The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stylesjl said:
A while ago i had someone tell me that there was a flaw in evolution becuase evolutionists couldn't explain the platypus. Have you heard this argument before? Of course my BS detector went off :mischief:
The platypus indeed is an odd animal, however it is quite explainable as being an offshoot of the intermediate form between early reptile-like tetrapods (I'm not exactly sure if they're classified as reptiles or not, ask Carlos that question) and modern mammels.
 
Platypuses are monotremes, which are part of the mammal class


(actually they're not, as I tried to explain they're from Amaroogis, but apparently that fact is still too controversial in this thread)
 
It is my understanding that what we call "fish" include several classes - one for jawless fishes like lampreys, one for sharks and rays, one for bony fishes. Are you saying that "mammals" make up several classes?

And additionally, now that cladistics seems to be taking over, how important is the whole "phylum-class-order" etc. distinction?
 
No, but last time I made a strong public presentation of the link between Amaroogis and the platypus I was encircled by men in white coats.. I only narrowly escaped by swinging between the chandeliers!
 
ironduck said:
Platypuses are monotremes, which are part of the mammal class


(actually they're not, as I tried to explain they're from Amaroogis, but apparently that fact is still too controversial in this thread)

I can't believe it. They really are in the mammal class.

http://fusionanomaly.net/platypus.html

At what point in the nonexistant arbitrary scientific animal classification is it required to give birth to live young to be part of a certain group? In other words, I thought being a mammal meant the animal gives birth to live young. So that requirement must be further down the imaginary classification scheme.
 
Eran, no monotremes are just an order of the mammal class just like the perissodactyla (with the horse subfamily) are an order of the mammals..
 
I thought that the definition of mammal had something to do with the jaw or the ear (itself a former jaw) or something like that, but I'm too lazy to check at the moment.

@ironduck: so when you said that platypi "aren't, they are Amaroogis", you meant they aren't monotremes, not that they aren't mammals, right? 'Cause you were about to destroy my mind.
 
Mammals are considered mammals when they have mammal glands, are endotherm and I think they also have to have fur or hair.. not sure about that though.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
It is my understanding that what we call "fish" include several classes - one for jawless fishes like lampreys, one for sharks and rays, one for bony fishes. Are you saying that "mammals" make up several classes?

And additionally, now that cladistics seems to be taking over, how important is the whole "phylum-class-order" etc. distinction?
Other then species, it's really arbitrary. Just a measure for convenience.

ironduck said:
No, but last time I made a strong public presentation of the link between Amaroogis and the platypus I was encircled by men in white coats.. I only narrowly escaped by swinging between the chandeliers!
WTH is an Amaroogis
 
Eran, well I'm trying to give you the mainstream definition of the platypus and at the same time letting you in on a little known secret ;)
 
JoeM said:
Err, maybe I'm joining the debate late in the day, but wouldn't evolutionary science or genetics be a better topic for dicussion than taxonomy?

But taxonomy can really only be understood in the light of genetics and evolutionary biology, after all.
 
JoeM said:
Err, maybe I'm joining the debate late in the day, but wouldn't evolutionary science or genetics be a better topic for dicussion than taxonomy?
The thread is now in the idle "evolutionist masturbation phase" where we discuss related topics tacitly related because of lack of significant creationist presence.

If you're a creationist feel free to jump in with just about anything, and we'll soundly debunk you.
 
Perfection said:
Well, apparently you do, so enlighten us!

As I tried to let you know, it's a fine line.. I already explained where platypuses originate from, but the more detailed information I provide the greater the risk for my personal safety.
 
ironduck said:
As I tried to let you know, it's a fine line.. I already explained where platypuses originate from, but the more detailed information I provide the greater the risk for my personal safety.
Well, now I'm just confused.
 
Sometimes being confused and ignorant is better than knowing they are out to get you *peeks over shoulder*
 
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_aguconference/
Dr. Humphreys, recently of Sandia National Laboratories and now full-time with ICR, reported on Recently Measured Helium Diffusion Rate for Zircon Suggests Inconsistency With U-Pb Age for Fenton Hill Granodiorite (V32C-1047). His actual poster had a title even more provocative to geoscientists: Precambrian zircons yield a helium diffusion age of 6,000 years. (“Precambrian” implies an accepted age of more than a half-billion years.) He presented his findings that granites which are dated at more than a billion years old with Uranium-Lead dating methods still have large quantities of helium in them. This Helium along with Lead are daughter products of the radioactive decay of Uranium. The Helium should have all diffused out of the granite by now if it were a billion or more years old. However, if the granite is only thousands of years old, the quantity of Helium still remaining agrees very closely with the rates Dr. Humphreys obtained from laboratory measurements of helium diffusivity in zircon. The measurements of the helium gave an age for the zircons of Biblical proportions: 6,000 � 2,000 years. These findings indicate more than a billion years worth (at today�s rates) of nuclear decay of Uranium has occurred within the last 6,000 years!

Dr. John Baumgardner from Los Alamos National Laboratory and an active member of the RATE group reported on The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older than 100 ka ( V32C-1045). He discussed his findings that various geological samples which are thought to be millions of years old, including diamonds, contain measurable amounts of Carbon-14. Samples this old should Dr. John Baumgardnerhave no Carbon-14 because it would have all decayed by now. Residual Carbon-14 found above the background level indicates that these samples thought to be millions of years old can be at most thousands of years old. The presence of Carbon-14 in diamond was of particular interest because diamonds eliminate the likelihood of contamination.

Dr. Larry Vardiman, the facilitator of the RATE project, presented a poster prepared by Dr. Andrew Snelling on Abundant Po Radiohalos in Phanerozoic Granites and Timescale Implications for Their Formation (V32C-1046). He discussed the presence of Polonium radiohalos in granites and a mechanism for their formation. Radiohalos are discolored spheres of crystal surrounding centers of radioactive material like Uranium, Thorium, and Polonium. These Polonium radiohalos appear to have formed under catastrophic conditions which occurred during Creation or the Flood only a few thousand years ago. Radiohalos can only form very rapidly in a narrow temperature range after granite has cooled from magma to crystalline rock cooler than 150oC but before the radioactive center has completely decayed and hydrothermal circulation through the rock ceases. In the case of Polonium this must have happened on the order of weeks, not thousands or millions of years and was probably part of a brief but intense hydrothermal process combined with extremely rapid nuclear decay.
Here are three examples of how "traditional" dating methods do not quite add up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom