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.
