Falsify evolution, 1 easy step

[Goochdad]

OK, YEC'ers, here's your chance to soundly falsify evolution. Go find a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layers. Oh, heck, any mammal fossil will do. Let's toss marine animals in there--show me a whale fossil or a sea turtle fossil in the Cambrian layers. How about a flowering plant? A tree?

See, if any one of those fossils had been found in the Cambrian layers, evolution would be falsified, period. So why isn't the ICR going on fossil digs? I really want to know the answer to that. WHY isn't the ICR sponsoring a team of scientists to go dig for some fossils in the Cambrian layers, to show that there are mammal and flowering plant fossils there?

There is no YEC explanation for why there are no such fossils in the Cambrian layer. Flowering plants don't run 'uphill' to avoid flood waters. Of course little baby rabbits wouldn't either.

OK, Creationists, grab your shovels and brushes and go dig some fossils!

[Socratism]

Such a find would only result in one of the following:

A hoax.

An intrusion.

A reworking of sediments.

An extension of the first appearance of the fossil under question

A renaming of the layer.


Such events happen all the time although perhaps not as dramatic as described.

[Goochdad]

Socratism, thanks for the reply. I actually agree with you that the find of one rabbit fossil might not overturn all of evolution.

But shouldn't there be dozens of them? Hundreds?

The Cambrian layers are quite clearly presented in some areas, from what I gather (and I quite admittedly have no training in paleontology, I've just read popular press books on the subject and been to some excellent museums).

The Burgess Shale (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html)

The Burgess Shale, for example, has been studied since 1909, when Charles Walcott of the Smithsonian Instute discovered it. In all that time, nothing but fossils of primitive marine creatures have been found.

You say that 'such events happen all the time', but not as dramatic as the one I described. Examples?

The question still stands. Why does the Burgess Shale contain only primitive marine fossils, and not even one bony fish?

Cheers.

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 07:15 AM
Goochdad:

OK, YEC'ers, here's your chance to soundly falsify evolution. Go find a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layers. Oh, heck, any mammal fossil will do. Let's toss marine animals in there--show me a whale fossil or a sea turtle fossil in the Cambrian layers. How about a flowering plant? A tree?

See, if any one of those fossils had been found in the Cambrian layers, evolution would be falsified, period. So why isn't the ICR going on fossil digs? I really want to know the answer to that. WHY isn't the ICR sponsoring a team of scientists to go dig for some fossils in the Cambrian layers, to show that there are mammal and flowering plant fossils there?

There is no YEC explanation for why there are no such fossils in the Cambrian layer. Flowering plants don't run 'uphill' to avoid flood waters. Of course little baby rabbits wouldn't either.

OK, Creationists, grab your shovels and brushes and go dig some fossils!

Indeed. And if the YEC interpretation for the Genesis Flood were true, we should also find all kinds of fossilized farm animals - sheep, goats, etc. that are fossilized just like dinosaurs.

Moreover, all the "clean animals" mentioned in Genesis -the same ones that were taken on the ark by sevens - they should also be fossilized just like dinosaurs. Yet nothing like that has ever been found.

Things that make you go :huh:

[Socratism]

Goochdad

In all that time, nothing but fossils of primitive marine creatures have been found.

The term "primitive" is a loaded word. For example, there is nothing "primitive" about the eye of a trilobite.

[Goochdad]

Socratism,

You're right, it was a poor choice of words. The question still stands, however. Why are there no fossils of bony fish in the Burgess Shale? No land animals at all?

[Revolg]

You know most of what we have in the geologic layers are marine organisms. Very few of them are mammals of any sort. There have been reports of "human made tools" found deep in the Cambrian. But since most of these "sensational finds" are removed from their casings, they are often discarded. However since if there were a flood long ago it would of destroyed everything.

Besides this also proves problems for those who are Old Earther Creationists as well.

Those from ICR discredit the current evolutionary thinking when it comes to transitionals and the like. But flood thinking is something unique to my Christianity.

But Evolution for me doesn't conflict with my Messianic Judaism... Yes I am a Jew who now believes in Jesus hence Christianity...

[Stratnerd]

there is nothing "primitive" about the eye of a trilobite.

what were they like?????

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 03:34 PM
Revolg:

You know most of what we have in the geologic layers are marine organisms. Very few of them are mammals of any sort.


However, the opposite of "marine animal" is not "mammal". We have quite a few land animals in the geologic layer - they just happen to be dinosaurs, amphibians, and early birds.

So since land animals are indeed present in abundance in the geologic column, what is your explanation for why so few (actually, zero) modern mammals are fossilized?

If they were around since creation, and if there were mammals on the ark, and if the great flood is how all these critters got fossilized, how come the flood utterly failed to fossilize mammals, especially modern ones?



