Racial Evolution 101

I want to be perfectly clear now. I believe in GOD but not in what the people trying to defend like 6000 y.o. earth.

Neither do I. We have one planet (Venus) in our system which is ballpark more or less for the kind of age estimate which Bishop Usher derived from biblical chronologies and, since the Earth and Mars do not look anything like that (900 F surface temperature, total lack of regolith, totally random distribution of impact craters, 90-bar atmosphere etc. etc. etc.), You have to assume Earth and Mars are older than that. Not hundreds of millions and billions and trillions of years mind you, but somewhat older.Here is some of what Bob Bass, one of America's best mathematicians, once had to say about the age of the Earth:

​

I haven't seen the movie but I have read the transcript of the entire
Scopes trial (and many books on it -- and several books on the recent Supreme Court case "Scopes-2" such as those by Wendell Byrd [two thick volumes -- containing written endorsements by Evolutionists as "eminently
fair"]).

​

If all you are insisting upon is the trivial fact that life has a certain plasticity and variability within each (Biblical[?]) "kind " -- such as what breeders can achieve with dogs & pigeons -- wherein, in nature, Darwinian "selection of the fittest" visibly operates (such as industrial melanism with Kettlewell's moths), then EVERYONE who is not certifiably insane AGREES that "micro-evolution" is an established fact -- but one of little significance.

​

People who doubt evolution are those who doubt MACRO-evolution, i.e. that every form of animal life observed today had a single ancestor, and that if we could line up the genealogy (as in the adult fairy tales purveyed by LIFE-TIME books and all Established popular media) we would see something recognizably "apish" or "monkeyish" gradually having descendants who became more and more "humanlike" until Homo Sapien Sapiens arrives on the scene.

​

I once read the book "Human Evolution" by UCLA anthropologist Birdsell, and when he came to plotting cranial capacity of various
pongids/pithecoids/anthropoids as allegedly traced through time (using
conventional uniformitarian dating), showing australophithecus, homo
erectus, homo sapiens, etc. I had to laugh out loud because they were
essentially _parallel_ horizontal straight lines! Evidently some of
Birdsell's colleagues twisted his arm to fudge the graph lest he confuse the laity, because in the Second Edition, using the SAME data, he had fudged each line to tilt it upward going from left to right so that the gullible could imagine that each cranial capacity was "evolving to a larger size" and with glossed-over vertical jumps one could be brainwashed into believing that modern man had "evolved" from some more brutish creatures.

​

The Scopes trial shows clearly that the only reason that people who fancy themselves scientifically enlightened is that the current geological party-line is that the earth was once a molten ball, and if you accept that, then there has to be an explanation as to how animal life appeared on this ball after it cooled off enough to allow liquid water.

​

Evolutionists DEFINE "scientific" as precluding "miracles" such as
"creation ex nihilo" (although the evidence for the Big Bang has forced most astrophysicists to admit that time had a beginning and that "before" this beginning neither space nor time existed, i.e. there was at that ONE admitted "singularity" true "creation ex nihilo"), and therefore they are forced by their assumptions to deduce that life must have spontaneously arisen by "natural processes" (meaning chemistry and physics as observed today). But this is simply an aesthetic choice. People who want to push "naturalistic materialism" as the ONLY metaphysic behind science are welcome to see how far they can get with that arbitrary choice. But with only one exception that I know of, the smartest of the atheistically inclined (such as Sir Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle) all end up with "directed Pan-Spermia" -- that is, life originated somewhere else and was brought here by cosmic winds (Hoyle) or "space-alien missionaries[!]" (Crick) -- because they can easily calculate that the spontaneous
formation of an information-containing molecule with enough information encoded in it to survive & replicate would take 10^(10^(10^10)) years, i.e. is a practical _impossibility_. Richard Dawkins admits the problem, but then fudges the answer with a faked--up computer code which he convinces himself by wishful thinking and lack of rigorous logic demonstrates that the probability against spontaanneous biogenesis is not really as formidable as Crick and Hoyle have long admitted.

​

I once studied carefully a lengthy book containing at least one page on each, and careful photos and measurements of _every_ known fossil alleged to have a bearing on human evolution. If you remove the artist's reconstructions (which have time and again been discredited by later discovery of more complete skeletons which show that the artists were dreaming), and concentrate on the ACTUAL bones themselves, you could put them all in one corner of a small trunk! Absent the tendentious "reconstructions" of propagandizing artists, if you could revive the actual creatures and see them in action, a child could tell that (in the family of monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.) they are just EITHER "extinct apes" OR "genuine humans" with not the tiniest trace of any real transiitional forms between them.

