Search This Blog

Saturday, March 09, 2013

Creation versus Evolution - Darwinist commenters are the gift that keeps on giving!

This post will be an answer to some comments made recently and hopefully put an end to some misinformation people apparently learn in schools these days, to their detriment.  Darwinism is so incredibly stupid, but so many people believe it that most do not question it and have no idea that it is not based on evidence.   In fact, the evidence all around us shouts out for a Universe created and an Earth that experienced a global flood and organisms that are intricately designed with redundancies that put NASA to shame and pre-existing genetic materials to adjust to a wide variety of conditions.  Organisms are prepared in advance for multitudes of contingencies and so they speciate, not evolve, when conditions change.  Mutations are not creators, they are killers.   Mutations are building up in the human population and frankly we will need some breakthroughs in the study of DNA to learn how to fix what is broken before humanity dies out...although as a Christian I am sure God will put an end to this existence before that happens.

As I have shared before, some of my creationist friends have asked me why I allow all the anonymous commenters to have freedom to disagree with me, call me names, call me a liar or stupid or just make dumb remarks?   Well, I am a First Amendment kind of guy, for one thing, and as long as commenters do not use profanity they will be free to say what they will.  Besides, I figure the reader will read my post if they make it down to the comments and the contrast between my reasoned posts and the unreasonable comments should be easily detected.


"If Darwinists’ beliefs are so fragile that they worry exposure to alternative viewpoints is intolerable, then their beliefs are not worth believing."



I have many readers who agree with me and like my posts.  Usually those are the people who do not leave comments, other than the occasional "Atta boy" and that is always appreciated!   I am blessed to know a few creation scientists and a few creation bloggers and be acquainted with many more.  A very fine group of people who are a tremendous encouragement and most of them doing more and better work than what I do here at Radaractive.  But we all in some sense are working together towards the goal of spreading truth, swimming against the current, doing our part.

It used to be more interesting because there were some commenters who seriously seemed to undertake the job of converting me from my stated position.  The back and forth in the comment threads got interesting for awhile.  Dan S. was one of my favorites.  He would write long, rambling and often humorous comments and we would dialogue.  But he gave up on me.  He and I disagreed on various points, courtesy included, and it was actually pleasurable.  Just read this post and the comments thread as an example!


The Philosophy of Evolutionists versus Creationists



One small side note on one of my posts included an equation from a work by John Hartnett.  One of the commenters assailed me for posting garbage math and began a mass attack on my veracity because I had posted it.  I reached out to an engineer friend of mine, who checked the math and said it was perfectly fine.  But several Darwinist commenters railed on me for some time until I got additional backup and proved to my satisfaction that Hartnett was right and one commenter who goes by scohen was wrong.  Cohen then pretended he had not said what he said and, even when I reprinted his remarks he still denied them!   A couple of regular commenters left during that snafu.  But there are a few that remain.


NOW THE COMMENTERS SPEAK AND I ANSWER!




 Jon W said...
Well, at least you're consistent, Radar. You were just as wrong six years ago as you are today. I suppose that counts for something. 
Thanks, Jon.  Consistency is a hallmark of good character.  It would be more accurate to say I am just as right as I was actually seven years ago, but that would be somewhat untrue.   I have learned a lot these last seven years so actually I am MORE right than I was then.

The fossil record simply doesn't support flood geology, and anyone who has actually studied the rocks in detail knows that. Everywhere that geologists have looked, fossils are found in the same sequence, unless something has happened to reorder the rock layers. Cambrian is always below Ordovician, which is always below Silurian, which is always below Devonian. One never, ever finds a Silurian layer atop an Eocene layer, and both overlain by a Cretaceous layer. 
No, Jon, the standard geological column is basically fictional.   We actually DO find out-of-order (to a Darwinist) layers all the time.  We also regularly find missing ones.  You could do a "rock layers out of order" search on this blog to see how wrong you really are and this includes the Grand Canyon.   To save readers time, a few examples:

Toppling the Darwinist Geological Column. Part one. Is there a standard geological column?


Rocks on the ground and rocks in their heads - Uniformitarianism



An Overview of Creation Science Flood Models



Sorting by floodwaters always separates animals of different sizes and shapes, because they float and drift in different ways. But in the rocks, each geologic period has its own set of fossils, which always appear together despite being drastically different in size, shape, diet, and habitat. Dinosaurs are never found outside Mesozoic strata, while advanced mammals are never found outside of Cenozoic rocks. 
Darwinists cannot explain huge chalk layers found around the world but Creationists can!  FYI!

Darwinists lack knowledge and understanding. Don't be fooled! You can learn and think for yourself!


