Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[tas8831]

In a muslim country, no problem. But this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and it can only survive as a free nation if those principles are maintained. Islam -- the Koran -- promotes a political doctrine contrary to our constitution. It is impossible to be a devout muslim and support our constitution. The same for a socialist. Both promote foreign doctrines and influences that George Washington warned us about:

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-rounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. " [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796] ​

Dan

And yet God, Jesus, bible, Christianity is not mentioned ONCE in the governing document of this nation.

Quite an oversight, no?

Oh - Menton lied, no YECs touched the coccyx, phylogenetics works, creationism is a sham.

 

[tas8831]

Their arguments make logical sense; while evolutionism arguments are silly, and, from an origins perspective, impossible.



There is no relevance to grasp, that I have seen, that cannot be better explained by a common designer. Besides, since everything looks designed (life, the planet, the solar system, the universe), would not the scientific approach naturally lead one to believe there is a designer?

Dan

Your inane denialism is getting tiresome.
Shallow grasps of technical scientific issues is not a reason to abandon them for silly ancient middle eastern tales.

 

[tas8831]

You haven't been paying attention. The Evolutionism Icon of "Vestigial Organs" is on it last, dying breath.

Dan

And all you are capable of producing is unsupported, condescending assertions. Typical for under-informed brainwashed religionists.

 

[tas8831]

No. Do you?

No, but it is clear that you do as a matter of course.

It appears Todd has become the evolutionism "Goto Boy". No doubt he has said some really dumb things,

Whats this? An unsupported assertion? That is quite commonplace from you. Still no rationale for why anyone should take your word over his.

even professing a bizarre belief in common descent,

You mean Baraminology - the apologia intended to rescue the impossibility of post-flood diversification and the like?

which puts him in total denial of the Word of God.

No creationist has ever provided supporting evidence showing that the word of God IS the word of God, much less that it is based in reality.

For the rest of you, faith comes from hearing the Word of God; and the Word of God is crystal clear that Jesus, Paul and Peter are creationists who declared man's descent from Adam and Eve, as well as the historical truthfulness of the great flood.

For none of which have religionists provided evidence.

Are you still obsessed with proving the evolution icon of vestigial organs is not a myth? You have a tough road ahead of you.

Seeing as how you have yet to provide anything or merit or worth in this thread on any topic, and have provided only condescension, empty, unsupported assertions, and hero worship, your claims are to be laughed at. Wood may have had you in mind when he wrote:


I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution....Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.


You know - your hero Kurt Wise says much the same thing as Todd regarding why he is a creationist:

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Weird - haven't you blabbered about how we don't follow the scientific method?



Still waiting for you to provide the Scriptural source regarding:


"Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters..."

Please show me where in the bible the "genetic character" of 'Negroes' is discussed.

Also still waiting for you to defend your other YEC hero Menton re:

"...the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."


Which means that Menton is unaware that many terrestrial vertebrates, to include some of the largest, lack this feature.

But if your defense is on par with the other one, well, never mind.[/quote]

 

[Bible Research Tools]

How did I miss this !?!?!?!
Snelling dated a 50 year old rock with s technique used to date very old billion year old rocks . Yes he used a secular lab as you said . He asked the lab to use the old rock technique. Because he knew that the date the lab got would show up in the error bar . The lab gives you a date AND also tells you that due to the limitations of the technique used the date could be off - either younger or older. Those are the error bars . The oldest probable date they gave for the rock was 2.3 million years with the rock being as young as 0 . Snelling dishonestly reported this as ( paraphrased) That legitimate lab said this 50 year old rock is 2.3 million years old ! I did say he was incompetent and/or a liar

As I’ve stated before, using a technique for billion-year-old rock on a 50 year old rock is like using a yardstick to measure a bacterium . Youll get an answer like a bacterium is less than 1/16 of an inch long which is no where close to how tiny bacteria really are.

