An embarrassment for YECs?

[Christine Janis]

Marc said

It was Argentinian bird tracks, which are about 50 million years too early.
The Polish's ones are the tetrapods (only 18 million years too early).
And as you demonstrate, no problem to the faithful....

Dinosaurs are known to be present (even fairly abundant) in the Late Triassic (and we have dinosaur footprints early in the period). A small dinosaur has a tridactyl foot, which birds have inherited. There is no reason to think that these footprints belonged to true birds ----there has been a interpretation of a bird-like "reversed hallux" in these prints, but this is conjectural and has been criticised.

We've already been over the Polish tetrapod footprints --- they are completely within the statistical window of probability of tetrapod emergence given the rarity of the fossils of both tetrapods and elpistostegid fishes. And, note, they were made in underwater deposits --- whatever it was it wasn't walking on the land.

[cathy]

To be honest Cathy, I don't have any respect for anyone who believes in this hogwash.

I suppose its a measure of how much creationist behaviour I've seen that I'm becoming desensitized - finding one that is remotely honest seems like a good thing when really it's just not as bad. It may depend on his background tho,it might not be all his fault. Is he a home or CST style schooled genuinely confused, or is he the more unforgiveable wilfully ignorant.

The why he's a creationist might be worth knowing as well. The wifully ignorant US churches are just as complicit in pushing creationist lies - and making a new generation of Garners and Todd Woods and Marcs.

And over here we have things like the evanagelical times publishing uncritical reviews of set in stone or Garners inane creationist wafflings without even thinking what a load of old hogwash it is or printing disclaimers. They need to take a hell of a lot of the blame for the situation - they're just as bad.

People like Marc and Tyler became creationists for a reason and, whatever sobbing Sylv claims to the contrary, that reason came from their religious experiences. Someone has had to coerce them first. Not everyone will pick up the science they need, but will be susceptible to lies from their pastors. They're the ones initially failing their congregations.

Why will no creationist ever tell you why they chose creationism rather than normal christianity? They all default to the same old sobbing Sylvs 'I found the evidence for evolution lacking and creation sicence not lacking' lie. If that were even remotely true there would be thousands of atheist evolution deniers/creationists in mainstream science and their arguments wouldn't be so utterly dumb. So why did Todd Wood chose creationism and all the crap it entails? I wish someone would do a psychological study.

I think were Todd Wood is a little bit different is that he's admitted somewhere that there's really no evidence for it, other than so called "biblical authority", if I remember correctly. Hence, he's sometimes regarded as an "honest" creationist by the likes of Myers etc.

Then he may yet change. At least he doesn't lie in the same deceptive way the others do - if he doesn't pretend it comes from science. He is very rare in that world - a little glimmer of goodness.

[cathy]

Dinosaurs are known to be present (even fairly abundant) in the Late Triassic (and we have dinosaur footprints early in the period). A small dinosaur has a tridactyl foot, which birds have inherited. There is no reason to think that these footprints belonged to true birds ----there has been a interpretation of a bird-like "reversed hallux" in these prints, but this is conjectural and has been criticised.

We've already been over the Polish tetrapod footprints --- they are completely within the statistical window of probability of tetrapod emergence given the rarity of the fossils of both tetrapods and elpistostegid fishes. And, note, they were made in underwater deposits --- whatever it was it wasn't walking on the land.

Marc, like all other creationists, needs to clutch desperately at the straws of growing knowledge to protect his total lack of anything in the way of evidence or logic.

He needs to wilfully ignore the fact that a) the theory of evolution is currently rock solid but b) the exact details and specific timelines are still being filled in. And he needs to ignore that fact for one reason only, so that he can use b to discredit a.

It's like using missing pieces in a jigsaw or the fact the picture may have tiny changes in details when filled in to deny whatever picture the jigsaw is showing overall. So even when the picture is obvious with the gaps he is obsessed with the missing pieces. And he has to ignore the fact that when particular details have to appear within a particular location in that jigsaw, their exact spot in that particular location does not change the overall picture.

And he has to ignore the fact that his creationist jigsaw doesn't have any pieces at all.

And he has to ignore the inconvenient fact that he believes the Earth is 6000 years old and has done talks on that. So 50 and even 18 million years are going to take some explaining away given his specific timeframes. But he never does explain that either.

[marcsurtees]

Marc said

It was Argentinian bird tracks, which are about 50 million years too early.
The Polish's ones are the tetrapods (only 18 million years too early).
And as you demonstrate, no problem to the faithful....

