Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Stratnerd]

These publications aren't evidence, are they?

and you get your data from?????

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or have you seen papers with the estimates of 6000 years? I thought we were looking at the same evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are.

then what evidence are you talking about??

Obviously, but how much sooner?

IT DOESN"T MATTER - IT DOESN"T CHANGE THE PATTERN THAT REQUIRES EXPLAINING.

Loss of genetic information.

What?? So please tell us (1) the time scales involved from the Precambrian to the present and (2) how genetic loss explains the fossil record.

You tell me.

you're the one invoking the conspiracy, not me.

Just go to a lab next time they date something. If they let you in to watch, you'll see it for yourself.

this is something you've done?

I have no idea what a "confiderence interval" is,

your mean plus/minus two standard errors. or, like it sounds, the range that contains 95% or your data.

but if you want to see some wild dates, then get out there and look.

at what? I want to see this data that is showing these dates, what are the research labs that are doing this?

You tell me -- you fancy yourself to be a scientist.

will do

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
Not how it works... if populations are consistently small then genetic diversity will not increase because everytime a new allele arises it is fixed or lost.

Huh? If it's fixed won't it start getting passed on down the line (assuming it somehow makes them more competitive)?

if creation were true then population genetic models would consistently suggest so.

It depends what your models are based on.

no such land bridge can be postulated for Australia and probably many others.

Sure it can, if you remove enough seawater.

But you'd also expect (if your theories were driven by literature and not science) that the most volant organisms would be the organisms on Australia yet Koalas and most of those other marsupials aren't exactly birds are they?

I never said they were. Why don't you tell us how you think they got there?

Plus most organisms go extinct when populations go very small. It would be much easier if you just said the Bible is right and it doesn't matter what the evidence says.

I'm sure it would for you -- because then you'd have reason to ridicule me.

so we do have a good representation of modern forms at all layers?

What do you mean by a good representation? You've got jellyfish in cambrian rocks, and we've still got them today. I'd say that's a pretty good representation.

do you have any idea how scientists propose fossils form? i guess not

So now you're answering my questions for me? Yes -- I know how fossils form.

yes these were supposed to be a whole "country" and

Well, obviously he wasn't talking about anything real, but then again I'm not here to defend Aristotle, now am I?

you've seen a two-headed person?

It wasn't two normal heads -- one was seriously underdeveloped, but yes -- I have. You can see all kinds of weird stuff if you type "freakshow" into google's search engine.

look at my avatar? it's the welsh flag - a bit older than D&D

That's a fanciful depiction too.

yes, a dragon and both part of legend.

So now you're claiming the sauropod dinosaurs are legendary? Well, rest assured they existed. You can go to a museum and look at their skeletons.

like the tail of a cedar? or do you just get to pick and chose?

I don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't say Leviathan has a tail like a cedar -- that's Behemoth.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
and you get your data from?????

I gather it from observation. Where do you get yours?

then what evidence are you talking about??

The fossil record, primarily. What are you talking about?

IT DOESN"T MATTER - IT DOESN"T CHANGE THE PATTERN THAT REQUIRES EXPLAINING.

I can't help it if you don't like creationist explanations.

What?? So please tell us (1) the time scales involved from the Precambrian to the present and (2) how genetic loss explains the fossil record.

Do you know what adaptation is? Do you have any idea how genetic loss can lead to such a thing? Do you know anything about breeding dogs? Is the chihuahua as genetically diverse as the wolf?

you're the one invoking the conspiracy, not me.

I'm not invoking a conspiracy. You seem to be losing your cool here, Stratnerd. Am I upsetting you?

this is something you've done?

No, I haven't. And neither have you. But I have read about dates being thrown out, and not just in the creationist literature, either.

your mean plus/minus two standard errors. or, like it sounds, the range that contains 95% or your data.

Oh, ok.

at what?

At something being dated. Of course, radiometric dating is usually the last method they use to date anything. Index fossils are normally the way to go.

