Hudders

BEREA Work Team
  • Content count

    1,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Hudders last won the day on November 15 2016

Hudders had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

About Hudders

  • Rank
    Legendary User
  • Birthday 05/31/1985

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

866 profile views
  1. You're necroing threads from 5 years ago. You've already been told that this is not appreciated. Please don't do it. -- THREAD CLOSED --
  2. I guess that of the items you listed, they would certainly be some of the hardest to demonstrate. Tower of Babel would be difficult due to the unlikeliness of mud buildings surviving this long. Red sea crossing because there wouldn't be much evidence of it (as I understand it, the photos of chariot wheels that Wyatt pushed were dated to significantly more recently i.e. by thousands of years?). And the crucifixion because there wouldn't be much left over from it. The wood would rot and apart from that, there'd be not much more to go on. For all of them, I imagine you'd get better indications from uncovering written records (unlikely though they may be to find) rather than going out with a pick and shovel and hoping to dig up a crucifix etc.
  3. No, this is a lot more than that. This is not just comparable to some small dispute between scientists. This is creationists having absolutely no clue what to do with an entire field of science (geological history) and arriving at wildly different conclusions.
  4. Not science in any sense. Not science, not scientifish, just plain old pseudoscience. Real science gathers evidence, draws a hypothesis and then tests it. If it passes the tests, then it gets promoted to scientific theory. What you're doing is completely backwards.
  5. All of them are things that are capable of being discovered. Whether they have been or not is another matter.
  6. The burden of proof lies with Ron Wyatt and his supporters. Though given that he was known to outright lie and that his entire career and qualifications were a fraud, I can't say that I particularly care what he thought, to be honest.
  7. Sorry, but why would I ignore the age data? I have no reason to do so. You may not like it, but the age data is accurate and is very valid for use in the formation of these charts. Radiometric dating has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The progression of life that radiometric dating of strata gives us is highly logical and can also be cross-corroborated by genetic comparisons for those species that still exist in the modern world.
  8. This sounds to me like you are playing pick 'n' mix, where you select whatever appeals to you rather than being guided to your conclusions by the evidence. You are engaging in presuppositional apologetics by determining a conclusion and then running off to find evidence that supports your view. This isn't science. In fact, this is the complete opposite - I call it pseudoscience. I find it interesting that you link to articles that use other extinction events. This demonstrates the farcical status of YECism as a movement, whereby there is absolutely no agreement about when the flood was meant to have happened. Almost every time period has, at some point, been identified by YECs as being the boundary for the flood, right the way through from PreCambrian to the Quarternary Periods. It basically shows that YECs have no clue what they are doing and have no idea how to reinterpret the data to fit their own narrative.
  9. Maybe if you are comparing just two breeds. It's different when you look at a chain of species, like, for example, that of cetacean evolution where there are about half a dozen clear steps incrementally linking land based creatures (e.g. pakicetus) with marine mammals like Orca, dolphin and baleen whales.
  10. Fortigurn is right about the link. NCSE is the National Centre for Science Education, which has a primary goal of defending American classrooms against the teaching of creationism and other non-scientific, non-factual ideologies. You may as well be quoting Answers in Genesis in order to try and get a definition of evolution.
  11. It's a fairly flimsy hypothesis. Why select the K/T extinction? What about the other major extinction events? Why K/T and not any of the other major extinction events like the Tr-J (Triassic/Jurassic) or the P-Tr (Permian/Triassic) or the Late Devonian or O/S (Ordovician/Silurian) extinction events? And really, none of the details of the K/T extinction matches Noah's flood anyway. One of the big things that we know about the K/T extinction, from when the subject was first investigated by the Alvarez family and co in the 1980s, is that this point in history was characterised by a distinct layer of iridium isotope spread out around the Earth. The Alvarez's investigated all layers they could find around the world with rock exposed from that time period. This included, from memory, going to places like New Zealand. What they found was that this iridum was everywhere, but that the layer decreased in thickness in a uniform way as it spread out from a maximum thickness in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico. There they found a crater around 14 miles wide that straddled the coastline of the Caribbean Sea, centred around the town of Chixalub. This was one major extinction event caused by a meteoroid slamming into Earth at massive speed, causing tidal waves that flowed around 200 miles into the modern state of Mississippi. I once read that the likely Moment-Magnitude scale earthquake intensity measurement for the event was probably around 13.0Mw, which is incredible given that the Fukushima earthquake was around 9.0Mw and this is on an exponential scale. This, of course, bears no resemblance to a flood of Noah wherein the fountains of the deep broke up and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights etc causing water to sit on top of the land for almost a year.
  12. It's actually very simple to demonstrate that this is not a dinosaur. Just look at the long narrow picture in that article (reproduced below). You'll see other pictures of animals displayed there. Some of them (and there's more of them than just on this one section of wall) display other animals with similar 'plate-like' structures behind them. Because they aren't plates at all. The animals are actually presented on top of a floral motif. You can even see this flower pattern around the edges of the circles that the animals sit within, as well as on the inside of the circles. The pattern is also used on the other images there. You're confusing decoration for body parts. Take away the floral motif and it just looks like something like a pangolin.
  13. That's probably because you are commenting on threads from six years ago.
  14. Did you read beyond the first four paragraphs of that article?