Yet we have There have been reports of "human made tools" found deep in the Cambrian. But since most of these "sensational finds" are removed from their casings, they are often discarded.


Yeah, I'm sure that being "removed from their casings" is why these reports are discarded. :bonk:



However since if there were a flood long ago it would of destroyed everything.


Except for all these dinosaur skeletons around. So you're saying that the flood only destroyed certain kinds of animals, and not other kinds?



Besides this also proves problems for those who are Old Earther Creationists as well.


Yes, explaining fossils tends to stump both YEC and OEC models.

[QED]

03-04-2003 @ 12:47 AM
Stratnerd:



what were they [trilobite eyes] like?????

Great question. More than you hoped to know:
http://www.aloha.net/~smgon/eyes.htm

Answer: it depends on what stage of evolution the particular trilobite represented for her branch of the phylogenetic tree!

[Socrates]

They were clearly designed by a master physicist—see Trilobite Technology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n1trilobite.asp).

[Goochdad]

Oh really, Socrates? And what is your standard for determining whether this trilobite was designed by a 'master physicist' or by mutation plus natural selection? Do you have an actual method, besides your precious presupposition? If so, I'd like to hear it.

Oh, and while you're here--care to actually address the question in the original post? Why are there no fossils of bony fish, marine dinosaurs, or amphibians in the Burgess Shale? Hmmm?

[Socrates]

Goochdad shows once again how ignorant he is.

Oh really, Socrates? And what is your standard for determining whether this trilobite was designed by a 'master physicist' or by mutation plus natural selection? Do you have an actual method, besides your precious presupposition? If so, I'd like to hear it.When I see an optical instrument that makes use of many principles of advanced physics, where intermediate stages would not build it, and appearing in a creature which is alleged to be one of the most primitive multicellular animals, then I draw the obvious conclusion. You merely have blind faith that mutation plus selection produced it.

[Socrates]

A failure to falsify evolution on this self-serving grounds would not prove evolution to be true. There are many other reasons to doubt it.
If there is an “extreme rarity” of transitional forms (apart from a handful of debatable ones and cases of variation within a kind), then the fossil record is extremely poor and gappy. If there is no record of something out of the claimed evolutionary sequence, then the fossil record is extremely good.
The coelacanth is absent from rocks “dated” younger than about 70 Ma, yet, under an evolutionary perspective, it must have existed then, because they are happily swimming around today. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
The fossil record under a Biblical creationist model is not a sequence of ages, but a sequence of burial of ecosystems by a global Flood and its after-effects. And it began in the oceans: “The fountains of the great deep burst forth”, so we would expect the first burials to be of marine creatures rather than land mammals.
If such a fossil could be found, evolutionists would re-interpret it, e.g. as reworking or intrusive burial. Or else they would not even recognize its identity—cf. this case with a fossil belemnite: Fossil flip-flop (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4187cen_d1999.asp).
A related question is “If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their fossils found together?” and is answered here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp).
It can't be over-emphasized that goo-to-you evolution is not real operational science, but the result of interpretation of data in the present to fit a belief system about the pastthat excludes God a priori as the efficient cause of biological complexity.

[voidhawk]

Singing from the same hymn sheet?



Socrates wrote
The fossil record under a Biblical creationist model is not a sequence of ages, but a sequence of burial of ecosystems by a global Flood and its after-effects. And it began in the oceans: “The fountains of the great deep burst forth”, so we would expect the first burials to be of marine creatures rather than land mammals.

but from the link he posted to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp



from answersingenesis
Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material – e.g., in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on Earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs’.


:rofl:

Don’t worry Socrates it happens all the time. Christians can’t agree on many things; nature of God (Triune on Unity) fate of the unbelievers’ eternal torment, annihilation or ultimate reconciliation through the universal sacrifice of Jesus or the nature of Jesus’s relationship with God, as a few examples.

[Goochdad]

03-04-2003 @ 10:44 PM
Socrates:

The fossil record under a Biblical creationist model is not a sequence of ages, but a sequence of burial of ecosystems by a global Flood and its after-effects. And it began in the oceans: “The fountains of the great deep burst forth”, so we would expect the first burials to be of marine creatures rather than land mammals.

Learn to read, Socrates. I specifically ASKED about bony fish fossils, and the complete lack of such fossils in the Cambrian layers. Oh, and I mentioned sea turtles too.

Nice try, but you still have no explanation. Unless fish and sea turtles don't count as marine creatures?

D'oh!!! :bonk:

[Berserker]

http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/Lurking.gif

Socrates,
The eye has intermediate stages.

[QED]

03-05-2003 @ 04:27 AM
Socrates:
and appearing in a creature which is alleged to be one of the most primitive multicellular animals, then I draw the obvious conclusion.