1/16 inch = 0.16 cm for you metric users

You still don't get it, Brightmoon. So-called "radiometric dating" requires knowledge of the approximate age of a rock is before it can be "accurately" dated. So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

Dan

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You still don't get it, Brightmoon. So-called "radiometric dating" requires knowledge of the approximate age of a rock is before it can be "accurately" dated. So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

Dan

Why should we assume that?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Yup. Whatever you say. 'Witnessing' and all that.

Odd that an engineer would have bothered with 'everything the evolution orthodoxy threw at' you. And then, more oddly, decided to "research" it.

What is odd about it? Evolution is useless in engineering, and in science generally, so the only time I was exposed to it were the orthodoxy-approved textbooks.

Hmmm.... It seems that this "research" consisted of reading creationist essays and taking them at face value with no skepticism at all. Now this 'research' came well after your conversion, right?

I guess you can say that. I have been a Christian most of my life. But I also believed in evolution until late in life. I guess I grew up.

Why do you still believe in evolution, considering there is absolutely no proof of it. Faith?

Nothing to see here folks - just regurgitated YEC/ID propaganda, swallowed uncritically since it props up a right-wing 'Christian' agenda/ideology.

Nothing to see here, folks, except more anti-Christian, far-left propaganda advocating for the continued suppression of free speech by the state-established religion of evolution.

Dan

 

[Jimmy D]

So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

You mean "creation scientists" haven't done this already?

Lazy buggers.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is useless in engineering, and in science generally,

That's a lie.

It's also because creationists tell themselves these lies that reinforces they have zero clue what they are really up against.

 

[Ophiolite]

You still don't get it, Brightmoon. So-called "radiometric dating" requires knowledge of the approximate age of a rock is before it can be "accurately" dated. So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

Dan

Setting aside the well founded dating of these two groups of rocks by radiometric methods, the following conditions are some of the further reasons not to make such an assumption:

• Many rocks in both groups have mineralogies that could only have been developed at considerable depth within the mantle, with the rocks subsequently becoming exhumed. The rate of eorsion and isotatic uplift, or diapiric activity to achieve that exhumation in the required time frame exceeds by orders of magnitude any postulated mechanism. Thus far no creation scientist has - to my knowledge - even offered a provisional explanation for this that is consistent with basic physics.
• Some rocks in both groups have internal structures, including mineral orientation and segregation into leucocratic and melanocratic bands that would have to have proceeded at a rate that exceeds by an order of magnitude any postulated mechanism. Thus far no creation scientist has - to my knowledge - even offered a provisional explanation for this that is consistent with basic physics.
• Some rocks in both groups lie beneath thick layers of sedimentary rock. The time required for that rock to be deposited, using any reasonable figure for deposition rates, is measured in millions and hundreds of millions of years, not thousands.
• The calculations in the previous example become even more damaging to the notion of young ages for these rocks if we take into account the numerous diastems and cryptic unconformities in any sedimentary sequence.
• Komatiite lavas are found only in early pre-Cambrian rocks. Their genesis requires HT magmas and a mantle temperature profile that could not cool to present levels in a few thousand years.
• Dozens (scores? hundreds?) of other specific examples that individually point to the gross implausability of pre-Cambrian rocks being only a few thousand years old, but in combination render the idea indefensible.

However, if you still want to make that assumption and carry out the tests, why - as Jimmy D has already asked - haven't creation scientists done so? This would be a perfect way of refuting Old Earth theory, if your view is correct. Instead, we get a handful of instances where through ignorance, incompetence, or malign intent, creationists have used the wrong method and then reached an unwarranted conclusion. It's a three ring circus with no jugglers, no trapeze artists, no bareback horse riders, just a bunch of clowns.

 

[Brightmoon]

You still don't get it, Brightmoon. So-called "radiometric dating" requires knowledge of the approximate age of a rock is before it can be "accurately" dated. So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

Dan

no you don’t get it . You can calculate long it takes to form a specific layer. Then you add up those times . You’ll get an approximate date ( all old earth) for a specific formation. You don’t need radiodating to have evidence that the earth is very old. The 18th century naturalists figured that out too. Umm, by the way, this IS The 21st century

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Wow, OK... This is going to take some deconstructing.