This is an unfortunate lie, the idea that fossils stick to their layers assigned by Darwinists.  While I cannot know if Jon believes it or not, I know it is not true.  First, every single body type has been found in Cambrian rocks.  Second and more important, the idea that all creatures are always found in the same layers is preposterous!   Lazarus Taxa are living proof that this is a canard!  A Darwinist either has to believe that these creatures (and we identify more of them every month probably) went extinct and then reformed very recently, or they must abandon their sequential organism myth entirely.  Did you know that Cambrian trilobites have been demonstrated to have some of the most advanced eyes ever?  How did the best eyes appear suddenly in Cambrian rock and then vanish?  Also, recently Darwinists found fossils of a predatory Cambrian arthropod and didn't realize they had discovered a variety of Mantis Shrimp, which are still around and also have amazing eyesight far superior to ours.  How did the Coelecanth avoid fossil layers for millions of years and then reappear?  How is it that various organisms like the octopus and the crocodile or the dragonfly manage to remain pretty much unchanged for supposedly millions of years and yet here they are now?   Why did we find dragonflies in supposedly "ancient" rocks and then the disappear only to be commonplace now?   
Since paleontologists are generally Darwinists, they are in charge of the majority of fossil finds in the world.  There are stories of fossils being dumped in the ocean because they were contrary to the ruling paradigm, the very real destruction of a footprint of dinosaur and human together being hammered to pieces in the Paluxy riverbed area of Texas.  More have been found since, so that was wasted effort.  Since Darwinists use circular reasoning to date fossils by layers and layers by fossils, they kept the folly going for quite awhile.  However, we now know about actual flesh found in supposedly millions of years old fossils and that cat is out of the bag, so now we hear of this more often.  Thanks to Mary S. and her T. Rex, others have stepped forward and revealed remains rather than mineralized fossils.

Out of place objects!

Is every single object found in coal from the time of original deposit?   In the early days of coal mining, miners were supposedly used to finding pots and kettles and such and simply took them home.  After all, if you believed in the Noahic Flood, what would be surprising about finding a manmade item in a seam of coal?   Recently Darwinism has become a common belief system, so sometimes an item found in coal or rock makes the news.  How about just recently, for instance?  The Russian press decided anything found in "300 million year old coal" must be from a space alien?!   No, NADA, NYET, this was just another sign that mankind was pretty well advanced before the Flood and a few finds in coal and rock show up from time to time.

The Russian view of a machinery part found in coal!

Out of place fossils!




Sorting by floodwaters generally brings animals of similar size and shape together, because they respond to the floodwaters the same way. But we never find sauropod dinosaurs mixed with elephants, or either one mixed with brontotheres. We never find rhamphorhychoid pterosaurs with neornithine birds. Dolphins are never found with ichthyosaurs, nor whales with pliosaurs, despite inhabiting similar niches in similar habitats. Trilobites are never found with modern flatfish.

Sorry, but actually such things do happen.   In fact we have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomachs, mammals with dinosaurs in theirs, and many sites with saltwater and freshwater animals along with land-dwelling creatures and plants all mixed in together.   This post, below, also is pertinent to another commenter's question further down.  But to say that different types of animals have NOT been found together is a lie.  It is common for animals to herd together in times of distress.  Before an earthquake people living out in the boondocks have reported seeing various groups of animals traveling out in the open unlike the norm.   But something like a forest fire can cause mixes of animals all fleeing and we do find mixes in the fossil  record, just not as often as the normal case of like animals staying generally together.

There are several factors involved in fossils being formed.  Sudden anoxic burial is needed by some means, usually flood driven sedimentary layers, sometimes a loess storm and also quite a few insects found themselves trapped in amber (something that supports the floating mats hypothesis).   Organisms likely to be swept away by the currents may not be buried anoxically and therefore not preserved.  Organisms living near mankind would have been less likely to be preserved because God specifically determined to wipe out the existing civilization so it is likely that domesticated animals would be less likely to live.   Otherwise, heavier bottom-dwelling sea life would be buried in place.  Fortunately the fickle nature of floods would leave areas of sea bottom relatively free of deposits so that the population of bottom-dwellers was not completely wiped out.  

Organisms like birds would find themselves blown out of the sky and killed.  This was a storm that did not end in a day.  Larger and smarter organisms would be headed for high ground and live for a while longer.  We do find dinosaur and man tracks together, albeit rarely, so men who survived the initial days of the Noahic Flood would have been, like the dinosaurs, doing whatever they could to live for as long as possible.

  

More of that irritating Evidence for Creation and against Evolution


And then there are the more specific details...

Paleosols (preserved soil layers) take time to form -- years at the least. The Flood supposedly happened in less than one year. So why do we find paleosols in the middle of the supposedly Flood-deposited rocks?


Some fossils are found weathered and scavenged, indicating they were exposed to the elements and to scavengers before they were buried. What scavengers had time or energy to scavenge in the middle of those roaring floodwaters?

More to the point, Jon, is how did fossils get preserved with parts of them pristine and parts gnawed on?   As to the Flood, it did begin with 40 days and nights of rain and many associated events, but the entire world was not covered completely right away and was completely covered for 150 days of the just over one year of the Flood period.   For a fossil to be preserved requires very unusual conditions and we rarely encounter fossils being formed today. Why?  Because they are carrion and there are all sorts of organisms designed to completely recycle dead bodies. Again, where are all the opossum fossils by the roadsides?

With tides happening twice daily during the earlier days of the Flood, hungry animals might find a portion of an animal sticking out of the mud and gnaw on it.  Then comes another wave of water and sediments and that scavenged fossil is now completely covered with the evidence of a partial burial before total burial saved in the rocks.

The Coconino Sandstone formation has many footprints of dinosaurs and amphibians that were puzzling to science until we discerned that they were made by animals being overcome by water.  


The Grand Canyon as evidence for the Flood? Yep!


