Conolophus subcristatus

Are those the ones that sneeze salt?

Matt,

Another fine photograph of the native Galapagos fauna from you
IMHO. From which island was this taken?

John

_Arthur said: Are those the ones that sneeze salt?

I took the picture on Isla Santa Cruz, but I do not know if the critter is native there -- I think I took the picture at the research station. I promise to (get my wife to) take better notes in the future.

They're four feet long and eat primarily prickly pear cactus - but that one looks like it just ate a goat or something.

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Henry J said:

Is this a descendant of one of those dinosaurs that were in the Ark?

Yabba Dabba Doo!

I can’t wait to see the Flintstones exhibit at the Creation Museum either

Take THAT Mr. Slate!!!:)

Unless the town of Bedrock existed after Noah’s time (seems unlikely), it was destroyed in the Flood with all its wicked inhabitants.

What is with all of the Bible bashing in here? Are we not to be objective about this discovery here? How about the fact that when one accesses the site on http://creation.com that this has already been addressed by them before you guys have made a mockery of them in the first place?

There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

I don't put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Dr. Lewis said: I don't put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Doctor Doctor Lewis: I own two very nice water colour abstracts. So what? Present your evidence.

Hey, Dr. Lewis! Can I sue you for malpractice?

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Dr. Lewis said: The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Dr. Lewis said: What is with all of the Bible bashing in here? Are we not to be objective about this discovery here? How about the fact that when one accesses the site on http://creation.com that this has already been addressed by them before you guys have made a mockery of them in the first place?

Dr. Dr. Lewis:

If you are referring to the infamous Paluxy footprints, please read the following article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

I think that you will find that you have been sadly misinformed. But then again, if you really do have a degree in biology you should have known that.

If you have any other evidence, by all means please share it with us. The Talk Origins archive is extensive and it contains refutations of almost every creationist claim ever made. I am not particularly worried that you will present anything at all original.

On the other thread, I also made so bold as to doubt that the good doctor is in fact a doctor or a biologist. If he wants to allay my doubts - and those of others - all he has to do is to state the year, title of thesis and conferring institution of his (biology) doctoral degree, and cite his publications - the fruit of his fifteen years of laboratory work - in peer-reviewed journals.

Any real scholar would be glad to do this. Any real University would be glad to affirm, and (for a small fee) to furnish a copy of such a thesis, which is, in the great tradition of free scholarly debate, considered a public document.

If this information is not forthcoming, I am of the opinion that his pants are on fire.

Dave Luckett said: Any real scholar would be glad to do this.

Dr. Dr. Lewis:

If you are referring to the infamous dinosaur blood fiasco, please read the following article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

I think that you will find that you have been sadly misinformed. But then again, if you really do have a degree in biology you should have known that.

If you have any other evidence, by all means please share it with us. The Talk Origins archive is extensive and it contains refutations of almost every creationist claim ever made. I am not particularly worried that you will present anything at all original.

Oh to be cold-blooded. "Honey, my core temperature is dropping. I'm going to have to go out and lay on this rock for a few hours."

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time. I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said: There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time.

Can you provide this alleged ample evidence?

I own two doctorates, one in Biology and the other in Theology.

I don't see how your doctorates are evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together.

Dr. Lewis said: I don't put a huge emphasis on either one, but since most Evolutionists in the past that I have run into put a huge emphasis on those types of things, I thought I might bring that up. The bottom line is who is presenting the best argument. That is your information is lacking.

Well, the thing is that Young Earth Creationism has no explanatory power whatsoever, and its proponents, including yourself, have no ability nor desire to provide any evidence to support their claim that a literal reading of the Book of Genesis accurately describes the beginning of the Universe and the origins of the diversities of life on Earth. In other words, please provide evidence to support your claims.

Lets look at what we know about the fossil record. For one 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms and 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants. 95% of the remaining of those are .25% invertebrates including insects. The remaining .0125% are vetebrates. We consider that the fossils in the layers that we find are Post-Flood for the most part, most of which were buried after the Flood and the scattering of humans from Babel. Of course you don't believe in the Bible for whatever reason (theres ample evidential support of a global flood from nearly all ancient civilizations that account for one, so I don't see how you could argue against it logically). We find that the dinosaur fossils are relatively small compared to other types of creatures. The Flood was a marine catastrophe, and as such, marine fossils are the dominant fossil found in the record. Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms as I discussed a few sentences ago, and this makes since of the percentages, helping us to understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are rare and overwhelemd by marine organisms. Why are there no fossilized humans in Flood sediments then might be your next question. Well, I think it proper to have a bit of understanding behind Biblical exegesis to understand why this is not a problem for us. Basically most people believe that in Genesis, it says that God will destroy man from the face of the Earth using the Flood. Some people who are not well studied on the subject believe that this phrase means to completely obliterate all evidential support of man. But this is not so. The Hebrewic word hxm or maha can leave evidence behind. That is a misconception. Maha has been utilized to be the blotting out of sin, but there is evidence that remains after. Better questions to ask about human fossil findings in layers that contain dinosaur fossils are as followed. Do the human fossils exist but are not yet found? What is the likelihood that the humans would have been fossilized? What is unusual about their distribution? Lastly, how much Flood sediment was there?

Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Consider that the Flood took weeks to cover the Earth, so it is possible still for people to make it to boats, grab on to floating debris and so forth. Some may have made it to higher ground. They wouldn't have lasted long which is true, but that does not mean that they fossilize. In most cases, we find that dead things decompose or get eaten. They disappear and nothing is left. Tragedies worldwide have taken place and left not a single trace of a human behind, as there are victims who are never found (as is usually the case for natural disasters when it comes to dead bodies). It may still be possible to fossilize a human body. Neanderthals as we know are found in post-Flood sediments. But even still one consideration never made is that the human population was relatively small in the pre-Flood era. Considering that God did say be fruitful and multiply and man was incredibly disobedient in the pre-Flood era, it is quite possible that man did not listen to this command. Violence was highly prevalent during the time period as well, so death rates would be extremely high. An estimate could be hundreds of thousands of people living. A few million people would be generous. 200 million people would leave just over one human fossil per cubic mile of sediment laid down by the Flood. An uneven distribution of civilization is also another situation to consider, so it would be very hard to locate fossils.

Another misconception is that WHILE man and dinosaur did walk together, they did not actually walk together. What do I mean by this. Well, just because we walk with bears today doesn't mean that we actually walk with bears. And in this case, its highly likely with the uneven distribution that mankind and dinosaurs were on opposite ends of the Earth to say the least. So we do not need to find dinosaurs buried with humans to say that they roamed the Earth together.

So the Fred and Wilma comments might be cute, but in truth they are highly unrealistic, condescending towards the Creation Science arguments, and up to and including a strawman misrepresentation of what we actually try to argue.

Thank you all, I hope this helps you at least understand where we are coming from.

And you may call me Jay.

Dr. Dr. Lewis wrote:

"What about the theory of Young Earth Creation Science do you want evidence in regards to?"

Well how about this little gem:

"There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time."

See the thing is Doctor that you are the one who is rejecting the consensus view of science. You are the one who is making exrtraordinary claims, therefore you are the one who is required to provide extraordinary evidence.

By the way, the evidence for common descent would require much more that one bok to present. Basically you have to come up with a better explanation for all of this evidence in order to convince anyone that your hypothesis has any merit. But let's keep it simple for now, do you have any evidence for you claim or not, yes or no? Please provide references from the scientific literature, no Wiki crap and no creationist web sites please. I have already cited articles containing scientific references, have you read them?

Dr. Lewis said: All you are doing is simply mocking Young Earth Creation Scientists.

DS said: Dr. Dr. Lewis: If you are referring to the infamous dinosaur blood fiasco, please read the following article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html I think that you will find that you have been sadly misinformed. But then again, if you really do have a degree in biology you should have known that. If you have any other evidence, by all means please share it with us. The Talk Origins archive is extensive and it contains refutations of almost every creationist claim ever made. I am not particularly worried that you will present anything at all original. Why do you assume my evidence before I present it? Or perhaps rather my argumentation that most Evolutionists do not even consider? The ample evidence I would suggest can be made through comments found within the Bible regarding documented beasts and animals that are described as being very large. Thats eyewitness testimony right there and very much worth repeating of.

Dr. Dr. Lewis,

So your answer would be no. You have absolutely no evidence whatesoever. All you have is your interpretation of the fossil record based on your need to make reality fit what it says in the Bible. I'm sure that every real scientist will be absolutely convinced by your astounding logic. You can quit now, really.

mrg said:

Dr. Lewis said: All you are doing is simply mocking Young Earth Creation Scientists.

