PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Geo. Evidence of old Earth

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some creationist posters on this board have tried to twist evidence of an old earth into evidence of a young earth.  They claim that evolutionary scientists and creationists interpret the evidence differently.  But all the cases I've seen clearly demonstrate that creationists interpret the evidence incorrectly!
Let's look at these examples from the poster Gup20 of supposed geological evidence of a young earth...

1.  Gulf of Mexico
2.  Australia's Burning Moutain
3.  A classic tillite reclassified as submarine debris flow
4.  Canyon Creation
5.  A canyon in 6 days
6.  Devil's Tower
7.  Lake Missoula
8.  Three Sisters (with evidence of fossils gonig verticlly through "millions of years" of strata)
9.  Paleosols
10.  Rapid Rock
11.  The Grand Canyon - Evidence of The Flood
And many more!

Much of this we (YET and I) have brought to your attention, but you ignore and dismiss it.


1) The Gulf of Mexico - Don't know how the Gulf of Mexico can be considered proof of a young earth.  There are extensive deposits of oil in the Gulf.  Oil takes millions of years to form.  First dead organic material must build up, it the Gulf of Mexico this is plankton.  This much dead organic material could not have been deposited in a single super flood.  Next we see a layer of limestone on top of the layer of oil.  Again, limestone is made out of generations of dead organic life and takes millions of years by itself to form.  Right there, before we even take into account the 100's of thousands of years needed  for heat and pressure to turn the dead plankton into oil, we see processes that take millions of years.  It is impossible that these oil deposits formed in only a few thousand years after the supposed flood.  And let's see what the experts say about it:
Gulf

"During the past 75 million years, the Gulf Coast has been progressively pushed further southward as sediments have piled up along the shore, moved here by the Mississippi River and other smaller streams. Since the Gulf of Mexico has been a depositional basin for so long, there has been no shortage of mostly sandstones, siltstones, and shales that have been deposited. Even today, potential reservoir rock continues to be deposited by the Mississippi River as it transports sand and mud into the ocean. As the river shifts back and forth (also known as "avulsing"), it deposits sand in some places, while other areas see clay deposition. These (and other) factors have created the sedimentary rocks we see today along the Gulf Coast, both above ground, and in the subsurface.

While the last 75 million years have been important in shaping the geology of the Gulf Coast, the petroleum story here starts much earlier, in the Jurassic Period 200 million years ago. At this time, Africa, North America and Europe were still joined together, forming the supercontinent of Pangea. As Pangea split apart, the Gulf of Mexico began to form. Jurassic shales from this time period are the predominant source rock for oil in the Gulf Coastal area."

2)Australia's Burning Mountain - Again, how can this possibly be evidence for a young earth?  This burning underground seam of coal has been burning for 5000 years, if the earth is only 6000 years old, YEC's are faced with the same problem as above, not enough time for the coal that is burning to form.   From here:
Coal

" Coal is rich in hydrocarbons (compounds made up of the elements hydrogen and carbon). All life forms contain hydrocarbons, and in general, material that contains hydrocarbons is called organic material. Coal originally formed from ancient plants that died, decomposed, and were buried under layers of sediment during the Carboniferous Period, about 360 million to 290 million years ago. As more and more layers of sediment formed over this decomposed plant material, the overburden exerted increasing heat and weight on the organic matter. Over millions of years, these physical conditions caused coal to form from the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and inorganic mineral compounds in the plant matter. The coal formed in layers known as seams."

So we can see, in the creationist model, there is no time for enough organic material to accumulate, not enough time for sediments to accumulate on top of this organic material and not enough time for pressure and heat to transform the material into coal.  And with the fires in the Burning mountain having been observed for the last 5000 years, that leaves about 1500 years for all these steps to take place????  Impossible!

