Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments… I don’t know you or what your thread is about, but have you ever heard of a booklet called "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" by the Watchtower? I personally researched every single quotation years ago. Their research there and other places is typical of many many groups. They quote Christian sources as if they promote their view. The truth is that almost every single quote is taken out of context. When I presented this to a JW elder, I was quickly blackballed as a goat and one that "wrangled about words." It was truly quite remarkable to do the primary research myself and see how blantantly they had committed outright fraud. Do you have some examples you could share with us?
Well, I used to sell it about ten years ago, but not anymore. I have it put up with all my other literature from heretical religions. I do remember some of them, however. The encyclopedia Americana quote at the first of book come to mind. If you are truly interested, and are a JW, I might be persuaded to retrieve the documents. However, in this age of the Internet I am sure that someone already has it all on a website somewhere. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Pastor Dave Raymond
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:21 AM I wonder how close this dinosaur that Mr. Matson is discussing, is to the one in this month’s National Geographic. Same dino-bird? —– Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 1:14 AM Dave… "Pastor Dave" said that a bird is a bird. Well, paleontologists don’t create bins for shades of gray. Archaeopteryx either goes into the "bird bin" or the "dinosaur bin." And herein lies the problem. Right away, Mr. Matson assumes that this bird is in a "shade of gray". It isn’t. So his statement is irrelevant. As for the picture that I was sent, National Geographic is not a source of accuracy in presented the appearance of something. These are the people that drew ape men, when all that was found, were footprints, that appeared human in every way. Here is another example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=national+geographic+whale&hl=en&lr=… -8&oe=UTF-8&selm=569410ba.0111161634.50442cd0%40posting.google.com&rnum=1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And btw, I am finished with this. I am not going to have a debate through email, third party. Mr. Matson has nothing to say, that hasn’t already been said and refuted. He is relying on propaganda to support his arguments. Have a nice day. Dave Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com — [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
END OF PASTOR DAVE’S EMAIL THIS MORNING —– Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:21 AM I wonder how close this dinosaur that Mr. Matson is discussing, is to the one in this month’s National Geographic. Same dino-bird?
!*!*!*! People! Mr. Matson discussed in prior correspondence about a bird-like dinosaur found in China… and I only meant that maybe this one in this month’s NG is the same one. But of course, DIPLOMA MILL Kent Hovind is more "trustworthy" than National Geographic, Dave Matson, 99.9% of scientists… how the hell do we get any science, since everybody in the scientific community is LIARS, according to the P. Dave . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - —– Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 1:14 AM Dave… "Pastor Dave" said that a bird is a bird. Well, paleontologists don’t create bins for shades of gray. Archaeopteryx either goes into the "bird bin" or the "dinosaur bin." Probably because it had feathers, and at the time only birds were known to have feathers, it was placed into the "bird bin." However, that does not make it a modern bird. In that sense, a bird is not a bird. Its skeleton is so much like that of certain, small dinosaurs that, had some fossils not been found with feathers, it is likely that it would have been classified as a small dinosaur. Now that a good, feathered dinosaur has been found in China’s fossil record, the connection between birds and dinosaurs is stronger than ever. Additional ancient bird fossils have filled in some of the gaps between Archaeopteryx and modern birds. Very Best Wishes, Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 And herein lies the problem. Right away, Mr. Matson assumes that this bird is in a "shade of gray". It isn’t. So his statement is irrelevant. NO! YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MISTAKINGLY THINKS THERE’S "SHADES OF GRAY"… MR MATSON CORRECTED YOU – - – SAYING IT IS EITHER A BIRD, OR A DINOSAUR… putting the challenge on you to decide which. And even further asked you to name the genus your "modern perching bird" Archy was from. You could not. Dave Oldridge corrected you, I corrected you, 386sx corrected you – - – a whole slew of us corrected you, and you refuse even now to fess up that you made an error.YOU LIED DAVE RAEMOND… AND IT SHOWS. YOU ARE A COWARD WHO DODGES FACTS YOU ARE A LIAR WHO WORMS AROUND FROM POST TO POST YOU ARE A YELLOW-BELLIED, SNAKE IN THE GRASS, YOU SORRY SACK OF SHIT. As for the picture that I was sent, National Geographic is not a source of accuracy in presented the appearance of something. These are the people that drew ape men, when all that was found, were footprints, that appeared human in every way. OH AND KENT HOVIND IS RELIABLE?