Macro Evolution: The Evidence

[Tiggy]

Here's another classic example of your inability to admit when you are wrong.

On at least four separate occasions in the last three years you used the stupid Creationist argument "vestigial organs aren't evidence for evolution because they have a function". And on every occasion you were corrected and reminded that vestigial does not mean functionless, it means having lost or been degraded from its original function.

Everyone to Jorge now, on the count of three...

VESTIGIAL DOESN'T MEAN USELESS.

How many times in how many different threads have we gone over this with you Jorge?

I've yet to see you admit you were wrong about that one . Been way longer than two nanoseconds too.

- T

[phank]

OK, I read the article. Jorge says these aren't impact craters, he writes

Upon close and careful examination I find that the 'impact craters' evidence is not compelling, and even less conclusive, than may appear at first sight. Methods for identifying impact craters rely mainly on the presence of certain minerals and on other signs suggesting an impact. However, those minerals and the other signs may be, and in many cases have been, shown to be produced by present geological processes...Here the person has to ask whether abandoning the plain reading of Scripture is warranted by 'evidence' that is ambiguous, flimsy and inconclusive. The answer to that question should be abundantly obvious.

OK, the Barringer crater is specifically illustrated, and dismissed as resulting from current geological processes (!!!) NOW he produces yet another picture of this same crater and writes

Hey, Dodo bird, some impact craters are indeed impact craters. Contrary to your pathetic reading comprehension skills, I never said that ALL (alleged) impact craters are suspect.

No he never said that ALL craters are suspect. He also never said that SOME impact craters are craters. He DID dismiss the Barringer crater as suspect in his article. His article didn't even mention any real craters. And his article has pictures of basically every one of the most obviously self-evident craters on earth.

Maybe Jorge really does think everyone else is as stupid as he keeps claiming. You would HAVE to be that stupid not to notice that Jorge has contradicted himself and, uh, has used deliberate falsehoods to avoid admitting this.

[Cerebrum123]

OK, I read the article. Jorge says these aren't impact craters, he writes

OK, the Barringer crater is specifically illustrated, and dismissed as resulting from current geological processes (!!!) NOW he produces yet another picture of this same crater and writes No he never said that ALL craters are suspect. He also never said that SOME impact craters are craters. He DID dismiss the Barringer crater as suspect in his article. His article didn't even mention any real craters. And his article has pictures of basically every one of the most obviously self-evident craters on earth.

Maybe Jorge really does think everyone else is as stupid as he keeps claiming. You would HAVE to be that stupid not to notice that Jorge has contradicted himself and, uh, has used deliberate falsehoods to avoid admitting this.

When reading Jorge's article I noticed this for figure 3(the Barringer crater).

Figures 3 and 7 look like what most people expect to see upon hearing the word 'crater'.

Looks like he was saying that the Barringer crater wasn't suspect to me.

[Jorge]

Have you forgotten your run-in with one of the site owners, Dee Dee Warren, "dizzle"? She, a fellow YEC, chewed you up and spit you out for your sloppy "scholarship" among other things. Ironically, her first encounter with you was to come to your defense in the old Dendrochronology thread but then saw you in action firsthand.

I can think of several others but need to double check that they are indeed YEC before I list them.

***********************************************************************

I asked you for two things -- my English was clear and sharp :

(1) a specific person and,

(2) specifically what the person said.


You got (1) but totally failed in (2).

You do not have first hand knowledge of what transpired between me and Dee Dee.
She could not have "chewed me and spit me out" because we never got very far in
our debate. This was years ago but if memory serves me I had asked Dee Dee a
leading question and never received an answer that satisfied what I was looking for.
To the best of my knowledge we parted amicably albeit unsatisfied (both of us).

[Of course I know that she can read this post -- I'm not hiding anything or speaking behind her back].

If I (vaguely) recall, Dee Dee is a Preterist (of one of the 'special' categories of Preterism).
I did not pursue that discussion for reasons that I consider serious yet that you neither
know about nor understand my reasons. Ergo, your 'evidence' here is nonsense.

Wanna try again?

Jorge

[Jorge]

When reading Jorge's article I noticed this for figure 3(the Barringer crater).



Looks like he was saying that the Barringer crater wasn't suspect to me.

*******************************************

Give that man a C-GAR !!! Yup -- that was exactly what I wrote.

That's why I said that Tiggy either has a very severe reading comprehension disability OR
he is dishonest -- misrepresenting and distorting the words of others. I am being kind here
since I and others have been victimized by Tiggy doing the latter numerous times over the years.