I want to see this data that is showing these dates,

Well, call up one of these labs, and ask them if you can come and observe their work. Or better yet -- try to get a job there.

what are the research labs that are doing this?

You're the expert -- you should be able to find out.

will do

Well? You gonna tell me or not?

 

[tenkeeper]

The valley of decision is near
The years of fulfillment get in gear
And the time peers over the past
And she sighs,
At last, at last.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

No. Are you deliberately trying to trick me into defending a position I don't hold?

It's an example of how real animals are inflated into mythological creatures by embellishment.

Then perhaps you should have directed that post at Stratnerd instead of me. He's the one trying to say dragons are purely mythical. I think it's obvious that most of these stories are based on real creatures.

Well

Honestly.

Indeed. We should all strive to be more honest, but I know better than to expect that on a debating forum.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Turbo
Eireann, if you truly belief in the Goddess, why are you rooting for Zakath as he claims that no god or goddess (including the Wiccan godess) exists?

Would you debate an atheist over whether the Goddess exists? Upon what evidence do you believe in the Goddess?

I'm not rooting for Zak to prove no god exists. I'm defending Zak against unfair judgement and criticism of his posts by extremely biased conservative Christians who judge not by what is actually presented but by which side they hope will win.

 

[Stratnerd]

Huh? If it's fixed won't it start getting passed on down the line?

it does at the cost of losing all the other alleles. fixed means it has a frequency of 1 and is the only allele at a particular locus ("gene"). genetic variation is a measure of genetic diversity within a populatin at a particular time. New alleles arise but at the expense of the loss of others so that there is no net gain in genetic diversity. this MUST occur in small populations (there are only so many individuals to carry different alleles). and with inbreeding, which must occur at low populations, it reinforces it (speeds up time to fixation or extinction)

It depends what your models are based on.

mutation rates and population parameters such as generation time and number of offspring and variation in number of offspring among females. certainly not perfect - they only give estimates with intervals but even considering the intervals, none of these dates gives 6000 years.

it can, if you remove enough seawater.

this just gets to ad hoc to ad hoc to ad hoc because now that much ice would cover even more land making it uninhabitable and then animals would have even less time to get where they need to go and you'd see this with the mark that glaciers leave upon the land. of course, you could just add another ad hoc and the winds blowing the snow into great skyscapers of ice and not into sheets, then you could add another ad hoc that gravity was different so these great ice sheets wouldn't sink, and you could have another ad hoc and another and another....

I never said they were. Why don't you tell us how you think they got there?

they evolved there from a common marsupial ancestor

I'm sure it would for you -- because then you'd have reason to ridicule me.

no, then you wouldn't need to worry about making up ad hoc stories. you wouldn't find stories about supertectonics, or you wouldn't need mutation rates to be much much faster, or conspiracies and those doing radiometry, or planets spinning out of control. I'm not saying these or your stories but they are found in creationists literature.

What do you mean by a good representation? You've got jellyfish in cambrian rocks, and we've still got them today. I'd say that's a pretty good representation.

out of 6000 mammals how many do you find before the Jurassic? out of several thousand amphibians, how many do you find before the Devonian? out of > 100,000 flowering plant species, how many do you find before the Triassic?

Well, obviously he wasn't talking about anything real, but then again I'm not here to defend Aristotle, now am I?

I dunno what you are here to defend? A literal interpretation of the Bible or that independently of the Bible, one can only conclude that the earth and all organisms are 6000 years old based on the overwhelming evidence?

So now you're claiming the sauropod dinosaurs are legendary? Well, rest assured they existed. You can go to a museum and look at their skeletons.

no, you're claiming that the b'moth was a sauropod based on those two creatures having large tails.

I don't know what you're talking about.

tail of a cedar = real = sauropod
sparks out the nostril = figurative

just because a description just based on a tail overlaps with something real doesn't mean they were talking about that organism. why did you decide that the sparks were figurative?