And we'll keep on mocking you until you can show us your CV. Are they doing classified research at the ICR?

mrg said:

Dave Luckett said: Any real scholar would be glad to do this.

Any real scholar has his CV online -- even Richard Sternberg, an ISCID fellow, is proud to display his qualifications. Of course, publications to the ICR, CRS, ISCID, and the Foundation for Understanding Belief And Reason (FUBAR) should be listed along with contributions to Marvel Comics. What -- cat got your tongue?

DS said: Dr. Dr. Lewis, So your answer would be no. You have absolutely no evidence whatesoever. All you have is your interpretation of the fossil record based on your need to make reality fit what it says in the Bible. I'm sure that every real scientist will be absolutely convinced by your astounding logic. You can quit now, really.

Dr. Lewis said: I actually like CMI better, and AIG isn't a bad reference sometimes. ICR has some good things to mention, but in regards to the websites Jonathan Sarfati, John Woodmorappe and others tend to be reliable on the issues.

Dr. Lewis said: What does it matter where my credentials are from?

DS said: Dr. Dr. Lewis wrote: "What about the theory of Young Earth Creation Science do you want evidence in regards to?" Well how about this little gem: "There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time." See the thing is Doctor that you are the one who is rejecting the consensus view of science. You are the one who is making exrtraordinary claims, therefore you are the one who is required to provide extraordinary evidence. By the way, the evidence for common descent would require much more that one bok to present. Basically you have to come up with a better explanation for all of this evidence in order to convince anyone that your hypothesis has any merit. But let's keep it simple for now, do you have any evidence for you claim or not, yes or no? Please provide references from the scientific literature, no Wiki crap and no creationist web sites please. I have already cited articles containing scientific references, have you read them?

mrg said:

Dr. Lewis said: What does it matter where my credentials are from?

Hmm ... that's a VERY interesting response. Most scientists have their CVs online and can just provide a URL. There are scientists reading this, I'm sure they can provide their CVs with absolutely no hesitation. They have nothing to hide, after all.

mrg said:

Dr. Lewis said: I actually like CMI better, and AIG isn't a bad reference sometimes. ICR has some good things to mention, but in regards to the websites Jonathan Sarfati, John Woodmorappe and others tend to be reliable on the issues.

Hmm, such a skill at selective reading of a comment, but I shouldn't wonder. Let's restrict the room for tapdancing and ask: * Where did you get your doctorate in biology? Please provide details -- year, information on thesis, that sort of stuff. * What publications have you placed in scientific journals? No, ICR, CRS, ISCID, and Marvel Comics don't count.

And even if I provide it, you will simply laugh it off, and somehow try to discredit it. So again I ask, why would it matter if I even showed you to begin with?

My degrees could be from Harvard, Princeton or Cornell...and that still wouldn't matter to you. They could be concentrated in Microbiology and that wouldn't matter. I think you can infer that my interests include Marine Biology and Wildlife Biology from the response that I gave you earlier though.

mrg said:

And even if I provide it, you will simply laugh it off, and somehow try to discredit it. So again I ask, why would it matter if I even showed you to begin with?

Oh absolutely not, I know you're a joke. I just want to show that you're such a joke that you make inflated claims for yourself that you will not and probably cannot back up.

I've been around Evolutionists enough. I've worked with you. I've seen how you treated Creation Scientists, and I have even been one of the people who ostracized Creation Scientists early in my Science career.

Dr. Lewis said: You're not providing evidence to support any claims made here.

All you are doing is simply mocking Young Earth Creation Scientists.

For me to provide evidential support for Young Earth Creation Science in its entirety would require me to write a book, you're being quite unfair here.

What about the theory of Young Earth Creation Science do you want evidence in regards to?

It is simply not fair the way you go about doing things. You often criticize us for putting too much effort into refuting Evolutionist claims (forgetting that we actually do our own research ourselves, and really don't reject many of your findings, but simply acknowledge they conform to a Creation Science framework better). I say, we should criticize you for not doing ENOUGH research of the Creation Science movement. You don't even realize that Creation Science has a theory base for crying out loud 90% of the time.

Lewis -- if you have a real doctorate then Mickey Mouse lives at the North Pole with his elves -- you've provided all the information I need to get your number.

You find this disrespectful? It IS disrespectful, I mean to be. You, sir, are a fraud. And to make matters worse ... you are not any good at it.

Mr Lewis, nobody has yet engaged in an ad hominem attack on you. We have doubted your academic and scientific credentials, and we have requested that you provide actual evidence for your assertions. You have refused so far to provide data on either issue, but have merely made further assertions without evidence.

Your assertion that reports of larger animals in the Bible are "eyewitness testimony" supporting the concurrence of humans and dinosaurs is transparent nonsense, revealing not merely a deep ignorance of the sources of narrative and the process of myth, but of the provenance of the text itself. Alone it casts grave doubt on your ability to evaluate evidence of any sort.

I say again that I doubt that you are or ever have been any sort of scientist, and I now believe that your claims to scholarship in any field are merely false. My own humble master's is by no means the equal of the genuine doctorates that adorn this blog, but it did teach me what evidence is and what it is not. God only knows where or how you acquired the pieces of parchment - or cash register receipts - that you refer to as "PHD" degrees. I can only wish you joy of them.

Well, I did get a little ad hominem there describing him as a fraud ...

Dr. Lewis said: Lets look at what we know about the fossil record. For one 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms and 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants. 95% of the remaining of those are .25% invertebrates including insects. The remaining .0125% are vetebrates. We consider that the fossils in the layers that we find are Post-Flood for the most part, most of which were buried after the Flood and the scattering of humans from Babel. Of course you don't believe in the Bible for whatever reason (theres ample evidential support of a global flood from nearly all ancient civilizations that account for one, so I don't see how you could argue against it logically). We find that the dinosaur fossils are relatively small compared to other types of creatures. The Flood was a marine catastrophe, and as such, marine fossils are the dominant fossil found in the record. Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms as I discussed a few sentences ago, and this makes since of the percentages, helping us to understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are rare and overwhelemd by marine organisms. Why are there no fossilized humans in Flood sediments then might be your next question. Well, I think it proper to have a bit of understanding behind Biblical exegesis to understand why this is not a problem for us. Basically most people believe that in Genesis, it says that God will destroy man from the face of the Earth using the Flood. Some people who are not well studied on the subject believe that this phrase means to completely obliterate all evidential support of man. But this is not so. The Hebrewic word hxm or maha can leave evidence behind. That is a misconception. Maha has been utilized to be the blotting out of sin, but there is evidence that remains after. Better questions to ask about human fossil findings in layers that contain dinosaur fossils are as followed. Do the human fossils exist but are not yet found? What is the likelihood that the humans would have been fossilized? What is unusual about their distribution? Lastly, how much Flood sediment was there? Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Consider that the Flood took weeks to cover the Earth, so it is possible still for people to make it to boats, grab on to floating debris and so forth. Some may have made it to higher ground. They wouldn't have lasted long which is true, but that does not mean that they fossilize. In most cases, we find that dead things decompose or get eaten. They disappear and nothing is left. Tragedies worldwide have taken place and left not a single trace of a human behind, as there are victims who are never found (as is usually the case for natural disasters when it comes to dead bodies). It may still be possible to fossilize a human body. Neanderthals as we know are found in post-Flood sediments. But even still one consideration never made is that the human population was relatively small in the pre-Flood era. Considering that God did say be fruitful and multiply and man was incredibly disobedient in the pre-Flood era, it is quite possible that man did not listen to this command. Violence was highly prevalent during the time period as well, so death rates would be extremely high. An estimate could be hundreds of thousands of people living. A few million people would be generous. 200 million people would leave just over one human fossil per cubic mile of sediment laid down by the Flood. An uneven distribution of civilization is also another situation to consider, so it would be very hard to locate fossils. Another misconception is that WHILE man and dinosaur did walk together, they did not actually walk together. What do I mean by this. Well, just because we walk with bears today doesn't mean that we actually walk with bears. And in this case, its highly likely with the uneven distribution that mankind and dinosaurs were on opposite ends of the Earth to say the least. So we do not need to find dinosaurs buried with humans to say that they roamed the Earth together. So the Fred and Wilma comments might be cute, but in truth they are highly unrealistic, condescending towards the Creation Science arguments, and up to and including a strawman misrepresentation of what we actually try to argue. Thank you all, I hope this helps you at least understand where we are coming from. And you may call me Jay.