Must be AiG that alleges trilobites to be one of the most primitive multicellular animals. If not, who does? Trilobites achieved their peak diversity in the Cambrian (meaning that their unknown common ancestor will likely be found in the Vendian, if at all - that would be the primitive multicellular animal you are looking for).

When they first appear, the earliest we have found were mostly eyeless. Something happened between the early Cambrian and Ordovician. Trilobites started having eyes. The most primitive ones most likely did not, since most of the oldest trilobite fossils that have been discovered did not. The double-lens mechanism is only apparent in some of the younger trilobites. I suppose it's possible that God created some trilobites with no eyes, then some with simpler eyes, then some with more complex eyes just to make us wonder. But the rest of the data (all other organisms) fit the pattern of evolution so perfectly that this Omphalos argument really just makes it seem that the creationists think of God as a liar.

[QED]

P.S. --- which trilobites were the "most primitive" multicellular animals? The earliest ones discovered, or those that lived 300 million years later? Is Wiwaxia no longer considered primitive?

[Socrates]

Voidbrain really spruiks on that which he has no idea:
Don’t worry Socrates it happens all the time. Christians can’t agree on many things; nature of God (Triune on Unity)If they dney the Trinity they are not Christians. Case closed.
fate of the unbelievers’ eternal torment, annihilation or ultimate reconciliation through the universal sacrifice of Jesus or the nature of Jesus’s relationship with God, as a few examples.So, some Christians are wrong. Your point?

Sometimes there are exceptions to the buried ecosystems, due to flood sorting effects. But from what you've quoted, AiG would have no problem with my simplification that the Flood is not a sequence of ages.

[Socrates]

----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
and appearing in a creature which is alleged to be one of the most primitive multicellular animals, then I draw the obvious conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------
QED spruiks forth more blather:
Must be AiG that alleges trilobites to be one of the most primitive multicellular animals. If not, who does?Try your evolutionary buddies who claim that the fossil record shows a trend from simple to complex life.
Trilobites achieved their peak diversity in the Cambrian (meaning that their unknown common ancestor will likely be found in the Vendian, if at all — that would be the primitive multicellular animal you are looking for).
I don't believe they are primitive, obviously.
When they first appear, the earliest we have found were mostly eyeless. Something happened between the early Cambrian and Ordovician. Trilobites started having eyes. The most primitive ones most likely did not, since most of the oldest trilobite fossils that have been discovered did not. The double-lens mechanism is only apparent in some of the younger trilobites.And the intermediate stages between no eyes and schizochroal compound eyes, alleged by the Beserk One, are what?
I suppose it's possible that God created some trilobites with no eyes, then some with simpler eyes, then some with more complex eyes just to make us wonder.Yes, variety, information loss? Maybe you might grace us with scientific arguments instead of these pseudo-theological ones!
But the rest of the data (all other organisms) fit the pattern of evolution so perfectly...Another ipse dixit, although I can't see anyone in his right mind taking your word for it.
... that this Omphalos argument ...What Omphalos argument?? I know of no YEC who believes that God created imaginary history, as opposed to functional maturity. Specifically, AiG scientists are on record denying that Adam and Eve were created with navels, so that is a contradiction with Gosse at the basic level. ... really just makes it seem that the creationists think of God as a liar.Not at all; rather, we believe that God told the truth in Genesis. If infudgels like QED and his cronies ignore that propositional revelation of Earth history, then they deceive themselves.

[Socrates]

Goochdad shows that he's the one who needs remedial reading comprehension lessons:
Learn to read, Socrates. I specifically ASKED about bony fish fossils, and the complete lack of such fossils in the Cambrian layers. Oh, and I mentioned sea turtles too. And I specifically asked why one particular type of bony fish, the Coelacanth, is not found in rocks dated "younger" than about 70 million years old, even though it must have been alive then by your reckoning. When you answer that, you'll have an answer to your own question :bonk:

[voidhawk]

Socrates wrote
So, some Christians are wrong. Your point?


My point is that they do not know from Scripture who is wrong and who isn’t. The fate of the unbelievers is a case in point. The three views are mutually exclusive and Scripture can be used to justify them all, and any proponent of these positions will assert (citing Scripture) that it is the other two who are mistaken, have misinterpreted the text or have misunderstood it. The appeal to the sin filled intellect argument doesn’t help, as they all claimed to be saved and still disagree.

And so to:-


Socrates wrote

If they dney the Trinity they are not Christians. Case closed.



But this is your interpretation of another’s Scripturally justified belief system. Some Unitarians wouldn’t agree see here (http://www.first-unitarian-pgh.org/worship/sermons/sermon20021117.html) and as you have already stated



Socrates wrote
So, some Christians are wrong. Your point?


