Republican Judge Rules Against Creation
Wednesday December 21st, 2005. This is show # 253.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Wednesday December 21st, 2005. This is show # 253.
BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
Republican Judge Rules Against Creation
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
I appreciate Enyart’s inadvertent honesty in talking about this court case. Note the very title of this BEL show. Had Bob been the first witness in Dover, everyone would have been saved a lot of time and money. One of the major points of the defendants’ case was to divorce “Intelligent Design” from “creationism”. With Bob testifying, 2 minutes into the testimony after Bob had used the naked word “creationism” a half-dozen times, the judge would have pounded the gavel and said “Creationism, religious, banned from science classes, case over”.
Peter S emailed against my statement of average 3/4 mile sedimentary layers
Peter S emailed against my statement of average 3/4 mile sedimentary layers
Peter S: Bob, thanks for responding [to his original email]. I don’t think any geologist worth his salt (couldn’t resist that one) would agree with that. 3/4 of a mile is a long way. I can tell you from experience that there are many places in Connecticut that are not covered with sedimentary deposits. ... I also know from experience that portions of Cape Cod are terminal moraines...
BE: Peter, aren't your examples too anecdotal to be worthy of even an informal challenge to a scientific claim? So, I'll concede your places in Connecticut, and portions of Cape Cod, but refer you to the sedimentary Grand Canyon (which is 277 miles long, 10 miles wide, and about one mile deep).
PS: You tend to make statements of a scientific nature off the top of your head.
BE: Peter, seems you just made a "top of your head" rebuttal effort. I could put more weight in your disagreement if you actually made an effort to present some observation of an average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents, rather than a couple anecdotes.
PS: However, since you need to justify your predetermined concept of a young earth, special creation, no evolution etc I think you are just stuck in that position.
BE: Of course, the same could be say of you.
PS: The concept of a young earth (6-10,000 years old) is scientifically untenable, the facts do not support a young earth or young universe.
BE: Peter, last year I debated the Age of the Earth against one of America's more well-known geophysicists and a professor of mathematics (interested in the subject) from CU in Boulder, Colo. If you give me your address, I will send you the audio of that moderated debate, along with the slides used; if you listen to the debate, you can do two things: (1) attempt to answer the scientific challenges that the Old Earthers didn't answer; (2) try to figure out why the Old Earthers in the audience were so dejected, with one of them, an atheist physicist from Seattle who flew in for the debate, admitting to me that night that the Young Earth side won the debate.
PS: The concept of special creation as opposed to the current theory of evolution is also scientifically untenable.
BE: If someday you find out, let's say by hearing it from God Himself, that He did in fact specially create mankind, perhaps you'll then realize how wrong this statement of yours is, unless of course (at that time) you define science as a discipline designed specifically to hide the truth.
PS: ...I first heard you on the radio several years ago (that station does not broadcast your show anymore but I do check it on the web). I was interested until you had some one on who claimed to have found a T. rex with recent vegetation in its mouth. I was then still interested but more for the comedic aspect of your show. I cannot remember who the T. rex person was but they did have a web site, I tracked it down and e-mailed to get more specific info, (hey who knows if it was true then maybe I could grab a piece of the Nobel prize $) but unfortunately they never responded.
BE: Peter DeRosa and his family excavated the largest and most complete allosaur skull ever found, and a movie was made of the discovery, Raising the Allosaur. You can view a clip of that video and see the allosaur skull itself. And yes, there was wood in its mouth which was only partially fossilized. By why should this surprise you? Three examples: (1) Baumgardner (of Los Alamos fame) has shown that about the same amount of Carbon 14 is found in coal in three distinct portions of the stratigraphic record (Eocene, Cretaceous, and Pennsylvanian) indicating that the coal is not millions of years old, and also, that it was laid down at the same time; (2) Not far from Minneapolis, just a few years ago, a quarry unearthed rare jellyfish fossils, rare because their tender bodies don't readily survive to fossilize, and they found these vertically in seven strata that according to the news report, supposedly had formed over a million years, providing yet another specific challenge (like polystrate fossils [Hi Poly!]) indicating layers believed to be millions of years old formed rapidly; (3) evolutionary scientists have been recovering organic matter, complete proteins, DNA, and even entire bacterium from *within fossils* that are tens or even hundreds of millions of years old. Thus, Peter, you should reconsider before a priori dismissing a claim of partially un-fossilized wood excavated in the mouth of a dinosaur.
