Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

beegoodbees

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

No transitional fossils have been found. I would like you to present one for me to debunk.

look here

Ok, that is laughable. That was a picture of two different animals with similar shaped skulls. There should be millions of transitional variations in between those to skulls. Or did it just mutate over night? As far as plagiarism that is equally ridiculous because the name of the author is above the document.

That's it. You're not arguing, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming really, really loudly in an effort not to hear facts. You seem to revel in your ignorance and are so convinced in your so-called facts that you're dismissing everything that contradicts you. Who's the zealot now?

AngryCymraeg

beegoodbees
How does anyone know what the chemical composition of a rock was when it was formed thousands, millions or billions of years ago?

Why are there no transitional fossils?

Where is the half scale half feather?

There should be millions of them, surely we would have found one by now.

Why are there paintings and sculptures thousands of years old depicting dinosaurs not to mention written descriptions.

Why does every ancient civilization in the world have a record of a flood?

Why did all these creatures just appear in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors?

Why do I bother trying to explain any of this to a bunch of religious zealots?

edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster give me strength... We have the transitional fossils, which can be seen here, here and here.
Please show a single picture of a cave painting of a T-Rex, Stegosaurus or a Brachiosaurus. Or a cite to one of these so-called written descriptions. Most ancient civilizations have records of floods because a) they had local floods and b) they stole the idea off other religions. The story of Noah for example is based on a far older Babylonian myth. And as for the creatures appearing in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors, I suggest that you see my line about more transitional fossils.
And why am I explaining myself to someone who can be classed as a religious zealot - and one with a closed mind???

edit on 31-10-2013 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo

You are presenting speculation as fact. All of the flood stories are from a common descent because there were not many people left afterward so the story goes. So it is really one story that was passed on as the people multiplied and spread out.

Any way here are your dinosaurs. If you google you can find more.

paleo.cc...

www.genesispark.com...

Here are lots of images.

www.google.com...:en-USfficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=j9xyU oXTC4fxkQejuoCIAQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=988

beegoodbees
All of the flood stories are from a common descent because there were not many people left afterward so the story goes.

I have a question.

Do you take the story of Noah to be a literal one? That two of each animal were placed on a vessel and only Noah's family along with these animals survived to repopulate the earth?

They weren't called dinosaurs of course. Behemoth, leviathan and dragon are the most common terms that I have heard.

beegoodbees

You are presenting speculation as fact. All of the flood stories are from a common descent because there were not many people left afterward so the story goes. So it is really one story that was passed on as the people multiplied and spread out.

Any way here are your dinosaurs. If you google you can find more.

paleo.cc...

www.genesispark.com...

Ahem. If you actually read your first cite, it actually concludes that the image is probably a Sumatran Rhino. Your second quote is a series of wishful thinking and squinting at images. Your third quote appears to be sheer desperation.
To return to your quote above. Are you seriously saying that some of the survivors of this great flood then moved Eastwards and became Chinese?
I think that there is a nice simple way to point out how silly the entire idea of as global flood is. How did the marsupials all end up in Australia then?

reply to post by beegoodbees


Do you not even read your own sources? From YOUR source.

Even the major creationist organization AIG ("Answers in Genesis"), which is usually more cautious about alleged "out of order" artifacts and fossils, strongly encourages the stegosaur interpretation in an article at its website (Cole, 2007). Although conceding that the carving might be a forgery, Cole implies that if it's genuine, it probably depicts a recently living stegosaur--without considering alternate explanations and candidates. Similarly, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) does not take a firm stance but encourages the Stegosaur interpretation (Thomas, 2013). Meanwhile, many old-earth creationists and serious cryptozoologists (e.g. Loren, 2006), and mainstream authors have been more skeptical, pointing to a number of serious problems with the stegosaur interpretation and offerring alternate explanations (Konkus, 2010; Nelstead, 2009; Novella, 2008).

And further.

Conclusions

A number of alternative explanations exist for the carving in question. Although it is difficult to identify the animal with certainty, when all features and factors are considered, it appears that the most likely candidate is a rhinocerous, with the next most likely being a cameleon. Even if it represented a stegosaur, it could be based on fossil material rather a live stegosaur. Those insisting that the carver saw a recently living stegosaur have failed to adequately consider contrary features and alternate explanations, let alone the extensive geologic evidence against human and dinosaur cohabitation. As the adage goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." As noted on the "Eye on the ICR blog," the alleged stegosaur not only lacks extraordinary evidence, but "doesn’t even have much of the non-extraordinary kind." (Peter, 2013)

BTW I did warn you about improper quoting maybe now you will follow T&C.