3)  A classic tillite reclassified as submarine debris flow.  The main point creationists make here is this:
AIG

" The implication of this result is that the main diagnostic features for an ancient 'ice age' are really not diagnostic at all. It has been known for a long time that the fabric of a 'tillite' cannot be distinguished from a debris flow. Early workers did not concern themselves with distinguishing between the two processes and just assumed ancient glaciation. It is, therefore, no surprise that the strata of the Earth have so many remnants of ancient 'ice ages'. Just as with Reusch's 'moraine', these claimed ancient ice ages are very likely submarine debris flows — a process that is consistent with a global Flood.9,10,11,12"

And yet, this point is overturned by more modern analysis:
Glacier

"However, the glacial origin of this surface was questioned and the tillite was considered to be contemporaneous with the underlying sandstone by some authors in the 1960s and recently by Jensen and Wulff-Pedersen (1996).
Studies on the famous Reusch outcrop in 1998 led to the following important new observations: 1) The classical surface is flat and subhorizontal only on above the high-tide level. At the intertidal zone, covered by algae, it forms part of the western margin of a smoothly irregular channel with a minimum depth of 0.8 m and a width of over 5 m. The channel margin disappears east into the sea. 2) A single 10 x 80 cm, almost in situ, sandstone fragment of the Veinesbotn type along with other smaller ones occur at the very basal part of the channel. 3) The main channel axis, scours, and ridges are parallel to older striae on the classical surface and those in Handelsnes, Skjåholmen and Vieranjarga. 4) Solitary faint striae of the younger set occur within the channel. 5) At the Bigganjargga outcrop site the unconformity surface rises from sea level to the altitude of 2 m and erodes 5 trough cross-bedded sets of the underlying Veinesbotn Formation to the distance of 30 m. 6) The unconformity can be followed 500 m to the west where it occurs at the altitude of c. 10 m and separates the distinguishably trough-cross-bedded fluvial to shallow-marine Veinesbotn sandstone from the massive and parallel-bedded turbiditic Smalfjord sandstone (cf. Bjørlykke, 1967, Fig. 5). These observations prove that the palaeosurface at Bigganjargga is part of the regional "pre-tillitic" unconformity, which was carved into the consolidated "older Finnmarkian sandstones". It clearly belongs to Bjørlykke's (1967, Figs. 2 and 3) glacially scoured Varangerfjord palaeovalley system and represents its deepest parts, but not necessarily the very bottom."

The later studies falsify Jensen and Wulf-Pederson's rsults, this is clearly evidence of glacial scouring and an ice age.

4) Canyon Creation Here AIG taslks about one canyon, Providence Canyon in Georgia.  It claims that this is proof of the earth being young.  Again, what proof?  Lousy farm irrigation pratices in the 1800's caused the runoff of soft sediments.  from here:
Providence

"Located a few miles west of Lumpkin, Georgia, -- about 25 miles south of Columbus -- Providence Canyon cuts a growing gouge into Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments of Georgia's western Coastal Plain. Providence Canyon -- sometimes ridiculed as a "big gully" -- apparently began to form in the early 1800's when negligent farming practices encouraged erosion of soft Coastal Plain sediments. In the vicinity of Providence Canyon, the clay-rich and relatively erosion-resistant Clayton Formation lies at the surface. When runoff breached the Clayton Formation, underlying softer sand of the Providence Formation began rapidly to erode."

So yes, under the right conditions, a canyon can form rather quickly, but this does not apply to all canyons, only those that have soft enough sediments.   Geologists know about this, study it and still accept a 4.5 billion year old earth.   Again, how is this proof of a young earth?

5)Canyon Creation  in 6 days - I love the last line in the AIG article about canyon creation,
AIGII

"Yes, canyons can form rapidly.  A good maxim to remember is, ‘It either takes a little water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time.’  But then, we’ve never seen a canyon form slowly with just a little water.  Whenever scientific observations are made, it’s a lot of water and a short time."

And of course the ignore the formation of the Grand Canyon, which took a little water and a long time....In fact, doing a search on canyons provided me with many interesting facts that demonstrate millions of years old canyons...From here:
WoodCanyon

"Wood Canyon Formation
2,500 foot thick, 570+ million years old. Purple sandstone was deposited near shore. This formation contains early Trilobites, indicators of an explosion of life after the Permian age extinction."