​

All of the intellectually honest palaeontologists (such as Otto
Schindewolf and Edridge & Gould [the latter, with their "punctuated
equilibrium" using bafflegab to shield the public from understanding their gigantic admissions]) have admitted in writing that the fossil record is as complete as it ever will be and there is not the tiniest trace anywhere of truly coercive evidence (as understood in the hard sciences) that any "transitional" forms between the different (Biblical[?]) "kinds" have EVER existed. The fossil record is just a record of abrupt appearances, [allegedly] long persistences with only trivial changes ("micro-evolution," like the beaks of Darwin's finches or the protective coloration of Kettlewell's moths), and then extinction. The connections are 100% imaginary and "projected" onto the theory by the PRESUPPOSITIONS of the theorist. (In Eldridge-Gould "punk-eek" the "macro-evolution" always takes place off-stage, which invisibility they explain away wiith ad hoc arguments.)

​

If you are familiar with Cremo's book (denounced because he is a
Hinduism-convert and not because of any lack of coercive quality in his documentary evidence) there have been fully human skeletons found in EVERY stratum of the alleged uniformitarian past, no matter how many "millions" of years one goes back; they also document the FACT that in the 20th century these embarrassments are covered up by the Establishment and not permitted to be published!

​

I once corresponded with an ex-Young-Earth Creationist (an oil geologist) who said that he had suffered for his beliefs at the hands of skeptical colleagues (eventually getting fired), and finally gave up and accepted the "eons" of time orthodox geology. He challenged me to explain away the varves somewhere that gave a continuous record of 20,000 or 30,000 years at some lake-site. I told him that at the time I had no good answer, but would eventually get back to him. Now have a _coercive_ quality answer. The Creationists took videos of the environs of Mt. St Helens before it blew up, and then went back 10 years after it blew up, and then videotaped the identical areas to show layers of thousands upon thousands of varves! (Apparently a _daily_ rather than an "annual" phenomenon!)

​

Lord Kelvin stopped Darwinism dead in its tracks when he made an irrefutable thermodynamic calculation that at the rate which the Earth is cooling off (and heat is being conducted from the interior to the surface and then radiated into space) the Earth could not possibly be more than 2 to 20 million years old. This really put "the fear of God" into the staunchest Darwinists for a while.

​

But when radioactivity was discovered, the uniformitarians rejoiced
because they had found a "new" source of heat to prolong the Earth's
life-span. But they _failed_ to repeat Kelvin's calculation, because the results would have been too embarrassing. I once found in a geology text-book an account of Kelvin's calculation, which (using Fourier transform solution) I modernized by incuding on the right-hand side of the equation as a "source" of energy inside the Earth the _maximal_ modern estimates of abundance of radioactive materials inside the Earth (which I got from publications by famed Princeton physicist Dicke). Part of the reason that I was fired from BYU is that I circulated a copy of my paper showing that with inclusion of the heat sources which Lord Kelvin had not known about, the _MAXIMAL_ age of the Earth gets revised upwards from his 20 Million years to only about 200 Million years (a far cry from the billions proclaimed by uniformitarian geologists who are about to
experience a sudden fall when my friends start to market cheap Radio-Shack type gadgets by means of which high-school labs & home workshop hobbyists can cause Uranium and Thorium to do in 20 minutes what the Establishment claims would take "45 billion years"!). [Stay tuned, o ye of little faith!]

​

The uniformitarian Editor of "Nature" has admitted that the rate of efflux of helium from the Earth's crust into its atmosphere, and escape from the atmosphere into outer space, sets an upper limit to the age of the Earth's atmosphere at 2 million years (or more precisely he called it the "biggest anomaly that had ever crossed my desk" and others in numerous technical papers have worked out the 2 million years and admit that this is a "puzzle" and a "mystery" which remains "UNEXPLAINED and will not go away!")

​

When geology-Ph.D. holding geologists (such as Dr. John D. Morris) subject the Grand Canyon to an unbiased scrutiny, they find that the strata on TOP are dated at eons older than the strata at the bottom! This has been documented elaborately in papers, books and videos from the qualified geologists of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), but this coercive-quality hard evidence has neither been rebutted nor refuted, it is simply IGNORED because "those jerks are Fundamentalists anyway, so who cares what they say!" In the ICR books addressed to trained scientists (not laymen) there are listed DOZENS of ways of dating the earth's features (amount of time for all the salt to get into the oceans by the rates that it is now getting in from rivers, etc.) which come up with dates less than 200 million years (many of them with ages less than tens of thousands!). This evidence has never been refuted, merely ignored, but as a trained mathematician I know that a SINGLE counter-example disproves any alleged generalization and as a onetime Full Professor of Physics & Astronomy at a WASC-accredited university I know that it is not science but PSEUDO-SCIENCE to ignore a theory's predictions which are falsified by experimental observations and unquestionable FACTS.

​

I am enough of a believer in "the scientific method" that I wold believe in "stochastic macro-evolution" if there were truly coercive evidence in its favor.

