Creationists

[t_polkow]

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.

I think this guy is a parody poster, why else would someone post links from discredited bible thumping science illiterate morons with mail order doctorates.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.

If what you say is true why would Talk Origins waste their time with them ? The truth is Talk Origins know that the finds in 1990 were over 100 ft away from the first find. The find in 1990 they were 58 ft deep where in 1971 the two skeletons were only 15 ft deep.

The find in 1990 were covered by solid sandstone where the 1971 find they were covered by only blowsand. I thought it took large spans of time to produce strata but these people in the first find had a lot of earth moved over on them you really don't think they were buried 15 ft deep do you ?

I ask you again in the find in 1990 why would a mother and her infant be that deep in a mine ? the problem is the guy that was running the big cat and discovered them said the fossils were not found in the mine shaft nor did they appear to be in soft material but solid rock material.

Your side believes it takes large spans of time for an organism to become fossilized that has been thoroughly refuted with evidence. This evidence destroys many theories that is why your side is taking this evidence seriously.

I am a creationist and I do not subscribe to every explanation given by creationist I do however agree with them on this. I have seen the pictures and they are worth a thousand words.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

Do fundie creationists get anything right?

I always get a chuckle when you copy and paste from "creationwiki". It's like you scream out your ignorance.

I think this guy is a parody poster, why else would someone post links from discredited bible thumping science illiterate morons with mail order doctorates.

Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?

Did daws create another account.

 

[Hollie]

Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?

Did daws create another account.

The primary issue that creationist cannot address is their lack of credibility.

The various creationist scams of "intelligent design", "young earth creationism" and designer gawds is laughable. The proponents are routinely exposed as charlatans and frauds. The entire creationist scam is based upon a committment to religious dogma.

"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33

You, dead Henry and your cabal of haters, cheats, charlatans and snake oil salesmen who front for your Christian ministries should stick with fleecing the gullible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow, all of you sound the same who do you get your marching orders and talking points from ?

Did daws create another account.

The primary issue that creationist cannot address is their lack of credibility.

The various creationist scams of "intelligent design", "young earth creationism" and designer gawds is laughable. The proponents are routinely exposed as charlatans and frauds. The entire creationist scam is based upon a committment to religious dogma.

"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture." Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (1970) p.32-33

You, dead Henry and your cabal of haters, cheats, charlatans and snake oil salesmen who front for your Christian ministries should stick with fleecing the gullible.

Is this what you do for the atheistic evolutionists ?

I think you're just an angry fundie.

SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THE BIBLE

Enlarged October 7, 2009 (first published August 8, 2009) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [email protected]; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

High Schools, colleges, and universities typically teach only one theory of origins, that being evolution, and the students are not presented with a creationist viewpoint. In fact, they are often given the idea that no true scientist today is a creationist. When the National Academy of Sciences in America published an educational tool in 1998 entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, they posed this question, “Don’t many scientists reject evolution?” The answer was, “No; the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”

Richard Dawkins, a brash atheist and anti-creationist, says in his recent book The Greatest Show in Earth,

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. ... Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

According to Dawkins, if you reject evolution, you are unintelligent and your sanity should be questioned, and he proclaims that no reputable scientist disputes it.

In fact, modern science was invented by men who believed in divine creation. In his book Refuting Evolution, JONATHAN SARFATI, who has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, says:

“It is fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible. In fact, most branches of modern science were founded by believers in the Bible’s account of creation.”

Consider some samples:

Physics -- Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule
Chemistry - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics - Pascal, Leibniz, Euler

In 1979, Science Digest reported that “scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities,” and stated that, “Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96).

Dr. Sarfati continues:

“Even today, many scientists reject evolution. The Creation Ministries International staff scientists have published many scientific papers in their own fields. DR. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published in physics journals, while DR. JOHN BAUMGARDNER’S catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in Nature magazine. DR. EDWARD BOUDREAUX of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. DR. MACIEJ GIERTYCH, head of the Department of Genetics at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. DR. RAYMOND JONES was described as one of Australia’s top scientists for his discoveries about the legume Leucaena and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia. DR. BRIAN STONE has won a record number of awards for excellence in engineering teaching at Australian universities” (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 2007, pp. 26-28).