Sadly, many of the pictures no longer load, so you have to go looking to find them now.  More on those footprints are found here:

Real Science should welcome Young Earth Creationists (Young Age Creationists)


Time for Ian Juby to join in:





We find fossiliferous rocks in between layers of igneous rocks, indicating that the area was covered by lava, then recolonized by plants and animals, then covered by lava again. All this in just the few months of the Flood?

Advanced flowering trees always appear in Cretaceous and higher rocks. How did they outrun the dinosaurs of the Jurassic to higher ground?

We find nesting colonies of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and birds preserved in the fossil record. How did these animals make multiple layers of nests in the few short months of the Flood?

As always, no answer was the sad reply...

Sigh.  All of these questions are found answered on my blog.  Since volcanic activity was apparently a large part of the Noahic Flood, evidence of volcanic activity interspersed with sedimentary layers is expected and the thrusts of igneous rock through recently laid sediment would also be expected.   

Trees are found in the highest layers most often because...wait for it...trees FLOAT in water!   The huge numbers of petrified forestation and polystrates are generally found without branches or roots.   Sometimes they are upside down or sideways and often found going through many layers of sediment.  Spirit Lake in Washington is associated with the Mt St Helens volcanic explosion.   We are able to see in real time as trees, stripped of most if not all branches and roots float in mineral-rich water, then tilt and sink down (usually vertically) and hit bottom.  If waves of sediment were being laid on a regular basis, such trees would be buried in layers once they were no longer buoyant.

We know that flowering plants and trees had to exist at the same time the "earliest" insects that are interdependent or symbiotic with them.   But trees and plants were often picked up and carried away and exposed to conditions that could begin to degrade them.  Bottom-dwelling sea life mostly got buried with no notice at all and most perished.  But flood flows are very interesting, with the possiblity of both fresh and salt water streams within the overall flooded ocean.  Modern rivers such as the Amazon and Mississippi send streams of freshwater hundreds of miles into the oceans.  

Egg-laying animals will tend to do two things in times of great stress - lay any eggs they have at the moment in haste (which is why we often find groups of eggs with no embryos because they were laid before they were ready) or hold the eggs in hopes of a better chance later on.  When this happens these eggs will develop a second shell, a shell that could be too thick for the hatchling to break out and live.  Both of these kinds of eggs are found in the fossil records.  In a world where the waters keep rising, the air is filled with ash from volcanoes and rain and dinosaurs are continually running back and forth seeking ground, eggs laid in haste are no surprise.  Nor is it a surprise that dinosaurs might leave and return to a safer area to lay the eggs they have before being overwhelmed by the Flood.
10:02 AM
 Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
If a global flood had taken place, we would expect one layer, fairly toward the bottom, that would be heavily dominated by fossilized trees etc. As Jon pointed out, the trees don't outrun the animals. Animals may try to escape in different ways, but plants are rooted to the ground. Even if some of them are uprooted, the vast, vast majority would be caught in place where they are.

You drastically underestimate the violence of the Flood.  If a piddly little tsunami like the ones that hit in Indonesia and Japan could uproot trees, houses, cars and so on, how could a worldwide flood fail to uproot trees?  The vast majority of trees would remain in place? With rapid tectonic plate subduction, flood tides twice daily, volcanoes erupting and earthquakes associated with them, it is actually amazing so many animals made it to higher ground and found a few weeks of harried existence. We would not expect any trees to remain rooted in place at all anywhere.

And here we would expect - if there were any truth at all to the global flood scenario - to see all kinds of plants in one place. The plants that paleontologists assign to different ages (because that's where we happen to find them in the fossil record, a logical conclusion) would all be found in the same layer.

This is something we categorically NEVER see. Do YECs have any plausible explanation for this?

Of course not.

Of course we do.  Plants would, like the trees, be likely to be uprooted and wind up floating or rotting.   It is believed that giant mats of trees and plants would be formed and very possibly some vertebrates found refuge there for awhile.  But like a sailor alone at sea, no food or fresh water eventually would be their demise if they were able to withstand the waves, which is problematic.

Funny how we so often find land and sea creatures buried in the same area of fossil rocks.  Were trees fishing for clams?   Did dragonflies go fishing for shrimp and bring them back to the land?   In fact, why do we find so many clams and other bivalves and trilobites buried in the living position?  You do know that bivalves will open when they die?  Yet I have walked over layers of shellfish that were too numerous to count, all with almost no exception closed, which means they were buried alive and covered up before they could even open!

In fact, studying carefully the rock layers of Southern Indiana, I found layers of shellfish buried alive that extended for miles, exposed by creeks here and there, otherwise buried under other layers and the surface soils.  But by careful orienteering one could determine that the same fossil rock layers found in one area were exposed again miles away with the same fossils.

The limestone common to Indiana and Illiinois is in a layer that is at times remarkably thick and would be in total milllions of tons of rock.   Workers in gravel pits see fossils all the time.   I know an area of Illinois where so-called "ancient" rock layers are right below the surface soils.  There are places you cannot go down more than three or four feet and hit that limestone with the  typical Cambrian fossils in them.   I have found so many crinoids I could have built a house with the rocks, replacing bricks, had I the time and skill set.  Trilobites are found withn a few feet of the topsoil.  Where did the untold millions of years go, where did all those ages go?  Did that part of Illinois exist 350 million years ago and then go away only to come back, kind of like the Greenleaf Damselfly?  To give Gregg a platform:


Creation: Lazarus Taxa Come Forth!


