Soccerdadforlife wrote a very insulting and dickish response to my last blog and was magnanimous enough to unblock me so I could read his insults and namecalling. Here is my in-line response:
“because that’s what “agnophilo” means. Apparently he misbehaved here (likely for abusing one of my commenters) and I blocked him. [Note to self: he’s been blocked long enough.]”
Actually I’m pretty sure I just threw some science at you, actually. And it’s pretty pathetic to call me names throughout this blog (when I did no such thing to you) while accusing me of supposedly making derisive comments you can’t even remember in the past. Way to be an asshole.
“Anyway, he posted a reply to one of my casual links to human fossils, which he examines. Unfortunately he’s heavy on rhetoric and light on analysis.”
“Right off the bat he puts creationist “evidence” in quotes. Even if you don’t think that it’s good evidence, putting it in quotes is simply empty rhetoric and deceptive, since it actually is evidence. He also posts a demotivator lampoon of creationism, which is only funny if you are an old earther. He posts similar kinds of demeaning “humor.” Kind of dumb. Kind of puerile. But on we go. I kind of understand how Sisyphus would have felt.”
The “evidence” you linked to was not evidence. Evidence actually indicates a particular conclusion. Finding a rock that looks like a finger (everyone on my blog saw a loaf of bread btw, I guess you need to really want to see it) does not prove that humans pre-dated the dinosaurs. If you think that’s compelling I have a potato chip that’s shaped like a space ship I’d like to sell you, it is clearly a message from aliens. Because superficial resemblance is all you need when it comes to these things, right?
“Ignorance lover (IL hereafter) notes that the fossil finger is swollen and compares it with what happens to mummies. Mummies shrivel. Ignorance lover doesn’t know much about rapid fossilization of drowned corpses and their body parts. They retain their size and shape. Soft tissue fossilization is well-known to occur. We have fossils of worms, octopi, and bacteria.”
The “fossil” in question was a rock which supposedly kept it’s original shape, not a carbonaceous film compressed inside of a rock, which is what you are describing (and linking to). Which no, does not form rapidly by any known process, and is the result of a corpse being buried and then slowly compressed under layers of sediment over long geological periods. And I compared it to a mummy because what is being described a) does not resemble fossilization, and b) supposedly occurred over the time frame that mummification happens. The thing is still a silly rock and not even a fossil because guess what, fossils x-ray very nicely.
Real fossils x-rayed in solid rock:
Fake fossil that is a rock:
If it were a finger it doesn’t matter if it were fossilized, it would look like an x-ray of a finger. Unless it were a carbonaceous film-type fossil which it clearly is not.
“Of course, there are polystrate fossils of trees, which must have been buried rapidly. Anoxia doesn’t prevent decomposition, so they must have been fossilized rapidly as well.”
Irrelevant to the blog, was never mentioned in it. But since you insist on bringing up another tired creationist argument – polystrate fossils are only found in places like volcanic ash and river deltas where rapid sedimentation occur. Creationist sites often give black and white pictures of upright tree fossils in multiple layers of sediment to give the impression that it is stone or dirt, when in reality it is rapidly deposited volcanic ash. They use colorless photographs and misleading captions to hide this fact because they are disreputable and dishonest. Here is the first page of image results for “polystrate fossil”, there are around 20 black and white pictures of strata. Here is the first page of search results for “fossil strata”. The only colorless photo is this one from a creationist website about polystrate fossils.
“He goes on, comparing x-rays of the fossil with x-rays of an unfossilized mummy’s hand, which is obviously nonsensical. On we go…”
Not really, and dealt with this already.
“IL compares a fossilized handprint with one he found. The fossilized handprint looks like its owner was falling forward and was trying to catch himself, unlike the other handprint.”
Actually it just looks like a non-human paw print.
“IL compares the fossilized handprint to animal tracks. Yeah, it makes a big difference whether we find human or raccoon tracks in Cambrian rock…. LOL”
I didn’t say they were racoon prints, I gave them as comparison because most people are not familiar with animal tracks. And they aren’t even supposedly from the cambrian period (you were lying in your original blog). They are supposedly from the Cretaceous period, around the time of the dinosaurs.
“IL makes an issue of methodology where “real” (as opposed to fake?) people document finds.”
I said real paleontologists, not real people. It’s pathetic that you have to distort what I say to attack it, but then again I’ve never yet met an honest creationist.
“He claims that undocumented finds are never considered credible. I guess he doesn’t know about the paleontological frauds that are discovered from time to time.”
This is my favorite part of your rebuttal. You attack science by posting a list of infamous paleontological frauds, and the very first one is the fake footprint from your list of creationist “proofs”.
The first “fraud” was an instance of plagiarism, not a fake fossil, and the second was inaccurate dating of real artifacts. There is no information about whether these were well-accepted or how they were documented, so I can only wonder what your point is, other than to bash science by pointing out a few frauds, as if there isn’t fraud in every area. The difference between frauds in science and religious frauds is that frauds in science stop being taken seriously when they are exposed, whereas religious frauds are promoted and defended actively for decades or longer, even after the perpetrator has confessed to defrauding people as was the case with fakes like the ica stones which answersingenesis still promotes as fact decades later.
“IL seems not to know that anthropologists typically own their fossils and limit access to them, even excluding other anthropologists. Kind of hard to examine the evidence if you don’t have access to it. If you doubt my word, consult your local anthropologist. I guess we have to be just as skeptical about documented finds.”
Sorry, but no. Any paleontologist, anthropologist etc that wants anyone to know about their discovery must submit their finds to peer review.
“Next, we move on to IL’s examination of a fossilized footprint. He compares it with a photo of what he calls another footprint. He claims that a 14 inch long foot is unbelievable.”
No, just comical. And it wasn’t just the length, but that the footprint was over half a foot wide as well.
“What is the biggest modern foot?”
That measures his shoe size, not his foot size. My shoe is about 2-3 inches longer than my actual feet. The largest feet of any living person are… the length of your fossil. Does this make it impossible? No. Does it make it ridiculous and improbable? Yes.
“IL claims that humans have gained size steadily throughout history. Science doesn’t agree.”
Actually I only said that if you change a word or two (there’s that dishonesty again). I said humans have grown considerably taller in modern times and were shorter thousands of years ago. The article you reference talks about human height over the last few centuries and is irrelevant to what I actually said.
“The fossilized foot looks flat from lack of arch supports,”
It’s not a fossilized foot and it doesn’t look flat. Though the apparent arch in it does go insanely far to the right, which is another thing that makes it look cartoony.
“while the footprints in the comparison photo look arched and evidence of having worn shoes with arch supports. Hey, but don’t let evidence stop you.”
Actually they don’t. When walking in deep mud the arches are not apparent due to the depth and squishiness of the mud and an arched foot will make a print that looks flat. But whatever.
“Finally, we look at IL’s attempt to undermine Clifford Burdick’s credentials. A more careful examination would have revealed that he had earned his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona, but the examining committee used a pathetic excuse to deny Burdick a Ph. D. Hey, he’s a creationist, we don’t need to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
Wrong link. But all the same how does that make it okay to fake your credentials?