 

[LightSon]

afterlife

afterlife

Originally posted by PureX
Why do you presume that there can be no "afterlife" unless there is a God?

Perhaps it is an appeal to common sense. Perhaps it is a bias of my faith. But, I haven't thought this through for awhile, so let's see where I go.

The fundamental questions which tend to drive theism are, (1) where did we come from(origin) (2) why are we here (purpose) (3) where are we going (destiny)

From my perspective (God is), all life comes from God which includes physical life and spiritual life. In this framework, I have a purpose and my destiny is positive and substantial.

Starting from the assumption of "God is not", one might wonder if the "fundamental questions" still apply. I've heard atheists reject the presumption that there is any merit or need to pursue these questions. I must agree. What is the merit to understanding origin, purpose and destiny if we are but an accidental collision of time, space and energy? In other words, how could it be said within the atheist framework, that there is any non-arbitrary purpose for existence? Why should the atheist expect a destiny that is positive and substantial?

Nevertheless, atheists often are interested in pursuing these questions, (hence their TOL ubiquity). As a consequence to "God is not", such an interest, at first blush, would seem counterintuitive. "Why should they care"? We theists suspect atheistic interest is a "tip of the hand", but we get into trouble when we say so. So I won't.

So assuming an atheist desires an intellectual pursuit of the origin of our existence, they tend to do so in a way that preserves their basic assumption, (i.e. God is not). As a consequence, they insist that only the observable be accepted into evidence. Only the testable is worthy of consideration; "if we can't see it, it is metaphysical fantasy and worthy of dismissal".

To that I say "fine". Our physical life is an observable phenomenon. Any supposed metaphysical component (God, afterlife, spirits, souls, angels & miracles etc.) are not observable, not testable and not consequences of a universe that is a product of natural selection.

In short, the atheist can't have it both ways. You can't insist "God is not" because He can't be proven, and then arbitrarily open the door to an afterlife - an equally unprovable theory.

In summary, The theist's assumption of God provides that all metaphysical constructs be derived in accordance to revealed truth.

Atheistic assumptions restrict reality to observable phenomenon, which necessarily precludes an afterlife.


footnotes:
When I refer to God, I mean the judeo/Christian creator/redeemer as self-revealed in the Bible. My usage of "theist" is likewise within this framework.

 

[Stratnerd]

I gather it from observation. Where do you get yours?

so are you implying that you only trust things that you see personally? i get mine from my own observation (very limited - I'm only 1 guy) and the observations of others, my confidence in the latter being variable depending on the source.

The fossil record

WHAT EXACTLY ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EARTH AND ITS ORGANISMS ARE 6000 YEARS OLD.

I can't help it if you don't like creationist explanations.

look, I hate games. please take off if you aren't going to be serious. YOU HAVE YET TO OFFER ONE EXPLANATION OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. You just say "fossil record" .... is it the order? if so then what specifically? is it the way things were fossilized? how so? get to the point.

Do you know what adaptation is? Do you have any idea how genetic loss can lead to such a thing? Do you know anything about breeding dogs? Is the chihuahua as genetically diverse as the wolf?

1. How quickly do you suppose the fossil record was laid down?
2. If it was just a few years, then how do those organisms going upwards through time, represent the loss of genetic diversity

I'm I upsetting you?

yes, because i like serious debate.

No, I haven't. And neither have you. But I have read about dates being thrown out, and not just in the creationist literature, either.

good lord it's like pull'n teeth... so what specifically have you read in noncreationist literature that has lead you to believe that physicists (acting as a unit - which is how I define a conspiracy) throw out data simply because they "don't like it"? what were these papers?

Well, call up one of these labs, and ask them if you can come and observe their work. Or better yet -- try to get a job there.

i've got my own lab to run

You're the expert -- you should be able to find out.

sweet cheeses man, you're the one that read these papers. i'm an ecologist not an evolutionary biologist and certainly not a physicist.