… FARREL TILL EXPOSED THAT DIPLOMA MILL CERTIFICATION… AND THAT FRAUD HOVIND IS WHO TAUGHT YOU????? In other words, you know nothing about real science… just Hovind-science. LET US PUT THAT BACK IN CONTEXT DAVE!!!! As for "shades of gray"… not Mr. Matson’s mistake… oh no, no no… YOUR ERROR Dave Raemond Read it and weep. YOU wrote it, not me. Pastor Dave Speaks a bold faced lie! My oh my… oh my! The temperature is rising in alt.talk.creationism… the pressure is on… Mr. Dave Matson: I noticed that Pastor Dave claimed that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a modern, perching bird. Pastor Dave: 1) He’s setting up a straw man. I haven’t claimed anything. I quoted a scientist. 2) If he has a problem with the quote, then he needs to talk to the person who said it. Busterboo: That’s what he’s doing… YOU said it Pastor Dave. 386sx writes: Is a penguin a bird? What about archaeopteryx? Where does the line lie between birds and reptiles? Pastor Dave writes: Archaeopteryx has nothing to do with reptiles. It’s a modern perching bird. Now somebody tell me, that aint a bold faced lie… Pastor Dave: 1) He’s setting up a straw man. I haven’t claimed anything. I quoted a scientist. Busterboo: Yeah, and Dave Oldridge explained what that scientist meant, didn’t he? Didn’t mean "modern" did it? STILL IN DENIAL THAT THERE’S A LINK BETWEEN DINOSAUR/REPTILE AND BIRD… huh Dave Raemond? And btw, I am finished with this. I am not going to have a debate through email, third party. Believe me, you are no debate, you’re a liar! (You aint no pastor either.) Mr. Matson has nothing to say, that hasn’t already been said and refuted. Refuted?! By whom???? He is relying on propaganda to support his arguments. Have a nice day. Ah yes! GENERALIZING WILL GET US EVERYWHERE WON’T IT… "Propaganda"…hmmm. give us one clear and proof-positive example of this "propaganda" you speak of. Usually propaganda is waged, due to an underlying motive. What’s the motive? Where’s the propaganda? YOU ARE A NUMB-SKULL LIAR DAVE RAEMOND!!!! Dave THAT IS THE BEST, MR. MATSON IS TOO BUSY FOR SCUM LIKE YOU. HE IS A PROFESSIONAL AND NOT A FRAUD LIKE YOUR DIPLOMA MILL JESUS, KENT HOVIND. P.S., and I still think you’re a chauvenist fag dave raemond. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com — [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Response:
You brought up the JW religion if you can remember that far back. I simply used one of their publications as a reference for one of my postings. As a masters research student, I make it a habit to reference all of my work. I simply do it so no one can bust me for plagiarism. In this case I got my research from a Bible published by The Watchtower Society. And because I did this you took all of your JW hate out on me. If anybody is interested, they can go back through this thread and see that I posted to this thread because I was slightly amused that someone (busterboo) was repeatedly posting to himself. There was nothing more to it than that. Reece
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments… I don’t know you or what your thread is about, It was truly quite remarkable to do the primary research myself and see how blantantly they had committed outright fraud. No.. the Jehovah Witness Reece G.just has no understanding of netiquette. He’s interrupted a thread which has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS claptrap, to advertise the Jehovah Witness religion. Go find a newsgroup for witnesses, and quit interrupting threads on evolution/creation!!! Rude man.
Response:
Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I will be disappointed if Pastor Dave replies to you. I would like to see you go on posting to yourself forever. the only one nobody is paying any attention to, is yourself. now read all the relevant arguments I gave against those false doctrines of your jehovah witness cult. you’ll find them under the PROPERLY titled "Yeshua (not Jesus) not nailed to cross-so what?" thread… Jehovah is NOT from the Bible. Neither is Jesus technically. It’s a modern invention you parroting brainwashed broken record.
Response:
Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments…
I don’t know you or what your thread is about, but have you ever heard of a booklet called "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" by the Watchtower? I personally researched every single quotation years ago. Their research there and other places is typical of many many groups. They quote Christian sources as if they promote their view. The truth is that almost every single quote is taken out of context. When I presented this to a JW elder, I was quickly blackballed as a goat and one that "wrangled about words." It was truly quite remarkable to do the primary research myself and see how blantantly they had committed outright fraud.