TemeculaCanyon

" Then, 5.5 million years ago, the boundary between the Pacific and North American plates moved to the location of the present-day Gulf of California, and the area became interesting again geologically. An oceanic spreading center tore Baja California away from mainland Mexico, and the San Andreas Fault, and its host of accompanying faults, became active. The Santa Ana Mountains began to form by uplift along their eastern end at the Elsinore Fault.
As the mountains were uplifted, it is likely that the Santa Margarita River was able to wear away the rock as fast as it was uplifted, staying in the same place at the same height as the rocks rose around it. The river is thus an antecedent river, existing before the mountain range surrounding it. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to explain how a river formed in the lowland area of Temecula suddenly cuts across a high mountain range! "

RedCanyon

" Long before and through the Age of Dinosaurs, layers
of sediments were deposited in ancient oceans,
deserts, and lakes that once covered this land. Heat
and pressure over the years compressed the sediments
into rock layers called formations. Over millions
of years the Green River carved through the rock
layers. Then shifts in the earth's crust bent the
formations upward to form the Uinta Mountains. As the
gradual uplift of the mountains occurred, the Green
River held its place, cutting down through 1,700 feet
of Red Canyon."

I could go on and on....But I think the point is made, yes canyons can form quickly but many canyons need millions and millions of years to form.

6)Devils Tower - This one from AIG is just incredible!  They agree with geologists on how it was formed, but not how long!  And why don't they agree with how long it took to form?  "Of course, this part of the explanation is not correct because we know from the Bible that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions. "  Clearly, AIG views everything through it's faulty interpretaion of the Bible.  They have no evidence to support a young age for the Devil's Tower except for what the Bible tells them!  This is not science!  This is myth based justification for their supernatural
beliefs!  From here:DevilsTower

"About 65 million years ago, during the Tertiary time, pressures within the earth climaxed, uplifting the Rocky Mountains and the Black Hills. Molten magma welled up toward the surface of the earth, intruding into already-existing sedimentary rock layers."

65 million years old, flood myth falsified!

" Until erosion began its relentless work, Devils Tower was not visible above the overlying sedimentary rocks. But the forces of erosion - particularly that of water - began to wear away the sandstones and shales. The much harder igneous rock survived the onslaught of erosional forces, and the gray columns of Devils Tower began to appear above the surrounding landscape.
As rain and snow continue to erode the sedimentary rocks surrounding the Tower's base, and the Belle Fourche River carries away the debris, more of Devils Tower will be exposed. But at the same time, the Tower itself is slowly being eroded. Rocks are continually breaking off and falling from the steep walls. Rarely do entire columns fall, but on remote occasions, they do. Piles of rubble - broken columns, boulders, small rocks, and stones - lie at the base of the Tower, indicating that it was, at some time in the past, larger than it is today."

We can see that modern geology can neatly explain the Devil's Tower, the experts all agree it is 65 million years old.

OK, I'll tackle the rest of Gup20's list a little later, but I think it is plainly evident AIG is dishonest, they don't present the real evidence, they are out of date and they are horribly bias!  As long as they claim that all evidence must support the Bible, they can't do real science!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:42 AM on April 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Australia's Burning Mountain - Again, how can this possibly be evidence for a young earth?  This burning underground seam of coal has been burning for 5000 years, if the earth is only 6000 years old, YEC's are faced with the same problem as above, not enough time for the coal that is burning to form.

Not to mention that a little thing like a global flood that covered the entire earth in water would probably:
a) put the fire out and
b) cover it in tons of sediment, since, after all, that's when all the sediments of the world were laid

Gup, allow me to fill you in on a little secret: AiG does not do science.  When you say "the evidence can't be right because we know the bible tells us the earth is only 6, 000 years old", you have officially rescinded any claim to objective science.  Now, you are going to say "well, evolutionists do the same."  No, they don't.  Scientists follow the evidence.  You have yet to present any evidence whatsoever that stands up to scrutiny.  You have presented many, many assertions, but there are absolutely no facts to back them up.  Present all the articles you want from AiG.  Until there are verifiable, repeatable test results included, they are assertions, not facts.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 03:35 AM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: AiG does not do science.

