Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chimp · 01-30-2003, 03:28 AM

:banghead:

I have many questions regarding this "young earth" hypothesis. According to Newton's 1st law, an object in motion remains in motion, an object at rest, remains at rest, unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

If the universe was initially rotating, it should still be rotating today. There is no evidence that it is rotating.

Also, almost completely preserved Wooly Mammoths have been dug out of the frozen tundra of Siberia, and an almost perfectly preserved 5000 year old "ice man", a prehistoric human, has been discovered a few years ago in the "alps?"

Yet the only "dinosaur" remains are extremely mineralized fossils buried within sedimentary strata.

If dinosaurs and mammals existed together in the same time frame why haven't the mammals and dinosaurs been found in the same sediments together???

Why aren't there any mammal bones also buried within the T-Rex skeletons if the mammals were also part of these carnivorous dinosaur's diet???

An old universe explains that these different types of animals existed in different time periods.

I must agree with the old universe.

Chimp

lpetrich · 01-30-2003, 11:28 AM

Actually, some Mesozoic mammal fossils have been found, but they are of relatively small creatures -- usually about the size and shape of small rodents (mice, rats, squirrels, chipmunks). Bigger mammals only evolved after the dinosaurs were exterminated.

Wyz_sub10 · 01-30-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chimp
If the universe was initially rotating, it should still be rotating today. There is no evidence that it is rotating.
Chimp

It's difficult to speak of the universe 'rotating' because for something to rotate it needs a center or axis. There is no central point to the universe. Also, nothing exists beyond the universe so there is no exterior that "turns", per se.

theyeti · 01-30-2003, 12:33 PM

Just out of curiosity, why is this exact OP cross-posted to ARN by one Russell E. Rierson? I though Russell had his own handle here, or is this someone else who just cut and paste?

theyeti

lpetrich · 01-30-2003, 12:54 PM

As to evidence against Flood Geology and some good discussions of mainstream paleontology, check out the talk.origins site and the the UC Museum of Paleontology. I'll give a quick summary of the evidence.

Relative dates were found for rocks in the early 19th century; this was done by finding out which fossils are above which other fossils in vertical sequences -- the order is nearly always invariable, and exceptions are mainly due to gradual spreading of species and from older rock being thrust above younger rock. And from this order, a "geological column" can be assembled.

The sequence-order hypothesis can also be tested by considering the orientation of mud cracks, footprints, and the like; they are always oriented in the "right" direction. Mud cracks and footprints are dried-surface features that cause further difficulty for the Noah's-Flood hypothesis.

Additional evidence for drying is in "evaporite" deposits, which are left behind from evaporating seas.

And advancing to the 20th century, further counterevidence comes from finding the ages of rocks with radioisotope decay. These ages are all much larger than the ~4200 years that one would find from the chronologies in the Bible. And these ages are in exactly the "right" order!

lpetrich · 01-30-2003, 12:59 PM

Creationists do have some counterarguments, like ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting. But neither of them work out properly. The large majority of preserved fossils are from former continental shelves; broadly speaking, this represents the same ecological zone. Also, there are numerous fossils that are not hydrodynamically sorted, like fossils of clams and clam-like animals, which are found over most of the time since the Cambrian.

Chimp · 01-31-2003, 08:12 AM

What about whale evolution?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...out/Evol.shtml

Many "transitional?" forms have been found. What are all of these extinct forms?

50 - 54 million years ago, Starting with the

Mesonychid

Pakicetus

Ambulocetus

Rodhocetus

Dorudon atrox

Basilosaurus

Aetocetus

Modern Whales

Very interesting...

Cut and Paste Chimp

Chimp · 01-31-2003, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Actually, some Mesozoic mammal fossils have been found, but they are of relatively small creatures -- usually about the size and shape of small rodents (mice, rats, squirrels, chipmunks). Bigger mammals only evolved after the dinosaurs were exterminated.

Interesting.

According to the creation hypothesis, the dinosaurs and larger mammals lived in the same time period. Not very probable.

Thanks,

Chimp.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-31-2003, 08:58 AM

Even more interesting, the earliest 'mammals' (for want of a better term) actually predate the dinosaurs. Telling where a mammal-like reptile becomes a reptile-like mammal becomes a mammal is pretty awkward, as evolution predicts, but tru a search for 'cynodont therapsids'.

What is certain that sauropods weren't competing with baluchitherium for the same plants...