Another thing for you to ponder?  After the Flood we have mudrock everywhere, shifting formations leading to mudslides and burial post-Flood.   The conditions right after the Flood would be just right for massive snowstorms near the poles, piling up layers of snow that became glaciation and eventually an ice cap that extended hundreds of miles from the poles and thus came the Ice Age.   With vast amounts of warm water pouring off of the emerging continents into the new oceans, there would be a lot of clouds forming and precipitation as snow would inundate the landforms near the poles.   North American and Europe-Asia were evidently rapidly populated with animals and people soon after the end of the Flood and the snows continued and the winters got longer and colder.   The animals speciated to include only the long-furred forms at those locations, some of them going extinct from the changing conditions and predation.  

Remember what Americans did to the herds of bison that were so massive that early settlers noted that they filled the plains as far as the eye could see?   We wiped them almost completely out!   Well, it would not be just the weather that wiped out the bigger specimens of vegetarian beasts and the more dangerous predators like the remaining dinosaurs, it was man who killed them off.   We found it easy to kill off bison and necessary to kill off cougars.   Had mankind not decided to preserve bison and mountain lions they would both be extinct by now for differing reasons.  There was no one concerned with the preservation of dinosaurs in the first millennium after the Flood.  Sabre-tooth tigers were a danger and so were allosaurs or whatever Grindel happened to be.  Remember, we have countless records and drawings and carvings of extinct animals, including all sorts of dinosaurs.   Reports from the Congo, Suriname and Papua New Guinea are that there may be a few holdouts still?

Your ancestors lived with dinosaurs.  A few posts to pique your interest and perhaps begin a journey of discovery?

Beowulf, Grendel and a preponderance of dinosaurs
Behemoths and Leviathans and Dragons, oh my!



I wanna know if Acambaro the dinosaur tonight, Dad?




The Miao or Miatso or Miautso People of China...Genealogy that certifies the Biblical account


36 comments:

Jon W said...

"This post will be an answer to some comments made recently "

Then where are your actual answers, Radar? All I see is evasions and non sequiturs. Case in point:

Me: "But in the rocks, each geologic period has its own set of fossils, which always appear together despite being drastically different in size, shape, diet, and habitat. Dinosaurs are never found outside Mesozoic strata, while advanced mammals are never found outside of Cenozoic rocks."

You: "Darwinists cannot explain huge chalk layers found around the world but Creationists can!"

Besides being false (conventional geology can explain chalk strata), this is a classic evasion in that I said nothing about chalk layers.

Then you said: "First, every single body type has been found in Cambrian rocks."

Another evasion. Most living animal phyla have representatives in Cambrian strata. But that doesn't mean "every single body type has been found in Cambrian strata." The handful of known Cambrian chordates are extremely primitive. There is no evidence of any advanced vertebrate in Cambrian rocks. No fish, and certainly no tetrapods.

Jon W said...

Moving on...

Me: "But we never find sauropod dinosaurs mixed with elephants, or either one mixed with brontotheres. We never find rhamphorhychoid pterosaurs with neornithine birds. Dolphins are never found with ichthyosaurs, nor whales with pliosaurs, despite inhabiting similar niches in similar habitats."

You: "Sorry, but actually such things do happen. In fact we have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomachs, mammals with dinosaurs in theirs, and many sites with saltwater and freshwater animals along with land-dwelling creatures and plants all mixed in together."

Non sequitur. Your provided evidence doesn't actually contradict my examples. Birds and dinosaurs did live together under conventional geology, so a dinosaur with bird bits in its stomach isn't a strike against conventional geology. Likewise for mammals with dinosaur bits in their bellies. Nor is there any problem with conventional geology explaining deposits that contain land, freshwater, and saltwater organisms all mixed up together. The specific claim I am making -- and which you won't disprove because you can't -- is that organisms from widely differing geologic periods, such as dolphins and ichthyosaurs, are never found together despite having similar sizes and body shapes.

And so on and so forth. Not that it matters to you, I'm sure. You've already decided what you want the answers to be, and so no other answers will you listen to. Too bad. A mind really is a terrible thing to waste.

radar said...

Jon, are you the only man in the world interested in science who does not know that:

We have found mammals with dinosaurs in their stomach.

We have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomach.

We have found human footprints with dinosaur footprints and gone to great lengths to prove it.

Yes, even organisms with backbones have been found in Cambrian rocks and we cannot be sure of what you say. Since Darwinists are doing much of the digs and a number of Darwinists like Haeckel and Gingerich are known to perpetuate frauds, there is every likelihood that any fossils that do not "belong" to Cambrian rocks are associated with another layer or discarded.

Darwinists cannot explain the massive and remarkably pure formations of chalk. Only the Flood could have produced that many so quickly and that is also found in my previous posts.

I can say anything and you will stretch Darwinism to try to fit it. Birds evolved from dinosaurs but now it is okay for them to live together? Mammals came late as dinosaurs dies off but now mammals can munch on dinosaurs and you do not blink?