Jorge

[phank]

When reading Jorge's article I noticed this for figure 3(the Barringer crater).



Looks like he was saying that the Barringer crater wasn't suspect to me.

Are you kidding? I cited what he said about the craters. I cited every word in the article where he even hinted that some craters were real craters - all ZERO of them!

His article says the Barringer crater LOOKS LIKE what most people expect to see -- and THEN he goes on to explain why it's not really a crater, it doesn't have the right qualifications, it results from natural processes, scripture denies its a crater, etc, etc. The article makes it clear, repeatedly: even the most obvious craters are suspect, probably due to natural processes, and violate clear scripture!

And you read this and somehow "interpret" exactly the opposite! Do you expect anyone to take you serously?

(And Jorge says he agrees with you, as certain an indication you're wrong that this life can possibly provide.)

[Jorge]

OK, I read the article. Jorge says these aren't impact craters, he writes

OK, the Barringer crater is specifically illustrated, and dismissed as resulting from current geological processes (!!!) NOW he produces yet another picture of this same crater and writes No he never said that ALL craters are suspect. He also never said that SOME impact craters are craters. He DID dismiss the Barringer crater as suspect in his article. His article didn't even mention any real craters. And his article has pictures of basically every one of the most obviously self-evident craters on earth.

Maybe Jorge really does think everyone else is as stupid as he keeps claiming. You would HAVE to be that stupid not to notice that Jorge has contradicted himself and, uh, has used deliberate falsehoods to avoid admitting this.

*********************************************************

Did you just stagger here from the corner bar ???

Jorge

[Jorge]

Are you kidding? I cited what he said about the craters. I cited every word in the article where he even hinted that some craters were real craters - all ZERO of them!

His article says the Barringer crater LOOKS LIKE what most people expect to see -- and THEN he goes on to explain why it's not really a crater, it doesn't have the right qualifications, it results from natural processes, scripture denies its a crater, etc, etc. The article makes it clear, repeatedly: even the most obvious craters are suspect, probably due to natural processes, and violate clear scripture!

And you read this and somehow "interpret" exactly the opposite! Do you expect anyone to take you serously?

(And Jorge says he agrees with you, as certain an indication you're wrong that this life can possibly provide.)

****************************************************

Forget my last post with the question -- you definitely DID stagger here from the corner bar!!!

Jorge

[Tiggy]

When reading Jorge's article I noticed this for figure 3(the Barringer crater).

Figures 3 and 7 look like what most people expect to see upon hearing the word 'crater'.

Looks like he was saying that the Barringer crater wasn't suspect to me.

He then dismissed them all (including Barringer) as not being impact craters even though they look like impact craters. Instead he claimed they were all from other "fountains-of-the-deep" caused geological phenomena.

Jorge: A key question here is, are these actually impact craters?

That seems to settle the matter, right? These had to be catastrophic impacts upon Earth and they couldn't have happened in recorded history or humanity wouldn't have survived. No, not necessarily; it's now time to present an alternate view.

It was an amazing demonstration of Creationist stupidity, even for Jorge. He's yet to admit he was dead wrong.

Par for the course for

- T

[Tiggy]

*******************************************

Give that man a C-GAR !!! Yup -- that was exactly what I wrote.

That's why I said that Tiggy either has a very severe reading comprehension disability OR
he is dishonest -- misrepresenting and distorting the words of others. I am being kind here
since I and others have been victimized by Tiggy doing the latter numerous times over the years.

Jorge

For the record Jorge - how and when did the Barringer crater form?

- T

[Jorge]

For the record Jorge - how and when did the Barringer crater form?

- T

*****************************************************************************************************

You didn't read (not with any reading comprehension) my article so why should we
expect anything else from you now? Did you attend Reading Comprehension for
Idiots School?

Here was part of what I wrote :


Methods for identifying impact craters rely mainly on the presence of certain minerals and on other signs suggesting an impact. However, those minerals and the other signs may be, and in many cases have been, shown to be produced by present geological processes.

Even secular, mainstream scientists do not agree on how and when these impact-identifiers may or may not be produced by common geological events.

The entire [impact craters] argument [thus] appears to be based on conflicting opinions, interpretation of the observations within a pre-supposed old-age worldview and consensus within the secular mainstream community.

In short, and with all things considered, the impact craters argument for an old Earth does not compel, not by any reasonably-critical standard.