Cheers, DT

Mageth · 01-31-2003, 09:21 AM

I hope Chimp realizes he's pretty much "preachin' to the choir" here.

If the universe was initially rotating, it should still be rotating today. There is no evidence that it is rotating.

Where does this come from? Do some creationists claim the universe is rotating?

Added to Wyz's points above that there's no "center" of the universe and no external reference, if the universe were rotating, we'd have no way to tell, would we?

01-30-2003, 03:28 AM	#1
Chimp Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 376	Young Earth? Doesn't Add Up :banghead: I have many questions regarding this "young earth" hypothesis. According to Newton's 1st law, an object in motion remains in motion, an object at rest, remains at rest, unless acted on by an unbalanced force. If the universe was initially rotating, it should still be rotating today. There is no evidence that it is rotating. Also, almost completely preserved Wooly Mammoths have been dug out of the frozen tundra of Siberia, and an almost perfectly preserved 5000 year old "ice man", a prehistoric human, has been discovered a few years ago in the "alps?" Yet the only "dinosaur" remains are extremely mineralized fossils buried within sedimentary strata. If dinosaurs and mammals existed together in the same time frame why haven't the mammals and dinosaurs been found in the same sediments together??? Why aren't there any mammal bones also buried within the T-Rex skeletons if the mammals were also part of these carnivorous dinosaur's diet??? An old universe explains that these different types of animals existed in different time periods. I must agree with the old universe. Chimp

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2003, 11:28 AM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Actually, some Mesozoic mammal fossils have been found, but they are of relatively small creatures -- usually about the size and shape of small rodents (mice, rats, squirrels, chipmunks). Bigger mammals only evolved after the dinosaurs were exterminated.

01-30-2003, 12:33 PM	#4
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Just out of curiosity, why is this exact OP cross-posted to ARN by one Russell E. Rierson? I though Russell had his own handle here, or is this someone else who just cut and paste? theyeti

01-30-2003, 12:54 PM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	As to evidence against Flood Geology and some good discussions of mainstream paleontology, check out the talk.origins site and the the UC Museum of Paleontology. I'll give a quick summary of the evidence. Relative dates were found for rocks in the early 19th century; this was done by finding out which fossils are above which other fossils in vertical sequences -- the order is nearly always invariable, and exceptions are mainly due to gradual spreading of species and from older rock being thrust above younger rock. And from this order, a "geological column" can be assembled. The sequence-order hypothesis can also be tested by considering the orientation of mud cracks, footprints, and the like; they are always oriented in the "right" direction. Mud cracks and footprints are dried-surface features that cause further difficulty for the Noah's-Flood hypothesis. Additional evidence for drying is in "evaporite" deposits, which are left behind from evaporating seas. And advancing to the 20th century, further counterevidence comes from finding the ages of rocks with radioisotope decay. These ages are all much larger than the ~4200 years that one would find from the chronologies in the Bible. And these ages are in exactly the "right" order!

01-30-2003, 12:59 PM	#6
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Creationists do have some counterarguments, like ecological zonation and hydrodynamic sorting. But neither of them work out properly. The large majority of preserved fossils are from former continental shelves; broadly speaking, this represents the same ecological zone. Also, there are numerous fossils that are not hydrodynamically sorted, like fossils of clams and clam-like animals, which are found over most of the time since the Cambrian.

01-31-2003, 08:12 AM	#7
Chimp Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 376	What about whale evolution? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...out/Evol.shtml Many "transitional?" forms have been found. What are all of these extinct forms? 50 - 54 million years ago, Starting with the Mesonychid Pakicetus Ambulocetus Rodhocetus Dorudon atrox Basilosaurus Aetocetus Modern Whales Very interesting... Cut and Paste Chimp

01-31-2003, 08:58 AM	#9
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Even more interesting, the earliest 'mammals' (for want of a better term) actually predate the dinosaurs. Telling where a mammal-like reptile becomes a reptile-like mammal becomes a mammal is pretty awkward, as evolution predicts, but tru a search for 'cynodont therapsids'. What is certain that sauropods weren't competing with baluchitherium for the same plants... Cheers, DT

01-31-2003, 09:21 AM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I hope Chimp realizes he's pretty much "preachin' to the choir" here. If the universe was initially rotating, it should still be rotating today. There is no evidence that it is rotating. Where does this come from? Do some creationists claim the universe is rotating? Added to Wyz's points above that there's no "center" of the universe and no external reference, if the universe were rotating, we'd have no way to tell, would we?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.