Well? You gonna tell me or not?

sorry if I don't act immediately at the snap of your fingers

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
it does at the cost of losing all the other alleles. fixed means it has a frequency of 1 and is the only allele at a particular locus ("gene"). genetic variation is a measure of genetic diversity within a populatin at a particular time. New alleles arise but at the expense of the loss of others so that there is no net gain in genetic diversity. this MUST occur in small populations (there are only so many individuals to carry different alleles). and with inbreeding, which must occur at low populations, it reinforces it (speeds up time to fixation or extinction)

Sounds like you're trying to argue both sides of the fence here. Let me know when you make up your mind, and we can continue.

mutation rates and population parameters such as generation time and number of offspring and variation in number of offspring among females. certainly not perfect - they only give estimates with intervals but even considering the intervals, none of these dates gives 6000 years.

I'm not relying on mutation to produce all this diversity. I believe God put it all there to begin with. These is how you can start with breeding wolves until you eventually get a chihuahua. In much less than 6,000 years I might add.

this just gets to ad hoc to ad hoc to ad hoc because now that much ice would cover even more land making it uninhabitable and then animals would have even less time to get where they need to go and you'd see this with the mark that glaciers leave upon the land.

So now you're denying there was ever an Ice Age? You're not really helping your position any, Stratnerd.

of course, you could just add another ad hoc and the winds blowing the snow into great skyscapers of ice and not into sheets, then you could add another ad hoc that gravity was different so these great ice sheets wouldn't sink, and you could have another ad hoc and another and another....

When you get into nonsense like this, I can tell you're not interested in having a serious debate.

they evolved there from a common marsupial ancestor

That doesn't answer my question. Where did this evolution take place, and how did they get to Australia?

no, then you wouldn't need to worry about making up ad hoc stories.

Who is making up ad hoc stories?

you wouldn't find stories about supertectonics, or you wouldn't need mutation rates to be much much faster, or conspiracies and those doing radiometry, or planets spinning out of control. I'm not saying these or your stories but they are found in creationists literature.

Well, you're debating me now. How about sticking to what I say?

out of 6000 mammals how many do you find before the Jurassic? out of several thousand amphibians, how many do you find before the Devonian? out of > 100,000 flowering plant species, how many do you find before the Triassic?

I don't hold to this interpretation of the fossil record (based on the geologic column). You do, so you tell me.

I dunno what you are here to defend?

Not Greek philosophers, that's for sure.

A literal interpretation of the Bible

What do you mean by 'literal interpretation?'

or that independently of the Bible, one can only conclude that the earth and all organisms are 6000 years old

Yes.

based on the overwhelming evidence?

Based on the evidence, yes. Overwhelming? I dunno -- that all depends on how you look at it.

no, you're claiming that the b'moth was a sauropod based on those two creatures having large tails.

Read the description of Behemoth in Job. There is no other creature on Earth that fits that description.

tail of a cedar = real = sauropod
sparks out the nostril = figurative

just because a description just based on a tail overlaps with something real doesn't mean they were talking about that organism.

Well, read the description and tell me what else they could have been talking about.

why did you decide that the sparks were figurative?

Because I've never seen an animal that can actually breathe fire.

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

I think it's obvious that most of these stories are based on real creatures.

I think Stratnerd is closer to my position than you. You are extrapolating dragons from animals seperated from us by millions of years.

I would look to the crocodile, the hippo, or the monitor lizard as more likely candidates for your biblical beasts.

So the manticore has a prosaic explanation. Most likely, so does your leviathan. And no, therapods living in conjunction with man does not fit the description of prosaic.

 

[Stratnerd]

Confidence in radiometric dates:

http://lava.tamu.edu/courses/geol101/gibson/Notes/accuracy_of_radiometrics.pdf

And from what I can see it looks like the errors are about 2%. This is based on a normal distribution - the data may not be normal but that itself is easily testable (simply by plotting the data). That means that dates can be assumed to be in error if >> than the error rate.

