Creationists: Another human transitional fossil find

[badlander]

Originally Posted by Mircea

It would appear you have misquoted me.

I was quoting several different geological journals regarding the location of unusual sediments, such as sand deposits in the Andes Mountains.

Those deposits were made by tsunamis, not a flood.

There was no "Flood," but there was a "Deluge." The Hebrew word is mabbuwl which means deluge and not flood.

Evidence is mounting that a comet/comet swarm exploded over Canada ~12,900 years ago, creating crater impacts over Canada, and along the US Eastern Seaboard, and possibly elsewhere.

Impactors landing in the oceans would have generated tsunamis that devastated coastal areas where human settlements would have been located.

A tsunami could have been responsible for the total destruction of the western Antarctic ice sheet, which is why its age is not greater than ~8,000 years.

The comet/swarm explosion left evidence all over North America, and was the most likely factor leading to the extinction of large mammals in North America.

Extraterrestrial Impact Likely Source Of Sudden Ice Age Extinctions

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0924172959.htm

Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0702160950.htm

Sorry but my posts had zero to do with your statements and were directed at Eusebius posts. Sorry for any confusion. As to ice age extinctions if I remember correctly it was phased over several thousand years with for example the last species of mammoth going extinct 4000 years after the mainland one.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by badlander

Sorry but my posts had zero to do with your statements and were directed at Eusebius posts. Sorry for any confusion. As to ice age extinctions if I remember correctly it was phased over several thousand years with for example the last species of mammoth going extinct 4000 years after the mainland one.

Was that the full size mammoth or the small one found on an island? Or the pygmy woolly mammoth?

[badlander]

Originally Posted by Floorist

Was that the full size mammoth or the small one found on an island? Or the pygmy woolly mammoth?

Check the pygmy, been a few years since I brushed up on the pleistocene extentions.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That's okay, I still think you are a swell guy.

Of course, old mate. You and I are mates, even if we fight like a couple of grunting old Pugilists. And you are a tough and inventive debator and make me THINK all the time. And I am not trying to make a cheap point by observing that it gives a chance to put the good case we have, yet again. I am sure that is why the Mods let us go so wildly off topic for so long.

Originally Posted by badlander

It is not that difficult, all you need is to not understand the evidence or perhaps what evidence is.

I wonder at the amount of denial one needs in order to do that. I am aware of an ingrained bias to reject religious evidence -claims. I start looking for objections. I know I do. I do also stand back and see whether they are good enough.

I have had to think about a LOT of Creationist objections to the evolutionary scenario. The T Rex soft tissue, living fossils, the Cambodian stegosaur (and other dinosaur -art examples and the behemoth with a tail that sounds very dinosaur -like) the Ankylosaur found in ocean strata.

There are some objections to the objections. Also possible explanations. There are others that have rather discredited Genesis -based YE Creationism. The Ica stones (and the Acambara figurines look modern fakes, too). Polystrates, as I say, are now evidence against the Flood, both Ark - finds seem to have been shown false (1).

There are misconceptions, like misunderstanding the 'cambrian explosion', evolution theory itself, the validity of geological dating, and there is denial - of the evolutionary sequence in the geological strata, of the validity of strata itself (posting that there is an example of the complete geological column in N. Dakota. The response was to laugh at "North Dakota" which I don't see as particularly hilarious, but the name of the game seems to be "Any pretext for not looking at the evidence".

I could go on. Indeed give me half an excuse and I will. But the point is that Genesis -literalist YE Creationism has nothing. really, nothing. A few questions, but no more than questions. Some alternative scenarios that don't stand up too well and which are (like the gaps for God) getting less and less as time and knowledge moves on. And a whole lot of denial. The most striking being the refusal to accept what evolution theory really said and insisting that it was this stupid 'cats from dogs' idea, even when evolutionists said it wasn't.

I can't put it any better than Kent Hovind - "Wilfully ignorant; dumb on perpose". Though of course he didn't apply to those to whom it really applied. And that is really the point. Ignorance is one thing - we are all ignorant of a lot of lot of things. It is only a vice when you are given the information but ignore it because you don't like it. It is nothing to do with intelligence. A Theist apologist who appears to be as dumb as a hand of bananas is indeed being 'Dumb on purpose'. As soon as they come to their sense, they are as smart as any, and probably better at the debate as they have seen it all from the other side.

(1) I can remember a furious and informative debate about evidence for the Ark (I believe that was the Durupinar/Wyatt one at the foot of Ararat, not the NAMI one above the snowline) with references to Josephus and Roman period coins depicting the Ark plus reports of wood and or bitumen brought back from the Ark. That all seemed to relate to a flourishing and profitable local tourist business at the time, mainly for Jews. And a serious problem is that - if the Durupinar Ark is real (it surely is a rock outcrop) then it is all stone. There is no wood or bitumen to bring from it. So - as is generally the case, the skeptic case has the best evidence and the believer case is really in the position of rejecting the evidence and affirming faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Floorist

Was that the full size mammoth or the small one found on an island? Or the pygmy woolly mammoth?

I'm pretty sure that was the Pygmy woolly mammoth, last existing on some of the islands up in the N pacific near the Bering sea, as I recall (Thanks the Nat. Hist Mammoth exhibition)