Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[tas8831]

LOL! I am a retired engineer.

Dan

That explains that.
So is Old Wise Guy - and he claims that the aorta sends motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Why do so many creationist engineers pretend to possess knowledge that they clearly do not possess, I wonder...

 

[tas8831]

False, since Humans were not made first of flesh, but instead, of fire. We became flesh after Adam sinned. We became identical to the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. They had a coccyx. We will regain our image as our maker, at the Rapture without a coccyx. Amen?

Gibberish.

 

[tas8831]

Casey Luskin stated those textbooks listed fell into at least one of these categories:

(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;

(2) Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;

(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.​

Dan

So you trust a creationist lawyer paid to write propaganda.
But you have no idea if what he claims is correct, do you?
Typical.

 

[tas8831]

I must admit I am surprised at how well the data fits the global flood model, and how poorly it fits the evolution model.

Dan

So then there must be universal geological features that support a world-wide flo-

never mind. This thread is about the coccyx and how creationists make things up about it.

 

[Brightmoon]

It would be the appropriate and comradely thing to do, since you've given me a good laugh.

You need to be corrected here. While the theory of evolution supports the estimates as to the age of these layers, such age has been determined quite independently of evolutionary theory. This was done, initially, by considering such things as sedimentation rates, nature and pace of isostatic and eustatic adjustments, probable duration of lacunae, etc. Then the more powerful tool, for absolute dates, of radiometric dating was applied. Parallel use of biostratigraphic techniques to determine relative ages still does not rely on an evolutionary model, but simply on the observed consistent sequence of fossils found in any undisturbed sequence globally. This sequence was acknowledged by Creationists and Evolutionists alike in the 19th century.

I make this correction since it reveals a persistent problem with the content of your posts. Your observations are simple to the point of being incorrect on important points such as this. This simplicity appears to be the result of parroting what you have gleaned, uncritically it seems, from Creationist literature. I also aim for simplicity, but the simplicity is deliberate in order to make my technical posts digestible by as much of the thread readership as possible. If this were a serious discussion, with individuals educated in the matter, I'd ramp up the technicalities and subtleties and complexities by several levels.

Before you mention it, I am aware that the foregoing is incidental to the point you are trying to make. However, that point is based upon a flimsy foundation of misunderstanding and misinterpretation well illustrated by this particular error.

Just as an aside, The Grand Canyon is the most astounding natural vista I have yet seen on the planet. Although not prone to using expletives. when I first glimpsed it I uttered a single expletive, repeatedly, for a full fifteen minutes, so impressed was I. (In contrast, when I first saw the pyramids at Giza I remarked, "They are smaller than I imagined".)

See, once again in the simplicity of your remarks you are revealing your ignorance of these matters. I would need to give you a couple of days worth of lectures on basic sedimentology* to start you on the right road, but in the meantime here are some (over-simplified) headlines.

• The sequences in other parts of the world do not, for the most part, follow the same sequence and in most cases they follow nothing like the same sequence.
• How do you account for the clear evidence (including animal tracks) that the Coconino sandstone was deposited by wind in a terrestrial, not marine, environment?
• Formations frequently include the name of the dominant lithology, but it is rare for that lithology to be the only one present (it may not even make up 5-% of the formation).

You will have to humour me further and spell out, in detail, why you think it is illogical.

You will have humour me further and explain why, for example, the Coconino sandstone is, in some parts of the Grand Canyon, 600' thick and in other parts only 60'.

You will have to humour me further and explain why the Coconino sandstone is covered by thousands of feet of younger sediments in the Grand Canyon, yet not many miles away, at the Barringer Meteor Crater, it is at the surface.

And, if you wish, you could humour me further and explain why Creationists seem so hung up on the Grand Canyon. I'm guessing it's because American geologists, when seeking to educate the public, keep bringing it up to illustrate their lessons, whereas in Europe we have less spectacular, but more relevant and interesting examples.

