another forgery from EVOS

I'm sorry, I was talking about degrees of evolution and not education.

I also hear that the earth is slowing down. What's another explanation for this? Doing the "reverse math" would mean we spun pretty fast if the earth has been around too long.

Tye said:

Hey all, I'm a "young earth creationist." My questions about an old earth are numerous. Perhaps there are explanations I've never heard. My question is if man has been here for "millions of years" why do we not have more people on earth?

Click to expand...

More than 6 billion? That's not impressive enough for you?

There is an answer; it's called "death."

The thread can be found here,
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1637278

and quite frankly its the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lies Hovind tells.

Addition: doing the correct math of the spin of the earth, would cut a "day" in half many many years ago, but wouldn't make the earth spin faster than the speed of light, or any other claims that have been made about it. Matter of fact, the calculations match the evidence we have.

Tye said:

Yes, I've spent a good amount of time at looking over Kent Hovind's material and many other creationist sites. No I did not see your posts Arikay. I'm new to all this posting and internet chatting. Can anyone tell me the beginning of evolutionary theory and what its talking about. What was the first "evolution?" This is like my other question talking about the beginning of life and Biogenesis.

Click to expand...

Tye said:

I'm sorry, I was talking about degrees of evolution and not education.

Click to expand...

Ack! *embarrassed*

I also hear that the earth is slowing down. What's another explanation for this? Doing the "reverse math" would mean we spun pretty fast if the earth has been around too long.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is. This poses no big problem though. The moon causes friction against the earth with tides, which is what causes it.

What is rather cool however, is that it has been deduced from very old shells (using daily and yearly shell deposits) that the day used to be shorter, with more days in the year. Then, doing the reverse math back from the age of the fossil, it comes to the same amount of time in a day. IIRC, it was something like a 23 hour day 200 million years ago, and a 21 hour day 600 million years ago.

Hey all, I'm a "young earth creationist." My questions about an old earth are numerous. Perhaps there are explanations I've never heard. My question is if man has been here for "millions of years" why do we not have more people on earth?

Click to expand...

Simple answer, we've haven't been around for millions of years. Something closer to 50 thousand. Then we have disease, for one. The black plague for example, which wiped out a very very large amount of england.

Tye, since this thread is kinda large, Might I suggest you make a new thread (new topic button in the science forum) with questions in it and we can answer them in a less cluttered and more organized thread.

Thanks for the link Arikay. I can understand where you are coming from but I see it differently. Can you share a blatant Hovind lie with me? I've really enjoyed his material but that's probably because I'm a creationist. I've checked into lots of his claims and I see two sides to the story. I see lots of "Hovind Hate mail." It will be quite interesting to see if someone could earn that quarter of a million dollars. One way or the other should be able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'll see if I can figure out how to do that Arikay. Keep talking to me till I do...

Tye said:

Thanks for the link Arikay. I can understand where you are coming from but I see it differently. Can you share a blatant Hovind lie with me? I've really enjoyed his material but that's probably because I'm a creationist. I've checked into lots of his claims and I see two sides to the story. I see lots of "Hovind Hate mail." It will be quite interesting to see if someone could earn that quarter of a million dollars. One way or the other should be able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not Arikay >_>

Here are some choice ones. There are too many to list really.

"To claim that cyanide is always poisonous is simply not logical. […..] The cyanide found in fruit seeds is good for you. I eat apricot seeds all the time and have never had a problem."

"Did you know it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray computer time, that’s the largest computer in the world, to simulate what would take place in the eye every second?" -I have a digital camera that has better sight than me.

"Mammoths do not have any sweat glands. They were not designed for cold climates."

"The globalist, the Council of the Committee of Three Hundred, has as one of their goals to reduce the world population from six billion to one-half billion people. There are too many people here that cannot be controlled; so get rid of them. That's why AIDS was purposefully developed in a Maryland laboratory to wipe out population."

"The electromagnetic spectrum contains all the different wavelengths. Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, radar, sonar, including a small piece in the middle called light." Note: Sonar is sound, not light.

"I believe the Great Pyramid was built to be the Bible in stone. The Egyptians did not build it."

"[.....] this New World Order has plans to reduce the population by May 5 of the year 2000 [.....] down to one half billion very soon."

"... and if you think Timothy McVay blew up the Oklahoma City building you are really duped."

It will be quite interesting to see if someone could earn that quarter of a million dollars. One way or the other should be able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

No-one can win it, it's deliberately written as to be impossible. Evolution can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt quite easily, he just ignores anyone who tries. What's to stop him?

The funniest blantant lie I can think of off the top of my head, is his false claim in the FAQs that barcodes contain 666 in them. Its plain false and anyone who can do a basic google search could tell you that.