Response:
Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments… I don’t know you or what your thread is about, It was truly quite remarkable to do the primary research myself and see how blantantly they had committed outright fraud.
No.. the Jehovah Witness Reece G.just has no understanding of netiquette. He’s interrupted a thread which has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS claptrap, to advertise the Jehovah Witness religion. Go find a newsgroup for witnesses, and quit interrupting threads on evolution/creation!!! Rude man.
Response:
Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments…
I love those pictures of families in paradise having a picnic on the grass. Who mows the grass? Who bred, raised, slaughtered and cooked the chicken? Who grew the cotton for their clothes and wove it into fabric? How did they dye or bleach it, and what happened to the inevitable industrial waste? — Atheism: the position that each religion is right about all the others.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who said I was a JW? I said I think their publications are well researched — unlike your comments… I don’t know you or what your thread is about, but have you ever heard of a booklet called "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" by the Watchtower? I personally researched every single quotation years ago. Their research there and other places is typical of many many groups. They quote Christian sources as if they promote their view. The truth is that almost every single quote is taken out of context. When I presented this to a JW elder, I was quickly blackballed as a goat and one that "wrangled about words." It was truly quite remarkable to do the primary research myself and see how blantantly they had committed outright fraud.
Do you have some examples you could share with us? Pastor Dave Raymond ___ In the beginning, God created… The fact is, if you can’t believe the beginning, you can’t believe the end and shouldn’t claim to. To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how can you believe that God wouldn’t know how it all started? Evolution has never been proven and there is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils, showing that man came from anything else.
Response:
Do you like posting to yourself?
Response:
Pastor Dave: Nice try at playing word games. The fact is, that you cannot show even one clear and gradual progression of fossils, from one kind to another. Busterboo: We can now, Dave – they’re called INTERMEDIATE fossils : Example 1: bird-reptiles In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" …
ah, yes… please visit these URLs. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates_ex1
Response:
Your problem is, that you cannot show that a dog, for example, came from a non-dog. Just prove that. That’s all. Yes, wolves, foxes, etc., are included in that, but you know exactly what I’m saying. No long, formal discussion of definitions, which you only attempt to use to confuse, is necessary. Just prove a dog came from a non-dog and you’ll be done. Call it "canidae", or whatever, but that is your mission. Prove that and creationism crumbles right there, on the spot.
A WOLF IS NOT A DOG. You have answered your own question. Show us, a fossilized poodle, as old as the eldest known wolf fossil, and evolution crumbles. You cannot. It doesn’t exist. Do you accept evolution yet?
Response:
I am not Pastor Dave. I am simply asking you "do you like posting to yourself?" (currently you have peplied 4 times to your original post and you have also replied to your own replies, nobody else has yet replied except me and I am amused a bit about your strategy)
Response:
Here’s your "clear and progressive fossil record" on the evolution of wolf to dog, Pastor Dave: Hesperocyoninae 28 species ******ancestor to all dogs Hesperocyon 37 million years ago Sunkahetanka 28 million years ago Borophaginae 66 species Archaeocyon 32 million years ago Phlaocyon 30 million years ago Borophagus 12 million years ago Caninae 42 species Eucyon 9 million years ago Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) 1 million years ago
Response:
Do you like posting to yourself?
Like the news-server says… if you don’t like a message in these open-forum discussions… don’t open it.
Response:
Do you like posting to yourself? Like the news-server says… if you don’t like a message in these open-forum discussions… don’t open it.
Yes… I wonder… you are a FUNDAMENTALIST maybe? I am not Pastor Dave. I am simply asking you "do you like posting to yourself?" (currently you have peplied 4 times to your original post and you have also replied to your own replies, nobody else has yet replied except me and I am amused a bit about your strategy)
*you mis-spelled replied* I have my reasons… e.g., you’re not the only person reading these posts are you? Also… there’s ALOT of people who are reading, and fully familiar with Pastor Dave’s LAME ARGUMENTS. It is for their benefit. IF people began posting, it would be due to ‘having an argument to rebut my statements’… but, since I’m correct… even Pastor Dave wouldn’t be that stupid. Posting myself… no no no. CHALLENGING PASTOR DAVE!!! Now that’s more like it. These posts are not for you, they are for everyone he has lied to, and for Pastor Dave, to ATTEMPT to answer them, if he can. Which he can’t.