 

[Flipper]

tail of a cedar = real = sauropod

tail of a cedar = crocodile

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
I think Stratnerd is closer to my position than you. You are extrapolating dragons from animals seperated from us by millions of years.

No I'm not. We have pictures of dinosaurs on stuff like pottery and textiles.

I would look to the crocodile, the hippo, or the monitor lizard as more likely candidates for your biblical beasts.

They don't fit the descriptions.

So the manticore has a prosaic explanation. Most likely, so does your leviathan.

Let's hear it, then.

And no, therapods living in conjunction with man does not fit the description of prosaic.

It goes a long way toward explaining all these dragon legends and depictions on ancient artifacts.

 

[Stratnerd]

Sounds like you're trying to argue both sides of the fence here. Let me know when you make up your mind, and we can continue.

what are you talking about?

I'm not relying on mutation to produce all this diversity. I believe God put it all there to begin with.

not all dogs are descended from wolves... but all that genetic diversity was wiped out during the flood right? Genetic diversity is the number of different alleles in a population for a given "gene". If all you have are two individuals then the most genetic variation you can have is 4 alleles. Given the poulation size that's not bad. But if the population explodes and say 10 generations you have 50,000 individuals you may only have 4 alleles. Mutation and recombination are the only sources of new alleles and the latter is much less a factor in small populations.

So now you're denying there was ever an Ice Age? You're not really helping your position any, Stratnerd.

How could you even come up with that? I am suggest that for Australia to be connected you would need an "ice age" of proportions that geologists have yet to consider.

When you get into nonsense like this, I can tell you're not interested in having a serious debate.

but that's the crap creationists come up with!!!!

That doesn't answer my question. Where did this evolution take place, and how did they get to Australia?

a parsimonious explanation is that the ancestor was on Australia and its descendents became modern forms.

Who is making up ad hoc stories?

I've never seen reports of a land-bridge from Asia, or anywhere, to Australia. But you said that if enough saltwater was removed then one can exist. You've now made up a story (a landbridge where no evidence exists to support one) to fit your scenario (animals walking onto Australia). That is called an ad hoc.

Well, you're debating me now. How about sticking to what I say?

i wish you would say something for creation instead of just denying that the evidence for evolution is correct.

I don't hold to this interpretation of the fossil record (based on the geologic column).

THEN HOW DO YOU INTERPRET IT?

Read the description of Behemoth in Job. There is no other creature on Earth that fits that description.

and one explanation is that it doesn't exist except in literature?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
so are you implying that you only trust things that you see personally? i get mine from my own observation (very limited - I'm only 1 guy) and the observations of others, my confidence in the latter being variable depending on the source.

Same here.

WHAT EXACTLY ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EARTH AND ITS ORGANISMS ARE 6000 YEARS OLD.

It fits what Genesis says about creation and the flood.

look, I hate games. please take off if you aren't going to be serious.

I am being serious.

YOU HAVE YET TO OFFER ONE EXPLANATION OF THE FOSSIL RECORD.

The flood came, killed all these animals, and buried them in the mud, where they fossilized. Happy now?

You just say "fossil record" .... is it the order? if so then what specifically? is it the way things were fossilized? how so? get to the point.

I'm just answering your questions as you ask them. If you want more detailed information, there are plenty of creationist websites out there for your perusal.

1. How quickly do you suppose the fossil record was laid down?

Most of it in about a year.

2. If it was just a few years, then how do those organisms going upwards through time, represent the loss of genetic diversity

They're not going upwards through time, and we have no idea what kind of genetic diversity they had, because you can't extract DNA from a rock.

yes, because i like serious debate.

So do I. Why are you getting upset? Is it because you're having a hard time arguing against my position?

good lord it's like pull'n teeth... so what specifically have you read in noncreationist literature that has lead you to believe that physicists (acting as a unit - which is how I define a conspiracy) throw out data simply because they "don't like it"? what were these papers?