No one will ever win the $250,000 because its rigged. I talk about that slightly in the post I linked too. Basically he gives a false version of evolution, a false version of science, and then asks you to "prove" them. So, he is basically asking you to prove 100% a false verson of evolution using false science. It cant be done. Nothing in science is ever proven 100%.

Tye said:

Thanks for the link Arikay. I can understand where you are coming from but I see it differently. Can you share a blatant Hovind lie with me? I've really enjoyed his material but that's probably because I'm a creationist. I've checked into lots of his claims and I see two sides to the story. I see lots of "Hovind Hate mail." It will be quite interesting to see if someone could earn that quarter of a million dollars. One way or the other should be able to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Click to expand...

I think I got my own thread going... Join me if you like.

Kenneth558 said:

I'm enrolled in an "Organic Evolution" class (read my last post), and believe me, the arguments and "evidences" from the textbook are wimpier than I even expected. They're not fooling me for a moment.

Click to expand...

Good thing you are not being fooled! I hope you will not be fooled during the test time either!! . May I suggest dropping the class now since "fooling" you is pointless and while you can still get a partial refund. When you drop, the Biology faculty will probably gather and reflect on your withdrawl by saying, "Drat, another one that could not be fooled by the evidence!" You must be one shrewd student!

Tye said:

My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.

Click to expand...

And it does not attempt to. Evolution does not address the prime mover. If you had studied evolution, at all, you would know this.

Tye said:

Yes, I've spent a good amount of time at looking over Kent Hovind's material and many other creationist sites. No I did not see your posts Arikay. I'm new to all this posting and internet chatting. Can anyone tell me the beginning of evolutionary theory and what its talking about. What was the first "evolution?" This is like my other question talking about the beginning of life and Biogenesis.

Click to expand...

That is your first mistake. If you want to find out about evolutionary theory - or any other scientific subjects - stay away from creationist sites. Read SCIENCE, not religion. I'm not knocking religion - but it's not science.

Dragondrawer said:

Guys, listen to this.
The fossil that they found was supposedly supposed to be a "missing link". A bird/Dinosaur mix...definately something that evolutionists would want to sink thier greedy little claws into.
But guys...it's JUST A BIRD. Here's why.
1. The elongated tail bone-you think it's not found in birds today, but it is. Take the swan, for example. It DOES have an elongated tailbone.
2. Hollow bones- Hello...? Um..bird.
3. Claws on the ends of the wing- Yeah...so do Ostriches. Are they birds, or are my eyes decieving me, evolutionists?
4. Teeth in the beak- Eh, okay. So there aren't any living birds today that actually have teeth in thier beaks. So what? This still disprooves evolution. Birds, if they really evolved from dinosaurs, dont have teeth anymore. THAT IS NOT AN IMPROOVEMENT. Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does. If you really think that not being able to have the ability to rip things instead of having to peck your way at them is an improovement...um..you need to study the new thing called "common sense".;
Sorry guys, but it's just a bird. I dont think it's a false fossil..it's a cool critter, but it's no "missing link". And I DO think that they attached the new stuff to the fossil just to make money, not to bash anyone.

Click to expand...

Typically for a creationist, you've signled out four character states, one of which you admit is absent in derived birds, one of which is plesiomorphic for Aves (pnumatic bones -- wow, arent they also present in most theropods and even some sauropods?), one that is distorted (the claws of some extant genera are really nothing like those of basal birds and derived non-avians), and one that makes no anatomical sense (elongated tailbone? huh?).

Of course, you did not attempt to address the literally hundreds of characters that unite Aves with the Dinosauria, or mention all the ways in which Archaeopteryx is plesiomorphic vis-a-vis all other birds, in particular Ornithurae. Where, dragon, are all the cranial modifications for streptostylic kinesis, if indeed Archaeopteryx if just a modern bird? Where is the double-headed condyle on its quadrate? The orbital process? The propulsion joint between it and the pterygoid? Why does it still have its ectopterygoid? Why does it still have the descending process of the squamosal? Hell, it probably even had a complete postorbital bar. Modern bird, huh?

Where, dragon, is his rhamphotheca, his avian beak? He's missing his uncinate processes, his ossified sternal ribs, a large ossified sternum complete with keel. He lacks a carpometacarpus and his MT IV isnt bowed. The proximal phalanx of his second digit doesnt have the large flange. Relative to the axis of the ilium, his pubis is only retroverted 110 degrees. He has no hypopubic cup, and his ischium and ilium are unfused. He has no tibotarsus or tarsometatarsus. His first pedal digit is barely suited for an arboreal lifestyle, not reversed 180 degrees (at most, 120). He has no triosseal canal or M. supracoracoideus, so he cant take off from the ground. I can go on and on, dragon, and yet, no creationist has ever attempted to explain these things. Why is that? Because Archaeopteryx is, in no way, shape or form, a "modern bird". Period.