How about the dinosaurs and amphibians with flesh remains, Jon? How about the bacteria found in "86 million year old clay" still alive, or living clams and frogs found in Devonian formations? How about the preservation of the flesh of mastedons and similar creatures in Siberia? Men actually have eaten mastedon steaks, unthinkable for something 10 or 20 million years old.

Find a mirror, Jon. Say "Not that it matters to you, I'm sure. You've already decided what you want the answers to be, and so no other answers will you listen to. Too bad. A mind really is a terrible thing to waste." You keep repeating lies. I can bring you to water but you have to drink it. The fact is that we find more and more organisms in a wider range of sediments. Most of the sedimentary rock of the world is buried and most fossils hidden. However, the more we find out the more Darwinism has to scramble to explain it.

How does a perfectly formed pot fall out of a chunk of "450 million year old coal?" Either the date is wrong or mankind has been around from the beginning...or both.

I KNOW you have not had time to read this article, you began making comments right after it was posted. You do not even know what you are arguing against! You were firing off arguments without having done anything other than do a quick skim of the post. You didn't have time to watch the videos or read the links, let alone all the text. Did you use Cliffs Notes in college? Did you pay a smarter kid to take your exams?

Have the, I don't know, dignity and respect to at least READ a post before you begin tearing it apart. It makes you look ignorant, Jon.

radar said...

Sigh. Now it is Saturday night here and time to leave the blog and relax.

Readers, comments are great but really, if you do not read the post you will by definition not be able to comment on it intelligently.

radar said...

Oh, I will do one. Chalk formations:

http://creation.com/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds

Good night!

Jon W said...

"We have found mammals with dinosaurs in their stomach.

We have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomach."

These two I knew before you did. Your problem is that they don't contradict conventional geology. Under conventional theory, birds and dinosaurs lived together. Under conventional theory dinosaurs and early mammals lived together. So there's nothing in either of your two statements that contradicts conventional theory.

"We have found human footprints with dinosaur footprints and gone to great lengths to prove it."

On the other hand, this would contradict conventional theory if it was true. It isn't. No one has ever found dinosaur footprints and human footprints in situ in the same rock layer. Creationist claims to the contrary are either mistakes or lies.

Anonymous said...

"Readers, comments are great but really, if you do not read the post you will by definition not be able to comment on it intelligently."

Funny. This is from the same guy who wrote this:

"Jon, are you the only man in the world interested in science who does not know that:

We have found mammals with dinosaurs in their stomach.

We have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomach."

Right BELOW a comment where Jon W clearly showed exactly the exact opposite, that he was well aware of these things and gave reasons for why they were not relevant arguments.

radar said...

Jon doesn't make arguments, he makes statements that we are expected to believe because he says so.

I was the first to bring up birds inside dinosaurs and mammals with dinosaurs in their stomachs and Jon knows it.

Furthermore, it is no longer a question whether Jon is ill-informed or lying because it really doesn't matter. I present evidence to make a point, he simply says no.

(Me)For instance:We have found human footprints with dinosaur footprints and gone to great lengths to prove it."

(Jon)On the other hand, this would contradict conventional theory if it was true. It isn't. No one has ever found dinosaur footprints and human footprints in situ in the same rock layer. Creationist claims to the contrary are either mistakes or lies.

Now that statement above is a blatant lie. I have presented the evidence for the Delk track, which was meticulously catalogued, authenticated and studied using x-ray/MRI/taking actual slice scans of the rock with a dinosaur and human footprint that are together. The compression and toe marks and displacement of the then-mud show us absolutely that both a dinosaur and a man were it the same place within probably a few minutes of each other.

radar said...

Furthermore, conventional Darwinist teaching does not fit the rock evidence and cannot explain all the problems I have pointed out repeatedly. If you are a student, I strongly urge you to read up on things at sites like Creation.com or Answers In Genesis from my links list and also give the Discovery Institute a look (not Christians per se, simply design advocates). Give yourself a chance to think critically rather than just being another cow in the herd.

radar said...

Oh, and this is a funny one - that each rock formation has its own set of fossils. No, rather Darwinist paleontologists find an "index fossil" and then date the immediate layer thereby. The occasional "wrong" fossil has be customarily ignored. Fortunately in Europe and Asian and South America a growing number of paleontologists are playing it straight and making great discoveries. That whole spiel about where animals are found in the fossil record also loses its punch because of Lazarus Taxa.

Jon W said...

Glen Kuban dismantled the Delk print here: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm.

"I was the first to bring up birds inside dinosaurs and mammals with dinosaurs in their stomachs and Jon knows it."

Believe it or not, Radar, there are other sources of information besides your blog. I recall reading about the discovery of nestling dinosaur remains inside a mammal fossil when it was first reported in the scientific press, seven years ago.

"Oh, and this is a funny one - that each rock formation has its own set of fossils. No, rather Darwinist paleontologists find an "index fossil" and then date the immediate layer thereby."

Drivel, which proves that you have no idea how actual geology works. Palaeontologists don't depend on just one index fossil. They use whole sets of fossils. And they are very careful to use fossils that have a narrow time horizon as index fossils.

"The occasional "wrong" fossil has be customarily ignored."

Examples? Evidence, cites, details?

radar said...

Jon, you comment on posts you have not read, so you do not know what you are talking about. This particular post is a prime example. It was impossible for you to have read even one-third of the post and videos before you commented even if you began reading the very second I posted.