But they do report on real science, done by real scientists.  TalkOrigins.org doesn't DO SCIENCE either - they have simply gathered many evolutionary ideas and anti-creationist resources into one place.

TQ: When you say "the evidence can't be right because we know the bible tells us the earth is only 6, 000 years old", you have officially rescinded any claim to objective science.

When you say that creation couldn't have happened because the earth is millions of years old, you have officially recinded any claim to objective science.  Objectively, one MUST admit that since no one was there millions of years ago, and written history (eyewitness account) does not go back more than a few thousand years that we CANNOT rely (objectively) on assumptions of millions of years.

You have yet to present any evidence whatsoever that stands up to scrutiny.

And you have yet to give a broad generalization that was true.  Your version of scrutiny is to say that it does't agree with your millions of years paradigm, or that 'evidence' based on assumption based on wishful thinking (such as radiometric dating, for example) somehow discredits written history or actual observed science.  

TQ: You have presented many, many assertions, but there are absolutely no facts to back them up.

And you guys continue to create new threads and argue and quote my 'lists of evidece' even as you dismiss it and make unsubstancial generalizations such as 'absolutely no facts'.  In fact, if you look at the first post in this thread, Demon has spent a good deal of time refuting some of those 'facts' you say 'have NEVER been presented' or 'absolutely don't exist'.  Yet again, you manage to make another broad generalization that simply isn't true.  It's like your brain doesn't allow for the slightest hint of truth to creep in lest you be swayed.  Yet, you claim that I am unobjective?  I think anyone with a shred of intelligence can see what's really going on here.  

TQ: Until there are verifiable, repeatable test results included, they are assertions, not facts.

So it is, yet again, your assertion that none of the articles I have linked to in my arguments have included verifiable, repeatable test results?  In baseball you only get three strikes, and you've swung and missed on your third broad assumption in one paragrah!  It is remarkable how you can make such sweeping claims in the face of so much contrary evidence.  Your mind is certainly a closed one.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:54 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But they do report on real science, done by real scientists.

Yeah, and they misquote, lie, and misrepresent.  A prime case is the "dino-blood in a fresh bone" case that you posted.  I showed you that this was not true, it was a misrepresentation of the actual work done, and what happens?  You invoke the S.S.C. to explain it away!

TalkOrigins.org doesn't DO SCIENCE either - they have simply gathered many evolutionary ideas and anti-creationist resources into one place.

And in their articles (many of which are by people doing the research), they accurately represent the work being done by referencing to the original material, and in many cases talking to the actual people doing the work!

When you say that creation couldn't have happened because the earth is millions of years old, you have officially recinded any claim to objective science.

Wrong, because it's objective science that says the earth is billions of years old.

Objectively, one MUST admit that since no one was there millions of years ago, and written history (eyewitness account) does not go back more than a few thousand years that we CANNOT rely (objectively) on assumptions of millions of years.

Science doesn't rely on eyewitness accounts or testimony, no more so than a court of law.  The same principles are in effect.  Namely, "what does the evidence tell us?"  And all evidence points to an age of approximately 4.5 billion years.

And you have yet to give a broad generalization that was true.  Your version of scrutiny is to say that it does't agree with your millions of years paradigm, or that 'evidence' based on assumption based on wishful thinking (such as radiometric dating, for example) somehow discredits written history or actual observed science.  

I have told you numerous times what is acceptable evidence.  This is the same standard any evidence is held to.  You have yet to do provide any information that meets such criteria.  So, my "broad generalizations" are so far bang on"

Yet, you claim that I am unobjective?

Yes.

I think anyone with a shred of intelligence can see what's really going on here.