-GFA

Guys, listen to this.
The fossil that they found was supposedly supposed to be a "missing link". A bird/Dinosaur mix...definately something that evolutionists would want to sink thier greedy little claws into.
But guys...it's JUST A BIRD. Here's why.
1. The elongated tail bone-you think it's not found in birds today, but it is. Take the swan, for example. It DOES have an elongated tailbone.
2. Hollow bones- Hello...? Um..bird.
3. Claws on the ends of the wing- Yeah...so do Ostriches. Are they birds, or are my eyes decieving me, evolutionists?
4. Teeth in the beak- Eh, okay. So there aren't any living birds today that actually have teeth in thier beaks. So what? This still disprooves evolution. Birds, if they really evolved from dinosaurs, dont have teeth anymore. THAT IS NOT AN IMPROOVEMENT. Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does. If you really think that not being able to have the ability to rip things instead of having to peck your way at them is an improovement...um..you need to study the new thing called "common sense".;
Sorry guys, but it's just a bird. I dont think it's a false fossil..it's a cool critter, but it's no "missing link". And I DO think that they attached the new stuff to the fossil just to make money, not to bash anyone.

Click to expand...

Where on EARTH did you get the idea that these were the only reptilian characteristics present in Archaeopteryx? If you were reading a book written for eight-year-olds, these might be the only reptilian features listed because they're the easiest for a kid to see by looking at the fossil, but they're only the tip of the iceberg.

Here are a few more:

It's clear that Archaeopteyx could fly from the asymetrical structure of its flight feathers. However, unlike any flying bird living today, it does not have a keeled sternum. This is an adaptation for flight that Archaeopteryx had not yet developed.

The same is true or its ankle structure, which is the same as that of dinosaurs but only present in flightless birds living today.

The things that may be most reptilian about it of all, however, may be its shoulders. In order for modern birds to take off from the ground, they have to raise their wings higher than the articulation points of any muscles elsewhere in their bodies. Birds that are more advanced than Archaeopteryx show a gradual series of adaptations to make this easier for them, leading up to a unique pulley-like system in modern birds where a tendon that can raise the wings is looped through a gap between three bones in the shoulder. This gap is called the triossial canal, and Archaeopteryx does not have one.

Archaeopteryx has a dinosaurian shoulder structure that does not have a triossial canal or anything close to it. It's actually uncertain whether or not it could take off from the ground, rather than having to launch itself out of a tree. The tropical islands where it lived didn't have many especially large trees, however, which supports a different conclusion: that it could take off from the ground, but only by running with its wings outspread until it could gain enough lift to take off, like an airplane.

None of the features that you have listed are the ones that set Archaeopteryx apart from modern birds, with the exeption of its teeth, and you dismiss modern birds' lack of teeth as not being an improvement. I would like to point out that evolution does not usually make animals universally superior, but instead only makes them better-suited to their own environment and lifestyle. So, for example, evolution has adapted polar bears to life in the arctic, and cheetahs to life on the plains of Africa. Neither of these sets of adaptations can be said to be universally superior to the other. Each of them makes the animal who has it better suited to its own environment than the other animal is, but neither animal could survive at all in the other animal's environment.

Toothless beaks are not universally superior to teeth, but they work better than teeth do for an animal that can fly. The reason why is simple: they weigh less. It is a primary goal for both flying animals and man-made flying machines to reduce their weight as much as possible, since the lighter something is, the easier it is for it to fly.

Birds have gone to some amazing lengths to reduce their weight. Most male birds have even lost something that most male humans would be very disappointed to lose. Lacking this piece of anatomy probably makes it slightly more difficult for them to reproduce, but the resulting increased aerial abilities apparently compensate for the loss of virility.

There are a great many other reptilian features present in Archaeopteryx, and I can't list them all here. Several others can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#reptile-features

You shouldn't assume that just because you have an incomplete understanding of the evidence that supports our position, that there isn't any evidence other than what you've heard about.

Whoops, it looks like GFA beat me to what I was going to say.

Did I misspell "triosseal"? I thought it was spelled with an "I".

Aggie said:

It's actually uncertain whether or not it could take off from the ground, rather than having to launch itself out of a tree. The tropical islands where it lived didn't have many especially large trees, however, which supports a different conclusion: that it could take off from the ground, but only by running with its wings outspread until it could gain enough lift to take off, like an airplane.

Click to expand...

A grounded takeoff is neigh impossible, Aggie. For one, most *Neornithes* (that being the key word here) simply cannot take off from the ground following supracoracoideus denervation or tenotomy. Those that can compensate with bursts from the deltoids, which were greatly underdeveloped in Archaeopteryx vis-a-vis modern birds.

Solnhofen didnt just lack large trees: no trees have ever been found. Of course, this is possibly misleading for a number of reasons, the least of which is the presense of large shrubs.

