Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[6days]

Quote=gcthomas]*You have been deceived, 6Days. Clams (members of the mollusc order bivalvia) do indeed have springy ligament hinges that spring the shells open when the closing muscles stop operating, but the shells found in the summit limestone (a metamorphic rock actually) are not bivalves, so are not clams. They are actuallybrachiopods; they unrelated to clams and not even molluscs.*


Brachiopods have a different hinge system and have separate opening and closing muscles.*They do not open on death.[/quote]

Correct.... partially

Mollusca are on everest in addition to brachiopods.


And as I said in my answer to you that even in your scenario this is evidence that all of the Earth was under water at one time or another

 

[gcthomas]

Given your history of dissembling, 6D, can you link to a photo of such 'molluscs' out a journal describing them first hand? I have seen a number of papers describing the summit rocks, and none mention molluscs.

I'm sure that you have seen some actual evidence, so let's have it.

Edit: I have looked for evidence for the claim of closed molluscs in large quantities on mountaintops, but all I find is a quote from "honest Kent Hovind" without evidence. His videoed talk has him talking about the fossils on Everest but his presentation showed a photo of the Andes in Peru, with no obvious 'clams' in evidence either.
Without any evidence at all for your claims, I will assume you are either lying or are willingly deceived.

 

[Stripe]

I have looked for evidence for the claim of closed molluscs in large quantities on mountaintops.

Just one would do.

 

[Jose Fly]

*

What we expect from your religious belief is a "willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense.... *in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories..."*

Richard Lewontin, evolutionist, geneticist

For complete quote google 'divine foot in the door'

I know the quote, and I believe you and I have been over it before. Lewontin is correct...sometimes in science you have to accept things even though "common sense" would suggest otherwise. A good example is the relationship between the earth and the sun. If I go outside and look, common sense tells me I'm not moving, nor is the planet I'm standing on, and it's the sun that is moving around me. I mean....you can see it! It's moving across the sky, right? No way am I moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. Ridiculous!

But science shows that "common sense" conclusion to be completely wrong.

Also, Lewontin makes the point that we can't allow "Goddidit" as an answer to scientific questions. You and I have been over this, and if you'll recall it's where I ask that if you disagree with Lewontin, then you need to provide a means by which we can test and investigate God.

 

[Jonahdog]

Nope. The quote is entirely accurate. He might have used a non-standard method of adding a minor comment — which does nothing to change the quote nor does it confuse matters. You're just determined to talk about anything other than the substance of the post.

A quote with an added comment that adds something the original did not claim. You are easily satisfied Stripey. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[Stripe]

A quote with an added comment that adds something the original did not claim. You are easily satisfied Stripey. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Nope. You're just desperate to find something — anything — to talk about to avoid the glaring failures of your precious religion. The Darwinist term "species" is vague and malleable; its definition left that way so it can be molded to fit any scenario.

Meanwhile, creationists have a well-defined, rock-solid definition for "kinds."

You hate these facts, so you are willing to say anything to move the discussion away from OP.

 

[gcthomas]

Why does the presence of 'clams' on the summit indicate catastrophic flood? Why couldn't they just have died, been buried, fossilised and uplifted after the rock formed as is the scientific explanation?

6Days, you still haven't answered this key question.

 

[Stripe]

6Days, you still haven't answered this key question.

Darwinists love demanding answers to avoid defending their precious religion.

 

[gcthomas]

Oh, and 6 days. Your claim that open clams have been found in abundance on the summit of Everest still has no evidence supporting it. Since you have defended your claim, you must have more than anecdotal evidence. Unless this silence is an avoidance strategy now you have been caught peddling a lie.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, and 6 days. Your claim that open clams have been found in abundance on the summit of Everest still has no evidence supporting it. Since you have defended your claim, you must have more than anecdotal evidence. Unless this silence is an avoidance strategy now you have been caught peddling a lie.

Darwinists hate the subject.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate the subject.

So does 6days, apparently.

 

[Hawkins]

That doesn't make sense. Remember, 6days has insisted that creationism is a belief, not science. But then he also cites creationists trying to form hypotheses about creationism.

Those are contradictory.

You can basically make everything a hypothesis, it won't automatically make it a science. Big Bang is one of these examples. Strictly speaking it's not a science as it's not an advocate about how things repeat.

 

[Jose Fly]

You can basically make everything a hypothesis, it won't automatically make it a science. Big Bang is one of these examples. Strictly speaking it's not a science as it's not an advocate about how things repeat.

And as we've seen in the other thread, you're simply wrong. Repeatablity is not a requirement for something to be scientific. If it were, archaeology would not be a science, nor would forensics.

 

[6days]

You can basically make everything a hypothesis, it won't automatically make it a science. Big Bang is one of these examples. Strictly speaking it's not a science as it's not an advocate about how things repeat.

Correct... sort of.
Big Bang is a belief about the past and not an observable event..... its not something that can be repeated. Biblical creation is also a belief about the past. Between the two competing worldviews, as Christians we see the evidence better fitting the Intelligent Designer... Biblical Creator model. We live in a universe that appears fine tuned for life. And, we know exactly who did that fine tuning.

 

[gcthomas]

6Days. Did you ever work out how you got confused about the open 'clams' on Everest that were really brachiopods? You seemed very certain that it was clams, and you were going to prove it.

Have you found any evidence that you weren't lying for rhetorical reasons?

 

[Stripe]

6Days. Did you ever work out how you got confused about the open 'clams' on Everest that were really brachiopods? You seemed very certain that it was clams, and you were going to prove it. Have you found any evidence that you weren't lying for rhetorical reasons?

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

Get your own thread, loser. :loser:

 

[Stuu]

Correct... sort of.
Big Bang is a belief about the past and not an observable event

The Big Bang is a conclusion about the beginning of the universe, based on evidence. You can observe what was happening a mere 380,000 years later for yourself if you tune your FM radio to about 100MHz, away from any stations. The 'static' you can hear is partly from the Cosmic Microwave Background, radiation from the original combination of protons and electrons to make hydrogen atoms, 13.8 billion years ago.

If you still have analogue TV you can watch this birth of hydrogen coming through the static between channels.

This is not just any old radiation, it is exactly the energy you would get by combining protons and electrons today, but the waves are stretched out by the expansion of space-time (the continuation of the Big Bang) so now they are the wavelength of microwaves.

I imagine you have a god-based belief about the past that explains the Cosmic Microwave Background. Do tell us about that.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The Big Bang is a conclusion about the beginning of the universe, based on evidence. You can observe what was happening a mere 380,000 years later for yourself if you tune your FM radio to about 100MHz, away from any stations. The 'static' you can hear is partly from the Cosmic Microwave Background, radiation from the original combination of protons and electrons to make hydrogen atoms, 13.8 billion years ago.If you still have analogue TV you can watch this birth of hydrogen coming through the static between channels.This is not just any old radiation, it is exactly the energy you would get by combining protons and electrons today, but the waves are stretched out by the expansion of space-time (the continuation of the Big Bang) so now they are the wavelength of microwaves.I imagine you have a god-based belief about the past that explains the Cosmic Microwave Background. Do tell us about that.Stuart

Darwinists hate the topic.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists hate the topic.

What about Keynesian economists? Or lawn bowlers? What do they think about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

What about Keynesian economists? Or lawn bowlers? What do they think about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation?Stuart

Darwinists hate the topic. They will do anything to bury OP.