enemigo

Ok.. I too have just finished reading this thread as well as the EoG thread that inspired this one. And I must say, it has been a mind-boggling experience. Words can't even begin to describe the lunacy that Ed has presented in these forums. And quite frankly I am surprised that anyone is still responding to him after his unrelenting use of circular reasoning, unsupported assertions, and denial of facts.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> &lt;- This little guy has probably been used more in this thread than any other ever, and yet I still don't think it has been used enough to adequately describe the frustration you guys must be feeling. My hat's off to you all.

richard

lpetrich

Then stop posing as if you do, O Ed.


Grow up and stop whining, O Ed. If you don't claim to know, then stop advocating as if you knew.

Then stop posing as a geologist, Ed. And I suggest that you read some of the stuff in this site's section on Biblical Errancy, as it might be called. You might actually learn something. I will present some examples if you are too lazy to try to find that section of our site, Ed.

Duvenoy

Ed, you make me tired, I swear you do. I declare, I truly admire, even envy, the thickness of your skin and skull.

Look, you don’t have to have a doctorate in geology to know a little geology. Or chemistry, or math, or any other field of science. The only requirement is curiosity and the will to research a bit. Dig it: Jack Horner has no doctorate yet he’s a highly respected paleontologist.

It takes only a little research in a perhaps unfamiliar field to post a detailed, intelligent reply to most if not all of the questions and comments here.

Ed, are you not inquisitive? Do you ask no questions but blindly accept what you are told?

Ok, back to the topic, if I can find it. Damn, what the hell was it? Oh, right; Evolution / Creation.

Well, we seem to be in the process of beating the Noachian Flood yarn to death, so I guess I’ll indulge in this exercise in futility and try to give it the coup de grace.

There is not a single part of the Geologic Column that even hints at any such catastrophic event as a global flood. As I have stated elsewhere, the resulting sediments would have been so obvious that not even a double-dipped, Southern Baptist deacon could miss it.

What would that sediment be like? (speculation) I think that it would be quite thick as the surface of the earth became mixed. Mixing would have been natural as these would not have been calm waters (which begs the question of how did Noah keep the ark from broaching? Did he throw out a drogue and hope for the best, what?). Weather patterns all over the world would have been upset and the ark would have had a very rough ride. Everybody aboard would have spent a lot of time puking.

The sediments would be fantastic! The diversity of remains, immense!

As the animals and people (same thing) that died did so in roiled water, there’s an excellent chance that many of their corpses would have been buried in the sediment.

Now then, I’ve read on some creationist sites that even the dinosaurs were aboard the ark. This is nonsense of course, but according to the official story, such diverse animals as the pangolin (an anteater), the kiwi (a worm eater) and rattlesnakes (rodent and rabbit eaters) were comfortably stowed aboard . Not to mention elephants, heffilumps, and jabberwoks. Man, we’re talking a LOT of animals, here!

Therefore, as the number of species is huge, the record in the flood sediments must show most if not all them, including Homo sapiens. The conditions for preservation and fossilization could not have been better.

There is also the thought (more speculation) that the world would be a far different place than it is today. Gene pools would have been diminished to the point of fatality for the species, including ours. Likely, we would not be here to ask the question, nor would the pangolin, the kiwi, the rattlesnake, the heffilump, nor the jabberwok.

So, I’ve briefly said my piece. I could go on a lot longer. Ed, if you feel that you must respond to me, PLEASE don’t do so with a one-liner. Give me at least a couple of paragraphs of carefully thought out argument. Failing that, a paragraph or two of original vituperation will do nicely.

All luck,

d

MrDarwin

And, since it bears repeating (since creationists just don't seem to believe it), there is no motive for geologists, paleontologists, or evolutionary biologists to disbelieve in a global flood. Evolution does not stand or fall on the nonexistence of a global flood. An ancient earth does not stand or fall on the nonexistence of a global flood. There are no ulterior motives here; no evolutionary a priori reasons to deny it. A global flood would not prevent evolution from happening. Evidence of a global flood would not prevent evolutionary theory from being true. Evidence of a global flood would not prevent us from believing the earth is very, very old. The only reason that geologists, paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and virtually all other scientists on earth don't believe in the global flood is simply that there is no evidence for one whatsoever.

(edited for sucky pre-coffee grammar)

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Duvenoy

Well said, Mr. D!

Ulterior motives, or rather the lack of them, among scientists is an aspect of the question that I hadn't thought of.

Sadly, the same is not true among all too many Creationists, who seem to think that no evidence for a global flood theatens the credibility, indeed the very existance of the bible stories. Which of course, it does. The verbal and literary contortions they produce are amazing.

Thanks for the thought.

d

Ed

[quote]Originally posted by lpetrich:
<strong>

Quote:

(Two dog skulls, one showing significant underbite, one showing more "normal" jaws) LP: In fact, much macroscopic-feature evolution is most likely a result of changes in growth rates of various parts. Ed: Yes, and it demonstrates how if these two dog skulls had been found as fossils in different strata one might have been considered ancestral to the other when in fact they are the same species. lp: However, evolution can take place inside of a species, as the history of domesticated animals and cultivated plants clearly demonstrates. Ed, like many creationists, might claim that this is not real evolution, however.