It could be you that is wrong in this case, and any attempt to justify yourself using Scripture is going to be refuted by your theological opponents using the same Scripture you appeal to as a source of authority. You are left with argument by assertion; I’m right because I say I’m right.

Finally I’m sure AiG would have no problems with your simplification some theists are experts in interpreting text to make it conform with a specified set of beliefs.:smile:

[TenDimensions]

03-04-2003 @ 11:44 PM
Socrates:


A failure to falsify evolution on this self-serving grounds would not prove evolution to be true. There are many other reasons to doubt it.



So are you saying that just because you can't disprove this particular challenge doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true? Well, I agree. However, it does still mean Creationism needs to be able to explain the fossil evidence and the link later on from AiG apparently is something you think that does that. I'll get to that.



If there is an “extreme rarity” of transitional forms (apart from a handful of debatable ones and cases of variation within a kind), then the fossil record is extremely poor and gappy. If there is no record of something out of the claimed evolutionary sequence, then the fossil record is extremely good.


The fossil record is choppy by the very nature of how it forms. I don't think anyone is debating that.



The coelacanth is absent from rocks “dated” younger than about 70 Ma, yet, under an evolutionary perspective, it must have existed then, because they are happily swimming around today. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!


I'm not sure this logically holds up the way you phrased it. Because there are no fossils of a fish that people once thought until very recently was completely extinct (precisely because there was no fossils past a certain point) doesn't mean we can be wrong. All that really says is any potential fossils of the fish are still buried under the current oceans. After all, the only reason we're capable of finding any oceanic fossilized life is because they're no longer on the sea floor. Of course, you can twist this as evidence for a Flood...



The fossil record under a Biblical creationist model is not a sequence of ages, but a sequence of burial of ecosystems by a global Flood and its after-effects. And it began in the oceans: “The fountains of the great deep burst forth”, so we would expect the first burials to be of marine creatures rather than land mammals.


This is what that AiG link covers. I'll get to that.



If such a fossil could be found, evolutionists would re-interpret it, e.g. as reworking or intrusive burial. Or else they would not even recognize its identity—cf. this case with a fossil belemnite: Fossil flip-flop (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4187cen_d1999.asp).


I suppose Creationists never do this kind of stuff? It's interesting how this really boils down to a giant conspiracy theory. For some reason scientists all over the world are following valid scientific method principles, but yet, when it comes to evolution or anything related to geology and an old Earth suddenly and universally the scientists throw the rule book out the window because they are living the lie of evolution. Isn't this just a little hard to swallow on its own? You're essentially saying that the scientific method works until it contradicts what's in the Bible. And somehow you still call this science.



A related question is “If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their fossils found together?” and is answered here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp).


And here we are at the link I wanted to talk about.

Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons’, are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs

So are we using old fairy tales to explain the existence of the fossils? Do you necessarily need fossil evidence to believe the fairy tales? Did unicorns exist? It seems reasonable to assume - it wouldn't be hard to mistake a unicorn skeleton for a horse skeleton - it's just one bone difference. And if we are to believe the fairy tales the bone is where the magic is so the evil magician would have obviously taken the horn for his own evil purposes.

Go ahead and try to tell me this isn't as logically sound as citing dragon stories to back up the ridiculous idea that dinosaurs walked with people when there is zero evidence for it other than fairy tales.

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.4 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

I'd like to see some real scientific cites for this claim. The only cite in the article was from a Creation magazine. Until I see that I'm going to doubt this claim is even true.

If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an ‘Age of Dinosaurs’.

This is simply not true. We find tons fossilized extinct plant species in similar layers. Maybe certain sights have less plant fossils and more dinosaur fossils, but that doesn't prove anything. Really, if a Flood were true you would expect to find the dinosaurs fossilized with the plants they were eating, wouldn't you?

People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

This is so silly a statement I can't believe AiG has it - usually they're pretty good. So no other animals bloat and get eaten by scavengers? This is no proof at all.

Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood.

Another ridiculous statement. Not only does this require that fossils (almost ALL fossils) have to form within a year, but I'd like to know how any top soil would stay behind during something like this. Are there any other known scientific facts we need to bend and twist to keep the top soil in place?

[Socratism]

Did unicorns exist?

IMHO unicorns were dinosaurs. Since they were unknown when the KJV bible was translated, the Hebrew word was mistranslated into English. At least this is a theory presented in a letter to AnswersInGenesis. The letter follows:

What Were Unicorns?

Analysis of unicorn mentions in scripture

re'em:H7214 – a wild bull or a unicorn [creatures with great power]

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

[this verse from what is supposedly the oldest book in the Bible essentially says: can you domesticate this mighty creature?]

Num 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Num24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn:

[More indications of the great strength of a unicorn; his strength is compared to the strength of God!!]