I guess Dawkins forgot about those scientists.

The man behind the Apollo moon mission, rocket scientist WERNHER VON BRAUN, believed that God created the world.

DUANE GISH has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and worked for many years in pharmaceutical research at Cornell University, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. “As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.” Gish lists the following scientists who reject evolution and believe in creationism. Let’s see if any of them might be considered “reputable.”

“While it is true that creationists among scientists definitely constitute a minority, there are many creation scientists, and their number is growing. Among these may be numbered such well-established scientists as the late DR. W. R. THOMPSON, world-famous biologist and former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control of Canada; DR. MELVIN A. COOK, winner of the 1968 E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and also winner of the Nobel Nitro Award, now president of the Ireco Chemical Company, Salt Lake City; DR. HENRY M. MORRIS, for thirteen years Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, one of the largest in the U.S. DR. WALTER LAMMERTS, geneticist and famous plant breeder, the late DR. FRANK MARSH, Professor of Biology at Andrews University until his retirement; the late DR. J.J. DUYVENE DE WIT, Professor of Zoology at the University of the Orange Free State, South Africa, at the time of his death; DR. THOMAS G. BARNES, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso; DR. DMITRI KOUZNETSOV, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., winner of the Komosmol Lenin Prize in 1983 as one of the two most promising young scientists in the Soviet Union, and winner of the Council of Ministries Prize of the USSR in 1986 for his research in biochemistry” (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, 1995, pp. 13, 14).

A.E. WILDER-SMITH (1915-1995), who defended creationism against evolution in his many books, had three Ph.D.s, one in physical organic chemistry from Reading University, England, one in pharmacology from the University of Geneva, and one in pharmacological sciences from ETH, a senior university in Zurich, Switzerland. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a NATO three-star general, Dr. Wilder-Smith was an expert on chemotherapy, pharmacology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry.

RAYMOND DAMADIAN, M.D., biophysicist, is the recipient of the Lemelson-MIT Achievement Award as “the man who invented the MRI scanner.” In 1988, he was awarded the National Medal of Technology, America’s highest award for applied science, and a year later, he was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame, an honor he shares with Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse, and the Wright Brothers. The first MRI scanner that Dr. Damadian and his colleagues built in 1977 resides at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Damadian is a Bible-believing Christian and attends a Baptist church in Long Island, New York. Dr. Damadian has stated that “the highest purpose a man can find for his life is to serve the will of God.”

RICHARD LUMSDEN (1938-97), Ph.D., converted from Darwinian atheist to Bible-believing Christian at the apex of his professional career when, challenged by one of his students, he decided to check out the evidence for himself. A professor of parisitology and cell biology, he was dean of the graduate school at Tulane University. He trained 30 Ph.D.s., published hundreds of scholarly papers, and was the winner of the highest award for parasitology.

LEE SPETNER, author of “Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution,” has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was a researcher with John Hopkins University from 1951-1970.

JAMES ALLAN has a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh and was a senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He is an international consultant in dairy cattle breeding. The testimony of his Christian faith was published in the book “In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.”

JERRY BERGMAN, co-author of the book Persuaded by the Evidence, has five masters degrees and two Ph.D.s, one in human biology and another in measurement and evaluation. He had a 4.0 grade point average for both Ph.D.s and close to a 4.0 for all five of his masters degrees.

The CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY membership consists of more than 600 men and women who hold advanced degrees and are committed to biblical creationism.

The KOREA ASSOCIATION OF CREATION RESEARCH membership includes 450 scientists, 150 of them with Ph.D.s in the sciences. The President of KACR, Young-Gil Kim, Ph.D. in Materials Science, is with the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology and is the inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

FRANK MARSH has a Ph.D. in biology and is emeritus Professor of Biology at Andrews University. He is the author of “Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity and Discontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution.”