AugustusMasonicus

beegoodbees
All of the flood stories are from a common descent because there were not many people left afterward so the story goes.

I have a question.

Do you take the story of Noah to be a literal one? That two of each animal were placed on a vessel and only Noah's family along with these animals survived to repopulate the earth?

The bible doesn't say that only Noah and his family survived. In fact it says that there were more survivors although that is a common misconception. As far as the animals go. I don't know. I understand that this is an old hand me down story by the time it got to Moses so I don't care to speculate.

beegoodbees
The bible doesn't say that only Noah and his family survived.

Actually, it does. Genesis 7:21-23: "All flesh died that moved upon the earth... and every man... Only Noah was left and those that were with him in the ark."

In fact it says that there were more survivors although that is a common misconception.

It says no such thing.

As far as the animals go. I don't know. I understand that this is an old hand me down story by the time it got to Moses so I don't care to speculate.

I was not asking for speculation, I wanted your personal opinion on whether you take that story literally.

reply to post by beegoodbees


Let me ask you this. What did the animals eat after they got off the boat. A flood of biblical measure would have destroyed all plant life. The rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources would have killed all known marine creatures in a matter of hours

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Do you not even read your own sources? From YOUR source.

Even the major creationist organization AIG ("Answers in Genesis"), which is usually more cautious about alleged "out of order" artifacts and fossils, strongly encourages the stegosaur interpretation in an article at its website (Cole, 2007). Although conceding that the carving might be a forgery, Cole implies that if it's genuine, it probably depicts a recently living stegosaur--without considering alternate explanations and candidates. Similarly, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) does not take a firm stance but encourages the Stegosaur interpretation (Thomas, 2013). Meanwhile, many old-earth creationists and serious cryptozoologists (e.g. Loren, 2006), and mainstream authors have been more skeptical, pointing to a number of serious problems with the stegosaur interpretation and offerring alternate explanations (Konkus, 2010; Nelstead, 2009; Novella, 2008).

And further.

Conclusions

A number of alternative explanations exist for the carving in question. Although it is difficult to identify the animal with certainty, when all features and factors are considered, it appears that the most likely candidate is a rhinocerous, with the next most likely being a cameleon. Even if it represented a stegosaur, it could be based on fossil material rather a live stegosaur. Those insisting that the carver saw a recently living stegosaur have failed to adequately consider contrary features and alternate explanations, let alone the extensive geologic evidence against human and dinosaur cohabitation. As the adage goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." As noted on the "Eye on the ICR blog," the alleged stegosaur not only lacks extraordinary evidence, but "doesn’t even have much of the non-extraordinary kind." (Peter, 2013)

BTW I did warn you about improper quoting maybe now you will follow T&C.

I am not interested in how it is explained away. Anyone looking at that would immediately recognize it as a stegosaurus. And what of all of the other cave paintings. In case you didn't notice I don't care about your warnings.

www.rabbithole2.com...

About half way down you will see old Mexican figures of dinosaurs.

reply to post by beegoodbees

I am not interested in how it is explained away

Well thank you for finally admitting you are not interested in the truth. At least you can admit that now.

**ATTENTION**

ENOUGH!

The staff will NOT tolerate any further disruptions in this thread. You are to remain on topic and discuss the CONTENT of the OP, not each other. Further violations WILL result in posting bans of NO LESS than 72hrs.

No other warnings will be given.

~Tenth
ATS Super Mod

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Let me ask you this. What did the animals eat after they got off the boat. A flood of biblical measure would have destroyed all plant life. The rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources would have killed all known marine creatures in a matter of hours

That is a good question. Since all of the flood stories originate from thousands of years ago it is hard to tell if they are just different versions of the same story or different stories explaining the same event. Since many cultures did not have written languages throughout a lot of that time period these traditions were passed down orally in some cases.

So is Gilgamesh actually Noah and the story got embellished over time or were they different people telling their versions of the same event that may have also been embellished? I have no idea. I am not very familiar with the Chinese version as I only skimmed through it once or twice.

I do believe however that dismissing all of these tails offhand for whatever reason is faulty.

The point I am trying to make is that there are two sides to the coin both different but each having it's qualities and it's fallacies. Likewise to say that either can be proven scientifically (Through observation and experimentation) is also faulty. That is why I say evolution is a religion.