Thanks for writing! -Bob
Peter S emailed against my statement of average 3/4 mile sedimentary layers
Peter S: Bob, thanks for responding [to his original email]. I don’t think any geologist worth his salt (couldn’t resist that one) would agree with that. 3/4 of a mile is a long way. I can tell you from experience that there are many places in Connecticut that are not covered with sedimentary deposits. ... I also know from experience that portions of Cape Cod are terminal moraines...
BE: Peter, aren't your examples too anecdotal to be worthy of even an informal challenge to a scientific claim? So, I'll concede your places in Connecticut, and portions of Cape Cod, but refer you to the sedimentary Grand Canyon (which is 277 miles long, 10 miles wide, and about one mile deep).
PS: You tend to make statements of a scientific nature off the top of your head.
BE: Peter, seems you just made a "top of your head" rebuttal effort. I could put more weight in your disagreement if you actually made an effort to present some observation of an average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents, rather than a couple anecdotes.
PS: However, since you need to justify your predetermined concept of a young earth, special creation, no evolution etc I think you are just stuck in that position.
BE: Of course, the same could be say of you.
PS: The concept of a young earth (6-10,000 years old) is scientifically untenable, the facts do not support a young earth or young universe.
BE: Peter, last year I debated the Age of the Earth against one of America's more well-known geophysicists and a professor of mathematics (interested in the subject) from CU in Boulder, Colo. If you give me your address, I will send you the audio of that moderated debate, along with the slides used; if you listen to the debate, you can do two things: (1) attempt to answer the scientific challenges that the Old Earthers didn't answer; (2) try to figure out why the Old Earthers in the audience were so dejected, with one of them, an atheist physicist from Seattle who flew in for the debate, admitting to me that night that the Young Earth side won the debate.
PS: The concept of special creation as opposed to the current theory of evolution is also scientifically untenable.
BE: If someday you find out, let's say by hearing it from God Himself, that He did in fact specially create mankind, perhaps you'll then realize how wrong this statement of yours is, unless of course (at that time) you define science as a discipline designed specifically to hide the truth.
PS: ...I first heard you on the radio several years ago (that station does not broadcast your show anymore but I do check it on the web). I was interested until you had some one on who claimed to have found a T. rex with recent vegetation in its mouth. I was then still interested but more for the comedic aspect of your show. I cannot remember who the T. rex person was but they did have a web site, I tracked it down and e-mailed to get more specific info, (hey who knows if it was true then maybe I could grab a piece of the Nobel prize $) but unfortunately they never responded.
BE: Peter DeRosa and his family excavated the largest and most complete allosaur skull ever found, and a movie was made of the discovery, Raising the Allosaur. You can view a clip of that video and see the allosaur skull itself. And yes, there was wood in its mouth which was only partially fossilized. By why should this surprise you? Three examples: (1) Baumgardner (of Los Alamos fame) has shown that about the same amount of Carbon 14 is found in coal in three distinct portions of the stratigraphic record (Eocene, Cretaceous, and Pennsylvanian) indicating that the coal is not millions of years old, and also, that it was laid down at the same time; (2) Not far from Minneapolis, just a few years ago, a quarry unearthed rare jellyfish fossils, rare because their tender bodies don't readily survive to fossilize, and they found these vertically in seven strata that according to the news report, supposedly had formed over a million years, providing yet another specific challenge (like polystrate fossils [Hi Poly!]) indicating layers believed to be millions of years old formed rapidly; (3) evolutionary scientists have been recovering organic matter, complete proteins, DNA, and even entire bacterium from *within fossils* that are tens or even hundreds of millions of years old. Thus, Peter, you should reconsider before a priori dismissing a claim of partially un-fossilized wood excavated in the mouth of a dinosaur.
Thanks for writing! -Bob
sentientsynth
New member
The Smack always hurts so good.
And now you know ... the rest of the story
And now you know ... the rest of the story
Peter, I don’t know if you are watching this thread, or if Bob just chose to post the extract from your e-mail exchange here. But anyway I offer the following -
From Bob E:
On the evening of the debate, to start with the moderator briefly introduced the debate teams (there were two people on each side). He then invited each side to introduce itself, after which the debate would commence. But Bob did not introduce himself and his partner, Don Daly, and then let the Old-Earther’s do likewise. Instead he took the first time he had the microphone as his opening salvo, and presented a full-frontal attack against old-earth ideas for some 20 or 30 minutes. When then the microphone came to the Hugh Ross people, it immediately became clear that their approach to the debate was to be dramatically less confrontational than Bob’s, and to see if as fellow Christians both sides could calmly look at the pros and cons. Thus their side presented a much less confrontational set of arguments.