Response:
I will be disappointed if Pastor Dave replies to you. I would like to see you go on posting to yourself forever.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:14 PM alt.talk.creationism Sharon, I noticed that Pastor Dave claimed that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a modern, perching bird. Somebody should ask the good pastor for the genus of modern, perching birds to which Archaeopteryx has been assigned. Indeed, has Archaeopteryx even been assigned to a family of modern birds? Inquiring minds would like to know! Very Best Wishes, Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 Sunday, December 29, 2002 — [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Thanks Mr. Matson! Well Pastor Dave… have you got an answer for our good friend?
Response:
I will be disappointed if Pastor Dave replies to you. I would like to see you go on posting to yourself forever.
the only one nobody is paying any attention to, is yourself. now read all the relevant arguments I gave against those false doctrines of your jehovah witness cult. you’ll find them under the PROPERLY titled "Yeshua (not Jesus) not nailed to cross-so what?" thread… Jehovah is NOT from the Bible. Neither is Jesus technically. It’s a modern invention you parroting brainwashed broken record.
Response:
I took the liberty to email Pastor Dave. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pastor Dave… you do know who Mr. David Matson is, I have to assume? He’s the man who tore your leader, Kent Hovind to shreads in an open debate on this Young Earth Creationism…has a couple websites on the subjects, etc etc… so… he has asked you a question. Are you up to answering it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:14 PM alt.talk.creationism Sharon, I noticed that Pastor Dave claimed that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a modern, perching bird. Somebody should ask the good pastor for the genus of modern, perching birds to which Archaeopteryx has been assigned. Indeed, has Archaeopteryx even been assigned to a family of modern birds? Inquiring minds would like to know! Very Best Wishes, Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 Sunday, December 29, 2002 — [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Busterboo: Of course, this could be sort of frightening for the lowly Pastor Dave. THE MAN who tore his leader Kent Hovind to shreads in open debate… and ripped those YEC arguments apart with hard science on those websites… well, I guess that could be sort of intimidating to our good Pastor. Nevertheless… here’s the websites, boys and girls, for anyone interested to read up on the facts about the YEC rebuttal: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index…. and as always, I do suggest for a thorough understanding of the Atheist / Skeptical viewpoint, PLEASE feel welcome to visit Professor Farrel Till’s website: www.theskepticalreview.com
Response:
I took the liberty to email Pastor Dave. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pastor Dave… you do know who Mr. David Matson is, I have to assume? He’s the man who tore your leader, Kent Hovind to shreads in an open debate on this Young Earth Creationism…has a couple websites on the subjects, etc etc… so… he has asked you a question. Are you up to answering it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:14 PM alt.talk.creationism Sharon, I noticed that Pastor Dave claimed that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a modern, perching bird. Somebody should ask the good pastor for the genus of modern, perching birds to which Archaeopteryx has been assigned. Indeed, has Archaeopteryx even been assigned to a family of modern birds? Inquiring minds would like to know! Very Best Wishes, Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 Sunday, December 29, 2002 — [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Busterboo: Of course, this could be sort of frightening for the lowly Pastor Dave. Nevertheless… here’s the websites, boys and girls, for anyone interested to read up on the facts about the YEC rebuttal: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index…. and as always, I do suggest for a thorough understanding of the Atheist / Skeptical viewpoint, PLEASE feel welcome to visit Professor Farrel Till’s website: www.theskepticalreview.com Pastor Dave ALWAYS writes: Evolution has never been proven and there is no such thing as a clear progression of fossils… Well actually Pastor Dave, there is, it’s called "Intermediate Fossils" and they have them: Example 1: bird-reptiles In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" … ah, yes… please visit these URLs. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates_ex1 Here’s the deal though… see, Pastor Dave is not really interested in being shown a "clear and gradual progression of fossils" or better said, "beautifully intermediate"… ah yes. MUSIC to my ears. See, Pastor Dave doesn’t really want to see these Intermediate fossils, what he’s interested in, is to continue picking arguments with evolutionists. If Pastor Dave REALLY wanted to see these intermediate fossils, he’d be busier searching to find them, than wasting time arguing that they don’t exist. With Pastor Dave.. seeing is NOT believing. The believing requires a "want to believe". Well, some of us care about the search for truth and knowledge… and Pastor Dave.. well, it’s more about the search for the next way he can wittle around an argument.