I do, however, certainly understand how this evidence may appear to be compelling, especially to those that are already standing on a foundation of mega/giga-years. It [the Impact Craters Argument] isn't an irrational argument and if a person accepts, uncritically, the various aspects of the argument then the conclusion definitely points to supporting an old Earth and refuting a young one. The prerequisite is the uncritical acceptance of all of those aspects, in particular that these geological features are actually impact craters.

Here the person has to ask whether abandoning the plain reading of Scripture is warranted by 'evidence' that is ambiguous, flimsy and inconclusive. The answer to that question should be abundantly obvious.


My answer to your above question is that it probably happened somewhere between
the Creation (6-10 KY ago) and a few thousand years after the Flood. I cannot be
more specific than that. Let me end by CLEARLY saying that there are some impact
craters on Earth that are just that - impact craters. But I am not convinced that ALL
craters considered to be impact craters actually are impact craters. I have sound,
scientifically valid reasons for my skepticism. 'Nuff said.

Jorge

[Roy]

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong and it usually takes me two nanoseconds to admit it.

In this post Jorge posted a fabricated quote supposedly from a scientific source:

5. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000." --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

He was promptly informed not only that the quote was fraudulent, but exactly why it had to be wrong.

Some 2922109347816 nanoseconds later, Jorge has yet to admit that either the quote wasn't real, or that he was wrong about it.

Roy

[Tiggy]

My answer to your above question is that it probably happened somewhere between
the Creation (6-10 KY ago) and a few thousand years after the Flood. I cannot be
more specific than that. Let me end by CLEARLY saying that there are some impact
craters on Earth that are just that - impact craters. But I am not convinced that ALL
craters considered to be impact craters actually are impact craters. I have sound,
scientifically valid reasons for my skepticism. 'Nuff said.

Jorge

You didn't give a specific answer to HOW the Barringer crater was created. Is it an impact crater on not?

Speak up

BTW, the age of the crater has been confirmed by at least three independent dating methods to be approx. 49,000 year old.

Age and geomorphic history of Meteor Crater, Arizona, from cosmogenic 36Cl and 14C in rock varnish

Abstract: Using cosmogenic 36Cl buildup and rock varnish radiocarbon, we have measured the exposure age of rock surfaces at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Our 36Cl measurements on four dolomite boulders ejected from the crater by the impact yield a mean age of 49.7 ± 0.85 ka, which is in excellent agreement with an average age of 49 ± 3 ka obtained from thermoluminescence studies on shock-metamorphosed dolomite and quartz. These ages are supported by undetectably low 14C in the oldest rock varnish sample.

In situ10Be-26Al exposure ages at Meteor Crater, Arizona

Abstract: A new method of dating the surface exposure of rocks from in situ production of 10Be and 26Al has been applied to determine the age of Meteor Crater, Arizona. A lower bound on the crater age of 49,200 ± 1,700 years has been obtained by this method.

How do you explain that dating evidence?

Speak up

- T

[Ansgar Seraph]

***********************************************************************

I asked you for two things -- my English was clear and sharp :

(1) a specific person and,

(2) specifically what the person said.


You got (1) but totally failed in (2).

You do not have first hand knowledge of what transpired between me and Dee Dee.
She could not have "chewed me and spit me out" because we never got very far in
our debate. This was years ago but if memory serves me I had asked Dee Dee a
leading question and never received an answer that satisfied what I was looking for.
To the best of my knowledge we parted amicably albeit unsatisfied (both of us).

[Of course I know that she can read this post -- I'm not hiding anything or speaking behind her back].

If I (vaguely) recall, Dee Dee is a Preterist (of one of the 'special' categories of Preterism).
I did not pursue that discussion for reasons that I consider serious yet that you neither
know about nor understand my reasons. Ergo, your 'evidence' here is nonsense.

Wanna try again?

Jorge

For anyone desiring a refresher on this subject:

Darth Xena and Jorge on Preterism

Commentary Thread

[Jorge]

In this post Jorge posted a fabricated quote supposedly from a scientific source:

5. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000." --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

He was promptly informed not only that the quote was fraudulent, but exactly why it had to be wrong.

Some 2922109347816 nanoseconds later, Jorge has yet to admit that either the quote wasn't real, or that he was wrong about it.

Roy

***************************************************************

"... promptly informed ..."

Why don't you send / link me the article that I cited where I will SEE what you are saying.
Hey, if you INFORM me as you say, then I will immediately do what is right.

Or are you simply and naively expecting me to take your word for it (?).
If you are, may I suggest that you NOT hold your breath while waiting.

Jorge