​

Instead, the whole idea is a house of cards held together by nothing more than the RELIGION of "secular humanism" which is explicitly atheistic _by definition_ and excludes the possibility of "miracles" by definition.

​

OUTLINE OF REASONS for SKEPTICISM toward neo--Darwinian stochastic
macro-evolution:

​

1. Irreducible complexity [high information-content] at the molecular
level reqiures design (or waiting for a Hindu-style eternity to pass,
which is contradicted by the coercive evidence for the Big Bang);

​

2. Geological dating schemes are fundamentally flawed because

​

2.1 in sedimentary rocks the reasoning is circular and assumes that
no global catastrophes have ever occurred (contrary to evidence by the
formerly Establihment, now neo-catastrophist, Derek V. Ager, in his
penetrating book "The Stratigraphic Record");

​

2.2 in igneous rocks the radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed
because

​

2.2.1 results are often inconsistent; anomalies are not published;

​

2.2.2 Cook's nuclear physics proofs from coercive evidence pertaining
to the _three_ ratios one gets from the 4 dates obtained by
Uranium-Thorium-Lead dating of the same rock are consistent only with
hypothesis that rock was subjected to a neutron-flux (like spinning
the hands of a clock wildly) or other clock-resetting physical
phenomenon, namely the 3 ratios are what his nuclear physics argument
PREDICTED they would be if Uranium-Thorium-Lead dating were spurious!;

​

2.2.3 Brightsen's patent-pending process for radiation remediation
shows that radionuclide decay rates can be altered to instantaneous
decay by a passing photon of correct low energy (e.g. infrared-ray or
heat or lightning strike) and so "the most sacrosanct principle in
all science" is demonstrated by coercive evidence to be a modern MYTH!

​

3. the fossil "record" (assuming for sake of argument that
uniformitarian geological dating were correct, even though we know that it cannot be) is clearly one of abrupt appearance, "long" persistence with no significant change, and extinction.

​

3.1 the fossil "record" is demonstrably imaginary in many cases,
because creatures which we have been authoritatively told "have been
extinct for scores of millions of years" are sometimes discovered still living on the Earth.

​

SUMMARY: there is not the tiniest scrap of hard evidence which would
suggest that "evolution has occurred" except to those who already believe that the doctrine of the formerly molten-earth plus suspect validity of creation ex nihilo REQUIRES them to _assume_ that evolution "must" have occurred.

​

(But this is not an induction from evidence, it is a deduction from
tacit/covert presupposititions!)

​

What all of that says is that, basically, between the religious dogma in the Bible and the religious dogma in the typical paleontology book, the dogma in the bible is a bit closer to reality.That says that when you go to laugh at young-earth creationists, don't laugh too hard...

once again. math is a model. it can be used to model several aspects of reality, but when there is a conflict between the model and the reality it is not reality that loses. real scientist look at the assumptions and simplifications that went into the calculations to see why they are wrong.the calculation of the age of the earth ("gets revised upwards from his 20 Million years to only about 200 Million years") is missing or over simplifies elements. this is just more misleading pseudo-information, not science. sorry ted.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the calculation of the age of the earth ("gets revised upwards from his 20 Million years to only about 200 Million years") is missing or over simplifies elements. this is just more misleading pseudo-information, not science

I simply don't see any evidence in that statement that you have the slightest clue as to what is involved.

you present a mathematical result out of some source with no reference to the math actually done and then claim that it trumps all the scientific evidence for the age of the earth.lets see which is likely to be wrong? bad math or reality?ps -- nice new avatar

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

For non math majors, heat transfer problems were the first major application of Fourier analysis and trigonometric series modeling of differential equations, and the subject was well understood in the early 1800s. If as good and thorough a mathematician and physicist as Bass says that he'd done the math and that radioactivity cannot save the standard dating schemes for the Earth's age, you can take that to the bank. There are no overwhelming complexities in the picture.

There is a whole separate forum for Dates and Dating. Please carry this one over there.Do we have a volunteer to Propose as new topic?

Sorry. No math can trump evidence. I don't care who is doing the math, they can be missing factors. A true scientist that does such a calculation that does not jibe with the evidence looks for reasons for the discrepancy. A creatortionista says "look the earth is only 4000 (or 200 Million) years old" or something equally ludicrous. If the result is based on good science there will be others that corroborate it -- where are those?Why don't you dig up the math and start a new topic on it (per AdminNosey)?Then we can get back to human ancestors in the real world again. Have you corrected your information of Human family tree and Neander DNA yet?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You talk to much
We believe in micro-evolution but not in macro-evolution
Others said GOD create evolution and evolution create the manWhy we find today only a small part of species who live in past?
Where are dinosaurs, mammoths, cave bears, tigers with huge canines etc.?
There was many species of animals that disappear long away after the dinosaurs.
If you don’t believe me, watch Discovery channels
Why we don’t find skeletons from today animals (like a wolf, or a lion, or a modern tiger skeleton), in past?All animals including human species appear, live a period of time than disappear.
This is in contradiction with a starting point (like in Creation theory).If it was only a creation 6000 years ago majority of animals must live all the time.
Why we don’t find a dinosaur skeleton near a human skeleton?In past we didn’t believe that earth is round but now we believe, we don’t believe in evolution but now believe in micro-evolution, tomorrow we will believe in medium evolution and so on.