As Bob mentions, the Hugh Ross representatives had good academic and professional credentials. But as so often happens, that means they were conversant with the ideas of mainstream science, but were not well prepared to field a collection of opposing ideas from the fringes of science.
In the follow-up round and the closing rounds Bob maintained his aggressive stance, making it clear that he considers old-earth Christianity to be a sham that need to be exposed.
The discomfort I felt was in seeing the debate lost largely due to a difference in the way the sides approached the debate itself – one side “was take no prisoners”, the other was “let’s have a Christian discussion about science.” Days later, in private correspondence with one of the Hugh Ross people, he admitted he had been caught off guard with Bob’s aggressiveness.
I had some discomfort from one other aspect, and that was that I had no predilection to “be nice to the other team” and I was aware of some significant issues in what Bob had presented that the Hugh Rossers did not pick up on. I was literally fidgeting in my seat, debating within myself if it would be inappropriate for me to volunteer my services to the Hugh Ross team in the middle of the proceedings. I decided that would be an inappropriate breach of the debate protocol. So ultimately I did approach Bob and inform him that he had won. But I most emphatically did not tell him that his win was based on good science.
After that debate, I made contact with Bob several times trying to set up a debate between Bob and I on this same subject. (There is a thread in this forum discussing my attempts to set up that debate). I finally gave up. Look in this forum for threads that I started, and you will see representative samples of scientific ideas from Bob that I show are nonsense. I have been waiting for nearly two years for Bob or someone to materially counter my posts. Bob has elected not to respond to them.
So Peter, I am not a geologist, but I suspect a geologist that has looked into the details and backgrounds of some of Bob’s geologic claims would find that they are based on wrong ideas just like the ideas I have presented in this forum. Good luck.
And now you know ... the rest of the story
Peter, I don’t know if you are watching this thread, or if Bob just chose to post the extract from your e-mail exchange here. But anyway I offer the following -
From Bob E:
Since as far as I know I was the only Seattleite that attended Bob’s Feb ’04 debate with the Hugh Ross people, I must conclude I am the “atheist physicist from Seattle” to whom Bob refers. My take on the debate is a bit askew from the way Bob portrays it. First off, I don’t know how many old-earthers were in the audience, but I did not sense, or even see any particular sense of dejection. Bob is correct that I complemented him on his win at the end of the night, but that was not the result of a scientifically defensible presentation of YEC beliefs as much as it was a too-little and too-late response from the Old Earthers.
On the evening of the debate, to start with the moderator briefly introduced the debate teams (there were two people on each side). He then invited each side to introduce itself, after which the debate would commence. But Bob did not introduce himself and his partner, Don Daly, and then let the Old-Earther’s do likewise. Instead he took the first time he had the microphone as his opening salvo, and presented a full-frontal attack against old-earth ideas for some 20 or 30 minutes. When then the microphone came to the Hugh Ross people, it immediately became clear that their approach to the debate was to be dramatically less confrontational than Bob’s, and to see if as fellow Christians both sides could calmly look at the pros and cons. Thus their side presented a much less confrontational set of arguments.
As Bob mentions, the Hugh Ross representatives had good academic and professional credentials. But as so often happens, that means they were conversant with the ideas of mainstream science, but were not well prepared to field a collection of opposing ideas from the fringes of science.
In the follow-up round and the closing rounds Bob maintained his aggressive stance, making it clear that he considers old-earth Christianity to be a sham that need to be exposed.
The discomfort I felt was in seeing the debate lost largely due to a difference in the way the sides approached the debate itself – one side “was take no prisoners”, the other was “let’s have a Christian discussion about science.” Days later, in private correspondence with one of the Hugh Ross people, he admitted he had been caught off guard with Bob’s aggressiveness.
I had some discomfort from one other aspect, and that was that I had no predilection to “be nice to the other team” and I was aware of some significant issues in what Bob had presented that the Hugh Rossers did not pick up on. I was literally fidgeting in my seat, debating within myself if it would be inappropriate for me to volunteer my services to the Hugh Ross team in the middle of the proceedings. I decided that would be an inappropriate breach of the debate protocol. So ultimately I did approach Bob and inform him that he had won. But I most emphatically did not tell him that his win was based on good science.