Dr. Lewis said: It is simply not fair the way you go about doing things. You often criticize us for putting too much effort into refuting Evolutionist claims (forgetting that we actually do our own research ourselves, and really don't reject many of your findings, but simply acknowledge they conform to a Creation Science framework better). I say, we should criticize you for not doing ENOUGH research of the Creation Science movement. You don't even realize that Creation Science has a theory base for crying out loud 90% of the time.

Stanton said:

That you're too arrogantly stupid to read the articles posted here at the Panda's Thumb about Evolutionary Biology or picking apart particularly stupid Creationist claims is your own fault, not mine..

Oh but I do read your articles, and even Talk Origins, and Pharyngula. And I'm not at all impressed with the rehashing done. To claim that I'm stupid...really makes you look arrogant and stupid without even knowing a thing about why I decided to become a Creation Scientist. And for the record, I do pick apart stupid Creationist claims, such as Dr. Dino...a.k.a. Kent Hovind who is not a Scientist to begin with, but a Theology major. He is speaking outside of his field. And I even criticize very highly the works of Michael Denton, Michael Behe and William Dembski, though they have some good things to say and are not really Creation Scientists. Interestingly enough however, I find it odd that you don't pick apart your OWN arguments (and many people who work in the field often are hesitant to critique fairly their counterparts work). You're a coalition, not a group with an objective insight on issues generally speaking.

Perhaps if Young Earth Creationists were to stop doing stupid things worthy only of mockery, we'll stop mocking them. But, we're not just mocking them, we're also pointing out how fanatical adherence to a literal reading of the King James' Translation of the Bible is both dishonest and intellectually sterile..

Often you take a handful of Creation Scientists who argue stupid things, try to basically mock what they say and assume that that is always the way Creation Scientists look at things. Your clumping of ID proponents with YECS proponents leads to in reality a slew of strawman arguments against our position. And I agree with the fanatical adherence to a literal reading of the KJV is dishonest. Why? It was translated from Latin, and not Greek, and the original Bible was written in Greek. So just taking into account the KJV is going to lead to absurd conclusions. While it can be translated to mean the same thing universally throughout all Bibles, it is written in an awkward fashion because of the linguistical issue I have just made mention of.

Bullshit. You made the claim that Young Earth Creationism has superior explanatory power, so demonstrate it, or we'll point out that you're a Liar for Jesus, as well as an Idiot for Jesus..

How do you want me to demonstrate it? What portion out of the millions of points that we make would you like for me to make on this website?

For starters, please cough up irrefutable evidence that man and (nonavian) dinosaur walked together.

Define irrefutable evidence, making sure that it is not the all exclusive, it must not include anything written in the Bible (is that really fair to state you can't use the source that our foundational premise of Science is from?)

mrg said: Well, I did get a little ad hominem there describing him as a fraud ...

Dr. Lewis said: My degrees could be from Harvard, Princeton or Cornell...and that still wouldn't matter to you. They could be concentrated in Microbiology and that wouldn't matter. I think you can infer that my interests include Marine Biology and Wildlife Biology from the response that I gave you earlier though.

Well, and so to bed ... I'll leave you all to it and check in the morning. Sigh, he came here trying to pick a fight and got one, but however just it is -- it still feels a little too mean-spirited of me. Not that I feel apologetic, but I find it distasteful.

I was a while composing that last post, and you got in before I hit the button. But it still isn't an ad hominem, which is an attempted attack on an argument made by impugning some personal characteristic of the argument's proposer, without reference to the argument.

The argument here is that Mr Lewis's assertions are so ignorant of the evidence and so lacking in logical grounding as to demonstrate that his other assertions - that he has genuine scholarly or scientific credentials - are plainly false. That is, we believe his claims to those credentials are fraudulent (and hence that he is a fraud) because of his ignorance and unreason. We are not calling him a fraud and proceeding from that to assert that his arguments must be false. The converse is the case. Therefore, when we call Mr Lewis a fraud, we are not engaging in an ad hominem.

Dr. Lewis said:

Perhaps if Young Earth Creationists were to stop doing stupid things worthy only of mockery, we'll stop mocking them. But, we're not just mocking them, we're also pointing out how fanatical adherence to a literal reading of the King James' Translation of the Bible is both dishonest and intellectually sterile..

Often you take a handful of Creation Scientists who argue stupid things, try to basically mock what they say and assume that that is always the way Creation Scientists look at things. Your clumping of ID proponents with YECS proponents leads to in reality a slew of strawman arguments against our position. And I agree with the fanatical adherence to a literal reading of the KJV is dishonest. Why? It was translated from Latin, and not Greek, and the original Bible was written in Greek. So just taking into account the KJV is going to lead to absurd conclusions. While it can be translated to mean the same thing universally throughout all Bibles, it is written in an awkward fashion because of the linguistical issue I have just made mention of.

Bullshit. You made the claim that Young Earth Creationism has superior explanatory power, so demonstrate it, or we'll point out that you're a Liar for Jesus, as well as an Idiot for Jesus.

How do you want me to demonstrate it? What portion out of the millions of points that we make would you like for me to make on this website?

For starters, please cough up irrefutable evidence that man and (nonavian) dinosaur walked together.

Define irrefutable evidence, making sure that it is not the all exclusive, it must not include anything written in the Bible (is that really fair to state you can't use the source that our foundational premise of Science is from?)

Stanton said: Can you please demonstrate how your Bible exegesis nonsense about the Flood explains A) Why don't we find fossils of Dickinsonia together with fossils of archaeocyathans and or barnacles?

B) Why don't we find fossils of pelagic trilobites such as Crotalocephalus together with fossils of ichthyosaurs or dolphins?

C) Why don't we find fossils of Brontotherium together with fossils of Triceratops?

D) Why are fossils of ark shells and sand dollars always found in strata above archaeocyathan fossils? What would this prove anyways? Are you trying to infer that the ark shells would have evolved later from the archaeocyathan fossils which were as your timeline goes in the Cambrian age 530 million years ago? One thing to look at is that ark shells and sand dollars have different textures than the archaeocyathan fossils which would primarily be the structures of sponges. We can use simple common sense here. With the less rigid structure of the sponges being soft, they could be covered by more dirt than the sand dollars and ark shells which would tend not to be buried as deep. With the flood water pressures pushing down on the sponges, the sponges would sink further and faster than the heavier and more rigidly surfaced sand dollars and ark shells. The global flood can actually account for this case scenario.

GuyeFaux said:

mrg said: Well, I did get a little ad hominem there describing him as a fraud ...

Not true, actually: you didn't say that the good Doctor's arguments are horseshit because he's a creationists. You instead asserted (and argued) that he hasn't made any arguments, he's not a Dr., and also that he's stupid. It's acerbic, but does not commit any logical fallacies.

Oh, and Lewis, if you're going to complain about all of the alleged "Creation Scientists" we point and laugh at (due to them making moronic claims and denying reality in order to make Jesus happy), please name some genuine "Creation Scientists" and tell us why they haven't done anything of note in the past half dozen decades.

Did I mention that they need not co-exist TOGETHER.

Stanton said:

The Old Testament of the Bible was written in Hebrew, not Greek. And speaking of the Bible, please explain why the Bible says that hyraxes chew their cud even though hyraxes have been demonstrated (via observation and necropsy) to be hindgut fermenters like their relatives the elephant.

Whats not to say, rabbits don't chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before? And yes the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. There are certain Bibles that use the Septuagint that can sometimes run into trouble there. I guess for our purposes though we'll state that you're right since our primary purpose is with the Old Testament, though some things in the NT have been of Scientific value as well.

That I have to repeat my request for you to demonstrate Young Earth Creationism's alleged superior explanatory power strongly suggests that you can not demonstrate it.

No you're being ambiguous thats my point. Narrow it down.

No, please use the Bible: In fact, please tell us what the Bible says about iguanas. Tell us where in the Bible that snakes are not related to iguanas, chameleons, agamas or monitor lizards. Tell us what the Bible says about whether vetulicolians are deuterostomes or protostomes. Tell us where the Bible specifically states that dinosaurs and man walked together even though there is no physical evidence that they did so.