So I am done providing anything for you. I put the information in my articles and you have no right to ask me to reproduce what I have already posted. Go fetch or remain exposed as someone who has not bothered to read what I wrote. It is your right to NOT read what I wrote. It is my right to identify you as a careless commenter who makes unsubstantiated claims and questions what I have posted without reading it.

BTW Glen Kuban is part of an organization that I tried to give some credit to, exchanged emails with and finally realized that they were perfectly happy with posting false information as long as most people would buy it. There is no way to discredit the Delk track and Kuban has all the credibility of Ernst Haeckel. There is reason to believe he may have been involved in smashing some dinosaur/man track evidence to smithereens and he was afraid to take a lie detector test to absolve himself of blame even with the bait of thousands of dollars. He ranks up there with Phil Gingerich as people with no credibility left and this is by their actions and words. Talkorigins continues to post completely falsified information.

Anonymous said...

Radar, did you have anything substantive to say in response to Jon's comments and questions?

Jon W said...

Radar, a quick skim was all I needed to know that your attempts to counter my statements amounted to a lot of hot air and little to no substance. Since the point of the post was ostensibly to "answer your critics," and you didn't do that, why should I bother reading the rest of it? I do have other things to do with my time, you know.

On the Delk track: setting aside your borderline-libelous attacks on Glen Kuban, the fact is that the evidence supports him, not you. There are photographs of the Delk track on his own page, and also here: http://real-world-news.org/SCIENCE/foot-prints.html. Note that this second page accepts the track as valid, so any attempt to claim they're also biased will fall flat on its face.

Now, look at the "human footprint" in those pictures. Just look at it. No fancy machinery, no X-rays, no complicated procedures, no science-jargon. Just look at it with ye olde Mark 1 eyeball. It doesn't look like a human footprint. Any kid who's ever walked barefoot in mud or wet sand (and I hope I never meet one who hasn't!) knows what a human footprint looks like. Big toe here, smaller toes there, ball like so, arch like this, heel like that. The Delk print just isn't anatomically right for a human foot. It's a fake.

radar said...

1)Jon W does not read the posts he comments on and does not therefore know what he is talking about. Therefore further dialogue with him is futile until he is actually aware of what he is discussing. I do not need to take the time to present the evidence and then hand-feed it over again to an adult. Jon Woolf could actually do it himself and that is what he can do, for I'll not do it for him.

2)The Delk Track? You really want to go there? Because it is embarrassing to the Darwinist community. The track has been investigated by means that are more accurate than a simple look with the human eye. Can you determine whether a rib bone is broken or cracked by simply looking at a guy's chest? Can you see fingerprints on a piece of dark metal with the unaided eye? The Delk Track was analyzed using modern equipment that proves that it is authentic.

3)As to Glen Kuban, I will gladly publish information about the smashed track, the eyewitness accounts concerning Kuban and one Scott Foust showing up at the Paluxy River site with "an iron bar" immediately after Don Patton Patton presented the visual and other information about tracks with human footprints inside of dinosaur prints. Kuban has admitted flying to the Paluxy area himself and yet has refused to take a lie detector test. Patton even offered him expenses and I also believe a payment of $1,000.00 if he would come take AND PASS a lie detector test. Kuban has not done it. You be the judge. Me, I would be glad to be paid to fly to Texas to take a polygraph and be paid $1,000 to pass it!

Don Patton did take a polygraph and has it authenticated and published on the website, in addition to testimony about the behavior of Kuban at the conference and in addition to the evidence that Kuban and a companion did indeed walk out to the Taylor Tracks. Someone pounded one particular track to smithereens. The evidence points to Kuban and his companion. They have had time to vindicate themselves and have not done it.

All of this is in the public record and I am going to present the linked evidence to the readers and allow them to decide for themselves.

Libel requires very specific things-

Merriam-Webster's definition applicable here?

"...a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression"

I have and will be simply be repeating what is already in the public record about a public figure. As Glen Kuban has failed to defend himself or disprove the statements made then repeating them does not fit the definition of libel. Sorry to bring you down, but that is the law.

"To meet the Supreme Court's definition of libel involving a public figure, a quotation must not only be made up or materially altered. It must also defame the person quoted, and damage his or her reputation or livelihood" … —Jane Gross, New York Times, 5 June 1993

Glen Kuban is a public figure. I will simply reprint information already public concerning him. Said information has been available on the internet for many years. Mr. Kuban has not filed suit against Mr. Patton nor has he taken a lie detector test to vindicate himself, as Patton has done. To simply repeat what has been presented is not libelous and in fact I would only do so to prove the point. So I will very likely present ALL of that evidence. First I will defend the Delk Track.

Jon W said...

"As Glen Kuban has failed to defend himself or disprove the statements made..."

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/rebutt.htm
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/brian.htm

You're lying again, Radar.

radar said...

I cannot lie "again" if I have not lied in the first place. You asked for proof, you will get it.

Anonymous said...

This is just a fantastic exchange:

Jon: Birds and dinosaurs did live together under conventional geology, so a dinosaur with bird bits in its stomach isn't a strike against conventional geology. Likewise for mammals with dinosaur bits in their bellies.