JOSEPH MASTROPAOLO, who has a Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa, has taught biomechanics and physiology at the University of Chicago and California State University. He holds the patent for crew conditioning for extended manned space missions. He is adjunct faculty at the Institute for Creation Research.

The speaking staff of ANSWERS IN GENESIS includes 10 men and women who have earned doctorates. DAVID DEWITT has a Ph.D. in neuroscience. DONALD DEYOUNG has a Ph.D. in physics. JASON LISLE has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. DAVID MENTON has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. Tommy Mitchell has an M.D. from Vanderbilt University. TERRY MORTENSON has a Ph.D. in the history of geology. GARY PARKER has a doctorate in education in biology/geology. GEORGIA PURDOM has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. ANDREW SNELLING has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney.

Of course, even if NO scientist disputed evolution, as Richard Dawkins contents, this does not mean it is correct. The Bible says, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4), and Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matthew 11:25).

Scientists Who Believe the Bible

There are plenty of us out there and our numbers are growing.

 

[Hollie]

Here's a list of creationist who have contributed to science:

 

[Hollie]

Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?


The Disco ‘Tute’s fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say “pathetic”?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's a list of creationist who have contributed to science:

Have a problem reading do you or are you ignorant of some of the famous scientists that were creationist.

Dr Felix Konotey Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle cell anemia.

Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

There are many more that have contributed in fields of science. Newton was one of the best.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?


The Disco ‘Tute’s fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say “pathetic”?

There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?

 

[Hollie]

Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?


The Disco ‘Tute’s fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say “pathetic”?

There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?

The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.

The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.

The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.

How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did anyone see Ann Gauger (another creationist hack) on ywc's roll call of charlatans, fakes, religious zealots and scammers?


The Disco ‘Tute’s fake laboratory

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

By Richard B. Hoppe on December 18,2012 12:08 PM | 120 Comments

This deserves its own post. Yesterday I pointed to a post at Larry Moran’s Sandwalk about a Discovery Institute video showing Ann Gauger, a “researcher” at the Disco ‘Tute’s BioLogic Institute, in which she mangles phylogenetics and population genetics. Commenters on Youtube and both Sandwalk and here have identified the laboratory in which Gauger was supposedly speaking. It is a stock photograph from a commercial photo site. It’s a green screen job, which is a peculiarly appropriate method by which to present the DI’s pseudoscience. Fake lab, fake science.

Can we say “pathetic”?

There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?

The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.

The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.

The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.

How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.

You're hopeless.

 

[Hollie]

There are frauds on both sides what is your point ?

The point escapes you because.... you're pointless.

The science community will relentlessly pursue the facts via peer review.

The christian creationist charlatans relentlessly press dogma, In spite of the religious claims being thoroughly discredited as lies.

How sad that you further and promote the lies and falsehoods of creationist frauds.

You're hopeless.

As usual, your comments are pointless.

I knew that the concept of peer review would leave you befuddled. It is an important concept. That's why scientists will publish their work in peer reviewed journals where others can perform similar experiments and establish the veracity of results.

Such a process does not exist in the creation fraud syndicates because all conclusions are required to support the fundies preconceived dogma.

I'll bet they didn't teach peer review at the Harun Yahya madrassah, right?

 

[UltimateReality]

yep! still drooling and yammering nonsense.

I bet that idiot lives in a trailer house somewhere in the south and didn't get beyond basic elementary school science

Careful you're about to be made to look foolish again.

No need to respond to his projection of his own meaningless existence.

 

[UltimateReality]

I saw that daws already exposed the fraud by ywc but this latest fraud is really symptomatic of the lies, deceit and utter nonsense coming from the creationist hoaxsters.

The phrasing and syntax used by ywc was instantly recognizable and easy to find. YWC found the silly Malachite man here:

"Human Fossils In Same Rock Strata As Dinosaur Fossils!"

The site is a front for Christian creationist charlatans. If you scroll down the page, you’ll see that the “discovery” was made by Dr. Don Patton.