The argument from silence does not help your cause. The Bible claims that all things were created after its kind. Where the Bible is silent we make inferences and utilize operational science. We determine that Natural Selection however, which is a conservative process dealing with the death and extinction of certain things that came about after the fall and is Biblical, even invented by the late Edward Blythe. Variation and Speciation can take place as hybridization can help us infer what the original kinds were when we find where an animal can no longer reproduce. This implies a loss of genetic information and/or function. Hybridization is a hindrance to the theory of Evolution, one of the things leading to my deconversion in fact, and is in support of Devolution. In regards to where man is aware of dinosaurs during the time of the Bible, please read Job 41:1 which states "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?" Also Job 15-24 describes an animal known as the "behemoth" which was likely a Brachiosaurus. Also Isaiah 27:1 and Job 9:1-3 describes a dragon which would be another word during that time period to substitute for dinosaur. And by the way, does anybody know that the average size of a dinosaur was probably no bigger than that of a small horse? And there were probably fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs too.

Dr. Lewis said:

Stanton said: Can you please demonstrate how your Bible exegesis nonsense about the Flood explains A) Why don't we find fossils of Dickinsonia together with fossils of archaeocyathans and or barnacles?

Did I mention that they need not co-exist TOGETHER.

B) Why don't we find fossils of pelagic trilobites such as Crotalocephalus together with fossils of ichthyosaurs or dolphins?

Again, they need not co-exist together. That applies to nearly everything here.

C) Why don't we find fossils of Brontotherium together with fossils of Triceratops?

Irrelevant. Three red herrings in a row. As I also mentioned earlier that you may have forgotten dinosaurs were not highly populated at the time.

D) Why are fossils of ark shells and sand dollars always found in strata above archaeocyathan fossils?

What would this prove anyways? Are you trying to infer that the ark shells would have evolved later from the archaeocyathan fossils which were as your timeline goes in the Cambrian age 530 million years ago? One thing to look at is that ark shells and sand dollars have different textures than the archaeocyathan fossils which would primarily be the structures of sponges. We can use simple common sense here. With the less rigid structure of the sponges being soft, they could be covered by more dirt than the sand dollars and ark shells which would tend not to be buried as deep. With the flood water pressures pushing down on the sponges, the sponges would sink further and faster than the heavier and more rigidly surfaced sand dollars and ark shells. The global flood can actually account for this case scenario.

Dr. Lewis said:

GuyeFaux said:

mrg said: Well, I did get a little ad hominem there describing him as a fraud ...

Not true, actually: you didn't say that the good Doctor's arguments are horseshit because he's a creationists. You instead asserted (and argued) that he hasn't made any arguments, he's not a Dr., and also that he's stupid. It's acerbic, but does not commit any logical fallacies.

No thats simply implied I'm sure, as 90% of the time it is, because we as Creation Scientists are not even considered to be Scientists in the first place.

Stanton said: Oh, and Lewis, if you're going to complain about all of the alleged "Creation Scientists" we point and laugh at (due to them making moronic claims and denying reality in order to make Jesus happy), please name some genuine "Creation Scientists" and tell us why they haven't done anything of note in the past half dozen decades.

Surely you don’t think Robert Damadian the inventor of the MRI scanner is a quack, do you?

Dr. Lewis said: Whats not to say, rabbits don't chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before?

That I have to repeat my request for you to demonstrate Young Earth Creationism's alleged superior explanatory power strongly suggests that you can not demonstrate it.

No you're being ambiguous thats my point. Narrow it down.

No, please use the Bible: In fact, please tell us what the Bible says about iguanas. Tell us where in the Bible that snakes are not related to iguanas, chameleons, agamas or monitor lizards. Tell us what the Bible says about whether vetulicolians are deuterostomes or protostomes. Tell us where the Bible specifically states that dinosaurs and man walked together even though there is no physical evidence that they did so.

The argument from silence does not help your cause. The Bible claims that all things were created after its kind. Where the Bible is silent we make inferences and utilize operational science. We determine that Natural Selection however, which is a conservative process dealing with the death and extinction of certain things that came about after the fall and is Biblical, even invented by the late Edward Blythe.

Variation and Speciation can take place as hybridization can help us infer what the original kinds were when we find where an animal can no longer reproduce. This implies a loss of genetic information and/or function. Hybridization is a hindrance to the theory of Evolution, one of the things leading to my deconversion in fact, and is in support of Devolution.

In regards to where man is aware of dinosaurs during the time of the Bible, please read Job 41:1 which states "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?" Also Job 15-24 describes an animal known as the "behemoth" which was likely a Brachiosaurus.

Also Isaiah 27:1 and Job 9:1-3 describes a dragon which would be another word during that time period to substitute for dinosaur.

And by the way, does anybody know that the average size of a dinosaur was probably no bigger than that of a small horse?

And there were probably fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs too.

Oh yeah, here's the Wikipedia entry on Smith. Wow, my hero.

This digging for "real creation scientists" passed the bottom of the barrel long since, and is six feet under by now.

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said:

This is bullshit handwaving that doesn't explain anything. If they all lived at the same time, why wouldn't they be found together in the fossil record?.

Because they need not be located in the same areas together during the Pre-Flood time period.

And yet, you haven't explained how a Magic Flood would have neatly ordered all of the marine animals found in the fossil record.

Actually that it is more neatly ordered and not randomly sporadically thrust within the Earth's strata would infer a one time global flood more strongly than the counter arguments provided by Evolutionists, which consists of limited order.

Except that Triceratops and the perissodactyl mammal Brontotherium both lived in large herds throughout Montana and other parts of Midwestern North America, yet, their fossils are never together in the same strata. You're just worming your miserable way out of explaining anything.

To look at it this way, lets look at the sizes of the animals. The Brontotherium was about 2.5 metres and maybe the size of a rhinoceros. A triceratops was about 7.9-9.0 mters in length, 2.9-3.0 m in height and 6.1-12 tons in weight. Thats a bit bigger than a rhinoceros wouldn't you say? Simple physics would answer this question. Force = mass times acceleration.

Yet, you don't care to realize that your explanation is worthless, given as archaeocyathans were much much more rigid that the typical sponge (their skeletons were reinforced with calcium carbonate), that ark shells and sand dollars are active burrowers, while all archaeocyathans lived on top of the substrate, and that there are plenty of sponge fossils of similar size, structure and hardness to archaeocyathans found well above archaeocyathans, like glass sponges. Furthermore, have you tested this scenario of Magic Flood waters pushing on archaeocyathans harder than sand dollars or ark shells to see if it's true or not?

Flint said:

Surely you don’t think Robert Damadian the inventor of the MRI scanner is a quack, do you?

Depends. I seriously doubt inventing the MRI scanner has anything whatsoever to do with creationism. So tell us, exactly what creation science has Damadian done? What this sounds like, is the practice of interviewing famous actors and actresses about stuff they are utterly clueless about, on the grounds that they're famous. Certainly Sheryl Crow's opinion about relations with Finland is more valid than the Finnish ambassador - we've never even HEARD of him so what can his opinion be worth anyway? Also, I notice that Damadain invented the upright MRI scanner, not the MRI scanner itself but a configuration of it that "can examine any part of the body under its normal functional load. This is particularly useful in diagnosing patients whose pain or other symptoms occur only the way they are in specific positions." An impressive feat in mechanical engineering, I suppose. Excellent credentials for commenting on evolutionary biology, you betcha.

We do not mean to infer that a miracle is against the laws of Science by any means however. They are descriptive. Miracles are prescriptive in nature.

Dr. Lewis said: Because they need not be located in the same areas together during the Pre-Flood time period.

Actually that it is more neatly ordered and not randomly sporadically thrust within the Earth’s strata would infer a one time global flood more strongly than the counter arguments provided by Evolutionists, which consists of limited order.

Except that Triceratops and the perissodactyl mammal Brontotherium both lived in large herds throughout Montana and other parts of Midwestern North America, yet, their fossils are never together in the same strata. You're just worming your miserable way out of explaining anything.

To look at it this way, lets look at the sizes of the animals. The Brontotherium was about 2.5 metres and maybe the size of a rhinoceros. A triceratops was about 7.9-9.0 mters in length, 2.9-3.0 m in height and 6.1-12 tons in weight. Thats a bit bigger than a rhinoceros wouldn't you say? Simple physics would answer this question. Force = mass times acceleration.

Yet, you don't care to realize that your explanation is worthless, given as archaeocyathans were much much more rigid that the typical sponge (their skeletons were reinforced with calcium carbonate), that ark shells and sand dollars are active burrowers, while all archaeocyathans lived on top of the substrate, and that there are plenty of sponge fossils of similar size, structure and hardness to archaeocyathans found well above archaeocyathans, like glass sponges. Furthermore, have you tested this scenario of Magic Flood waters pushing on archaeocyathans harder than sand dollars or ark shells to see if it's true or not?