*I am willing to give you a couple of days worth of sedimentology lectures, but would only be willing to do so if you were willing to truly commit to listening to them sincerely and devoting the necessary follow up study with an open mind. You can let me know by pm or in this thread if you are interested. Please note this would be a long term issue as I would first need to construct the lectures.

. I’m jealous !!!! , I was fascinated by geology in grade school and I still am .

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
False, since Humans were not made first of flesh, but instead, of fire. We became flesh after Adam sinned. We became identical to the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. They had a coccyx. We will regain our image as our maker, at the Rapture without a coccyx. Amen?

Gibberish.

That's what all Godhaters say. Copying Trump by dodging and weaving is their way of ignoring the answer and claiming that NO one has yet explained why we have a coccyx. It's like trying to get the little moron to understand calculus.

Your begging for a reason for a coccyx has been answered and your reply has now been refuted. Would you like Scripture? Amen?

 

[Ophiolite]

. I’m jealous !!!! , I was fascinated by geology in grade school and I still am .

Do what I do with biology - purchase lots of second hand books and study them. My formal biology education is limited to the substantial palaeontology quota in my geology degree, plus three semesters of botany. My reading tends to focus on evolution because of that palaeontology background.The autodidact approach can be chaotic, but its fun.

Some reasons I have for participating in forums such as this is to expose myself to concepts in biology I have missed;practice expressing such knowledge as I do have as accurately and clearly as possible; pick up useful references to research articles and even (reluctantly) videos; and seek to correct the more egregious errors made by Creationists in their posts.

 

[Brightmoon]

Do what I do with biology - purchase lots of second hand books and study them. My formal biology education is limited to the substantial palaeontology quota in my geology degree, plus three semesters of botany. My reading tends to focus on evolution because of that palaeontology background.The autodidact approach can be chaotic, but its fun.

Some reasons I have for participating in forums such as this is to expose myself to concepts in biology I have missed;practice expressing such knowledge as I do have as accurately and clearly as possible; pick up useful references to research articles and even (reluctantly) videos; and seek to correct the more egregious errors made by Creationists in their posts.

I used to use the scientific American book club and get discounted recent textbooks . My oldest teased me for years because I bought a book from them out of sheer curiosity and it was his college textbook for the following 2 semesters . Been there , done that! . My favorite book (which is now a little out of date because they have more fossils) is the 1st edition of Jennifer Clack’s Gaining Ground about the fish to amphibian transition.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I used to use the scientific American book club and get discounted recent textbooks . My oldest teased me for years because I bought a book from them out of sheer curiosity and it was his college textbook for the following 2 semesters . Been there , done that! . My favorite book (which is now a little out of date because they have more fossils) is the 1st edition of Jennifer Clack’s Gaining Ground about the fish to amphibian transition.

Got any on Cambrian organisms? Those are my personal favorite.

 

[Job 33:6]

Got any on Cambrian organisms? Those are my personal favorite.

Wonderful Life, Stephen j Gould.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ah, so that's the source of this Hallucigenia illustration (to the left)

Definitely one of my favorite creatures from that time.

Too bad the bulbous "head" turned out to be a flaw in the fossils rather than an actual external feature, but that's the joy of analyzing fossils this alien.

 

[Job 33:6]

Yea. I'm a fan of opabinia and of course the king anomalocaris. I actually live near Cambrian strata where one of the very few speciment of soft bodied preservation of anomalacaris was found. It has yet to be classified though, a new species.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This is why I re-iterate that understanding the evidence which supports evolution first requires understanding of both the theory of evolution and some background knowledge of biology as a whole. If you don't have the latter, then the former won't make sense to you.

Therefore I again recommend doing the legwork to build a knowledge base so you can understand the material at hand:

Welcome to Evolution 101!
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

For the record I have no vested interest in trying to convince you of any of this and won't hold your hand in doing so. It's up to you to make the effort yourself. If you're interested, that is.

TalkOrigins? You gotta be kidding. Only a fool would claim evolution is a fact. The truth is, microevolution is a fact, which even a child can observe; and macroevolution is a fairy tale.