Which would explain why you are having problems following the basic facts Demon and I are laying out for you.  Let's recap:
Gup-"dates aren't concordant.  Pove it!  Show me sources!"  
TQ- "O.K. here's a few right here"
Gup-"those are faked, the S.S.C. pressured them, dating is wrong anyways because we all know the bible says the earth is 6 KYO, you're so gullible/brainwashed/indoctrinated!"
TQ-"where is their evidence to back up your allegations already!  You have absolutely no proof that any of this data is faked or that there is a conspiracy besides your wish that it be so!"
Gup-"I already gave you evidence! It must be evidence, since you guys are tearing it to shreds and explaining it all very nicely using known scientific priniciples from a number of different disciplines!  Of course, I don't have the evidence to actually prove any of my allegations like you actually asked for, but I can throw some more BS at you in the hopes you forget about the original point and concentrate instead on this 'evidence' "

So, who is being obtuse here again Gup?

In fact, if you look at the first post in this thread, Demon has spent a good deal of time refuting some of those 'facts' you say 'have NEVER been presented' or 'absolutely don't exist'.

So the fact that Demon and I refuse to accept your nonsense somehow validates it in your mind?   Wow, I am in utter awe of the idiocy of that statement.

So it is, yet again, your assertion that none of the articles I have linked to in my arguments have included verifiable, repeatable test results?

Please, just once, actual show me a study done that is verifiable, repeatable (ie the same results are obtained consistently under the same conditions), and conclusive that actually demonstrates a young age for the earth.  You have never yet done so.  The articles you present from AiG either:
a) show test results obtained from bad procedures, samples, etc., and are not repeatable (since they were done improperly in one way or another) or
b) say "the result was such and such, which we know is wrong because the bible says..."
or
c) Say "the scientists explain it this way (insert strw man here).  We of course, know this is completely false (which a strw man is).  So it must have been this way!"  

This is not science.  This is a joke, and an embarrasment.  So, where exactly (and in your next response I want you to quote it exactly) is there a study done by a creationist "scientist" where the results are verified, repeatable, and observed?





(Edited by TQ 4/22/2004 at 1:45 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:38 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1) EVOLUTIONIST geologists maintain that most of the oil they pump out of the ground was formed many millions of years ago from biological debris. But in the Guaymas Basin, in the Gulf of California, oil seeping out of the sediments has been dated at less than 4,300 years old. It could even be younger because:
The organic debris that was carbon-14 dated may have taken many years to become incorporated in the sediments. The dating may be affected by older material in the sediments.
One proposal is that the oil may have formed no more than 1,240 years ago.

Science Frontiers,
July August 1991 (p. 3).
New Scientist,
April 6,1991 (p. 19).


Rapid Oil Formation - It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes.

“Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes.” Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)

" British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..." Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982

Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal, Bruner, "Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations." The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p. 6-12


2)Coal: a memorial of The Flood

Coal needs only weeks, not millions of years, to form

It has been known for many years that the most important factor for coalification is temperature.1 The higher the temperature the higher the degree of coalification, or rank of coal.2 The length of time is not particularly important. Pressure actually retards the chemical reactions slightly.

Surprisingly, relatively mild temperatures, from 100–150°C, are enough to drive off oil and gas and produce a low-rank coal. This has been demonstrated in the laboratory. For example, Argonne National Laboratories have reported that lignin (the major component of wood), water and acidic clay heated in a sealed container to only 150°C produced brown coal in just two to eight months.3

Higher temperatures, up to 400°C, produce a material with the infrared spectra (thus chemical bonding) of the most altered, black coal (anthracite) with a very high carbon content. The brown coals of the Latrobe Valley are much less coalified and still contain lots of their original moisture. They have not been heated to the same extent as higher-grade coals.

Return to main text.

References

1  Stach, E. et al., Textbook of Coal Petrology, Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin, pp. 55–59, 1982. Return to text.

2  ‘Rank’ refers to how much the organic material has been coalified. Return to text.

3  Hayatsu, R., McBeth, R.L., Scott, R.G., Botto, R.E. and Winans, R.E., Artificial coalification study: Preparation and characterization of synthetic macerals, Organic Geochemistry 6:463–471, 1984. Return to text.