Another thing to realize is that the land animals would likely have been more susceptible to the destruction via the flood, not the marine animals. For that reason alone the sand dollars and ark shells could have been better preserved due to their active burrowing as well. The burrowing actually would allow them to avoid the pressure put on them by the 40 days of rain, as they would be firmly stabilized under the dirt. They would likely be attempting to burrow UP through the dirt, not down. The glass sponge is still more rigid in regards to its outer layers than the archaeocyathans. An example perhaps of the Creation Science version of Natural Selection as its meant to be taught.

Are you trying to tell me to get a time machine here? You can not test Origin Sciences through a test tube, thats the job of Operational Science. A once in a life time event need not be tested repeatedly (how can you make sense of that?).

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said: Whats not to say, rabbits don't chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before?

Rabbits do not chew cud: the stomach of a rabbit is not divided into chambers like those of artiodactyls. If you've actually observed a rabbit, it eats its own feces to redigest nutrients that were not absorbed the first go-through. You claim you have a doctorate in Biology, yet think that a rabbit chews cud?

You claim I'm too ambiguous, and yet, refuse to answer those specific questions that I have asked. And it didn't cross your mind to surprise me?

So, please explain how hybridization is a hindrance to evolution when, in fact, we have observed plants producing fertile hybrids, many of which behave as new species, such as the Kew Primrose, Primula kewensis, or domestic wheat, or a desert sunflower, Helianthus deserticola? In fact, we've even observed hybrid species in animals, such as the honeysuckle maggot fly arising from chance encounters between blueberry maggot flies and snowberry maggot flies meeting on European honeysuckle imported to the Eastern United States 200 years ago.

In regards to where man is aware of dinosaurs during the time of the Bible, please read Job 41:1 which states "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?" Also Job 15-24 describes an animal known as the "behemoth" which was likely a Brachiosaurus.

"Dragon" was originally another word for "snake."

And by the way, does anybody know that the average size of a dinosaur was probably no bigger than that of a small horse?

Then why would we use the term "behemoth" to refer to both gigantic animals AND dinosaurs?

And there were probably fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs too.

Dr. Lewis said:

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said: Whats not to say, rabbits don't chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before?

Rabbits do not chew cud: the stomach of a rabbit is not divided into chambers like those of artiodactyls. If you've actually observed a rabbit, it eats its own feces to redigest nutrients that were not absorbed the first go-through. You claim you have a doctorate in Biology, yet think that a rabbit chews cud?

But what you don't seem to realize is that I have a doctorate in Theology as well. And my knowledge in that area can tell you that the Hebrewic phrase "chew the cud" means 'raising up what has been swallowed.' Basically, what you're claiming, that rabbits eat its own feces to redigest nutrients that were not absorbed the first go-through is sufficient to claim based off of the Hebrewic phrase that rabbits chew the cud.

You claim I'm too ambiguous, and yet, refuse to answer those specific questions that I have asked. And it didn't cross your mind to surprise me?

WHAT specific questions? You're basically asking me to "prove" Creation Science to you guys to be the truth....well, like I said, I can refer you to books, but as for me giving you a thorough description, yeah, why don't you tell me every aspect there is to the hypothesis of Evolution.

So, please explain how hybridization is a hindrance to evolution when, in fact, we have observed plants producing fertile hybrids, many of which behave as new species, such as the Kew Primrose, Primula kewensis, or domestic wheat, or a desert sunflower, Helianthus deserticola? In fact, we've even observed hybrid species in animals, such as the honeysuckle maggot fly arising from chance encounters between blueberry maggot flies and snowberry maggot flies meeting on European honeysuckle imported to the Eastern United States 200 years ago.

And look here, they are all still maggot flies, belonging to the same genre or kind. Your honey suckle maggot fly is a hybrid fly that can not reproduce. This infers a loss of genetic information or function, an example of Devolution. So it doesn't help Evolutionists here.

No new plant here, just renaming of a plant had occurred in your example.

Dr. Lewis said: Because they need not be located in the same areas together during the Pre-Flood time period.

Actually that it is more neatly ordered and not randomly sporadically thrust within the Earth’s strata would infer a one time global flood more strongly than the counter arguments provided by Evolutionists, which consists of limited order.

Except that Triceratops and the perissodactyl mammal Brontotherium both lived in large herds throughout Montana and other parts of Midwestern North America, yet, their fossils are never together in the same strata. You're just worming your miserable way out of explaining anything.

To look at it this way, lets look at the sizes of the animals. The Brontotherium was about 2.5 metres and maybe the size of a rhinoceros. A triceratops was about 7.9-9.0 mters in length, 2.9-3.0 m in height and 6.1-12 tons in weight. Thats a bit bigger than a rhinoceros wouldn't you say? Simple physics would answer this question. Force = mass times acceleration.

And how does this explain why the two are not found together despite the fact that their fossil ranges overlapped, and were allegedly killed by the same Magic Flood?

Yet, you don't care to realize that your explanation is worthless, given as archaeocyathans were much much more rigid that the typical sponge (their skeletons were reinforced with calcium carbonate), that ark shells and sand dollars are active burrowers, while all archaeocyathans lived on top of the substrate, and that there are plenty of sponge fossils of similar size, structure and hardness to archaeocyathans found well above archaeocyathans, like glass sponges. Furthermore, have you tested this scenario of Magic Flood waters pushing on archaeocyathans harder than sand dollars or ark shells to see if it's true or not?

Another thing to realize is that the land animals would likely have been more susceptible to the destruction via the flood, not the marine animals. For that reason alone the sand dollars and ark shells could have been better preserved due to their active burrowing as well. The burrowing actually would allow them to avoid the pressure put on them by the 40 days of rain, as they would be firmly stabilized under the dirt. They would likely be attempting to burrow UP through the dirt, not down. The glass sponge is still more rigid in regards to its outer layers than the archaeocyathans. An example perhaps of the Creation Science version of Natural Selection as its meant to be taught.

So how does this ad hoc nonsense explain why fossils of softer sponges, such as that of Spongia, the genus to which the bath sponge, S. officinalis, belongs to, are found above the strata archaeocyathans are found in?

How does the stabilization of ark shells and sand dollars due to their burrowing ability explain why scallops are found in both the same strata and lower strata, as well?

Better yet, how does your explanation account for the fact that so many non-burrowing echinoderms, such as the blastozoans and the majority of crinoids are found in strata well below the strata where ark shells and sand dollars are found in?

Are you trying to tell me to get a time machine here? You can not test Origin Sciences through a test tube, thats the job of Operational Science. A once in a life time event need not be tested repeatedly (how can you make sense of that?).

So explain how snarky non sequitors about time machines and magical ad hoc explanations are superior to attempting to recreate fossilization scenarios (which have been done, especially in regard to crinoids), please.

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said:

Stanton said:

On the one hand, biologically speaking, rabbits do not chew cud, and I don't see how "raising up what has been swallowed" can also be used to imply "eating one's own feces." On the other hand, the Bible was talking about hyraxes, not rabbits, and hyraxes do not chew cud, nor do they eat their own feces, either. I would have thought that someone with a degree in Theology would have realized that trying to argue that rabbits chew cud in the Bible is irrelevant both from a biological point and a Biblical point.

This is a good example of what happens when you misinterpret the Hebrew and use English standards to try to translate the Bible. You get something similar to the above statement.

You're the one who's claiming that Creation Science has superior explanatory power, and you're failing miserably at that, too.

Okay, how am I failing? By being bombarded by about a million questions at one time and failing to answer them all? Well I guess if I was a robot that would be possible, but I think I've done fairly well answering the questions that I've been given an opportunity to address.

If the honeysuckle maggot fly is a sterile hybrid, then please explain why it has also been observed to engage in sexual reproduction with other snowberry X blueberry maggot flies for the last 200 years, please.

Producing what? They've also been able to attempt to combine human sperm and a gibbon ova, and what did that produce?

No new plant here, just renaming of a plant had occurred in your example.

Have you tried reading the paper? What about the studies of the experiments done in experimentally replicating domestic wheat?

Replicating is not adding new information or functions. Its the same as going to a copying machine and xeroxing. In many cases an addition of information as you are stating here can be a hindrance or a loss of a function. For instance a 3 winged insect has one more wing but an inability to be able to fly based off of its lack of strength.