Or, some maneuvering.

Reading the Ahlberg &Clack essay, they cite "The pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys and the origin of tetrapod locomotion", Boisvert, C. Nature 438, 1145–1147 (2005).

That paper came out in 2005, prior to the Tik papers, and ONLY mentioned Panderichthys.

This is from Ahlberg & Clack that Dr. Menton referenced and footnoted:

"In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. In other regards, Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys. The bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout . . . The fossils [of the Tiktaalik] are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely." [Ahlberg & Clack, "A Firm Step From Water to Land." Nature, 2006, p.748]​

Where do you think Ahlberg & Clack got the notion that "Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely"? Never mind . . .

Let me guess - in your desperation to protect YEC Menton, you looked at one of the papers he mentioned (but not the actual Tiktaalik papers?), keyword searched "pelvic", and thought you found a winner? Standard YEC "research" in action...

That is sorta true. I don't believe a word Shubin says. Perhaps neither does Menton.

Here are the two Tiktaalik papers Ahlber & Clack refer to:

Nature. 2006 Apr 6;440(7085):757-63.
A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan.

and

Published: 06 April 2006
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb

What is that??? PECTORAL fin???

I have them both. Was I supposed to look up something in particular? Perhaps you are referring to their commonly used weasel-words, such as "suggestive of", "likely", "similar to", "probably", and etc. (translated: "we are guessing").

Uh oh - I spoke too soon -

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae
Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr.

Never mind - that didn't come out until 2013, but in it we see:

"The discovery of pelvic material of the finned elpistostegalian, Tiktaalik roseae, bridges some of these differences. Multiple isolated pelves have been recovered, each of which has been prepared in three dimensions. Likewise, a complete pelvis and partial pelvic fin have
been recovered in association with the type specimen. The pelves of Tiktaalik are paired and have broad iliac processes, flat and elongate pubes, and acetabulae that form a deep socket rimmed by a robust lip of bone. The pelvis is greatly enlarged relative to other finned tetrapodomorphs..."

So, I can only conclude sloppy editing in the Ahlberg & Clack essay, since the description of the pelvic fins did NOT get published for a few more years. But Menton is a brilliant YEC scientist, and surely such a person, whose goal after all was to demolish the relevance of Tiktaalik with the TRUTH - would not base his scientific rebuttal on the 'preview' essay in Nature, rather than the 2 actual publications in that same issue.... Would he? Apparently so.

Apparently so. There is, after all, a blizzard of bad evolutionism research out there to weed through; and life is short.

Nice try, but nope - Menton fudged it.

Either that or he made the "unforgivable" mistake of referencing an article written by evolutionists.

Umm... What? They are 2 different creatures - but cute sleight of hand there, champ.

That is what the Ahlberg & Clack article says:

"Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins"​

Perhaps you forgot.

So... You don't know what footnotes are, got it. Those are called citations, by the way...

Perhaps I was confused by statements like this one:

"The style of Chicago/Turabian we use requires footnotes rather than in-text or parenthetical citations. Footnotes or endnotes acknowledge which parts of their paper reference particular sources. Generally, you want to provide the author’s name, publication title, publication information, date of publication, and page number(s) if it is the first time the source is being used. Any additional usage, simply use the author’s last name, publication title, and date of publication.

Footnotes should match with a superscript number at the end of the sentence referencing the source. You should begin with 1 and continue numerically throughout the paper. Do not start the order over on each page."​

Chicago Citation Format: Footnotes and how to make them​

But I will keep your understanding in mind.

It is so weird - you actually looked up the Boisvert article - heck you provided the title!! but apparently ignored it, and still made 100% unwarranted assumptions and foolish conclusions (in which you conflate 2 different organisms) all to try to prop up your YEC hero.

