Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[creat] Re: evolution

Expand Messages
  • tinroad66
    ... Tin: Oh you want evidence. OK. I look forward to your response to the evidence. Evidence that disproves flood geology. Evidence: Geology: Animal burrows
    Message 1 of 188 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "ed_horwood" <ed.horwood@b...>
      wrote:
      > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66" <tinroad66@y...>
      > wrote:
      > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, RangerComH@a... wrote:
      > > > In a message dated 5/30/03 7:31:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      > > > ed.horwood@b... writes:
      > > >
      > > > > >Tin: So believing in reality is against religion. OK now I
      > > > > >understand.
      > > > >
      > > > > That all depends on how you define reality. Is reality the
      > > > > limitation of the grey matter in your skull?
      > > > > If you saw Jesus calming a storm, walking on water, healing
      > the
      > > > > sick, raising the dead etc etc etc, would you class that as
      > > reality??
      > > > > There are unexplained faith healings occuring all the time,
      > are
      > > they
      > > > > reality? not according to science. So how do you define
      > reality?
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Ah! A thinker in the group!
      > > >
      > >
      > > Tin: Good then let him think about this. That creationism is
      > wrong,
      > > is reality. It is reality because of the evidence produced by
      > > separate scientific displines producing concrete objective facts
      > by
      > > scientists from every major religous group from all over the
      > world.
      > > Creationism is objectively wrong.
      > >
      > > To adopt creationism is to deny reality.
      >
      > oh grief, more evidence, more facts. So informative. If this is a
      > forum to simply let out your anger, I suggest you find a site that
      > deals with mental stress.
      >

      Tin: Oh you want evidence. OK. I look forward to your response to
      the evidence.



      Evidence that
      disproves flood geology.



      Evidence:

      Geology:

      Animal burrows in alleged flood sediment (AFS)

      Animal track in AFS

      Dry land meteor impacts in AFS

      A layer of ash, iridium and impact ejecta at the K-T boundary

      Cycles of marine sediment and dry land layers (non marine layers
      consist of terrestrial fossils both plants and animals and NO marine
      fossils) in AFS

      Sand dunes in AFS (how can you have a desert in the middle of a
      flood?)

      Radiometric dating techiniques are consistent with each other and
      relative dating techniques. They confirm the evolutionary timeframe.



      Fossil evidence:

      The fossil record is sorted on an evolutionary timeframe and in
      evolutionary order.

      General overview of the 3+ billion year fossil record -- in order of
      first appearance:

      first bacteria before
      first multicellular organism before
      first shelled organisms before
      first insects before
      first amphibians before
      first reptiles before
      first dinosaurs before
      first birds before
      first placental mammals before
      first first apes before
      first hominids.


      Specific fossil relationships that defy flood geology:


      Moles above flying dinosaurs.

      Flowering plants above non-flowering plants

      Dinosaurs only below the K-T boundary, primates only above it

      Ammonites sorted by internal complexity, more complex show up
      later in the fossil record.

      Hominids are only found in the top layers. No hominid fossils
      nor hominid artefact is found below the Cenozoic. Creationists claim
      that humans are sorted last because they ran for the hills during the
      flood. Did their artefacts run too ?

      Both hominids and modern humans are typically found in
      association with their artefacts indicating that the running for the
      hills scenario is bogus.

      Hominid fossils are not found on the tops of mountains.

      Modern humans are found above all other hominids

      Hominids are sorted in an evolutionary fashion. See below (note
      cc).

      Order of first appearance in the fossil record:
      Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320–380cc)
      Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial remains)
      Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial)
      Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity unknown)
      A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc)
      A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown)
      A. africanus (440-480cc)
      A. garhi (c. 450cc)
      A. robustus (c. 475cc)
      A. boisei (c. 450cc)
      A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc)
      H. habilis (c. 500-800cc)
      H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc)
      H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc)
      H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc)
      H. sapiens (c.1300-1500cc)

      How did the flood sort hominids in evolutionary order ?


      Creationists simultaneously claim each of the following: 1) that
      Noah's ark took two of each kind; 2) the great flood is responsible
      for virtually all fossils. What happened to all the extinct species
      found in the fossil record ? Dinosaurs for example.


      -------------------------------------------


      By the 1850s it was clear to even creationist clergy that flood
      geology was wrong. Flood geology had it's last gasp at that time.
      Flood geology is scientifically dead. It lives only as a
      Frankenstein like hybrid of Christian apologetics and pseudo-science.
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... Demanding particular transition fossils (after researching to see that they do not exist) is a favorite creationist ploy. In fact, for every transitional
      Message 188 of 188 , Oct 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 26 Oct 2005 at 20:42, dimension11th wrote:

        > It has been stated on this forum that evolution is fact. I would
        > appreciate a resource for the following....
        >
        > Transitional fossils for the dragonfly including when it developed
        > flight. Transitional fossils for the cow becoming a whale or
        > dolphin. Transitional fossils of dinosaurs showing what they
        > evolved from.

        Demanding particular transition fossils (after researching to see
        that they do not exist) is a favorite creationist ploy. In fact,
        for every transitional fossil so provided, they merely have two
        more gaps to complain about. The transitions between reptiles
        and early mammals and reptiles and early dinos are actually SO
        gradual that it's difficult to say where to draw the lines.

        > Since Darwin made his theory there has been an increase in
        > fossil digs 100 fold, so I'm sure there is enough evidence to
        > show the facts now?

        Actually there is a lot of transitional fossil evidence,
        including a fairly large collection of hominins, at least some of
        which are undoubtedly human ancestors. But the REAL, HARD
        evidence is in the genetics, which is beginning to be the
        creationists' biggest problem. They spend a lot of energy trying
        to misrepresent the data, though and trying to change the subject
        away from the REAL evidence to other features of the genomes.


        --
        God is an evolutionist.

        Dave Oldridge
        ICQ 1800667
        VA7CZ
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.