Good luck. On June 22 on this year (2005) Bob used part of the recoding from that debate as the subject of his BEL show. Before he starts the recording, and several places during the show, he talks about being able to buy that audio recording. I called and personally talked to Bob’s mother (who fields a lot of the incoming calls), and she said they did not have that for sale. I also sent a letter asking about it. Same answer. It is not listed in Bib’s for-sale items on the KGOV website. By the way – It is well worth listening to the BEL program – and you can judge for yourself. Listen particularly for the way Bob aggressively starts his side, and then contrast that with the much milder way the Hugh Ross debaters open their side.
After that debate, I made contact with Bob several times trying to set up a debate between Bob and I on this same subject. (There is a thread in this forum discussing my attempts to set up that debate). I finally gave up. Look in this forum for threads that I started, and you will see representative samples of scientific ideas from Bob that I show are nonsense. I have been waiting for nearly two years for Bob or someone to materially counter my posts. Bob has elected not to respond to them.
So Peter, I am not a geologist, but I suspect a geologist that has looked into the details and backgrounds of some of Bob’s geologic claims would find that they are based on wrong ideas just like the ideas I have presented in this forum. Good luck.
Bob Enyart posted my e-mail to him with some responses
Peter S emailed against my statement of average 3/4 mile sedimentary layers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S: Bob, thanks for responding [to his original email]. I don’t think any geologist worth his salt (couldn’t resist that one) would agree with that. 3/4 of a mile is a long way. I can tell you from experience that there are many places in Connecticut that are not covered with sedimentary deposits. ... I also know from experience that portions of Cape Cod are terminal moraines...
BE: Peter, aren't your examples too anecdotal to be worthy of even an informal challenge to a scientific claim? So, I'll concede your places in Connecticut, and portions of Cape Cod, but refer you to the sedimentary Grand Canyon (which is 277 miles long, 10 miles wide, and about one mile deep).
My response: Pastor Enyart's statement about 3/4 mile of sediments all over the earth was pretty all encompassing. While I will agree that my comments re Connecticut and the Cape may be anecdotal they clearly bring into question his original statement. Perhaps the Grand Canyon is an anecdotal situation as well. Clearly there is not sedimentary rock throughout the earth as deep as that in the Grand Canyon area. If there were then Bob would be accurate, but he is not.
PS: You tend to make statements of a scientific nature off the top of your head.
BE: Peter, seems you just made a "top of your head" rebuttal effort. I could put more weight in your disagreement if you actually made an effort to present some observation of an average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents, rather than a couple anecdotes.
My response: I did make an off the top of my head response. I do not know the average depth of sedimentary layers throughout the earth. Bob seems to, but he is wrong.
PS: However, since you need to justify your predetermined concept of a young earth, special creation, no evolution etc I think you are just stuck in that position.
BE: Of course, the same could be say of you.
My response: It is clear after listening to Pastor Enyart, and hanging around this board, (in particular see Hilston's recent "debate" with Stratnerd) that he and many here have a presuppostion by faith that makes them unable/unwilling/unwhatever, to look at the evidence. While I have a certain presupposition, that the earth is old, evolution has occured, etc. I believe it comes from a reasoned look at the evidence as a whole.
PS: The concept of a young earth (6-10,000 years old) is scientifically untenable, the facts do not support a young earth or young universe.
BE: Peter, last year I debated the Age of the Earth against one of America's more well-known geophysicists and a professor of mathematics (interested in the subject) from CU in Boulder, Colo. If you give me your address, I will send you the audio of that moderated debate, along with the slides used; if you listen to the debate, you can do two things: (1) attempt to answer the scientific challenges that the Old Earthers didn't answer; (2) try to figure out why the Old Earthers in the audience were so dejected, with one of them, an atheist physicist from Seattle who flew in for the debate, admitting to me that night that the Young Earth side won the debate.
My response: See The Phy's post above.
PS: The concept of special creation as opposed to the current theory of evolution is also scientifically untenable.
BE: If someday you find out, let's say by hearing it from God Himself, that He did in fact specially create mankind, perhaps you'll then realize how wrong this statement of yours is, unless of course (at that time) you define science as a discipline designed specifically to hide the truth.
My response: If I do hear it from God himself then I guess I will understand how wrong my statement was. In the meantime, I hope to use the intellect He has provided to me and to others to understand the world through science (and it is not a discipline designed to hide the truth).