I quoted the Ahlberg & Clack interpretation of the Boisvert article.

Yeah, those are citations, not footnotes, but thanks.

Dr. Menton called them footnotes:

Footnotes
1. Daeschler, E. B., N. H. Shubin, and F. A. Jenkins, 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body
plan. Nature 440(7085):757–763.
2. Ahlberg, P. E. and J. A. Clack, 2006. News and Views. Nature 440(7085):747–749.​

See demolition above.

Oh - weird that you totally omitted his rather asinine claim about bony connections to the axial skeleton. That was wise (but not clever) of you to omit it.

You sound desperate. I can't blame you since 150 years of feverish digging (and billions of fossils found and cataloged) has resulted in exactly ZERO clearly-defined transitional fossil lines. When are you fellows going to throw in the towel and admit that all critters in the fossil record appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and with no ancestors?

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing to see here, folks, except more anti-Christian, far-left propaganda advocating for the continued suppression of free speech by the state-established religion of evolution.

Dan

Your statement is far too broad. Being opposed to a discontented Evangelical Protestant minority is hardly the same thing as being "anti-Christian."

 

[Brightmoon]

When are you fellows going to throw in the towel and admit that all critters in the fossil record appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and with no ancestors.

Dan[/QUOTE]

when are you gonna stop lying to yourself ?

 

[tas8831]

You have been reading too many left-wingnut newspapers.

Dan

So you have no information to counter that list of your serial-philanderer's failures, but feel compelled to defend him nonetheless. Sad.

 

[Brightmoon]

Or, some maneuvering.



This is from Ahlberg & Clack that Dr. Menton referenced and footnoted:

"In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic. In other regards, Tiktaalik is more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys. The bony gill cover has disappeared, and the skull has a longer snout . . . The fossils [of the Tiktaalik] are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely." [Ahlberg & Clack, "A Firm Step From Water to Land." Nature, 2006, p.748]​

Where do you think Ahlberg & Clack got the notion that "Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely"? Never mind . . .



That is sorta true. I don't believe a word Shubin says. Perhaps neither does Menton.



I have them both. Was I supposed to look up something in particular? Perhaps you are referring to their commonly used weasel-words, such as "suggestive of", "likely", "similar to", "probably", and etc. (translated: "we are guessing").



Apparently so. There is, after all, a blizzard of bad evolutionism research out there to weed through; and life is short.



Either that or he made the "unforgivable" mistake of referencing an article written by evolutionists.



That is what the Ahlberg & Clack article says:

"Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins"​

Perhaps you forgot.



Perhaps I was confused by statements like this one:

"The style of Chicago/Turabian we use requires footnotes rather than in-text or parenthetical citations. Footnotes or endnotes acknowledge which parts of their paper reference particular sources. Generally, you want to provide the author’s name, publication title, publication information, date of publication, and page number(s) if it is the first time the source is being used. Any additional usage, simply use the author’s last name, publication title, and date of publication.

Footnotes should match with a superscript number at the end of the sentence referencing the source. You should begin with 1 and continue numerically throughout the paper. Do not start the order over on each page."​

Chicago Citation Format: Footnotes and how to make them​

But I will keep your understnanding in mind.



I quoted the Ahlberg & Clack interpretation of the Boisvert article.



Dr. Menton called them footnotes:

Footnotes
1. Daeschler, E. B., N. H. Shubin, and F. A. Jenkins, 2006. A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body
plan. Nature 440(7085):757–763.
2. Ahlberg, P. E. and J. A. Clack, 2006. News and Views. Nature 440(7085):747–749.​

You sound desperate. I can't blame you since 150 years of feverish digging (and billions of fossils found and cataloged) has resulted in exactly ZERO clearly-defined transitional fossil lines. When are you fellows going to throw in the towel and admit that all critters in the fossil record appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and with no ancestors.