On the one hand, biologically speaking, rabbits do not chew cud, and I don’t see how “raising up what has been swallowed” can also be used to imply “eating one’s own feces.” On the other hand, the Bible was talking about hyraxes, not rabbits, and hyraxes do not chew cud, nor do they eat their own feces, either. I would have thought that someone with a degree in Theology would have realized that trying to argue that rabbits chew cud in the Bible is irrelevant both from a biological point and a Biblical point.

You’re the one who’s claiming that Creation Science has superior explanatory power, and you’re failing miserably at that, too.

If the honeysuckle maggot fly is a sterile hybrid, then please explain why it has also been observed to engage in sexual reproduction with other snowberry X blueberry maggot flies for the last 200 years, please.

Have you tried reading the paper? What about the studies of the experiments done in experimentally replicating domestic wheat?

Remember that the human sperm has been attempted to be combined with a hamster as well as a pig. This has failed. In the 1920s, the Soviet biologist llya Ivanovich Ivanov performed a series of experiments to create a human/ape hybrid, and this failed. Since then attempts have failed to cross the two, and despite the fact you claim that humans and apes are so similar in DNA structure, if they were as similar as you claim, they should be able to produce a cross hybrid of some sort. And we know from scientific experiments that they don't (another reason I should mention that I deconverted from Evolution).

Adi adi adi adi adi adidid thats all folks?

Once, not realising the situation, I found myself in an argument with a seriously delusional paranoid schizophrenic.

It went like just this one.

Okay well have a great night been great conversing and I hope this has opened your eyes to what Creation Science is really teaching instead of the misconceptions you have gathered from the people who are propagated to be Creation Scientists like our famous "Dr. Dino" and the like. We are very displeased with the bad rap we've gotten because of people like him, and up to and including the silly attempts to reconcile Biblical accounts with Evolution provided by some of the Intelligent Design proponents and Hugh Ross. Wish you all a blessed evening, God bless, take care.

Jay

Dave Luckett said: Once, not realising the situation, I found myself in an argument with a seriously delusional paranoid schizophrenic. It went like just this one.

Dr. Lewis said: Probably because, much like this one Dave, you probably haven't even taken the time to read any of the comments I've left. This is really interesting that the only thing you can combat this information with is an ad hominem (not so much as an attempt to refute any of the claims). I really hope I can encourage you to think more critically about both sides before making decisions regarding Science in the future in the namesake of the integrity of the field.

Dr. Lewis said: Of course you don't believe in the Bible for whatever reason (theres ample evidential support of a global flood from nearly all ancient civilizations that account for one, so I don't see how you could argue against it logically).

"Dr." Lewis avoided the question of his credentials again: ...

Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn’t make me wrong.

— Dr. Lewis

...the silly attempts to reconcile Biblical accounts with Evolution provided by some of the Intelligent Design proponents and Hugh Ross.

— Dr. Lewis

Dr. Lewis said: Remember that the human sperm has been attempted to be combined with a hamster as well as a pig. ... despite the fact you claim that humans and apes are so similar in DNA structure, if they were as similar as you claim, they should be able to produce a cross hybrid of some sort.

Dr. Lewis said: Remember that the human sperm has been attempted to be combined with a hamster as well as a pig. This has failed. In the 1920s, the Soviet biologist llya Ivanovich Ivanov performed a series of experiments to create a human/ape hybrid, and this failed. Since then attempts have failed to cross the two, and despite the fact you claim that humans and apes are so similar in DNA structure, if they were as similar as you claim, they should be able to produce a cross hybrid of some sort. And we know from scientific experiments that they don't (another reason I should mention that I deconverted from Evolution).

Dr. Lewis -
You might be right!

Lewis said: Why are there no fossilized humans in Flood sediments then might be your next question. [...] Do the human fossils exist but are not yet found?

Lewis said: Actually that it is more neatly ordered and not randomly sporadically thrust within the Earth’s strata would infer a one time global flood more strongly

Lewis said: Creation Scientists actually utilize operational Science to make inferences

Lewis said: You can not test Origin Sciences through a test tube, thats the job of Operational Science. A once in a life time event need not be tested repeatedly (how can you make sense of that?).

Lewis said: The fact that they are ALWAYS found in different strata infers a one time disaster that killed them all off.

(theres ample evidential support of a global flood from nearly all ancient civilizations that account for one, so I don’t see how you could argue against it logically

Whats not to say, rabbits don’t chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before?

[more on rabbits] my knowledge in that area can tell you that the Hebrewic phrase “chew the cud” means ‘raising up what has been swallowed.’

Dr. Lewis,
I've always wanted to ask a Flood advocate, were the White Cliffs of Dover deposited before, during or after the Flood?

Lewis said: Variation and Speciation can take place as hybridization can help us infer what the original kinds were when we find where an animal can no longer reproduce. This implies a loss of genetic information and/or function.

Lewis said: Hybridization is a hindrance to the theory of Evolution

Prediction 5.5: Stages of Speciation The most useful definition of species (which does not assume evolution) for sexual metazoans is the Biological Species Concept: species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr 1942). If branching of existing species into new species occurred gradually in the past, we should see all possible degrees of speciation or genetic isolation today, ranging from fully interbreeding populations, to partially interbreeding populations, to populations that interbreed with reduced fertility or with complete infertility, to completely genetically isolated populations. Confirmation: There are countless cases of distinct species which can, in unusual or limited circumstances, form hybrids. One example is the West European carrion crow (Corvus corone) and the Asian hooded crow (Corvus cornix), which have distinct ranges meeting in a narrow "hybrid zone". Another are the Platte river species of sucker fish of the Catostomus genus which live together and only rarely interbreed (Futuyma 1998, p. 454). [...] Many species can hybridize, but the resulting offspring have reduced fertility. One example is the English shrew (genus Sorex) whose hybrids are reproductively disadvantaged due to chromosomal differences. This has also been seen in lab experiments mating Utah and California strains of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Another example are the frogs Bombina bombina and Bombina variegata, whose hybrids have low fitness (i.e. they do not reproduce very successfully) (Barton and Gale 1993). Many other species can mate and produce viable hybrids, but the hybrids are infertile. This has been observed in species of amphibians (like certain frog species of the Rana genus) and mammals like Equus (where matings of horse and ass result in a sterile mule). Another example is the newt Triturus cristatus and T. marmoratus, in which hybrid infertility is due to unpaired chromosomes (Smith 1993, pp. 253, 264). Other species are able to mate with successful fertilization, but mortality occurs in embryogenesis. Such is the case with the frog species Rana pipiens and R. sylvatica (Futuyma 1998, p. 460). This phenomenon has also been observed in Drosophila. Additional examples are also found in plants such as the cotton species Gossypium hirsutum and G. barbadense (Smith 1993; Futuyma 1998, ch. 15 and 16).

Lewis said: Dr. Jonathan Sarfati?

Actually ID proponents and OECs like Ross do not attempt to reconcile Biblical accounts with evolution, but only with the other sciences (e.g. astronomy, geology).

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: And the theory readily takes to cooption (i.e. change) of function. As well as that a seeming "loss" can be acquiring new functionality (for example new traits to form the basis of species diversification). Here is the point where you famously needs extraordinary evidence to test your extraordinary claims. Yet you bring exactly none at all.

Dr. Dr. Lewis,

Everything that you describe above is a recognized mechanism of reproductive isolation and speciation. How in the world could you possibly imagine that any of that is in any way any kind of problem for evolutionary theory? Exactly who do you think it is that has studied those systmes and reported them in the scientific literature? Exactly what conclusions do you think that they have drawn from them?

Now I will make this really simple for you. There were once thousands of species of trilobites. There were once thousands of species of dinosaurs. There are now billions of human beings. If YEC is true then there should be some rocks that contain fossils of all three types or organisms. If evolution is ture then there should be no examples of rocks that contain all three types of organisms. In your vast studies of the fossil record, which pattern do you believe is observed? Do you have even one example from the scientific literature of any rocks anywhere that contain all three types of organisms? Do you even have any examples whatsoever of rocks of the same age that contain all three types of organisms? If not, then kinldly peddle your pesudoscientific nonsense elsewhere.

As for flood gelopgy, the Talk Origins archive also has many articles demolishing that particular fantasy as well. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

Apart from "Dr Dr" Lewis' strange insistence that large creatures drown faster than small creatures except if they swim fast and bury themselves with a hard shell that's pressed down harder or pressed down less hard, depending (I think this is the pith, or nub, of his argument); if he says "infer" for "imply" one more time, I shall have conniptions!!!