So who is “Dr.” Don Patton? He’s a young earth creationist charlatan. And he’s not even a “Dr.”

Suspicious Creationist Credentials


As with every phony link, attempted scam, lie and falsehood spewed by YWC, this is just another attempt to pass off phony creationists and their phony credentials.


Here’s a link to the phony Paluxy "man-tracks" perpetrated by the creationist fraud Carl Baugh.

A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Claimed Credentials


As it turns out, Carl Baugh had some help perpetrating his fraud with some help from another creationist fraudster: Don Patton

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #476: Carl Baugh




Further along in the link:






I'm sure we're all feeling a bit queasy at the lies, falsehoods and staggering dishonesty perpetrated by creationist charlatans so let's bring it on home with another review of the fraud that is "Dr." Donald Patton

The North Texas Skeptic

I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.

I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.

They’re all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.

Coming from the goof who still believes in spontaneous generation. So I guess you believe the maggots on a dead carcass spontaneously generate too?

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh and one more thing Hollie, this is not ,I repeat, not fabricated evidence. These were modern day humans found in the same strata as dinosaurs.

that a half truth and it even worse the your usual lies
guess the term intrusive burial and mine are not important.
talk about cherry picking.
ok slap dick explain why the human remains were not fossilized if they were buried with dinosaurs? btw no fossils of any kind were found at that site.

You sure do like that slap dick name. Your continuous use of the term reveals your obsession with your own self-deprecation. On in the the case when you don't have your Depends on, self-defecation.

 

[UltimateReality]

Science is not a belief ...

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

FUNNY coming from the man who doesn't even know what he does not know.

Change the wording and repeat the same thing back to me. Wow, aren't you the mental giant!!! Quick!! Hollie and Dogchow thank him for his original post!!!

 

[t_polkow]

From Psychology Today: Creationism as a mental illness

"Hence creationism, the theory/superstition that, contrary to massive scientific evidence, the world began exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. Instead of deriving from millions of years of patient evolution, Adam and Eve popped out, fully formed, like characters from a Swiss cuckoo clock. Would you Adam and Eve it? Of course not. It's a myth, but like many myths it serves a psychological purpose which is to provide a storybook sense of simple origins, which allays people's fears. Those who believe this myth to be the truth are in a state of denial.."

Creationism as a mental illness | Psychology Today

 

[Hollie]

I guess we need to stoop to your level and bring out the many hoaxes from the scientific community. Thank God there are some still in the science community that has integrity and exposes the frauds.

I thought you would perform your usual tactic of avoidance and make every effort to avoid addressing the really sleazy tactics employed by the creationist cabal.

They’re all dishonest to the core and your promotion of such dishonesty is similarly sleazy.

Coming from the goof who still believes in spontaneous generation. So I guess you believe the maggots on a dead carcass spontaneously generate too?

Such an angry xtian fundie.

 

[daws101]

I was waiting for your copy and paste on this issue. Let's see if you can be rational. What would a mother and her infant be doing that deep in a mine lol ?

I would not call anything bullshit you have demonstrated you lack the grey matter to speak for yourself.

another fine example of ywc lack of basic history .
listen up slapdick did you not understand the term native Americans it was common practice for the group or tribe to take their kids with them everywhere.
to keep them safe.
you've watched too many john Wayne movies..
so like every thing you post it's bullshit.
I speak for myself rather succinctly and well.

Ok what you're talking about is the two bodies found in 1971 they are automatically suggesting the finds in 1971 were related to the 1990 finds. What your side is not sharing with you are the differences.

You're speaking to a Native American dipshit and you don't have a clue concerning their practices. Anything to embellish the bulkshit.

Really ? Indians that mine lol.

Now let's look at the truth.

Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)








Talkorigins.jpg


Response Article
This article (Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index




Claim CC111:
Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 140 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.
Source: Patton, Don, n.d. Official world site Malachite Man.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)


Talk origins 1. The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added. [Kuban 1998]


Both sides seem to be making the same mistake. They are both associating the two skeletons found in 1971 with the eight found in 1990. The two sites are about 100 feet apart so it is not unreasonable that they may be unrelated.