Response:
Tom: Why don’t you name a few along with their area of expertise. It might help if you can list the scientific reasons that these scientists do not support evolution or an old earth and universe. JohnW: Moon dust is ONE example of a proof of a young earth;
Is it now? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html Motivated by watching while the same old arguments are repeated ad nauseum on talk.origins, I decided to acquaint myself, as best I could, with the current state of understanding as to extraterrestrial dust infall to the Earth. It is argued that both the Earth and Moon should be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply. This mini-faq will present the discussion given by Chris Stassen in his "Age of the Earth" talk.origins FAQ file, and then provide an update from the current literature. I make no claim at having done an exhaustive search, but I do think I have done a reasonably thorough search, so my results here are certainly representative of the current state of knowledge in the field. Hopefully, this will help to put an end once-and-for-all to the stale space-dust argument.
Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates Pastor Dave has continually stated: "a clear and gradual progression of fossils, from one kind to another." This URL is linking to that exact same discussion: PASTOR DAVE.. THEY HAVE YOUR INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates_ex1 Example 1: bird-reptiles In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds. Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors Example 1: reptile-birds Example 2: reptile-mammals Example 3: ape-humans Example 4: legged whales Example 5: legged seacows Any fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms, just like there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms fit in that phylogeny uniquely. In other words, all organisms, both past (e.g. fossils) and present, must conform to the true phylogeny. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods. Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals. It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy. However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, while pterodactyl fossils are not considered possible candidates for reptile-bird intermediates (Futuyma 1998, pp. 154-155), we do expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails.
Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PASTOR DAVE… "INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS" ARE THE CLEAR AND GRADUAL PROGRESSION, FROM ONE KIND TO ANOTHER". Just thought you might want to know that, and I give the URL to link you to some info about it. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Pastor Dave has continually stated: "there is no clear and gradual progression of fossils, from one kind to another." This URL is linking to that exact same discussion: PASTOR DAVE.. THEY HAVE YOUR INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_i… iates_ex1 Example 1: bird-reptiles In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds. Prediction 1.4: Intermediate and transitional forms: the possible morphologies of predicted common ancestors Example 1: reptile-birds Example 2: reptile-mammals Example 3: ape-humans Example 4: legged whales Example 5: legged seacows Any fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms, just like there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms fit in that phylogeny uniquely. In other words, all organisms, both past (e.g. fossils) and present, must conform to the true phylogeny. Since the standard phylogenetic tree is the best approximation of the true historical phylogeny, we expect that all fossilized animals should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree within the error of our scientific methods. Every node shared between two branches in a phylogeny or cladogram represents a predicted common ancestor; thus there are ~29 common ancestors predicted from the tree shown in Figure 1. Our standard tree shows that the bird grouping is most closely related to the reptilian grouping, with a node linking the two (A in Figure 1); thus we predict the possibility of finding fossil intermediates between birds and reptiles. The same reasoning applies to mammals and reptiles (B in Figure 1). However, we predict that we should never find fossil intermediates between birds and mammals. It should be pointed out that there is no requirement for intermediate organisms to go extinct. In fact, all living organisms can be thought of as intermediate between adjacent taxa in a phylogenetic tree. For instance, modern reptiles are intermediate between amphibians and mammals, and reptiles are also intermediate between amphibians and birds. As far as macroevolutionary predictions of morphology are concerned, this point is trivial, as it is essentially just a restatement of the concept of a nested hierarchy. However, a phylogenetic tree does make significant predictions about the morphology of intermediates which no longer exist or which have yet to be discovered. Each predicted common ancestor has a set of explicitly specified morphological characteristics, based on each of the most common derived characters of its descendants and based upon the transitions that must have occurred to transform one taxa into another (Cunningham et al. 1998; Futuyma 1998, pp. 107-108). From the knowledge of avian and reptilian morphology, it is possible to predict some of the characteristics that a reptile-bird intermediate should have, if found. Therefore, while pterodactyl fossils are not considered possible candidates for reptile-bird intermediates (Futuyma 1998, pp. 154-155), we do expect the possibility of finding reptile-like fossils with feathers, bird-like fossils with teeth, or bird-like fossils with long reptilian tails.
