Dinosaurs

[JacksBratt]

No one ever took the archaeoraptor find seriously. National Geographic - which is not a scientific journal - basically bungled the find. You won't find a single scientific paper on the thing.

It was in the National Geographic. Someone must have took it seriously.

Are you saying that anything in National Geographic should be researched to see if it is true before believing it?

Really? No one's got time for that.

 

[lasthero]

It was in the National Geographic. Someone must have took it seriously.

Someone. But not a scientist.

And they printed an ad admitting they screwed up. Some fraud.

 

[JacksBratt]

Not a fraud. I don't even know why you put this on the list.

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

 

[JacksBratt]

Not a fraud. Also, not a single find - numerous Neaderthal specimens have been found. Their DNA has even been sequenced. Not human.

I've read up on this and it looks like the members of the evoluitionist camp can't seem to make up their mind on this one.

I guess some want to force it down the brains of the malleable students while others are done with it and want to move on to other, more easily faked, frauds.

 

[lasthero]

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out.
He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5
Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ‘proof’ of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

Let's look at his full quote, shall we?

Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action is an adaptation of Kettlewell's The Evolution of Melanism, which discussed criticisms of Kettlewell's original experimental methods.[18] When the biologist Jerry Coyne reviewed this book in Nature, he stated that the most serious problem was that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks. He also wrote that the white moths had increased in numbers before the lichen had returned and that Kettlewell's findings of moths choosing matching backgrounds had not been replicated in later experiments. Coyne compared his reaction to "the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve". He concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom" and that further studies of the animal's habits were needed.[29]

Also, from the Wiki:

Contrary to this review, Majerus had stressed that the basic findings from that work were correct, and that differential bird predation of polluted environment "is the primary influence of the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth".[30][31] Coyne's statement that only two peppered moths had been found on tree trunks was incorrect, as the book gives the resting positions of 47 peppered moths Majerus had found in the wild between 1964 and 1996; twelve were on tree trunks (six exposed, six unexposed), twenty were at the trunk/branch joint, and fifteen resting on branches.[30] Majerus found that the review did not reflect the factual content of the book or his own views,[32] and cited an assessment by the entomologist Donald Frack that there was essentially no resemblance between the book and Coyne's review,[33] which appeared to be a summary of the Sargent et al. paper rather than Majerus's book.[34]

So what's the problem, again?

 

[JacksBratt]

Nebraska Man wasn't a fraud, it was a mistake, and the scientific community at the time never gave it much credence. The person involved even admitted the mistake.

A mistake? Of course it was. Yet, there it is. Put forth as fact for all the uneducated or untaught to read about.

A great find. Evolution is real.... Yet, then again, not.

How resourceful and imaginative scientific "experts" can be at times. Give them a tooth, not necessarily human, and they can create an entire race of prehistoric humanity.

 

[JacksBratt]

What diagram?

 

[lasthero]

A mistake? Of course it was. Yet, there it is. Put forth as fact for all the uneducated or untaught to read about.

It was never 'put forth as fact' You'll find no scientific papers on it, no research, no anything. It's not in any textbook, and the only time it even seems to come up is when creationists mention it.

How resourceful and imaginative scientific "experts" can be at times. Give them a tooth, not necessarily human, and they can create an entire race of prehistoric humanity.

There was no 'they'. It was one guy.

 

[lasthero]

That's not a diagram.

 

[JacksBratt]

But it is all clear when looking at the next chapter. Genesis 8:15-17 says:

Originally Posted by Genesis 8:15-17

Then God spoke to Noah, saying, “Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”
​

So, unless we assume that the animals matured during the stay on the ark, they would have had to be mature from the start.

I bolded where it says they can breed abundantly on the earth just so you knew that they weren't breeding in the ark...

The age is still not a fact. Having young animals would not change anything. In fact it would make sense, smaller amount of space, less food, less waste and, in most cases, an animal will grow enough in one year to be ready soon after to breed...

Thanks for that wonderful insight. It has brought me to a knew understanding.

 

[JacksBratt]

This picture suggests the men were giants. Note that the human "footprint" is almost 2 feet long. That'd make him a size 45 or so, I think. Good thing he went barefoot, getting shoes of that size would have been hard.

It could well have been a giant. This is a proven fact too. Giants did exist and have been in the writings of history of many cultures and nations.

 

[lasthero]

It could well have been a giant. This is a proven fact too.

No, it's not. It's really not.

Giants did exist and have been in the writings of history of many cultures and nations.

So are dragons, fairies, vampires and werewolves.

Well, okay, maybe werewolves aren't a good example. They exist. I know, because I read about them on that link you showed me with the giant footprint. There were pictures and everything.