Talk Origins2. All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found 15 feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand.

The top of the hill seems to drop by about 40 feet as can bee seen in an image of the site. The result is that the 1971 Moab man site is 15 feet deep and the 1990 Malachite Man site is about 58 feet deep.

Talk Origins* They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down).

This seems to be based on the idea that the Moab man find and the 1990 Malachite Man are related. There are reasons to question this conclusion.

The bones found in 1990 do not appear to have been carbon 14 dated. If you look at the large images, it is clear that these bones are in solid rock. Even if the bones were in soft material, the layers of rock above them were hard. It was the hardness of the rock that forced the closure of the copper mine that lead to their discovery. 58 feet is really too deep to be intrusive burials, particularly given the rock that would had to have been carved through to dig a grave. It is not clear from the two in situ images if these bones are fossilized or not, but the images of those bones that were removed including a femur and a jaw do seem to be fossilized.

The conclusion is that while the two finds are in the same area, they are separate finds. The two 1971 skeletons are recent, but the 1990 find is probably as old as the rock.

* The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic. [Kuban 1998]

Evolutionists date this rock at about 100 million years, but creationists would date it to the flood about 5,000 years ago.

Talk Origins 3. The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information which might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.

Maybe they just don't trust those are making the request like Talk Origins. By the way when was the last time evolutionists made a major fossil find available to creationists so that their claims could be verified.

http://creationwiki.org/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone_(Talk.Origins)

Emphasis mine,Do evolutionist have something to hide ?

right you're as native American as the queen of Spain.
on the other hand I'm half cheetwood Cherokee.
so once again you're making shit up .
as to your so called truth since it based on an FP it's also false.
here are the facts....Claim

Ten modern human skeletons have been excavated from 58 feet deep in the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, which is dated as 150 million years old and is known for the same dinosaurs as in Dinosaur National Monument.

Responses
1."Malachite man" is quite simply a hoax. It was buried 15 feet deep rather than 58, was found in soft sand rather than hard sandstone, the bones are completely dissimilar to nearby dinosaur bones in composition (the dinosaur bones are fossilized, whereas the human bones are not, indicating they were not buried anywhere near the same time) and radiometric dating puts the skeleton at around 200 years old. See Kuban's link below.
2.Finding human remains surrounded by Cretaceous rock is neither shocking nor horrifying to scientists. Humans - this skeleton appears to be one - certainly would have had the capability to dig graves, so could have been buried much deeper than by natural processes.
3.The fossils at Dinosaur National Monument are at least 50 million years older, making them Jurassic, not Cretaceous.
tp://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Malachite_man_was_found_in_Cretaceous_sandstone


other chirstians refute YWC'S BULLSHIT..Creation Science Rebuttals

Answers in Genesis

Human Fossils?



By Greg Neyman

© Old Earth Ministries

First Published February 2003

An excellent question is posed on the young earth creation science website Answers in Genesis. The title of the article is "Where are all the human fossils?”1 The subtitle goes on to ask, "Why are human fossils not found with trilobites, for example? If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, why aren’t their fossils found together? How could the Flood produce the order in the fossil record?"

The author, whoever it might be, tries to explain it. Those willing to accept his article without questioning its accuracy will be swayed by his arguments. But, if you apply a little common sense logic to it, his conclusions fall apart.



Rock Strata



Here is the problem for the young earth creation science believer. Creationists believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis. This is a minor point, but...I'm an old earth proponent, and I'm a Creationist, but I don't believe this.