Dinosaurs are known to be present (even fairly abundant) in the Late Triassic (and we have dinosaur footprints early in the period). A small dinosaur has a tridactyl foot, which birds have inherited. There is no reason to think that these footprints belonged to true birds ----there has been a interpretation of a bird-like "reversed hallux" in these prints, but this is conjectural and has been criticised.

I would be interested in what you make of the following:

Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 272, Issues 3-4, 15 February 2009, Pages 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to apply neoichnological observations to the behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic track surface from the Santo Domingo Formation (Argentina) containing hundreds of bird-like tracks and trackways. In addition, the factors affecting the formation and preservation of bird tracks in lacustrine settings are particularly addressed. The 5.5 m2 fossil track surface contains different types of trace fossils: the avian ichnotaxa Gruipeda dominguensis (the most abundant), bird-like tracks with elongated hallux impressions, small epichnial rounded pits, and invertebrate traces (Skolithos, Taenidium). The modern environmental analogue chosen for the studies was a coastal freshwater pond (the Bajo de los Huesos, Chubut, Argentina) seasonally occupied by sandpipers (Calidris bairdii and Calidris fuscicollis; Charadriiformes).
The comparison between the fossil succession and the modern example suggests that they share lithology and sedimentary structures and that sedimentary processes and local palaeoenvironment were fairly similar and do not bias ichnological comparisons. Field observations allowed to distinguish twenty one behaviours that produced distinct traces and four modern footprint types (1 to 4) related to specific substrate conditions. In particular, the preferential formation of bird tracks parallel to the waterline, also confirmed by studies on droppings and invertebrate fauna of the pond, and other associated sedimentary features (ripple marks, wrinkle marks, mud drape thickness) and trace fossils were important for recognition of the shoreline in the fossil example. These observations also allowed us to distinguish the adjacent deeper and shallower parts of the fossil pond and can be applicable to other similar case studies.
Contrasting sediment properties and footprint types, some relationships and constraints on the formation and preservation of modern footprints are proposed; although these are very complex processes that will require further studies. Five of the behaviours recognised in the modern pond were inferred from the sixteen trackways distinguished on the fossil track surface, including walking, walking with a zig-zag path, short runs, probing, and landing with legs directed forward (possible trace of flight).
The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed.

[Brian Jordan]

I would be interested in what you make of the following:

Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 272, Issues 3-4, 15 February 2009, Pages 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

Abstract:
<snip>The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed.

Something missing from the abstract, Marc: it forgets to tell us what date, from the past 6000 years, should be attributed to these tracks. Perhaps someone has access to the whole paper and can tell us whether they were considered to have been formed 'twixt creation and flood, flood and Ancient Greeks, Greeks and Romans, Romans and Christ, Christ and Mohammed or just yesterday.

[Brian Jordan]

Talking of tetrapods, I've just watched a most excellent programme on BBC4. Beautiful Minds, about Prof. Jennifer Clack FRS (why do they so often give science programmes names calculated to conceal their content, I wonder?). It concerns her research into tetrapod limb evolution and is well worth watching on iPlayer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01fq4yh/
BTW the BBC kept showing her on her motorbike, no doubt to suggest that she was an eccentric "boffin". Or was it so that, even worse, we could see the Darwinfish proudly displayed on her fairing?

[Peter Henderson]

I would be interested in what you make of the following

I'd say it doesn't indicate a 6,000 year old Earth or a global flood 4,300 years ago.

[Christine Janis]

Marc said (re bird-like tracks)

would be interested in what you make of the following:

I'm not a track expert, but this is a response from a colleague of mine who is (works on dinosaur tracks) about the paper in Nature (the Palaeo3 paper appears to be an extension of the same data).

"Sure the tracks are bird-like as the title suggests, but the hallux impressions aren't that great, varying a fair bit between tracks in the three shown (fig 1b) - so they could be preservation artefacts from the toe 'scuffing' on the way in (if I'm being cynical). And interdigital angle is a poor indicator of anything because it can vary in an individual depending on substrate/locomotion/mood!

"So yeah, I don't find the hallux that convincing, but it's difficult to come up with a completely convincing argument against it. I'm certain you can get 'hallux-like' impressions from odd motions of the foot or substrate, but whether that's the case here I can't say."

Note that all dinosaurs had a hallux --- the issue is whether or not it was a truly reversed hallux, like post-Archaeopteryx birds. A small dinosaur could have a longish hallux (big toe) that would leave a bird-like impression, but would not have the unique bird-like morphology. Probably impossible to tell from the footprints alone.