Exactly, that is what I believe happened with Neanterthal man, homo "erectus" and homo sapiens. I think they are all homo sapiens.

Quote:

Ed: Ever hear of Gondwanaland? The flood may have occurred shortly before Gondwanaland broke up so many species could have easily migrated to suitable habitats. Some species segregated according competition and subtle differences in ecosystems. ... LP: (on it breaking up 100 million years ago) Ed: If the population was small then there could have been early humans but not enough to leave any fossils. lp: Ed seems to believe that the human species could have existed essentially unchanged for 100 million years, complete with records of a big flood back then. Unfortunately, the genetic distances between variants of various human genes, and that distance from comparable genes in other species, such as chimpanzees, is much more consistent with a much more recent emergence of our species.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

[b] The first one, maybe but I have not been convinced biblically that it was local. The second one, probably never.

lpetrich

However, look at their skulls -- typical Homo erectus skulls look noticeably different from typical Homo sapiens ones. There is also behavioral evidence -- there is no evidence that any of Homo erectus had had any taste for doodling in caves -- European cave painting starts at about 30,000 years ago, about when present-day-human Cro-Magnons replaced the Neanderthals, which had had a similar lack of artistic creativity.

No, it's not circular. One can compare patterns of gene-sequence difference to patterns of evolution derived from the fossil record in order to work out estimated rates of gene evolution. Thus, one compare different individual human and chimpanzee mitochondrial genomes, and one can compare them across those two groups -- and one finds that the human-chimpanzee difference is over 25 times greater than the typical intra-human difference. This means that our ancestors had separated from chimpanzees about 25 times farther back in time than when our species had started to multiply and spread.

Ed

See above why I say maybe.

Quote:

OC: Anyway... Ed: maybe where their vegetation mat landed OC: So how did they keep dry enough for a year on a floating mat?

See above about how they may have been more hydrophilic in the past.

Quote:

Ed: or where they accidentally fell off the ark OC: Fell off while it was floating over South America? (If they fell off once the ark had landed, they’d be in Turkey...) You mean fell off into the water?

What I mean is one of its fruits may have fallen off the ark and dropped seed.

Quote:

Ed: or any number of possible explanations OC: Or any number of AD HOC pieces of nonsense you can dream up! What else fell overboard Ed? Maybe that’s why there’s no dinosaurs now -- they fell overboard! “Hey Dad!” shouts Shem, “where did the Argentinasaurus go?!” Maybe god just miracled organisms to their present locations!

There may have been some other things that fell off but not dinosaurs. Your little scenario is humorous though!

Quote:

Ed: Also, it appears from the biblical evidence that humans lived much longer in the past than today, ie hundreds of years. OC: Huh? Biblical... evidence... nope, does not compute. Ed, it does not ‘appear from the biblical evidence’; the bible, an old book, states as fact that some people lived up to 800 years. Do you believe this?

Yes.

Quote:

Ed: And actually since the evidence points to Homo erectus being 100% human OC: Ed, a simple question: if H erectus is 100% human, why do you think it is not called Homo sapiens?

Anthropologists think the differences are enough to qualify them as a different species but actually it is similar to the dog skulls you mentioned, the skulls are very different but they are the same species.

Quote:

Ed: then there are fossils of humans at least 1.8 millions years old. OC: Okay... Flood at the breakup of Gondwanaland, circa 100mya. Subtract 2my = 98my. Divide by 800 year lifespan. That’s 122,500 generations. Assuming breeding in very last years of these incredible lifespans. Uh, where in the bible does it give any indication of that many generations since Noah?

There is none.


[b] Actually even if they are different species they are still 100% human. A wolf and a coyote are different species but they are still 100% canine. But I wasnt referencing Klein to demonstrate that or the great age of ancient humans. Go back reread my post where I referenced him. And your excellent article about the Kow swamp fossils demonstrate quite well that present day Australian aborigines are direct descendants of H. "erectus". So unless you are willing to say that the aborigines are not human then erectus is most definitely just as human as they are.

lpetrich

Ed, you have an unappreciated talent -- a talent for inventing ad hoc hypotheses. I suggest that you consider a new career: law. You can use your talent to get even your crookedest clients off the hook. And being a lawyer pays well. So why not?

MAY have been -- with enough ad hoc hypotheses, one can prove anything. Ed seems desperate to rescue the supposed literal historicity of the Noah's Ark story, no matter how many maybes he has to invent in the process.

I wonder if Ed had really thought about his answer before he had made it.

In what way are they "100% human"? And how would that preclude evolution from a nonhuman species?

In what way are they "100% canine"? And how would that preclude evolution from a noncanine species?

However, the "Out of Africa" model suggests that the Kow Swamp fossils represents a now-extinct lineage; the Australian aborigines do not seem to have any unusually-early split from the rest of humanity.

Coragyps

Ed said: Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans are different species but they are still all 100% hominid. What's your point?