(one post later)

Radar: Jon, are you the only man in the world interested in science who does not know that: We have found mammals with dinosaurs in their stomach. We have found dinosaurs with birds in their stomach.

(radar gets called out)

Radar: I was the first to bring up birds inside dinosaurs and mammals with dinosaurs in their stomachs and Jon knows it.

This is the stuff that keeps dragging me back. Gold. Pure gold.

lava

radar said...

Yes, Lava, but I had POSTED about the stomachs in question (odd sentence, that) and Jon wrote a reply in between the time I wrote my reply so it appears he wrote about it before I did. But actually it was in a blog post he probably didn't read, which I have seen that he will do. Jon doesn't read the blogposts and then asks me for information already in blogposts. When I did the math and saw what he was doing I called him out.

Don't know what else you do with your time, Lava, but it would be interesting to study lava and the dates assigned to it by secular science, the lava flows associated with sedimentary rock and specifically the lava associated with the Grand Canyon.

Anonymous said...

"You didn't have time to watch the videos"

I just took the time to watch that video, and lordy what a waste of time that was. It's two guys in suits who apparently know nothing about science, and one of them reads an article from Creation magazine while the other guy just keeps agreeing with him.

They purport to show fossils out of place, but they can't come up with a single example that actually falsifies the theory of evolution. All they are is examples of fossil finds that lead to small adjustments, but they never cast doubt on the big picture.

In order to falsify the theory of evolution, you'd need to find something like an elephant in the dinosaur age, or a modern animal, say, a dog, in the pre-Cambrian.

Or better yet - and this is something you absolutely SHOULD find if there were a single bit of truth to the global flood scenario: modern trees close to the bottom of the geological column - wherever creationists would claim the flood took place. You shouldn't just find one or two trees there, but almost all of the trees. There should be entire forests there.

And yet, strangely enough, there's no sign of that.

radar said...

So you didn't read much of this either, did you?

A global flood would be expected to rip up every tree and there would not be one tree in the world that was standing in place at all. All trees would be ripped from their roots and most if not all branches and be transported by flows to be buried in sedimentary layers or float to the top of the water and provide an element of the floating mats that helped preserve plant life and inadvertently trapped lots of insects in amber.

There should be no ancient forests at all and there aren't. We find trees, but they do not have their full root set and are sometimes upside down! Polystrate trees abound, in fact polystrate fossils and polystrate reeds are found.

A dinky little tsunami does remarkable damage. Imagine a worldwide flood that completely covers the land while volcanic activity and earthquakes accompany tectonic plate subduction and water trapped under the plates is released to spray into the air along with a host of minerals. The Flood event ripped the original (probably) single continent basically in half and we now have deeper seas and taller mountains. All rock formations are explicable by the Flood. Darwinist scientism cannot explain planation or interbedding or crossbedding or megabreccias or folded and pliable sedimentary layers or Coriolis effect seen in the Southeast USA or the lack of a consistent global sequential layering or canyons which if formed by rivers would have had water flowing uphill for centuries or trackways of animals being overcome by water or the smooth and sharp distinction between fossil rocks or so many other things...

Anonymous said...

"A global flood would be expected to rip up every tree"

"All trees would be ripped from their roots"

Why?

Jon W said...

"A global flood would be expected to rip up every tree and there would not be one tree in the world that was standing in place at all. "

And of course, it's doing this at the same time as it's covering existing sediment layers so slowly and gently that it can preserve footprints with every detail intact.

[snicker]

"There should be no ancient forests at all and there aren't."

Except where there are, such as Joggins, Gilboa, Newberry, Danville, the Chatham Islands ...

radar said...

"Except where there are, such as Joggins, Gilboa, Newberry, Danville, the Chatham Islands ... "

Joggins has trunks that are sideways and upside down and the roots, if present, are missing rootlets. Also the trees are actually reeds and do not have a discernible "floor" but are found all throughout the rock formation willy-nilly. I highly doubt there is any real fossil forest with the possible exception of one being covered in a post-flood mudslide in situ.

Again, the global flood would make any tsunami seem like a tiny ripple. No forest could stand up to such an event without some extraordinary and exceptional scenario. The first one you threw out is utterly wrong, so I doubt any of the others are any better.

Anonymous said...

"All rock formations are explicable by the Flood."

Jon W has listed rock formations that are not explicable by a global flood a number of times.

radar said...

Not.

Anonymous said...

How can fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces be explained in a global flood scenario?

Jon W said...

"Also the trees [at Joggins] are actually reeds and do not have a discernible "floor" but are found all throughout the rock formation willy-nilly."

Actually most of the Joggins trees are lycopods, which are closer to club-mosses and quillworts than to reeds. A fine examination of the Joggins exposures can be read here: http://www.bofep.org/Publications/pdf%20files/FI31_fossils.pdf. Particularly noteworthy is the passage on page 9 that says Lyell and Dawson documented 68 separate layers of root-bearing strata -- aka paleosols, fossil soil surfaces. So during the timespan represented by the Joggins strata, soil surfaces were formed, complete with tree stumps and root systems from plants, and then buried 68 times. Needless to say, this could not be done in a single year, or while the area was under many feet of water.

"No forest could stand up to such an event without some extraordinary and exceptional scenario."

True. And yet, there are fossil forests in the rock record.

Therefore, the Flood did not happen. Q.E.D.