His first section is "Do the rock strata represent eons of time?" As an example of this, he chooses the ill-fated example of the Coconino sandstone. I've already proved that this sandstone cannot be formed using the Flood model (see my article on this by clicking here). He makes another mistake by claiming, "Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit." Exactly what is the definition of "substantial time-breaks?" In fact, there are multiple time breaks in the Grand Canyon strata, one of them lasting 230 million years. (see the article on Stratigraphy, click here)



Dinosaurs



The next section is "Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed." The author mentions the "many historical accounts" of living animals, known as dragons. I didn't know that Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus, and Anklyosaurus breathed fire! That would certainly make the front page of most newspapers (click here for an explanation of recent sightings and drawings). Then he mentions the behemoth of Job 40. Unfortunately, this is not a passage that people take literally, but figuratively. For instance, Job 39:9 states, “Canst thou bind the unicorn…” Seen any unicorn fossils lately? None have ever been recovered. Look at Leviathan in Job 41…have any "fire-breathing" leviathans of Job 41:18-21 been discovered. If every single verse of the Bible is to be taken literally, then EVERY Christian in the world would be crawling around with both their hands and feet chopped off, and their eyes poked out (Matthew 18:8-9).

Other claims in this section include:
•
Unmineralized (unfossilized) dinosaur bones. Could some even have blood cells in them? So what if they do! We have uncovered billions of bones. Odds are that some would be preserved much better than others!

•
Rocks with dinosaur fossils have very little plant material. Let's see, bacteria can break down plant material in a year, and how long will bones last...many years. Even so, depositional systems are mostly fluvial, the plant material mostly floating away.


Where are the Humans?



Next the author talks about "What about the general pattern?" He states that rock strata follows a general pattern. Finally, we agree on something, but only the generalizations of the first two paragraphs. The author then states, "If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil."

He is forgetting something. Before the Tower of Babel, before the Flood, people all lived in one area in the Middle East! He can't assume they were uniformly distributed throughout all the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers worldwide. In fact, they propose that the mass graves of the dinosaurs indicated their end in the Flood. But if you have 10 million people in a small geographic area, they probably would have "huddled" together before they drowned, so where are these mass graves? None have been found! The authors' conclusion that we "would be unlikely to find even one human fossil" is a gross inaccuracy. But, he HAS to state this, because no evidence of these human fossils has been found to support the Flood.

The author then makes a startling statement..."On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb." Yes, he said "birds." Thanks for bringing this up! Exactly what "birds" of the Jurassic and Cretaceous period are you talking about? Nobody has ever found any modern day birds, buried in the same rock formation as the flyers of the Dinosaur Era, the Pteranadon and Pterodactyl. If they all fled the flood by air, why are they not buried together in the same rock layer??? We should see modern birds, buried with Pterodactyls...but we don't.

The author then states, "People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare." This theory won't float either. Even if they were scavenged by fish, the bones would merely need to last one year, since the Flood was only on the earth that long. After a few days of scavenging by fish, the meat gone, the dense bone would sink, and be buried rapidly, if we follow the model of the Flood proposed by young-earth creationists. So, where are the fossils...they should be there!

Then he claims more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the longest and be buried last. Not sure what he is intending here, after all, studies of dinosaur brain cavities have not shown a lot of intelligence on their part, except for a few of the raptor types.

Interesting to note he refers to "Cope's Rule." This is another trick I've noticed in several young-earth creation articles. They like to use old, outdated research material to support their cause. Here, they rely on 19th century material.



http://www.oldearth.org/humanfossils.htm

 

[daws101]

How bout Amino acids bonding in just the right sequence and they are left handed amino acids no right handed amino acids. How bout molecular machines that take care of Dna transcription.

How bout the take that evolutionists believe mutations are the mechanism that drives evolution but beneficial mutations are so rare and yet we have over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting. We also have a mechanism repairing most mutations. seems far fetched to believe these are just random processes. Looks like design to me.


Do I need to continue ? or maybe you should move back a little earlier in the thread I have been here since the start of the thread. I can't give you a complete summary of the thread because it has hit all over like most evolution vs creation threads.

what part of never presented anything do you not understand.?

I can't help it you have a problem detecting design in nature.

OFF TOPIC.
I see no design in nature as I don't hallucinate on a daily basis like you do.