ferns)
Silurian – First Vascular Plants (land)
Ordovician -
Cambrian -
Pre-Cambrian –First marine plants (algae)
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
The need to explain "how" evolution is not a religion is about as necessary as the need to explain how history itself is not a religion. Your entire assumption that such an explanation is necessary rests on your own subjective interpretation;
"and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life"
Of course, it is indeed possible for one to build a religion off of evolutionary theory, but this is not a product of the theory itself but rather someone's choice to modify evolution into a religious framework.
While you indeed made the above claim, you never explained the gaps in appearance between reptiles and mammals that were fulfilling similar niches (among other contradicting facts).
Depending on which fossilized remains are considered true insects, the first known insects appear either in the Silurian (Aptergyota—resemble silverfish) or in the Devonian (fragmentary fossil evidence). They are plentiful in the Carboniferous period, however by this time they are fulfilling multiple niches on land.
A better example of invertebrates transitioning to land can be seen in the Arachnids, more specifically scorpions. Scorpions with book gills (like modern crabs) start to appear in the Silurian, but variations with book lungs (like spiders) in the upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous eras
2) What evidence is there for the evolution of the major groups of plant life that exist today (versus faunal succession)?
Simply put, we don't find today's plants in the lowest layers. Plants themselves display faunal succession (see the extremely oversimplified list below). The first vascular plants show up in the Silurian period, trees show up in the Carboniferous, while Cactuses don't show up until the Cretaceous. It's difficult to argue that Cactuses start showing up in higher layers than trees because they were able to scramble to higher ground during the flood.
Quaternary -
Tertiary – First Redwood Trees
Cretaceous –First Cactuses and Palm Trees
Jurassic – Angiopsermophyta (first flowering plants and trees)
Triassic -
Permian -
Carboniferous – First Conifers
Devonian – Pteridophyta (ferns)
Silurian – First Vascular Plants (land)
Ordovician -
Cambrian -
Pre-Cambrian –First marine plants (algae)
3) Since evolution is an all-encompassing mindset that claims to answer the question of how we are here, and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life; how is evolution not a religious concept, bearing this feature of it in mind?
The need to explain "how" evolution is not a religion is about as necessary as the need to explain how history itself is not a religion. Your entire assumption that such an explanation is necessary rests on your own subjective interpretation;
"and therefore implies an answer to the question of the meaning of life"
Of course, it is indeed possible for one to build a religion off of evolutionary theory, but this is not a product of the theory itself but rather someone's choice to modify evolution into a religious framework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)