Again, there is not a trace of evidence for macroevolution; and without macroevolution the so-called "origin of the species" and the so-called "tree of life" are fairy tales.

I'm referring to the fact that adopting a literalistic view of Genesis (i.e. modern YECism) requires rejecting findings in biology, geology, physics, astronomy/cosmology, history and anthropology.

To the contrary. You must reject solid evidence of a global flood; solid evidence of abrupt appearance of species, followed by stasis; and the common sense observance that everything, from the tiniest organism, to our solar system, to the incomprehensibly vast universe appears finely tuned -- it appears designed.

For the record, the Bible is the most scientifically accurate book every written.

I don't think you actually looked at the links, especially since the latter involves primate phylogenies (specifically the evolutionary relationships between humans and other primates).

Until you can present clear evidence of macroevolution, that would be a exercise in futility. And life is short.

It's also worth noting that phylogenetics doesn't really make a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

Of course not, if your intent is misdirection. There is no evidence of macroevolution, and microevolution serves only to misdirect.

It's all about evolutionary hereditary relationships, whether it's looking at the evolutionary history of a pathogen that's evolved for a few months or doing comparative genomics analysis of livestock using phylogenetic data of mammalian taxa that evolved over millions of years.

It's all the same science.

Macroevolution is unprovable and unobservable. It is NOT science.

I have no idea what you mean by "Darwinism" then. Darwinism generally refers to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. It's an outdated term as modern evolutionary theory has come along way since.

Where do you think the goal posts will be moved next?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I used to use the scientific American book club and get discounted recent textbooks . My oldest teased me for years because I bought a book from them out of sheer curiosity and it was his college textbook for the following 2 semesters . Been there , done that! . My favorite book (which is now a little out of date because they have more fossils) is the 1st edition of Jennifer Clack’s Gaining Ground about the fish to amphibian transition.

You know I've thought about picking this book up before. I may just go ahead and pick this up right now.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Post #454 @Bible Research Tools

"And the tracks were present within these regional deposits and within a megasequence. So...how do you think that is possible?"

Your one response was "The megasequences did not flood entire continents, but were regional depositions. "

On the contrary though, massive sections of the geologic column are prevelant all throughout the andes, indicating that, if deposited by a flood, these regions must have been inundated.

https://res.mdpi.com/geosciences/ge...loy/html/images/geosciences-03-00262-g004.png

The tracks of animals are typically found on lower layers than the bodies, even "millions of years" apart in most cases (according to the imaginary evolutionary time-scale). Does that not tell you anything? Anyway, I don't believe you have considered all the alternatives:

"Scientists who study tracks deduce several unusual behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, such as parallel sets of tracks presume gregarious dinosaurs. However, within the Flood model, such behaviours may be unusual, and mean nothing about normal dinosaur habits. There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. Just the preservation of billions of tracks indicates rapid sedimentation, since studies of modern tracks reveals that footprints deteriorate and are destroyed rapidly (page 18). The tracks are practically always found on bedding planes, generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldn't the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediment was deposited slowly over long periods of time?" [Michael J. Oard, A Review Of, "Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States." CEN Technical Journal, 1997, p.38] ​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

View attachment 231249

Indeed, fracturing throughout the andes, in many cases post dates the mesozoic.

This indicates that these layers were actually deposited. They hardened, and then were later thrust faulted via brittle deformation.

Ill stop here. Its probably best to take this one step at a time so you do not miss a point, @Bible Research Tools

Do you agree with the above statement that fracturing, brittle deformation and motion of strata in say...the serrania iguembe, the bororigua fault, the mandiyuti fault, the caipipendi failt, and the mandeyapecua fault, all post date deposition of cretaceous and mesozoic strata (based on the image above of a cross section in the andes of bolivia)?

Ill give you a hint. The faults must have post dated the strata, else the strata wouldnt be faulted.