PS: ...I first heard you on the radio several years ago (that station does not broadcast your show anymore but I do check it on the web). I was interested until you had some one on who claimed to have found a T. rex with recent vegetation in its mouth. I was then still interested but more for the comedic aspect of your show. I cannot remember who the T. rex person was but they did have a web site, I tracked it down and e-mailed to get more specific info, (hey who knows if it was true then maybe I could grab a piece of the Nobel prize $) but unfortunately they never responded.
BE: Peter DeRosa and his family excavated the largest and most complete allosaur skull ever found, and a movie was made of the discovery, Raising the Allosaur. You can view a clip of that video and see the allosaur skull itself. And yes, there was wood in its mouth which was only partially fossilized. By why should this surprise you? Three examples: (1) Baumgardner (of Los Alamos fame) has shown that about the same amount of Carbon 14 is found in coal in three distinct portions of the stratigraphic record (Eocene, Cretaceous, and Pennsylvanian) indicating that the coal is not millions of years old, and also, that it was laid down at the same time; (2) Not far from Minneapolis, just a few years ago, a quarry unearthed rare jellyfish fossils, rare because their tender bodies don't readily survive to fossilize, and they found these vertically in seven strata that according to the news report, supposedly had formed over a million years, providing yet another specific challenge (like polystrate fossils [Hi Poly!]) indicating layers believed to be millions of years old formed rapidly; (3) evolutionary scientists have been recovering organic matter, complete proteins, DNA, and even entire bacterium from *within fossils* that are tens or even hundreds of millions of years old. Thus, Peter, you should reconsider before a priori dismissing a claim of partially un-fossilized wood excavated in the mouth of a dinosaur.
My response: A review of a movie unearthing an Allosaurus does not science make. If someone really found recent organic material inside the mouth of an Allosaurus--give 'em a Nobel prize, but that would require some peer review, some others to look at the "evidence", has that happened? Ooops, didnt think so, if I am wrong please advise. However I thought Allosaurus was a carnivore? In addition, this seems also to be anecdotal evidence, if it doesnt count for me it doesnt count for you either.
Baumgardner of Los Alomos, and Institute for Creation Research, fame. Well I did print out a short paper he wrote for ICR. His references are a 1987 paper by others in what seems to be a peer reviewed journal, then 4 references to papers all in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism.
I dont quite understand your concern with the jellyfish fossils and how that supports you. My reading on polystrate fossils, which originally raised some concerns, has seemed to indicate that there are sufficient explanations that make real sense rather than the nonsence YEC'er normally spout.
The issue of organic matter from old fossils seems to be a statement without much foundation on your part. If you are referring to the much touted "intact red blood cells" found in some fossil within the past few years, I think what was found was some hemoglobin, not the entire rbc.
In short, I remain unconvinced that YEC'ers, special creationists, ID'ers have it right. The generally accepted positions seem to be best supported by the evidence
Peter S emailed against my statement of average 3/4 mile sedimentary layers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S: Bob, thanks for responding [to his original email]. I don’t think any geologist worth his salt (couldn’t resist that one) would agree with that. 3/4 of a mile is a long way. I can tell you from experience that there are many places in Connecticut that are not covered with sedimentary deposits. ... I also know from experience that portions of Cape Cod are terminal moraines...
BE: Peter, aren't your examples too anecdotal to be worthy of even an informal challenge to a scientific claim? So, I'll concede your places in Connecticut, and portions of Cape Cod, but refer you to the sedimentary Grand Canyon (which is 277 miles long, 10 miles wide, and about one mile deep).
My response: Pastor Enyart's statement about 3/4 mile of sediments all over the earth was pretty all encompassing. While I will agree that my comments re Connecticut and the Cape may be anecdotal they clearly bring into question his original statement. Perhaps the Grand Canyon is an anecdotal situation as well. Clearly there is not sedimentary rock throughout the earth as deep as that in the Grand Canyon area. If there were then Bob would be accurate, but he is not.
PS: You tend to make statements of a scientific nature off the top of your head.
BE: Peter, seems you just made a "top of your head" rebuttal effort. I could put more weight in your disagreement if you actually made an effort to present some observation of an average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents, rather than a couple anecdotes.
My response: I did make an off the top of my head response. I do not know the average depth of sedimentary layers throughout the earth. Bob seems to, but he is wrong.
PS: However, since you need to justify your predetermined concept of a young earth, special creation, no evolution etc I think you are just stuck in that position.
BE: Of course, the same could be say of you.