Psa 29:4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.
5 The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.
6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

[This may well be referring to an earthquake which causes very loud noises and the ground to shudder in waves like the ocean, hence destroying entire forests and mighty trees like the cedars of Lebanon by causing them to “skip like a calf”. The power of the unicorn may also be implied by mentioning it here in connection with the Voice of the Lord].

Psa 92:8 But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore. 9 For, lo, thine enemies, O LORD, for, lo, thine enemies shall perish; all the workers of iniquity shall be scattered. 10 But my horn [power] shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn:

[the words in italics not present in the Hebrew but merely implied. This interpolation error, mistaking “power” for “horn”,might have been the source of the mythical “horn” of the unicorn

We should note that detailed descriptions of dinosaurs are contained in Job, where they are used as models of the most powerful creatures on Earth. Thus, it would be rather strange in the same document to use a “beautiful horse-like” animal to illustrate the strength and power of an almighty God.

My conclusion is that the “ree’m” in Job was also a great dinosaur like the other two in that book, probably a T-Rex. Comparing God’s power and might to such a fearsome creature might have been entirely appropriate.

It also is entirely possible that thousands of years later (at the time of Numbers and Psalms or even much later) the memory of dinosaurs had begun to grow dim, and people began to see the “ree’m” as some other more familar animal, or a composite mythical animal.

Interested Reader

[Socratism]

You're essentially saying that the scientific method works until it contradicts what's in the Bible.

Unfortunately the scientific method that normally includes testing theories by experimentation can not be fully utilized in verifying theories about what happened in the past.

In criminal cases where we are trying to reconstruct events surrounding the commission of a crime eyewitness reports are commonly included as one element of evidence.

Also, it would be unwise to never give historical records any weighting for if this were done, most (all?) of recorded history would have to be discarded.

[Captain Ochre]

A rhinoceros would make a lovely unicorn.
I've never seen one hitched to a plow, either.
:smile:

[edit to add]
http://www.arabianoryx.com/history.htm

[Socratism]

Some Unitarians

Since I have relatives who are Unitarians I am fairly certain that they are not Christian. Most treatises on cults consider them to be a cult whose main feature seems to be the belief in evolution and naturalism. There are exceptions to this, since they are very tolerant of all beliefs, with the possible exception of belief in the plain language and strict interpretation of the Bible.

[Socratism]

03-06-2003 @ 12:10 PM
Captain Ochre:

A rhinoceros would make a lovely unicorn.
I've never seen one hitched to a plow, either.
:smile:

http://www.arabianoryx.com/history.htm

In fact there have been many attempts to associate the unicorn with extant animals: elephants, wild oxen, and of course the rhino.

If dinosaurs had never existed, then you woiuld have a much stronger case, but the descriptions of dinosaurs in Job are fairly detailed and now we know that such creatures actually did exit in the past. That being the case they are a far better model for God's power and strength than any creature living today.

[QED]

03-06-2003 @ 09:19 AM
Socrates:

QED spruiks forth more blather:

Are you bitter about something? My goodness! I've not seen someone so ready to flame. Please try to calm down - I'm not trying to go out with your sister.


Try your evolutionary buddies who claim that the fossil record shows a trend from simple to complex life.

You may have a slight misunderstanding. The fossil record sometimes shows trends from simplicity to complexity, but not universally. The universal trend is backward in time, from forms very similar to modern ones toward forms less similar to the ones that exist today.


I don't believe they are primitive, obviously.

Well, good. It would indicate a very poor and superficial understanding of evolution if you did think so.


And the intermediate stages between no eyes and schizochroal compound eyes, alleged by the Beserk One, are what?

Why don't you ask him? What does it matter?


I know of no YEC who believes that God created imaginary history, as opposed to functional maturity.

Do you know any who use "functional maturity" to explain things like the geologic column, or the stage of radioactive decay of isotopses used in dating? I do. If you aren't among them, then my apologies for the broad brush.

[QED]

P.S. --- which trilobites were the "most primitive" multicellular animals? The earliest ones discovered, or those that lived 300 million years later? Is Wiwaxia no longer considered primitive?

[ItalianGold]

Quote from Socratism:

"Since I have relatives who are Unitarians I am fairly certain that they are not Christian. Most treatises on cults consider them to be a cult whose main feature seems to be the belief in evolution and naturalism. There are exceptions to this, since they are very tolerant of all beliefs, with the possible exception of belief in the plain language and strict interpretation of the Bible."
__________________
Your statement re: "most treatises on cults" indicates you are an expert in the field. This being the case, can you define for me the major characteristics of a cult and how that fits with Unitarianism?