Dr. Lewis said:

DS said: Dr. Dr. Lewis wrote: "What about the theory of Young Earth Creation Science do you want evidence in regards to?" Well how about this little gem: "There is ample evidence that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together at one point in time." See the thing is Doctor that you are the one who is rejecting the consensus view of science. You are the one who is making exrtraordinary claims, therefore you are the one who is required to provide extraordinary evidence. By the way, the evidence for common descent would require much more that one bok to present. Basically you have to come up with a better explanation for all of this evidence in order to convince anyone that your hypothesis has any merit. But let's keep it simple for now, do you have any evidence for you claim or not, yes or no? Please provide references from the scientific literature, no Wiki crap and no creationist web sites please. I have already cited articles containing scientific references, have you read them?

Already provided that explanation, think of another question please. Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn't make me wrong. Thats not my problem at all. I have looked at both sides. I was a firm advocate of Evolution for many years. After I got out of school and started studying Science on my own in the research lab, I started finding things that did not add up to what Evolution was trying to say. When I asked questions regarding why certain things happened, they simply stated, "Evolution did it." That wasn't good enough for me, and I started studying other positions, such as Creation Science, and the newly found Intelligent Design Movement. The Intelligent Design Movement didn't collaberate with the findings that I made, and oddly enough only a Young Earth would satisfy what my Scientific findings truely were. The Bible I find to be a very highly scientifically accurate book.

Stanton said:

Dr. Lewis said:

Stanton said: Can you please demonstrate how your Bible exegesis nonsense about the Flood explains A) Why don't we find fossils of Dickinsonia together with fossils of archaeocyathans and or barnacles?

Did I mention that they need not co-exist TOGETHER.

This is bullshit handwaving that doesn't explain anything. If they all lived at the same time, why wouldn't they be found together in the fossil record?

B) Why don't we find fossils of pelagic trilobites such as Crotalocephalus together with fossils of ichthyosaurs or dolphins?

Again, they need not co-exist together. That applies to nearly everything here.

And yet, you haven't explained how a Magic Flood would have neatly ordered all of the marine animals found in the fossil record.

C) Why don't we find fossils of Brontotherium together with fossils of Triceratops?

Irrelevant. Three red herrings in a row. As I also mentioned earlier that you may have forgotten dinosaurs were not highly populated at the time.

Except that Triceratops and the perissodactyl mammal Brontotherium both lived in large herds throughout Montana and other parts of Midwestern North America, yet, their fossils are never together in the same strata. You're just worming your miserable way out of explaining anything.

D) Why are fossils of ark shells and sand dollars always found in strata above archaeocyathan fossils?

What would this prove anyways? Are you trying to infer that the ark shells would have evolved later from the archaeocyathan fossils which were as your timeline goes in the Cambrian age 530 million years ago? One thing to look at is that ark shells and sand dollars have different textures than the archaeocyathan fossils which would primarily be the structures of sponges. We can use simple common sense here. With the less rigid structure of the sponges being soft, they could be covered by more dirt than the sand dollars and ark shells which would tend not to be buried as deep. With the flood water pressures pushing down on the sponges, the sponges would sink further and faster than the heavier and more rigidly surfaced sand dollars and ark shells. The global flood can actually account for this case scenario.

Yet, you don't care to realize that your explanation is worthless, given as archaeocyathans were much much more rigid that the typical sponge (their skeletons were reinforced with calcium carbonate), that ark shells and sand dollars are active burrowers, while all archaeocyathans lived on top of the substrate, and that there are plenty of sponge fossils of similar size, structure and hardness to archaeocyathans found well above archaeocyathans, like glass sponges. Furthermore, have you tested this scenario of Magic Flood waters pushing on archaeocyathans harder than sand dollars or ark shells to see if it's true or not?

But my dear Dr. Lewis, dinosaurs are alive today. They're known as birds. What a real cretin you are, especially for someone who professes to have interests in wildlife biology and marine biology. And if you do have such interests, then explain why you can't accept evolution as fact, since it is the underlying principles of these sciences?

John Kwok said: But my dear Dr. Lewis, dinosaurs are alive today. They're known as birds. What a real cretin you are, especially for someone who professes to have interests in wildlife biology and marine biology. And if you do have such interests, then explain why you can't accept evolution as fact, since it is the underlying principles of these sciences?

Dan said:

Dr. Lewis said: Remember that the human sperm has been attempted to be combined with a hamster as well as a pig. ... despite the fact you claim that humans and apes are so similar in DNA structure, if they were as similar as you claim, they should be able to produce a cross hybrid of some sort.

By this same reasoning, I should be able to mate with E. coli, because we share the same genetic code.

The possibility of an LBA artifact could be a concern in the interpretation of these results. However, we found roughly the same number of crenarchaeal and euryarchaeal trees, and there was no systematic functional difference between genes that yielded the 3 subsets of trees, suggesting that LBA was not a major factor in the observed breakdown of trees. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the evolutionary rates of the genes that showed the euryarchaeal, crenarchaeal, and deep topologies, an observation that, again, is poorly compatible with widespread LBA. In addition, shared derived characters that unite Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota to the exclusion of eukaryotes comprise independent evidence in support of the notion that the archaeal genes of eukaryotes branch off the trunk of the archaeal tree prior to the radiation of Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. Taken together, the results of the present analysis suggest that the archaeal genes in eukaryotes derive from an ancient, probably, extinct, and in any case, unknown archaeal lineage.

John Kwok said: require an understanding of population dynamics

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

John Kwok said: require an understanding of population dynamics

No no no, don't you realize that proper Science demands 'kind statics', as demanded by scripture? How else could we explain the effects of Variation and Selection, while the genomes of "kinds" inevitably degrades towards the grey goo [Great Goo?] that is the ultimate purpose of one god or other??? [Hey, that is a great metaphor! The main problem with having one god or other is the inevitable loss of information that results from science encroaching on the dogmatic empirical claims on behalf of such agents. Seems to me they are ultimately purposed to degrade from Great Gods into amorphous Grey Goo as well. How was that line again? "From god to goo"? YEC fundamentalism will be the downfall of many.]

Dr. Lewis said: Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position ...

"dinosaur fossils are relatively small compared to other types of creatures..."

Did anyone else find this humorous?

Wow, I've felt guilty at times for baiting trolls, but this thread takes the cake! Fun to read, though! My turn:

Speaking of the Cliffs of Dover and other geology "possibly" affected by the "Flood," why, Dr. Lewis, is there no evidence of a flood in the biblically important land of Egypt. There are no water marks on the pyramids and a continuous succession of Pharaohs before, during and after the time of the supposed flood. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of Egyptians around a small number of generations after the "flood" to hold all those Israelites in slavery. And that's before we even talk about biology. How about providing some testable, hypothesized post-Flood dispersal routes for (just for example) lemurs, marsupials, flightless birds, and neotropical sloths? And maybe you could take my question from the last thread about the distribution of the fish family Cichlidae.

The Hebrewic word hxm or maha the Hebrewic phrase “chew the cud”

KP said: Wow, I've felt guilty at times for baiting trolls, but this thread takes the cake!

NPD said: And another thing... (Late to the party, the troll has left the building, but I just couldn't resist)

The Hebrewic word hxm or maha the Hebrewic phrase “chew the cud”

I know I'm not a doctor or anything, but shouldn't that be "hebraic"? Sheesh, what do they teach in theology school these days?

mrg said:

KP said: Wow, I've felt guilty at times for baiting trolls, but this thread takes the cake!

I think it was claiming he had a PhD in biology and then refusing to say where he had got it that made everyone smell blood. I gave him a few good kicks myself before I thought the better of it. But he DID come here to pick a fight. MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

John Kwok said: Anyway, Bill is destined to go to his personal version of the Klingon Hell (I believe it is correctly referred to as Sto-Vi-Kor), so "Dr. Lewis" will be joining him there too, once Yahweh "recalls" him.

Just Bob said:

NPD said: And another thing... (Late to the party, the troll has left the building, but I just couldn't resist)

The Hebrewic word hxm or maha the Hebrewic phrase “chew the cud”

I know I'm not a doctor or anything, but shouldn't that be "hebraic"? Sheesh, what do they teach in theology school these days?