In answer to your question, probably whatever they were eating when they were on the boat.

reply to post by beegoodbees


Maybe I should have been a little more specific.

Considering a biblical flood would have killed off all of the vegetation and fish where would they have been able to get the food?

Keep in mind even if the ark was edible that wouldn't sustain all the animals for very long. Animal eat many times their weight in less than a year and a year would not be long enough to regrow forests from seeds even if they could germinate which brackish water would have destroyed.


So now that I clarified I ask again what would they have ate after the Flood because they couldn't take it all with them and all known food sources would have been destroyed from the flood?

Tyson explained that when they dated the stars and galaxy they gave themselves a margin of error which meant they could be a 1 or 2 billion years off. The same can be applied to paleontology however they have a much smaller margin of error measured in thousands of years. The grand canyon cannot be explained by a great flood it in fact has been carved over time by running water the layers exposed by this show the earth is much much older than biblical teachings. That is scientific fact.

I just looked and it really doesn't say what the animals ate. I can say though that there would have been plenty of fish, seaweed and the like. When they finally got off of the boat a dove had already returned with an olive branch which implies that vegetation was already growing. I could speculate that the water was not salty before the flood and perhaps all of the dead animals and people produced the saltiness but I try to avoid speculations and stick to what is known.

As far as the grand canyon goes, I saw a pretty good presentation by a geologist who became a creationist after studying the grand canyon and noticing that in some places the layers are bent and folded. It was his opinion that that could have only happened in a flood. I can't go into detail as it was some time ago, I will try to dig it up though. It is not impossible for a flood to dig a channel, is it?

As I have stated previously, I do not claim to be able to prove creation or disprove evolution I just have a problem with it being presented as proven, indisputable science.

A boat full of animals sounds ridiculous if you start with the presumption that there is no God and we evolved from a warm pool of water. If however you start with the presumption that God made the heavens, the earth and everything on it, it does not sound out of the realm of possibility.

All ancient oral and written histories all say that God made man and then destroyed man. I think that is worth some consideration.

AngryCymraeg

beegoodbees

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

No transitional fossils have been found. I would like you to present one for me to debunk.

look here

Ok, that is laughable. That was a picture of two different animals with similar shaped skulls. There should be millions of transitional variations in between those to skulls. Or did it just mutate over night? As far as plagiarism that is equally ridiculous because the name of the author is above the document.

That's it. You're not arguing, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming really, really loudly in an effort not to hear facts. You seem to revel in your ignorance and are so convinced in your so-called facts that you're dismissing everything that contradicts you. Who's the zealot now?

Those two pictures do nothing but support my argument. If that is the best example that can be produced then the theory is in real trouble. I was actually expecting something a little more definitive than a dinosaur skull and a whale skull that is roughly the same shape.

reply to post by beegoodbees

I just looked and it really doesn't say what the animals ate. I can say though that there would have been plenty of fish, seaweed and the like.

The rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources would have killed all known marine creatures in a matter of hours that is scientific fact.

When they finally got off of the boat a dove had already returned with an olive branch which implies that vegetation was already growing. I could speculate that the water was not salty before the flood and perhaps all of the dead animals and people produced the saltiness but I try to avoid speculations and stick to what is known.

The branch would have to be just part of the fabrication or in fact the earth was not completely flooded. The salt content of the oceans could not have been caused by people there wouldn’t be enough people to accomplish that. Geology explains the salinity.

As far as the grand canyon goes, I saw a pretty good presentation by a geologist who became a creationist after studying the grand canyon and noticing that in some places the layers are bent and folded. It was his opinion that that could have only happened in a flood. I can't go into detail as it was some time ago, I will try to dig it up though.

Please do.

As I have stated previously, I do not claim to be able to prove creation or disprove evolution I just have a problem with it being presented as proven, indisputable science.

Evolution is the best explanation we have based on the evidence for us to consider something else the evidence needs to be as strong or stronger currently there are no contenders.

A boat full of animals sounds ridiculous if you start with the presumption that there is no God and we evolved from a warm pool of water. If however you start with the presumption that God made the heavens, the earth and everything on it, it does not sound out of the realm of possibility.

So magic??? Look if god was going to use magic why go through all the other steps to try to make it plausible??

All ancient oral and written histories all say that God made man and then destroyed man. I think that is worth some consideration.

I think the key part you stated is they are stories nothing more they are not based in reality because ancient man had no preponderance for what is or isn’t possible scientifically sort of like living in a fish belly.

Something to ponder perhaps.

phys.org...

www.cs.unc.edu...