[Socrates]

Behemoth was most likely a sauropod, since elephants and hippos sure don't have tails like a cedar -- see Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_behemoth.asp)

The "unicorn" as the King Jimmy mistranslates the Hebrew re'em was most likely an aurochs -- see The Unicorn: The Bible does not refer to fantasy animals (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4244cen_m1992.asp)

[Socrates]

Quote from Socratism:


"Since I have relatives who are Unitarians I am fairly certain that they are not Christian. Most treatises on cults consider them to be a cult whose main feature seems to be the belief in evolution and naturalism. There are exceptions to this, since they are very tolerant of all beliefs, with the possible exception of belief in the plain language and strict interpretation of the Bible."ItalianGold asks:

Your statement re: "most treatises on cults" indicates you are an expert in the field. This being the case, can you define for me the major characteristics of a cult and how that fits with Unitarianism?In summary, the key issues are the Person and Work of Christ.

A true Christian will believe in the Trinity: one God in three Persons--God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Further to that, a Christian will believe the Jesus of Nazareth is God the Son, who took on human nature, so He is both fully human and fully divine.

About the Work of Christ, a Christian believes that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again from the dead, so we might be saved by believing in Him, and not by trusting in our own works.

All cults fail by denying the Trinity and/or having a works-based salvation system. The Unitarians by definition deny the Trinity, so are indisputably a cult. Therefore Socratism is correct.

[Bubba]

Socrates-While I do have doubts at times and do not agree with your science, I think your explanation of the trinity and Christ's work is right on.

Which is one reason I am Nazarene and not Unitarian.


Refering to another previous post-

As far as Christians disagreeing with each other, scientists disagree with each other also. Theology and science are two of the hardest branches of human knowledge to master-why would anyone assume that we should have a perfect knowledge of God or of the Natural world?

Bubba

[ItalianGold]

Quote from Socratism:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Since I have relatives who are Unitarians I am fairly certain that they are not Christian. Most treatises on cults consider them to be a cult whose main feature seems to be the belief in evolution and naturalism. There are exceptions to this, since they are very tolerant of all beliefs, with the possible exception of belief in the plain language and strict interpretation of the Bible."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ItalianGold asks:


Your statement re: "most treatises on cults" indicates you are an expert in the field. This being the case, can you define for me the major characteristics of a cult and how that fits with Unitarianism?
In summary, the key issues are the Person and Work of Christ.

Socrates responds:
A true Christian will believe in the Trinity: one God in three Persons--God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Further to that, a Christian will believe the Jesus of Nazareth is God the Son, who took on human nature, so He is both fully human and fully divine.

About the Work of Christ, a Christian believes that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again from the dead, so we might be saved by believing in Him, and not by trusting in our own works.

All cults fail by denying the Trinity and/or having a works-based salvation system. The Unitarians by definition deny the Trinity, so are indisputably a cult. Therefore Socratism is correct.

And I say: That's all very interesting. However, since my question was to Socratism, a self-proclaimed expert in the field of cults, I fail to see how your personal definition of Christian has any bearing on the discussion at all.

My point, in case you really did miss it and are not just playing innocent, is that calling any group who disagrees with you on any issue a "cult" or any individual who disagrees with you "God-hating," has about the same effect. It makes the claimant sound petty and mean-spirited and fails to further any kind of mutual understanding.

My question to Socratism still stands if he/she cares to address it.

[Revolg]

Sauron:

However, the opposite of "marine animal" is not "mammal". We have quite a few land animals in the geologic layer - they just happen to be dinosaurs, amphibians, and early birds.

Actually considering how much we have of any mammal that are leftovers from the past is very small. You can pick up any book on the subject and it will give the figures. The geologic layer is mostly "marine organisms" those found in the water, obviously.

Except for all these dinosaur skeletons around. So you're saying that the flood only destroyed certain kinds of animals, and not other kinds?

The flood destroyed "most things" and kept some things with in fossilization due to the rapid burial. As with any catastrophe, the after affects are very apparent and if the flood really did happen, really destructive!

Yeah, I'm sure that being "removed from their casings" is why these reports are discarded.

Sometimes if you DO remove them from their casings, some scientists and other researchers will leave them less credible.
:dunce:

[Sher]

03-06-2003 @ 11:26 AM
TenDimensions:

Unmineralized (‘unfossilized’) dinosaur bones.4 How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

I'd like to see some real scientific cites for this claim. The only cite in the article was from a Creation magazine. Until I see that I'm going to doubt this claim is even true. Is Earth magazine a creation magazine? Or an evolution magazine? :huh:

"Mary Schweitzer & Tracy Staedter, ‘The Real Jurassic Park,’ Earth, June 1997, pp. 55–57.
‘A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope. Blood vessel channels snaked through a bone matrix, and tiny chambers known as lacunae, which house bone-forming cells, appeared as small ovals.… The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center…. ‘Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”…Finding remains of dinosaur blood cells would have astounding implications…." (copied from an answersingenesis.org PDF file)

I haven't seen the magazine, and therefore cannot comment futher, save to say that I didn't know it was a creationist's publication

[TenDimensions]

03-09-2003 @ 02:14 AM
SherBear:

Is Earth magazine a creation magazine? Or an evolution magazine? :huh:


And before more people jump on this, I've been already pointed to some independent articles discussing the discovery. However, as I suspected it is still far from validated to any level of credible degree yet.