If it was only a creation 6000 years ago majority of animals must live all the time. Why we don’t find a dinosaur skeleton near a human skeleton?

The reason we don't find a LOT of such evidence (aside from the history of the earth being more than 6000 years) is that humans have always lived near water by preference, and that most of the areas humans lived in prior to the flood are, in all likelihood, now beneath the waves, and we are now inhabiting areas which would have been viewed as plateaus and sparsely if at all inhabited prior to the flood. In other words, dinosaurs would have lived here before the flood, but not many humans.

Finding Cities in all the Wrong Places

Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our
own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet
beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.

• Hydaspis Chaos
• City off Cuba
• More on City off Cuba
• Lake Vostok Magnetic Anomaly
• Recent Cydonia Images and their Meanings
• Mechanical Junk and Debris on the Sands of Mars
• Why We're Going to Mars
  

Those interested in the city off Cuba should do google searches on the three words 'cuba', 'city', and 'Zelitsky' from time to time.Nonetheless, there are several kinds of evidence indicating that humans and dinosaurs did exist at the same time and this evidence is sufficiently compelling that evolutionists and others trying to defend the 65-million-year-ago idea are increasingly in a state of denial. This evidence includes:

• Recognizable dinosaur types in American Indian petroglyphs.
• Ica Stones.
• The tracks at Paluxy, near GlenRose Texas.
• Giant antediluvian human bones found in various parts of the world, e.g. the specimen at the Mt Blanco museum.
  

And who can ignore the Martian Bunny?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is off topic.The petroglyphs have already been discussed on another thread where Ted (aka redwolf) has failed to answer posts that refute his points on them. Posting them again is against guidelines as well as being intellectually dishonest.See discussion on Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity:
http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity
http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity
http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravityThe ica stones were also discussed on that thread, the paluxy footprints are a well known creatortionista hoax, and the thigh bone of a mastodon does not make evidence for a giant human.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Posting links to your claim to have debunked something of mine without also posting links to my clear refutation or your lame attempt at debunking is basically dishonest.

ROFLOL!What refutations?#40 - no answer
#59 - no answer
#29 - pathetic claim that the reason the pictures are totally wrong on the head and neck is from retouching every 30 to 50 years - refuted by me on post #35, to which there is --- no answer.If they are so lame, why don't you have any answer to them? Talk about LAME!Go to the links and follow them -- better yet look at the totally pathetically LAME answer to my post #64 which lists 6 posts on that topic as yet unanswered by you.That is LAME!Or go to unanswered post #101 for an updated list of unanswered posts. Unanswered because they refute your points and you have no more (even lame) answers.Don't talk to me about LAME. Or Dishonest.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

>Don't talk to me about LAME. Or Dishonest.How about lame, dishonest, ignorant, and arrogant?

The petroglyphs have already been discussed on another thread where Ted (aka redwolf) has failed to answer posts that refute his points on them. Posting them again is against guidelines as well as being intellectually dishonest.

This is the basic method of argument made infamous on talk.origins. Evo(s) claim to have refuted the other guy's arguments in a previous thread and, therefore, if the other guy uses them again in another context (i.e. he doesn't believe the evos claim to have refuted the argument in their own minds), he is a liar.This is on top of claiming to have refuted the association (both visually and from descriptions in oral traditions) of Mishipishu with the stegosaur, ignoring the explanation of retouching which is sufficiently real, ignoring the description of mishipishu having a "great spiked tail" which it used as a weapon in oral traditions, noted in the descriptive literature of the Bon Echo theme park amongst other places. This is also ignoring the fact that the association comes originally from Vine DeLoria, in all likelihood the greatest living expert on American Indian oral traditions.This is on top of claiming to have debunked the ica stones while not noting my having posted Dr. Cabrera's concise demololition of his "debunkers".This is on top of the dishonest claim that the Paluxy tracks are some sort of a "known forgery".This is on top of your idiotic claim that Indian descriptions of Mishipishu having a "catlike" face somehow amounts to their claiming him to be a member of the cat family.The basic truth, RAZD, is that I don't really view you as capable of adding anything meaningful to any sort of a debate or discussion on origins topics. You appear to be basically just throwing stuff at the wall hoping any of it will stick, and looking for some way to have me booted from the forum on some sort of a technicality.Get used to being ignored, RAZD.