My response: It is clear after listening to Pastor Enyart, and hanging around this board, (in particular see Hilston's recent "debate" with Stratnerd) that he and many here have a presuppostion by faith that makes them unable/unwilling/unwhatever, to look at the evidence. While I have a certain presupposition, that the earth is old, evolution has occured, etc. I believe it comes from a reasoned look at the evidence as a whole.
PS: The concept of a young earth (6-10,000 years old) is scientifically untenable, the facts do not support a young earth or young universe.
BE: Peter, last year I debated the Age of the Earth against one of America's more well-known geophysicists and a professor of mathematics (interested in the subject) from CU in Boulder, Colo. If you give me your address, I will send you the audio of that moderated debate, along with the slides used; if you listen to the debate, you can do two things: (1) attempt to answer the scientific challenges that the Old Earthers didn't answer; (2) try to figure out why the Old Earthers in the audience were so dejected, with one of them, an atheist physicist from Seattle who flew in for the debate, admitting to me that night that the Young Earth side won the debate.
My response: See The Phy's post above.
PS: The concept of special creation as opposed to the current theory of evolution is also scientifically untenable.
BE: If someday you find out, let's say by hearing it from God Himself, that He did in fact specially create mankind, perhaps you'll then realize how wrong this statement of yours is, unless of course (at that time) you define science as a discipline designed specifically to hide the truth.
My response: If I do hear it from God himself then I guess I will understand how wrong my statement was. In the meantime, I hope to use the intellect He has provided to me and to others to understand the world through science (and it is not a discipline designed to hide the truth).
PS: ...I first heard you on the radio several years ago (that station does not broadcast your show anymore but I do check it on the web). I was interested until you had some one on who claimed to have found a T. rex with recent vegetation in its mouth. I was then still interested but more for the comedic aspect of your show. I cannot remember who the T. rex person was but they did have a web site, I tracked it down and e-mailed to get more specific info, (hey who knows if it was true then maybe I could grab a piece of the Nobel prize $) but unfortunately they never responded.
BE: Peter DeRosa and his family excavated the largest and most complete allosaur skull ever found, and a movie was made of the discovery, Raising the Allosaur. You can view a clip of that video and see the allosaur skull itself. And yes, there was wood in its mouth which was only partially fossilized. By why should this surprise you? Three examples: (1) Baumgardner (of Los Alamos fame) has shown that about the same amount of Carbon 14 is found in coal in three distinct portions of the stratigraphic record (Eocene, Cretaceous, and Pennsylvanian) indicating that the coal is not millions of years old, and also, that it was laid down at the same time; (2) Not far from Minneapolis, just a few years ago, a quarry unearthed rare jellyfish fossils, rare because their tender bodies don't readily survive to fossilize, and they found these vertically in seven strata that according to the news report, supposedly had formed over a million years, providing yet another specific challenge (like polystrate fossils [Hi Poly!]) indicating layers believed to be millions of years old formed rapidly; (3) evolutionary scientists have been recovering organic matter, complete proteins, DNA, and even entire bacterium from *within fossils* that are tens or even hundreds of millions of years old. Thus, Peter, you should reconsider before a priori dismissing a claim of partially un-fossilized wood excavated in the mouth of a dinosaur.
My response: A review of a movie unearthing an Allosaurus does not science make. If someone really found recent organic material inside the mouth of an Allosaurus--give 'em a Nobel prize, but that would require some peer review, some others to look at the "evidence", has that happened? Ooops, didnt think so, if I am wrong please advise. However I thought Allosaurus was a carnivore? In addition, this seems also to be anecdotal evidence, if it doesnt count for me it doesnt count for you either.
Baumgardner of Los Alomos, and Institute for Creation Research, fame. Well I did print out a short paper he wrote for ICR. His references are a 1987 paper by others in what seems to be a peer reviewed journal, then 4 references to papers all in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism.
I dont quite understand your concern with the jellyfish fossils and how that supports you. My reading on polystrate fossils, which originally raised some concerns, has seemed to indicate that there are sufficient explanations that make real sense rather than the nonsence YEC'er normally spout.
The issue of organic matter from old fossils seems to be a statement without much foundation on your part. If you are referring to the much touted "intact red blood cells" found in some fossil within the past few years, I think what was found was some hemoglobin, not the entire rbc.
In short, I remain unconvinced that YEC'ers, special creationists, ID'ers have it right. The generally accepted positions seem to be best supported by the evidence
- Status