It also is talking about a collection of individual red blood cells that may have some intact DNA, but no one is suggesting a complete cell.

[Sauron]

03-07-2003 @ 05:44 PM
Revolg:

Sauron:

However, the opposite of "marine animal" is not "mammal". We have quite a few land animals in the geologic layer - they just happen to be dinosaurs, amphibians, and early birds.

Actually considering how much we have of any mammal that are leftovers from the past is very small.


Yes, because mammals appeared later in history (large ones, anyhow) than the other land animals.



You can pick up any book on the subject and it will give the figures. The geologic layer is mostly "marine organisms" those found in the water, obviously.


1. I think you mean the geologic column; not the geologic layer.

2. Your response still doesn't answer the question. Your original statement was that there were very few mammals, and we shouldn't expect many, since most fossils were marine. However, we have abundant land animals in the fossil record - they just aren't mammals. Moreover, we have zero fossilized goats, dogs, sheep, etc. If we can have fossilized lizards, turtles and birds, why can't we have fossilized dogs, cats and field mice?



Except for all these dinosaur skeletons around. So you're saying that the flood only destroyed certain kinds of animals, and not other kinds?

The flood destroyed "most things" and kept some things with in fossilization due to the rapid burial.


Again - doesn't answer the question. Why did the flood destroy some animals, but not others?



As with any catastrophe, the after affects are very apparent and if the flood really did happen, really destructive!


All speculation without evidence. My question still stands: why did the flood destroy some animals, yet not other kinds?




Yeah, I'm sure that being "removed from their casings" is why these reports are discarded.

Sometimes if you DO remove them from their casings, some scientists and other researchers will leave them less credible.


1. What casings?
2. How did you determine that they came from the Cambrian layer?
3. How did you determine that they had been removed?

You see, since humans weren't around in the Cambrian, that's why science rejects such so-called "tools".

[Socrates]

Italian Pyrite asked Socratism:


Your statement re: "most treatises on cults" indicates you are an expert in the field. This being the case, can you define for me the major characteristics of a cult and how that fits with Unitarianism?
In summary, the key issues are the Person and Work of Christ.

Socrates responds:

A true Christian will believe in the Trinity: one God in three Persons--God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Further to that, a Christian will believe the Jesus of Nazareth is God the Son, who took on human nature, so He is both fully human and fully divine.

About the Work of Christ, a Christian believes that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again from the dead, so we might be saved by believing in Him, and not by trusting in our own works.

All cults fail by denying the Trinity and/or having a works-based salvation system. The Unitarians by definition deny the Trinity, so are indisputably a cult. Therefore Socratism is correct.IP continued:
And I say: That's all very interesting. However, since my question was to Socratism, a self-proclaimed expert in the field of cults, I fail to see how your personal definition of Christian has any bearing on the discussion at all.It was not my personal definition of Christianity, but the true (Biblical) one. And it's what leading anti-cult authorities such as the late Walter Martin used -- see his book The Kingdom of the Cuts.
IP continued with emotionalism:

My point, in case you really did miss it and are not just playing innocent, is that calling any group who disagrees with you on any issue a "cult" or any individual who disagrees with you "God-hating," has about the same effect. It makes the claimant sound petty and mean-spirited and fails to further any kind of mutual understanding. Like most Australians, I tell it like it is! If Americans saturated in a victim culture don't like it, tough!

[RufusAtticus]

Socrates,

I suggest that you read Matthew 5:22.

[Socrates]

RufusAtticus told me to read read Matthew 5:22. But of course, he neglects the historical context, which was about addressing one's brethren in Christ. Jesus also told us to "judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement" (John 7:24). And Psalm 14:1, endorsed by Christ when He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), calls every atheist a "fool".

[RufusAtticus]

03-14-2003 @ 03:17 AM
Socrates:

RufusAtticus told me to read read Matthew 5:22. But of course, he neglects the historical context, which was about addressing one's brethren in Christ. Jesus also told us to "judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement" (John 7:24). And Psalm 14:1, endorsed by Christ when He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), calls every atheist a "fool".

So the Sermon on the Mount only tells Christians how to address one another, not how to behave with people in general. Right . . . . I'm so sure that Jesus would have said "Be nice to one another, be a jerk to everyone else." There goes charatible mission work.

[Socratism]

Actually Jesus never addressed Christians: His ministry was to the Jews, as He clearly stated a number of times.

