U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 02-09-2014, 07:58 AM
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,089,205 times
Reputation: 6081


Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Bil Nye on the other hand said that a piece of evidence that the creationists model was correct would convince him immediately. If Genesis -literalist Creationism is correct, there should be this evidence in heaps. In fact it should ALL be evidence that confirms a young earth, Flood and bioforms created all in one go.
And given creationist's assertion that god can and would plant evidence like "apparent age", why the heck didn't he stack the deck in his own favor instead of making it look like the evolutionists were right? Oh, right, as a test of faith, and to trip up people who use their minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 02-09-2014, 09:09 AM
39,149 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
I do find it creepily unnerving that, one unchanging message amongst all the morphing theologies and directives of Christianity is this:

Wisdom is foolishness, foolishness is wisdom
Truth = Faith. What is merely 'true' is Lies if it does not lead to Faith.

As Gimli said: "The words of this wizard stand on their heads."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-09-2014, 11:47 AM
16,105 posts, read 17,907,645 times
Reputation: 15895
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I was looking for that Creationist site with the reference to Carl Werner's supposed claim that fossil animals were all jumbled together, (1) but can't google it up.
More Proof That Dinosaurs Lived with 'Later' Creatures - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution

Medical doctor Carl Werner undertook an extensive investigation of evolution. His results are published in a series of books and videos. He explained his prediction about dinosaur strata and fossils in the video titled Evolution: the Grand Experiment, Episode 2, Living Fossils:

If evolution was not true, and if animals did not change over time, I should be able to find modern-appearing plants and modern-appearing animals in the dinosaur rock layers. And this is in fact what I found.1

But to find them, he had to go behind the museum display scenes that omit them and into the scientific literature. In an interview with Creation magazine, Werner said that dinosaur rocks contained “fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today” and “cartilaginous fish…boney fish…and jawless fish,” as well as “modern-looking frogs and salamanders.” Mixed in among dinosaurs are “all of today’s reptile groups” and “parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc.”
Of course, his method of investigation fails mightily

The Fail of Dr Carl Werner's method of Investigation, in the name of Creation Science. - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-10-2014, 02:57 AM
39,149 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5090
Thank you. That is in fact what was claimed over on the 'Ark' thread. The fact is that some kinds of animals haven't changed much or at all over millions of years. King crabs, turtles, Coelacanths, ammonite - Nautilus, Crocodiles and many types of insects, except much smaller. I was amazed to find that a Carboniferous Salamander, Diplocaulus, survived into the Jurassic as Dino or diplosuchus (as I recall) still survives in Japan with he same distinctive triangular head, but a lot smaller.

Similarly, some ferns and palms are similar to prehistoric forms. Grass, on the other hand, is not supposed to be found until the Jurassic, never mind cultivated crops, so if they were found in -say Triassic levels, then the evolutionary model would come under serious question.

Do we in fact find modern animals and prehistoric 'jumbled together'. Other creationists posts seem to accept that the evidence for this is not actually there and has to be explained away as 'we haven't found it yet'. So I am of course curious as to what it is that has been presented as evidence for all creature - types jumbled together in one flood - layer.


The claim is that he is somehow qualified as a professor in biology but in fact he is a medical doctor.
Apart from the partial view he took into his investigation, his argument seemed to be based on museum dioramas not fitting in with his idea of what creationism would teach.

That his method of investigation is not beyond criticism, is not something that concerns me too much, but how good his argument is.

The video does not follow his argument in detail, but just shows the comparison of Ammonite and nautilus. That this is so similar that it is (living fossil) an argument that ..well essentially that evolution can't be true..is open to question, because of course he is ignoring the huge number of animals that fossil evidence says have evolved over millions of years, either so much that you can't call them the same 'kind' like Whales, or still being similar enough that you can claim they are the same kind (Eohippus to horse) and that he will accept as 'micro' evolution

But apart from that, while I don't know about the ducks, penguins and Loons (which I can't recall in any really ancient fossil form) comparing Nautilus and other 'living fossils' just by their similar appearance is not the same as showing that they all appear in the same fossil context 'all jumbled together'.

This video does indeed pour cold water over Dr Werner's biological credentials, his methods and his argument, and it certainly convinces me that the good doctor's approach is absolutely not of a puzzled scientist looking objectively at the evidence and finding something that seriously questions the evolutionary model, but a committed Creationist going out in a very familiar way, with a Faith -based Conclusion and looking for the evidence to support it. And ignoring any and all of the material, evidence or even context that might detract from the 'Proof' that he wants to find and present.

And I now understand why his argument that large Pterosaurs could not fly ignores the evidence of lightweight bone -structure and a very airfoil -adapted wing arrangement that argues that it must have at least got airborne.

I would say that, unless some better evidence for 'Fossil human, fish and animals all jumbled together' in a supposed Flood layer is produced, I have to put this in the same receptacle as all other creationists claims I have so far come across.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-10-2014 at 03:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top