I never said the physicists were engaged in a conspiracy, yet you come back and attempt to get me to explain why they are. Pay attention to what I say.

As for the article that talked about dates being thrown out because they were too old, I can't remember -- it was over a year ago that I read it, and it was from a link someone provided in a debate. What I remember is they dated some crystals to be older than the Earth itself is supposed to be, so they threw those dates out.

i've got my own lab to run

Then call them up and ask if you can come in on your day off, or something.

sweet cheeses man, you're the one that read these papers. i'm an ecologist not an evolutionary biologist and certainly not a physicist.

Then perhaps you'd best stick to what you know best.

sorry if I don't act immediately at the snap of your fingers

Well, you could have said you'd be back shortly with the information. Based on some of the other stuff you've said in this debate, I thought you were being smart.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
what are you talking about?

First you say they can't spread if the population is too small, and then you say the population has to be small for them to spread. Either that, or I totally misunderstood what you were saying. Perhaps you could clarify?

not all dogs are descended from wolves...

I believe they are. Dogs have recently been reclassified as a subspecies of the wolf. Canis lupis familiaris.

but all that genetic diversity was wiped out during the flood right?

No. Noah built an ark, remember? Some of that diversity lay as yet unexpressed in the genes of the animals he took on board.

Genetic diversity is the number of different alleles in a population for a given "gene". If all you have are two individuals then the most genetic variation you can have is 4 alleles. Given the poulation size that's not bad. But if the population explodes and say 10 generations you have 50,000 individuals you may only have 4 alleles. Mutation and recombination are the only sources of new alleles and the latter is much less a factor in small populations.

Creationists don't generally suggest that mutation is the cause of much diversity. It plays a part, but a very small part.

How could you even come up with that? I am suggest that for Australia to be connected you would need an "ice age" of proportions that geologists have yet to consider.

Why is that? I'm not suggesting that the ice went all the way down (or up) to Australia, but with that much water locked up in the glaciers, the ocean levels would certainly be lower.

but that's the crap creationists come up with!!!!

I haven't come up with it, and you're debating me, remember?

a parsimonious explanation is that the ancestor was on Australia and its descendents became modern forms.

How did this ancestor get there?

I've never seen reports of a land-bridge from Asia, or anywhere, to Australia.

How many maps of the ocean floor have you studied?

But you said that if enough saltwater was removed then one can exist.

It doesn't have to be saltwater. Why are you suggesting that? Oh yeah -- saltwater doesn't freeze. Nice try, but you can leave the salt behind -- we just need the water.

You've now made up a story (a landbridge where no evidence exists to support one) to fit your scenario (animals walking onto Australia). That is called an ad hoc.

Look -- they had to get there somehow. I'm not saying the way I suggested is the only way possible, but you haven't suggested anything to show how they got there.

i wish you would say something for creation instead of just denying that the evidence for evolution is correct.

Go check out some creationist websites then. I'm just dealing with the stuff y'all are throwing my way. I must be doing a good job of it too, judging by how upset you're getting.

THEN HOW DO YOU INTERPRET IT?

I've already told you -- it was laid down in the Flood.

and one explanation is that it doesn't exist except in literature?

Except the description fits a real creature that we know existed. We're not talking about manticores here.

 

[Stratnerd]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stratnerd
so are you implying that you only trust things that you see personally? i get mine from my own observation (very limited - I'm only 1 guy) and the observations of others, my confidence in the latter being variable depending on the source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same here.

so, back to the dates of populations based on coalescence. in humans, such a date can be based on known mutation rates (by looking at mitochondrial sequences of known relatives). from this you can estimate the time it take for the entire population to have a single origin. that date is somewhere between 100 and 200 thousand years. so do you not trust the models or what?

I am being serious.

hardly; for example I've been asking for the fossil record fits into Biblical literalism (the Earth being 6000 years old and a single global flood and the Ark and all that jazz). I asked for an explanation and you say

" It fits what Genesis says about creation and the flood."