What we call Christian came later only after the Nation of Israel rejected their Messiah, causing God "to cut them off" and turn to the Gentiles with a message of Grace, using Paul of Tarsus as the chief spokesman.

Socrates is correct about Unitarians (as a movement) and my chief source is also "Kingdom of the Cults" by the late Dr. Walter Martin.

[Socratism]

03-06-2003 @ 06:45 PM
ItalianGold:

Quote from Socratism:

"Since I have relatives who are Unitarians I am fairly certain that they are not Christian. Most treatises on cults consider them to be a cult whose main feature seems to be the belief in evolution and naturalism. There are exceptions to this, since they are very tolerant of all beliefs, with the possible exception of belief in the plain language and strict interpretation of the Bible."
__________________
Your statement re: "most treatises on cults" indicates you are an expert in the field. This being the case, can you define for me the major characteristics of a cult and how that fits with Unitarianism?

I think Socrates has covered this better than I could, but in the case of the Unitarians the main point is that they do not believe in the divinity of Christ. This is also the primary distinguishing characteristric of most groups considered to be "cults" and therefore non-Christians.

[djdavo]

[QUOTE]03-06-2003 @ 04:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28611#post28611)
TenDimensions:
Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as ‘dragons’, are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs

So are we using old fairy tales to explain the existence of the fossils? Do you necessarily need fossil evidence to believe the fairy tales?


Go ahead and try to tell me this isn't as logically sound as citing dragon stories to back up the ridiculous idea that dinosaurs walked with people when there is zero evidence for it other than fairy tales.
[/b][/i]



as an aside, here's something to consider: why would the chinese zodiac be made up of 11 real animals and 1 completely made up one? that doesn't make logical sense....

ANYWAY, here's your evidence for the "ridicluous idea" that man walked with dinosaurs:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm
*especially the figurines found in Acambaro, Mexico*
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm


those THOUSANDS of figures found in acambaro, mexico are dated 1400-2500 years old...LONG before any human supposedly knew what a dinosaur looked like. they show not only a variety of sculpting styles,but a variety of dinosaurs. who are being ridden by humans. and wrestling with humans.


....also look into the thousands of inca stones which picture man riding & co-habiting with dinosaurs.

it's not a ridiculous theory. not at all. i don't know how you dismiss all that evidence. it's much more difficult to explain away these than the lack of fossils in the cambrian explosion (which in and of itself lends support to creation, not evolution theory).

:smile:

[Woman]

djdavo,

If you want to have any credibility, you have to stop believing everything you read on creation sites. Even Socrates will tell you that there are poor sites out there with misinformation.

The Dino/human track "discoveries" have been refuted to the point that Answers in Genesis specifically tells creationists NOT to use the argument.

It would also help you to read some mainstream science so you know what you're up against.

[Warcraft3]

Today @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84548#post84548)
Woman:

djdavo,

If you want to have any credibility, you have to stop believing everything you read on creation sites. Even Socrates will tell you that there are poor sites out there with misinformation.

The Dino/human track "discoveries" have been refuted to the point that Answers in Genesis specifically tells creationists NOT to use the argument.

It would also help you to read some mainstream science so you know what you're up against.

Yeah the biology department is pretty brutal. Alot of these posters know their stuff very well. I tend to read alot more than I post, since often they are discussing issues that they know much better (and in more detail) than I do. Stick around and you may end up learning alot of good stuff.


Russ

[djdavo]

Today @ 12:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84548#post84548)
Woman:

djdavo,

If you want to have any credibility, you have to stop believing everything you read on creation sites. Even Socrates will tell you that there are poor sites out there with misinformation.

The Dino/human track "discoveries" have been refuted to the point that Answers in Genesis specifically tells creationists NOT to use the argument.

It would also help you to read some mainstream science so you know what you're up against.



i don't mind discussing this,or even being corrected,but i don't appreciate your tone. 1. those aren't the only examples of those kind of footprints. if those examples are misinformation, i'd of course like to know about it. educate me, please.
2. what do you make of the acambara findings? are those ridiculous and falsified? you tell me how ancient peoples knew what dinosaurs looked like before anyone knew what dinosaurs looked like...if your 65 million year gap is correct....

[djnoz]

steadele:

Yeah the biology department is pretty brutal. Alot of these posters know their stuff very well. I tend to read alot more than I post, since often they are discussing issues that they know much better (and in more detail) than I do. Stick around and you may end up learning alot of good stuff.

Gotta agree with Russ on that point - as a science student I don't know much either compared to these other guys. If I want to post something good, I have to do the research first. But I like that, because this forum prompts me to do some independant learning, and I do have a lot of free time on my hands ^_~

I was originally attracted to tweb for education and :spam: .. it has served me well especially in this forum.