Dang, I was going to jump on that, but my wife's been hogging the computer all afternoon. Dictionary.com doesn't even recognize "hebrewic." The adjective form of "hebrew" is "hebraic," or just plain "hebrew." Now at what institution of higher learning can one "earn" a PhD in theology, apparently with enough study of the ancient Hebrew language to be able to argue the meanings of biblical terms, without discovering that the term is "hebraic"? Hell, even spell-check in Word knows that's wrong and suggests "hebraic." I would REALLY like to see either of "Dr." Lewis's dissertations. I'm betting they fall somewhere beneath Hovind's. They must have been cheaper, since he got two of them!

How was that line again? “From god to goo”?

eric said:

Whats not to say, rabbits don’t chew their cud? Of course they do, have you ever owned a pet rabbit before?

[more on rabbits] my knowledge in that area can tell you that the Hebrewic phrase “chew the cud” means ‘raising up what has been swallowed.’

As Stanton pointed out, you were factually wrong in your first claim. As to your second, rabbits do not raise up what has been swallowed any more than dogs do. Dogs sometimes eat faeces. Are they now cud-chewing animals?

I would REALLY like to see either of “Dr.” Lewis’s dissertations. I’m betting they fall somewhere beneath Hovind’s. They must have been cheaper, since he got two of them!

John Kwok said: Great job, Stanton. I honestly doubt that the "sincere" Dr. Lewis can worm himself out of this

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Dan said:

Dr. Lewis said: Remember that the human sperm has been attempted to be combined with a hamster as well as a pig. ... despite the fact you claim that humans and apes are so similar in DNA structure, if they were as similar as you claim, they should be able to produce a cross hybrid of some sort.

By this same reasoning, I should be able to mate with E. coli, because we share the same genetic code.

Ah, perfect introduction to discuss some research I stumbled on the other day. People here that have been unfortunate to follow me knows that I obsess over abiogenesis and deep phylogeny. [And I think that is the observational characteristic, seeing that I'm about to post the 3d long comment in a single thread. :-O ] Personally I find it fascinating, and it is always a pleasure to realize how much we factually know, despite the protests of observationally blind creationists. [...]

Question 1: Do you think that originally there were many different types of replicators, or that there was only one type (more or less the present type)? Question 2: Do you think that one of the main tasks of a possible theory on abiogenesis would be to explain, why there originally was only one type, or why the present type was the only one to survive, out of many? Question 3: Do you think that abiogenesis is still happening all the time, but can not any more conquer the already populated habitat, or have the circumstances changed to make it very unlikely?

Henry J said: Eric Finn,

Question 1: Do you think that originally there were many different types of replicators, or that there was only one type (more or less the present type)? Question 2: Do you think that one of the main tasks of a possible theory on abiogenesis would be to explain, why there originally was only one type, or why the present type was the only one to survive, out of many? Question 3: Do you think that abiogenesis is still happening all the time, but can not any more conquer the already populated habitat, or have the circumstances changed to make it very unlikely?

Well, if you want my guesses (or even if you don't), 1. I wouldn't be overly surprised either way - either one initial type ancestral to what is here now, or several initial types with only one leaving survivors. For the heck of it, I'll throw in a third hypothesis: multiple types, from many of which the current survivors coopted some parts. [...] Henry

Dr. Lewis said: Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn't make me wrong. Thats not my problem at all. I have looked at both sides. I was a firm advocate of Evolution for many years. After I got out of school and started studying Science on my own in the research lab, I started finding things that did not add up to what Evolution was trying to say. When I asked questions regarding why certain things happened, they simply stated, "Evolution did it." That wasn't good enough for me, and I started studying other positions, such as Creation Science, and the newly found Intelligent Design Movement. The Intelligent Design Movement didn't collaberate with the findings that I made, and oddly enough only a Young Earth would satisfy what my Scientific findings truely were. The Bible I find to be a very highly scientifically accurate book.

Dale Husband said: Clearly, Dr. Lewis is a fraud.

He might be a Doctor of Thinkology.

Dr. Dr. Lewis wrote:

"Just because a majority of Scientists have been brainwashed into believing a position based on faith and study it for 20 years and refuse to change their position regardless of what the counterside says, and often times without even seriously considering what the counter side says and just because it would interfere with the incomes they make and I decide to reject it, doesn’t make me wrong."

Well let's see, the scientists are the ones who are demanding evidence here. Dr. Dr. Lewis is the one is is giving excuses for not providing any evidence and then claiming that he has provided evidence. Now who do you think is more likely to be "brainwashed"?

Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that none of us have ever examined "both sides"? Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that professional scientists have not examined more evidence than he has? Does Dr. Dr. Lewis actually think that monetary coinsiderations are the important factor here? Scientists get paid for doing and teaching science, not one particular theory. If evolution were to be replaced by a better theory then we would all still get paid. In fact, the person who came up with a better explanation for all of the evidence would most likely be the richest most fampous person who ever lived.

Having failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, and having also failed to realize it, I also must conclude that Dr. Dr. Lewis is no scientist.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dale Husband said: Clearly, Dr. Lewis is a fraud.

Just his use of language gives him away. It’s doubtful that he is even college educated, let alone having any advanced degrees. Whatever he is, he isn’t a doctor of any sort.

John Kwok said: How dare you mock the one true GOD

Karen S. said:

How was that line again? “From god to goo”?

I believe it was From Goo to You by way of the Zoo.

Eric Finn said: Your post discussed some profound aspects of speculative side of science. I do not wish to challenge you in any way, I am only interested in your tentative opinions (or opinions by anyone else). There is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis, although some bits and pieces that might be involved in that process are known. For that reason, I am not asking for any justifications. [...]

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

John Kwok said: How dare you mock the one true GOD

Actually I'm an equal opportunity mocker. But there isn't anything scary/daring about mocking non-plausible objects. You should try it some time, especially if you find it scary, it is supposedly good for your mental health. As for Klingon belief - it is much like the Asa belief, so it makes more internal if not external sense (the gods have a use for the parts of the world that they create) and is harder to mock. But I'll try: - It is just not a theory ... - Odin!

NPD said:

John Kwok said: Anyway, Bill is destined to go to his personal version of the Klingon Hell (I believe it is correctly referred to as Sto-Vi-Kor), so "Dr. Lewis" will be joining him there too, once Yahweh "recalls" him.

Nitpick: Sto-vo-kor is Klingon Heaven. Or, well, it'd be more like Klingon Valhalla, I guess. Gre'Thor is where the dishonored dead go. < /nerd>

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Eric Finn said: Your post discussed some profound aspects of speculative side of science. I do not wish to challenge you in any way, I am only interested in your tentative opinions (or opinions by anyone else). There is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis, although some bits and pieces that might be involved in that process are known. For that reason, I am not asking for any justifications. [...]

Eric, thanks for your interest. Abiogenesis wasn't really the purpose of my comment, rather to ask how speculative the molecular biology and/or bacteria phylogeny was, but I'm interested in answering your questions. Unfortunately I'm due to a trip. I will try to get back to this interesting topic, earliest tomorrow, the day after for sure. (What is a day or two between the Gy from here back to abiogenesis? ;-) )

"Dr. Lewis" deeply contradicted himself when he described the floor as violent enough to have caused most of the present geology and yet mild enough for aquatic organisms to have survived. If corals are bleaching because of a slight rise in temperature how could such organisms have survived the changes in clarity, salinity, pH, etc. that he describes in the flood. As for not reading the other side, I've been reading creationist claptrap since the early 70's. I even have a signed (yes he can write I think) copy of "From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo" It's hilarious. But if you really want a laugh (or an upset stomach) read the April "Acts and Facts" "The Nature of Naturalism" by David Coppedge. He changes the meaning of nature and naturalism in almost every sentence. It is the single most convoluted and dishonest piece I have ever read in almost any creationist writing. And that's saying something. As for those who may wonder why I would read this stuff. I taught biology for over 30 years and found I could defuse almost every argument by knowing what they were going to say and short circuiting them before they ever got started. It worked every time a parent complained about my teaching evolution at all.

Mary Hunter said: As for those who may wonder why I would read this stuff. I taught biology for over 30 years and found I could defuse almost every argument by knowing what they were going to say and short circuiting them before they ever got started. It worked every time a parent complained about my teaching evolution at all.

"Dr." Lewis said: Why do you assume my evidence before I present it?

"Dr." Lewis said: Or perhaps rather my argumentation that most Evolutionists do not even consider?

"Dr." Lewis said: The ample evidence I would suggest can be made through comments found within the Bible regarding documented beasts and animals that are described as being very large. Thats eyewitness testimony right there and very much worth repeating of.