[Dagsannr]

I would be interested in what you make of the following:

Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais

Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 272, Issues 3-4, 15 February 2009, Pages 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

Abstract:
<snip>The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed.

Something missing from the abstract, Marc: it forgets to tell us what date, from the past 6000 years, should be attributed to these tracks. Perhaps someone has access to the whole paper and can tell us whether they were considered to have been formed 'twixt creation and flood, flood and Ancient Greeks, Greeks and Romans, Romans and Christ, Christ and Mohammed or just yesterday.

But Brian, don't you know? If any single fact about something ever proposed in support of evolution is wrong, it makes creationism right. Seriously, c'mon. Call yourself a skeptic? Teach the controversy!

[Peter Henderson]

Seriously, c'mon. Call yourself a skeptic? Teach the controversy!

Theyll be doing that in Tennessee from last Tuesday Natman. It is now a reality. A high profile court case now looms in the US.

It'll be interesting to see what claims the YECs come up with before the judge.

[Roger Stanyard]

Seriously, c'mon. Call yourself a skeptic? Teach the controversy!

Theyll be doing that in Tennessee from last Tuesday Natman. It is now a reality. A high profile court case now looms in the US.

It'll be interesting to see what claims the YECs come up with before the judge.

It's still illegal to teach creationism in Tennessee schools, Peter, no mater what the state government decides. Every school board knows it as well and I suspect that very few if any would be willing to face the courts and the prospect of a legal bill running into millions. IIRC Louisiana has a similar "law" and no school has openly decided to adopt it because of the potentially huge costs. The fundies may want to spend other peoples' money on promoting their sectarianism but when it comes to big bills, like vampires faced with sunlight, they run for cover of darkness.

[Christine Janis]

Thinking of this bird tracks business.

Data from tracks are really hard to interpret. It seems to me that if paleontologists were using trackways to argue *for* something that the creationists didn't like, they'd be laughed out of the water at relying on such flimsy evidence. No?

[cathy]

Data from tracks are really hard to interpret. It seems to me that if paleontologists were using trackways to argue *for* something that the creationists didn't like, they'd be laughed out of the water at relying on such flimsy evidence. No?

I think they (creationists) work on some kind of inverse strength/quantity law?

The evidence for evolution is strong, increasing and pulled fom many areas of science by many experts - so Marc finds it lacking and unconvincing. The tracks are flimsy and therefore better for him - tho how they fit into a 6000 year old time frame is still puzzling me and Marc hasn't responded to any queries on that one yet. Nor will he if past experience is anything to go by. The evidence for creation is - well extremely flimsy in a non existent sort of way. So Marc is utterly convinced.

In fact Marc is utterly convinced by a complete absence of anything and unconvinced by mountains of evidence. Less is more I guess - tho I thought that only applied to interior design.

I don't really understand the mechanics of the inverse strength law yet - it's a bit more counter intuitive and counter intelligent than say the inverse square law? But I do know I wouldn't want creationists on the jury if I was in court - unless of course I was guilty as hell with lots of incriminating evidence.

[a_haworthroberts]

Philip Bell has reviewed 'The Magic of Reality' at the http://www.creation.com website.

I quote:
"Alfred Wegener’s suggestion of the movement of the continents is mentioned (p. 217) but not the fact that he was preceded, by more than half a century (1858), by creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini. The ‘standard’ uniformitarian story of continental drift is taught as reality. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the dissent of other evolutionary scientists about this theory, nor of the competing scientific model of ‘Catastrophic Plate Tectonics’ advocated by many creationists".

Very unsurprising since Dawkins prefers scientifically realistic theories to creationist pseudo-science.

[a_haworthroberts]

Another reason why I think AiG will have to admit that the one ton Yutyrannus huali was a dinosaur possessing 'protofeathers' and NOT a 'bird' (even though AiG have claimed that other similar but smaller creatures were 'birds' not dinosaurs) is that they - and CMI - tell us that both bats and pterosaurs (along with birds) were created on Day 5. Bats and pterosaurs are or were flying creatures. But Yutyrannus surely was not - suggesting a biblical interpretation of creation on DAY 6 - with other land animals.

Of course, despite me flagging the story from within their website, AiG could choose to IGNORE Yutyrannus or post some equivocal comments. This of course would CONFIRM my suspicion that they are EMBARRASSED by this discovery.