Dan

Your quoting Ahlberg and Clack is hilarious. She trained ahlberg and she’s THE world class expert in fishopods evolution . So please continue to take her quotes out of context or niggle over her wording instead of actually looking at those fossils and I’ll continue to laugh at you . Panderichthys is a fish by the way . The scapula is attached to the back of the skull roof by the cleithrum (like all fish ) which you cannot say about Tiktaalik which does have a very short neck .

 

[PsychoSarah]

What is odd about it? Evolution is useless in engineering, and in science generally, so the only time I was exposed to it were the orthodoxy-approved textbooks.

-_- are you unconcerned about the potential for those textbooks to be heavily biased against the theory of evolution? I wouldn't want to learn about a theory solely from an author that strongly disagreed with it.

I guess you can say that. I have been a Christian most of my life. But I also believed in evolution until late in life. I guess I grew up.

Why do you still believe in evolution, considering there is absolutely no proof of it. Faith?

-_- because I am actually running an evolution experiment and was able to get new traits before hitting generation 10. It is on pause currently because my grandmother got fed up with having the animals in her house, but it will resume once I live on my own.

There are so many transitional fossils that we could make flip books for the evolution of various organisms, our own species included.

Our findings in genetics don't make sense outside of the context of the theory of evolution and in modern times are the best evidence for it.

Just a quick three things that contribute to why I view the theory as valid.

Nothing to see here, folks, except more anti-Christian, far-left propaganda advocating for the continued suppression of free speech by the state-established religion of evolution.

Dan

1. I am not anti Christian. I'm not even anti creationist, I just don't view that the evidence available supports creationism.
2. I'm a moderate with slight left leaning tendencies in some areas and right leaning tendencies in others. Atheists don't share specific political views. Just check out the political subforum and see for yourself, but be warned, it is quite possibly the most toxic, tense subforum on this site.
3. Free speech in the United States is not in any way shape or form restricted by the theory of evolution. It's not evolution's fault that ID/creationism doesn't meet the standards required to be taught in public schools, but nothing is stopping people from talking about it outside of the classroom. In case you haven't noticed, Hinduism, Islam, etc., also aren't taught in US public schools as if they are the one true religion.
4. Evolution isn't a religion any more than atomic theory is a religion. I'd be interest if either one was disproven, but I wouldn't be sad, angry, etc.

 

[tas8831]

You need to keep up. That has already been debunked:

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase,"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11." [Hunter Miller Notes, "The Barbary Treaties." Yale Law School]​

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes
​

Dan

Hilarious how desperate the Nationalist is when they try to pretend to have arguments.
It really does not matter if there was no 'official' Article 11 - the version containing it was the version read to the Senate and ratified. All of your weaseling and whining will not change that, for a few sentences prior to your cherry picking, we see:

"The translation first printed is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt and the note mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10."

and later:

"How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point
... "A ratified copy of the Treaty with Tripoli" was one of the enclosures with the instructions to Cathcart of December 20, 1798 (D. S., 5 Instructions, U. S. Ministers, 25-30); very likely the ratification embraced the copy certified by Barlow under date of January 4, 1797, for, as above mentioned, the proclamation includes that certification, which is also printed in the Statutes at Large."


So you and your desperate, wild-eyed nationalistic pals would have us believe that nobody thought to question Article 11 from the Barlow translation at the time? Those supposed Devout Christians (who also deigned not to mention Jesus, God, or Christianity in the Constitution) kept their lips zipped?

My gosh, the desperation and silliness of your position is a sight.

 

[tas8831]

Baloney.

Dan

Great comeback.

This is today's Right-wing Evangelical. No facts, data or evidence to counter a claim? Just call it 'fake news' or write 'baloney.' It is the Christian Nationalist way, apparently.

 

[Skreeper]

Nothing to see here, folks, except more anti-Christian, far-left propaganda advocating for the continued suppression of free speech by the state-established religion of evolution.