3)"Studies on the famous Reusch outcrop in 1998 "  --- couldn't find anything on this with Google.  Can you be more specific about the study?  The page you linked to has references for everything EXCEPT for the 'evidence' they state proves their case (this study in 1998).  Otherwise their references range from 1937 to 1975 (clearly not more recent than Jensen PA & Wulff-Pedersen E, Geol. Mag, 133, 137-145, (1996).)


4)The point is that canyons do not take millions of years to form.  This canyon wasn't there 150 years ago, it is there now.  


5)Again, you miss the point.  To assume the Grand Canyon took millions of years and had little water is just that... an assumption.  It was not observed.  The point here is that it is both POSSIBLE and PLAUSIBLE that the canyon could have formed quickly, and here is the observational EVIDENCE.

Demon: I could go on and on....But I think the point is made, yes canyons can form quickly but many canyons need millions and millions of years to form.

Actually, the point is, these canyons ONLY HAD thousands of years to form (under the creationist paradigm) and would this possible.  The answer is a resounding yes, it is possible.  


6)

Demon: Clearly, AIG views everything through it's faulty interpretaion of the Bible.

Here we are back to Demon interpreting the Bible?  So, it's up to you, who admits a disbelief in the Bible aready to 'correctly interpret' the Bible?  Ha!  Not likely.  

Again, it's not a creationists position to disprove millions of years evolution.  We need only to prove (which we do consistantly) that it is POSSIBLE to happen within the Biblical timeframe.  The thing about Evolutionism, however, is that it CAN'T work whatsoever with thousands of years, but it can 'pretend' to work over millions (and billions) of years simply by way of being completely unobservable (and therefore difficult to disprove by 'obervational science').  The creation timeframe is plausible and possible, regardless of how much humanists hate the idea.  

TQ: Yeah, and they misquote, lie, and misrepresent.  A prime case is the "dino-blood in a fresh bone" case that you posted.  I showed you that this was not true, it was a misrepresentation of the actual work done, and what happens?  You invoke the S.S.C. to explain it away!

Speaking of lying, misquoting and misrepresenting, have you ever heard of a thing called the ToE?  Have you ever heard of radiometric dating?  YOu try to make a mockery out of this argument by referring to the 's.s.c' yet that is EXACTLY what you think of creationists and AiG in particular.  Isn't this the EXACT impression that you are trying to attribute to us?  That we are some conglomeration of individuals set out to decieve innocent bystanders?  Your duplicity is rediculously transpearant.  

TQ: And in their articles (many of which are by people doing the research), they accurately represent the work being done by referencing to the original material, and in many cases talking to the actual people doing the work!

WOW - EXACTLY as AiG and ICR do.  Yet you invoke the S.S.C. to try to explain it away!  Clearly I am mocking you, but it is with purpose; to show the duplicitous nature of your comments.  

TQ: Wrong, because it's objective science that says the earth is billions of years old.

It is a desparate humanist mindset that invokes the ToE as it's basic assumptive framework to misinterpret actual data as representing millions of years.  In actuality, as evolutonists themselves say, what we can observe over decades with actual science is only a snapshot to the millions of years evolution requires.  It is therefore impossible to observe millions of years (as there is no eyewitness, or written record of eyewitness accounts).  

Here is an example -

This is a quote from Edward E Max (author of TalkOrigins.org site):

"I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that "we have no way of observing a long series of mutations." But you go on to say that "our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist." An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins. This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc."   TalkOrigins

Interesting that the author of talkorigins.org would say there were no examples where a macroevolutionary charge resulted from a mutation (but I think that's something we should leave for another thread).  

TQ: Science doesn't rely on eyewitness accounts or testimony, no more so than a court of law.  The same principles are in effect.  Namely, "what does the evidence tell us?"  And all evidence points to an age of approximately 4.5 billion years.

So it is your assertion that neither science nor courtrooms rely on eyewitness accounts?  And this statment proves that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?