Response:
REPEATEDLY, I have heard you use this in your underhanded arguments with the guys at alt.talk.creationism. "Explain the Population da da da…" Well, Pastor Dave… explain to us, where Mr. Matson is wrong. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Excerpt from Mr. Matson’s website: Young-earth "proof" #25: The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof! 25. Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, if we allow for a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and if we assume that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth (from 100 feet below ground to a mile above) would have 1 million germs after 158 generations. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old! If it were a few thousand years old, the germ population would have gone through the roof! Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing! The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources are finally squandered, then you’ll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous! When man lived in scattered tribal groups, which is what he did for 99% of his history, the net human population growth was zero most of the time, just as it is for animals today. Animal populations, especially small animals such as rabbits or mice, often undergo cycles of boom and bust but their net growth is zero. No permanent increase in population can be sustained unless it is supported by a permanent change in the environment. Such a change might include the loss of a predator due to the colonization of new territory, a permanent increase in the food supply due to climatic change or a change in dietary habits, or a variety of other factors. In the case of man, hunting technology, the development of agriculture, and the use of fossil fuels have played major roles. After a favorable change in the environment, a population of animals (or people) may record a permanent jump before leveling off at a zero net growth again. Thus, the growth rate, before technology intervened in a major way, necessarily involved a series of plateaus where the population was in approximate equilibrium with the environment. No doubt, many tribal groups died out. Anthropologists can cite several examples of early human or near-human species, side branches on our evolutionary tree, which left no descendants. There was no assurance that early man would even survive. When favorable changes did occur, large jumps between plateau levels would likely have been exponential. Indeed, the human exponential growth rate of the last 300 years or so can be thought of as one long jump to a new plateau, which has been raised artificially high by technology. Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let’s look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations. P(n) = P(1 + r)n P(n), called the function P of n, is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r, n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people. It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people! We can’t calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah’s flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah’s flood! I would think that Noah’s flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annals. As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today’s population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say: Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease, because of the Black Death. Ehrlich’s figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past. (Hayward, 1985, p.136) The Times Atlas of World History (1978) estimated that the world population increased 16 times between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. That yields a growth rate (r = 0.069%) which is almost identical to the figure quoted above by Hayward for ancient times. Try plugging in some real data! It does make a difference. If we assume a growth rate of 0.07% before 1650 (a rate already a bit high because of agriculture), a growth rate of 0.3% between 1650 and 1850, a growth rate of 0.9% between 1850 and 1930, and a growth rate of 2.0% between 1930 and 1994 you will find that Noah and his crew are the ancestors of a whopping 1740 people today! On that note, I think we can move on to the next point.
Response:
Pastor Dave… here’s the challenge. Did you not (sure you have, but you think ignoring something will make it go away) read the posts abt. Mr. Dave Matson’s website(s) where his book is? He took your god Hovind and picked apart everyone of those lies hmmm .. misleading "facts" he’s told and they’re published on the websites. Will you please answer to each and every argument? We will be patient with you, of course!
—– Original Message —– To: "Busterboo" < Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 7:42 PM Hi! My book deals mostly with the young-earth claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html *
*Busterboo corrected "l" being ommitted from URL. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe I will drop by alt.talk.creationism to add my two cents, but I don’t have the time to make a real go of it. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Busterboo: And I bet you’d like that too, huh Pastor Dave? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PS: a hardcopy of my book can be purchased for $22.50 (coil-bound, plastic cover, 8.5 x 11", 120 pages, index). I also sell books and booklets dealing with biblical problems. Very Best Wishes, Dave Matson, editor The Oak Hill Free Press P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dave Matson… YOU are beautiful.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index…. Name: Dave Erick Matson Born (YYYY.MM.DD): 1947.07.04 Occupation: Former computer programmer Degrees: B.A., Mathematics Publications: "Bible Errors" –booklet "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?" — 103 page book various essays/monographs various articles in Farrell Till’s "Skeptical Review" www.theskepticalreview.com various articles in "The Freethought Exchange" "Three-Dimensional Chess: the theory" Other Relevant Misc. Info: Editor of THE OAK HILL FREE PRESS P.O. 61274 Pasadena, CA 91116 (Send a 32-cent [1st class] stamp and address for a free catalog.) Dave Matson, YOU are beautiful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ So give us the Beef, Pastor Dave. ANSWER Dave Matson’s answers. SMILE & Have A Nice Day!
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.