So lets jump to the chase here, much of the uplift of the andes mountains, didnt occur until after the formation of features such as that of the dinosaur dance floor, so there is no reason to believe that dinosaurs were running to higher ground. Now, of course this idea of dinosaurs outrunning a wave with so much energy it could pass over and entire continent, sounds utterly crazy to begin with. So, its not so hard to imagine that such a concept as dinosaurs running for higher ground, is completely made up.

Lastly, im just going to share this next one for future use.

I see no problem with the uplift post-dating the strata formation.

Where are the dino bodies? What rock level?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

If the teacher is to lead the students in prayer, from what religion should it be drawn?

This nation was founded on Christianity by Christians, and was officially a Christian nation by the will of the people for over 1 1/2 centuries, until that power of the states and people was usurped by a few un-elected judges. Any other questions?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I see no problem with the uplift post-dating the strata formation.

Where are the dino bodies? What rock level?

Dan

The problem with uplift post dating strata is that the strata was therefore not uplifted during the flood.

Thus rendering this idea of dinosaurs running to higher ground and surviving prior waves, is untenable.

To recap, if you recall, prior megasequences were hypothetically deposited in the Paleozoic, so dinosaurs such as those that produced the Bolivian tracks, should not have been alive to begin with.

Also, superpositionally, dinosaur skeletons are found all throughout mesozoic strata. I will add though that dinosaur skeleotons, when found, are always found on superpositionally equivelant strata to their tracks. For example, you will never find a T Rex track outside of Cretaceous layers. And you will also never find a T Rex skeleton outside of the Cretaceous.

I'll also add that, some of the tracks in bolivia were made by pteradactyls. Which of course if they were fleeing they would presumably fly away from a threat, as opposed to waddling away, given that flying allows them to move faster than walking.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What exactly is your quarrel about, as far as thickness of layers?

And, you seemed to doubt that erosion between layers exists?

"There are various forms of unconformity, ranging from pronounced angular uncomformities, such as the classic example of Hutton's Uncomformity down to cryptic unconformities and everything in between. Matching the range of unconformities is the corresponding extent of erosion responsible for the unconformity. Having pondered the matter, studied examples of the research and mapped examples in the field I find no problem. Perhaps if you had considered the matter as deeply and carefully you would be able to set aside your prejudices."

You received the response above.

So do you admit that indeed there are erosional surfaces between layers? Or would you like more detail?

Take a look at the figure above. Notice how erosional forces have leveled this land to nearly horizontal.

If you look at actual geologic cross sections, you will see that there are plenty of eroded layers.

Above, you can see your cretaceous layers "K" all eroded away. You have exposure of silurian bedrock, you have erosional surfaces along devonian bedding and unconformities everywhere.

And you doubt that erosional surfaces exist in the subsurface?

Indeed, subsurface erosional features exist everywhere you look in the geologic record.

You just have to know what they look like. @Bible Research Tools

You didn't address my question. I didn't mention erosion. Let's try again . . .

-----------
Take a careful look at some of the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, each millions of years thick (or, tens of millions), according to the evolution model:

1. Tapeats Sandstone
2. Shale
3. Muav Limestone
4. Redwall Limestone
5. Supai Group (sandstone, siltstone, etc.)
6. Hermit Formation (siltstone, mudstone, etc.)
7. Coconino Sandstone

Think about it? All forms of life, not just in the GC area, but in many parts of the world, wandered around on layers of, first, sand, then shale, then limestone, then a different colored limestone, and so forth, each for millions of years before the next type of layer showed up; and in most layers are found billions of fossils, some in perfect condition?

That is beyond illogical. Rapid layering by a world-wide flood is the only reasonable explanation for that layering, and for those fossils, many of which under the best of initial conditions would require rapid covering in deep sediment to prevent bio-destruction.
-----------

I would like to add that in every case, the fossilized animals appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and without a trace of a transitional ancestor. There is also the presence of polystrates -- some pointing upward through multiple coal seams.

Everything points to a catastrophic global flood.

Dan