As to a cursorial origin of flight generally, i'd say its pretty much out of the question. The physics just dont work.

You mentioned the tarsal process of the tiba too, but i'd suggest against using that as a synapomorphy. It's really homoplastic.

-GFA

Aggie said:

Whoops, it looks like GFA beat me to what I was going to say.

Did I misspell "triosseal"? I thought it was spelled with an "I".

Click to expand...

Triosseal.

God Fearing Atheist said:

A grounded takeoff is neigh impossible, Aggie. For one, most *Neornithes* (that being the key word here) simply cannot take off from the ground following supracoracoideus denervation or tenotomy. Those that can compensate with bursts from the deltoids, which were greatly underdeveloped in Archaeopteryx vis-a-vis modern birds.

Solnhofen didnt just lack large trees: no trees have ever been found. Of course, this is possibly misleading for a number of reasons, the least of which is the presense of large shrubs.

As to a cursorial origin of flight generally, i'd say its pretty much out of the question. The physics just dont work.

Click to expand...

Yes, an arboreal origin of flight is much more likely. My question is: what kind of lifestyle could birds have when they had recently evolved flight? Even if Archaeopteryx's ancestors evolved flight in an arboreal environment, their descendents may have spread to other environments pretty quickly.

On the topic of your first post, Pat Shipman points out in Taking Wing that just because modern birds can't take off from the ground when deprived of their supracoracoideus tendon doesn't mean that Archaeopteryx's lack of it also prevented it from doing so. Once more recent birds evolved their current mechanism for doing this, they may have lost the ability to use whatever primitive method their ancestors used before the current mechanism had evolved. The primitive method would have been no longer been useful to them.

I really don't see what alternative there is, whether you believe in evolution or not. There's a bird with the feather structure that's only present in an animal that can fly, but even though this animal could obvously fly it seems like it couldn't take off. If it could fly, it must have been able to take off also.

I reccomend that you read the book I mentioned, since it provides an idea for how Archaeopteryx could have taken off. It's an ability that more recent birds would have stopped needing--and lost--once they evolved the supracoracoideus tendon. It's similar to the "airplane" method I mentioned, but Pat Shipman goes into a lot more detail about it.

Aggie said:

Yes, an arboreal origin of flight is much more likely. My question is: what kind of lifestyle could birds have when they had recently evolved flight? Even if Archaeopteryx's ancestors evolved flight in an arboreal environment, their descendents may have spread to other environments pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

The evidence suggests Archaeopteryx was a terrestrial forager (Norberg (1990) points out wing loadings and aspect ratios similar to Galliforms, Elzanowski (2002), most recently reviewed the hindlimb structure, including the longer tiba than fibula, the anisodactyl pes with trochlae III extending distally farther than II and IV, etc showing it was at ease on the ground). There is no reason to doubt this was less true in the common ancestor of deinonychosaurs and Aves, since basal dromaeosaurids show essentially the same sorts of adaptations, sans the reserved hallux. From Archaeopteryx on, however, birds become increasingly specialized for life in high-places.

On the topic of your first post, Pat Shipman points out in Taking Wing that just because modern birds can't take off from the ground when deprived of their supracoracoideus tendon doesn't mean that Archaeopteryx's lack of it also prevented it from doing so. Once more recent birds evolved their current mechanism for doing this, they may have lost the ability to use whatever primitive method their ancestors used before the current mechanism had evolved. The primitive method would have been no longer been useful to them.

Click to expand...

The problem, of course, is that there is such method. We know that neornithines either need that, or a derived deltoid musculature in the minority of cases in which tenotomy doesnt end up with a total loss. Saying "well, there might have been some other way" is certainly possible, but without such a method, its just ad hoc.

I really don't see what alternative there is, whether you believe in evolution or not. There's a bird with the feather structure that's only present in an animal that can fly, but even though this animal could obvously fly it seems like it couldn't take off. If it could fly, it must have been able to take off also.

Click to expand...

The alternative is Archaeopteryx climbing to a launching perch, and using what limited flight capacility it had from there. Although it didnt have trees, Solnhofen had large conifers like Brachyphyllum, which could grow several meters tall. Other possibilities include transportation from up north, where there were trees, and deposition in Solnhofen, or, as you said above, it might simply reflect a new environment.

I reccomend that you read the book I mentioned, since it provides an idea for how Archaeopteryx could have taken off.

Click to expand...

I have Shipman's book, and, besides the little note on Ostrom's musing on pg. 255 (which are incorrect), I dont recall anything like what you're describing. What are you refering to here?

I would be careful of taking Shipman's book too seriously, in any event. There are a number of glaring factual errors, and the weight she gives to the pseudo-scientific rubbish of Fedducia, Martin et al on origins is disgusting to me.

-GFA