Best be getting some medical attention for that foot, Radar.

radar said...

How can fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces be explained in a global flood scenario?

As it happens, Tas Walker has an article coming out in April covering this topic. During Noah's Flood as the waters were rising due to the enormous catastrophic events, large flows of lava were produced during tectonic plate subduction and thrust through and between sedimentary layers. The manner of flows we find are enormous and yet actually defy explanation without the flood.

radar said...

Jon, what you do NOT know about Joggins is truly astounding. You are so wrong it is virtually a parody. Joggins is a fine example of why the Noahic Flood happened and no one who has studied the place equipped with some semblance of a brain can fail to see that these fossils were formed in catastrophic conditions! Like I said, upside down, sideways, all sorts of variable layers...wow.

Jon W said...

It's easy enough to test, you know. John Dawson's detailed masterwork Acadian Geology is available for reading online from several sources including Google Books. Descriptions and diagrams of the Joggins exposures take up a substantial chunk of the book. Take a close look, for example, at Figure 40 on p.198. You can count four distinct layers that must have once been soils: the layer labeled 2, with Calamites still standing, preserved in place; layer 4, with the root system of a lycopod whose trunk rises through the sandstone above; layer 6, with several chopped-off tree stumps; and layer 8, way down in the corner, an underclay with rootlets in it.

Four separate soil layers. Each one could only have formed while the area was exposed to the air. Each one must have taken time -- years or decades -- to form. Bye-bye global flood.

Oh, and Sir John William Dawson, author of Acadian Geology, was a creationist who rejected all versions of evolution.

Anonymous said...

Joggins formation is constantly changing. The number of specimens found sideways, tilted, upside down and with different locations amongst the layering has completely refuted the concept of one, let alone four standing floors of plants or soil horizons.

Acadian Geology was written in 1868!!! We know much more about the area now. You might as well try to learn from George Selden about auto mechanics!!

The remarkable sock puppet

Jon W said...

"Acadian Geology was written in 1868!!! We know much more about the area now."

The Bible was written around 500 BCE. We know much more about science now.

radar said...

Jon, really? You have no idea about when the Bible was written. Let me tell you, the evidence points to the Semitic people (Jews) had a written language before the Flood and that Moses simply collated the history of mankind that was extant and added to it as directed by God. Some of the Bible was certainly written around 1400 BC by Moses and then carefully preserved by the Jewish people and added to as inspired by God by various writers such as David, Solomon, Isaiah and Daniel. This was the Old Testament.

The New Testament was written between likely 33 to 65 AD and kept by the Christians carefully, the bulk of whom were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Messiah. We can date it by two factors. First, all books were written after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, the deaths of Paul and Peter and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which was done by 70 AD.

Unlike Darwin or you, God was there at the beginning and made sure we had a document that gave us a history of mankind and both wisdom and morality. The authors of the books were led by God to write and the Bible has history as well as wisdom and prophecy (most fulfilled) and songs of the Psalms. The ontological argument and the teleological argument are powerful reasons to believe in God. The recorded history of the Children of Israel, Jesus Christ and his followers has been vindicated again and again by dig sites and finds of old scripture in caves and pottery, not to mention the historians of the time of Christ Himself.

The Bible gives man a reason for living and sometimes dying for the sake of God. All over the world Christians are being thrown into jail and/or murdered for the crime of being Christians.

As to your Joggins source, those cliffs are continually being eroded and new layers and fossils being exposed. Calling the book written by Dawkins as an expert witness is remarkably bad for the defense here. Ian Juby lives in the area part of the year and has published quite a bit on the cliffs and the fossils and the nature of the formation. Joggins will be discernibly different decade by decade due to erosion. Your source could hardly be worse as a bulwark to your very wrong statements about the formation.

radar said...

Oh, and frankly I will contend God knows considerably more about science than you or I since He made it possible to study a logical world. Mankind has made it to the Quantum level, where we have likely come to the border of our ability to comprehend the foundation of existence.

Quantum Mechanics is fascinating, for how could particles know whether or not they are observed and how do they appear one place and arrive at another with no detected time interval? The Laws of Thermodynamics are not broken, but General Relativity is stumped at the Quantum level.

The Bible has truth about the Universe that mankind did not comprehend until recently. The fixity of kind (baramins) for one, the stretching of space for another, the idea that light can and does continue on without end if not blocked, captured or deflected. Tell me, Jon, is light a wave or a particle?

Jon W said...

" Joggins will be discernibly different decade by decade due to erosion. "

So because new exposures are visible -- new exposures that show the same features as the ones Dawson diagrammed -- Dawson's work is somehow invalidated?

Radar, that's one of the wimpiest handwave-attempts you've ever attempted.

"You have no idea about when the Bible was written. "

I have a better idea than you do.

"Quantum Mechanics is fascinating, for how could particles know whether or not they are observed"

They don't.

"and how do they appear one place and arrive at another with no detected time interval?"

They don't do this either.

"The Laws of Thermodynamics are not broken, but General Relativity is stumped at the Quantum level."

General relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. They are separate theories in different fields of physics.

"The Bible has truth about the Universe that mankind did not comprehend until recently."

Only if you twist its words to mean something other than what its human writers intended.

"Tell me, Jon, is light a wave or a particle?"

Yes. And no.