 

[JacksBratt]

Why? The blue whale is easily the biggest animal that has ever been known to exist on this planet, bar none, and it does just fine. Also, animals like elephants and rhinos are much bigger than many dinosaurs and other animals that went extinct at the same time.

The whale lives in the sea. It is able to take in vast amounts of air and stay submerged for a long time. It was much easier for this mammal to adapt, like us.

Elephants and Rhinos were not near the size of many of the largest dino's.

Also, all kinds of animals die out and become extinct for any number of reasons...

Check this out from wiki:

Physiology

With such a large body mass, combined with a long neck, physiologists encounter problems determining how these animals managed to breathe.
Beginning with the assumption that Apatosaurus, like crocodilians, did not have a diaphragm, the dead-space volume (the amount of unused air remaining in the mouth, trachea, and air tubes after each breath) has been estimated at about 184 liters for a 30 ton specimen.
Its tidal volume (the amount of air moved in or out during a single breath) has been calculated based on the following respiratory systems:

• 904 liters if avian
• 225 liters if mammalian
• 19 liters if reptilian

On this basis, its respiratory system could not have been reptilian, as its tidal volume would not have been able to replace its dead-space volume. Likewise, the mammalian system would only provide a fraction of new air on each breath. Therefore, it is assumed to have had either a system unknown in the modern world or one like birds, i.e. multiple air sacs and a flow-through lung.

 

[lasthero]

The whale lives in the sea. It is able to take in vast amounts of air and stay submerged for a long time. It was much easier for this mammal to adapt, like us.

Many animals like pleisiosaurs lived in the ocean, too. They also went extinct with the dinosaurs. Not only that, but fish went extinct during this event, too, so your oxygen explanation really has no basis.

Elephants and Rhinos were not near the size of many of the largest dino's.

Not my point. Many dinosaurs were a lot smaller than them, yet still died. Now that I think about it, many reptiles are smaller than them, too. Why didn't things like iguanas die out?

Also, all kinds of animals die out and become extinct for any number of reasons...

Irrelevant. You're claiming the the extinction that occurred with the dinosaurs had to do with a change in oxygen levels. Therefore, to support your claim, you need to explain why that would cause the pattern of death we see at that point in the geologic record.

 

[JacksBratt]

So what's the problem, again?

The problem is that photo's were staged, the moths rarely rested on trees in the day, the wings of a live peppered moth were not extended, birds were not their only worry but bats were. Bats use echolocation that doesn't involve the color of wings.

This throws the methodology and ethics of the experimentation and its conclusions into question.

And, still, this is taught as solid proof of evolution.

Again, proof of half truths, cover ups, exaggeration, fabrications etc, to keep the farce of evolution alive

 

[lasthero]

The problem is that photo's were staged,

This might surprise you, but scientists have things to do with their time, other than sitting around waiting for moths to land on tree branches.

If you've ever watched a documentary on animals, nine times out of ten, the stuff they show the animals doing is staged. It's very common to stage things like that. It's not some big secret, and it's not rare.

the moths rarely rested on trees in the day, the wings of a live peppered moth were not extended,

My quote showed they did.

birds were not their only worry but bats were. Bats use echolocation that doesn't involve the color of wings.

Irrelevant. That bats have a way around the camoflauge doesn't change the fact that the color change provided the appropriately colored moths with an advantage against birds. That's all that's required for them to be favored by natural selection.

 

[JacksBratt]

It was never 'put forth as fact' You'll find no scientific papers on it, no research, no anything. It's not in any textbook, and the only time it even seems to come up is when creationists mention it.


There was no 'they'. It was one guy.

That's just it. They don't have to write a paper on it. The grand lie is never for the professor. They are already part of the scheme. You don't have to preach to the choir, as they say.

This was for the layman. This was to spread the lie to people who would swallow it like it is fact. Repeat it to their kids, cause doubt in their biblical faith.

This is how it works. Tell it to millions of the lay people who will never question it. Then it will become "real" to the world and very very hard to erase.

A job well done as people will still use this joke as unchallenged evidence for evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's not a diagram.

-_-

 

[lasthero]

That's just it. They don't have to write a paper on it.

Um, yes, they do. Scientists write papers on their findings.

The grand lie is never for the professor. They are already part of the scheme.

Spare me the conspiracy theory rant, please.

This was for the layman.

It was caught by scientists within a few years, and the guy who pushed it - the ONE GUY - admitted he made a mistake. What do you want?

This is how it works. Tell it to millions of the lay people who will never question it.

I'd never even heard of it until a creationist brought it up, and I know I'm not the only one.

 

[lasthero]

-_-

Sorry. It's not.