The flood came, killed all these animals, and buried them in the mud, where they fossilized. Happy now?

NO, THAT SUCKS. WHY IS THERE A PATTERN?

If you want more detailed information, there are plenty of creationist websites out there for your perusal.

yes but I'm asking you the same questions I'd like to ask them (or have and been ignored).

They're not going upwards through time, and we have no idea what kind of genetic diversity they had, because you can't extract DNA from a rock.

then what was loss of genetic variation about?

Why are you getting upset? Is it because you're having a hard time arguing against my position?

hardly this is the first post you've actually offered one!

I never said the physicists were engaged in a conspiracy, yet you come back and attempt to get me to explain why they are. Pay attention to what I say.

Are physicists acting as a group to manipulate the data being presented? Are they throwing out dates they don't agree with - I swore that's what you said. Then there is a conspiracy - very simple.

What I remember is they dated some crystals to be older than the Earth itself is supposed to be, so they threw those dates out.

that's it... one lab threw out one sample?

So either other people are doing it (and there is a conspiracy) or some of them are right? Which is it?

 

[Flipper]

OEJ:

They don't fit the descriptions.

And the manticore doesn't fit the description of the lion either. Nevertheless, that is what it is most likely to be. Were I you, I would no doubt hold that the manticore is more likely to be a multilated description of a dimetrodon.

And frankly, some rather unusual looking beasts in pottery does not constitute evidence of co-existence with dinosaurs. Not by a long shot. Frankly, if we had co-existed with such beasts, I would expect ancient literature and art to be full of such descriptions. Instead of portrayals of long extinct mammals, I would imagine cave art to consist largely of drawing of sauropods and therapods. I would have imagined that their passing would have been commemorated with more than a few pieces of pottery, some old legends, and a couple of rather vague descriptions in the bible?

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the platypus and koala migrated from Israel to Australia on foot (or flipper)? Really?

No, I mean, seriously? Is that what you believe?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
so, back to the dates of populations based on coalescence. in humans, such a date can be based on known mutation rates (by looking at mitochondrial sequences of known relatives). from this you can estimate the time it take for the entire population to have a single origin. that date is somewhere between 100 and 200 thousand years. so do you not trust the models or what?

Obviously not.

hardly;

Look Stratnerd -- don't tell me I'm not being serious when I'm telling you I am. I don't appreciate being called a liar.

for example I've been asking for the fossil record fits into Biblical literalism (the Earth being 6000 years old and a single global flood and the Ark and all that jazz). I asked for an explanation and you say

" It fits what Genesis says about creation and the flood."

NO, THAT SUCKS.

Too bad -- it still fits.

WHY IS THERE A PATTERN?

What pattern? Clams and stuff like that on the bottom, and birds and people on top?

yes but I'm asking you the same questions I'd like to ask them (or have and been ignored).

I've seen explanations for all the stuff you've been asking me at creationist websites. You've just got to do a little digging.

then what was loss of genetic variation about?

You don't know that there was a loss of genetic variation. Without some DNA to study, you can't conclusively say they gained or lost any genetic variation.

hardly this is the first post you've actually offered one!

Well, you're certainly getting upset about something. What is it?

Are physicists acting as a group to manipulate the data being presented? Are they throwing out dates they don't agree with - I swore that's what you said. Then there is a conspiracy - very simple.

No, it's not a conspiracy. It's standard practice to reject dates that don't match up with the geologic column. Sometimes they come up with an explanation as to why the measurements are so off, but that doesn't change the fact that many measurements come back saying something other than what they expected.

that's it... one lab threw out one sample?

Stratnerd you accuse me of not being serious, and then you ask me somthing like this? I'm only speaking of one example here.

So either other people are doing it (and there is a conspiracy) or some of them are right? Which is it?

It's not a conspiracy -- they're not really trying to hide anything, but you don't expect them to go with measurements they think are wrong, do you?