I would remind you of where your 4.5billion years figure comes from:

FROM USGS:  "If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age. "

It comes from an assumption (earth formed same time as other bodies), based on an assumption (radiometric dating), based on an unprovable theory (millions of years in ToE) based on the humanistic religion (god doesn't exist and man is only answerable to himself).  

TQ: I have told you numerous times what is acceptable evidence.  This is the same standard any evidence is held to.  You have yet to do provide any information that meets such criteria.

"Master, The Force is NOT strong with that one."  YOU may not accept the evidence, but we already know your mind is closed to begin with, so I am not really worried about it.  Your broad, unsubstancial generalizations continue to flow with regularity, though, I see.  

TQ:  "Yet, you claim that I am unobjective?"
Yes.


It is for this purpose that the statment "The Pot Calling The Kettle Black" was invented.  Congradulations, you are an
idiom.

TQ: So the fact that Demon and I refuse to accept your nonsense somehow validates it in your mind?

No, but the fact that you completely ignore evidence that is right in front of your face is astounding.  You and Demon write long winded messages attempting to discredit and dispell the evidence I provide (grand canyon, plate techtonics, genetics, etc etc etc) and then claim that I never presented evidence.  Well, then you spend a lot of time arguing with statements I never made.

TQ: Please, just once, actual show me a study done that is verifiable, repeatable (ie the same results are obtained consistently under the same conditions), and conclusive that actually demonstrates a young age for the earth.

I have shown you several different articles regarding the grand canyon, I have shown you (even in this very thread) several instances where science has observed canyons forming in short periods of time, there are at least 3 different sources in the information I posted in this post for the quick development of oil.  These are just a few 'off the top of my head'.  Yet, you insert YET ANOTHER unprovable, unsubstancial, broad generalization.  Incredible is the BEST word that describes it.  

Links where where the results are verified, repeatable, and observed?
Austin's analysis of Argon dating method
Snellings analysis of Argon dating method
Norway results that didn't match up
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:34 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 posts a link:
Norway results that didn't match up



Please elaborate on this statement, these are different isotope systems.  Why don't you tell us how much they differ and how important that is.

Please use the numbers so we understand your concept of "don't match up".




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:06 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi I'm new here, and have been reading through most of this discussion.  I believe in conventional planetary evolution.  I am a geophysicist and so I take a keen interest in almost anything relating to geology.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will make a few statements and comeback to this site later tonight to finish them off.

The problem I see with many of the Creationist arguments (and I think this is what bugs Demon38 and TQ) is that they don't have a complete understanding of a theory.   This is very dangerous with geology because it is a "soft" science that is highly interpretive.  It is easy to take an idea try to apply it all over the place and come up with a situation where it does not work.

An example of this would be to say (and I have heard this one before)

"When a drilling rig first strikes oil it often gushes up, still under
intense pressure from deep below.  Entire forests and jungles of life
were crushed directly from life into preserved complex carbon energy.
We refine it a little to extract fuel, fertilizer, and plastics, then
move on to the next deposit without giving it much thought.  Discrete
pockets of preserved former life, separated by wide layers of muck and
rock.  Then nothing grew there for millions of years?, then "bam" a
burst of stored life, then nothing for millions more years, then another
concentrated coal or oil pocket.  A million years is a long time.  Where
you live can you imagine that nothing grew there for one million or more
years?  Please consider the fossil record itself (as it really, actually
exists) when pondering our ancient origins. "

Source: http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

Now, this raises some good points, why is oil constrained to "pockets" in discrete layers in the earth?  This relates to a  series of arguments by the above poster about the formation of oil and gas.  The problem is that with an incomplete understanding it is easy to discredit the theory.

What the speaker in my quote above does not realize that between some the layers of rock are strange abrupt surfaces where one layer was eroded to a certain point (removing all rock from above) and new material was deposited on top of it.  This is called an unconformity, and is an important tool used to identify chronology,  or is what sequence a layers of rock were deposited.  So to assume that there is a continuous series of layers dating back millions of years is a huge assumption with no grounding.

Now, the second thing he doesn't realize is that hydrocarbons migrate.  They are produced from a "source" rock containing organic material and because oil and gas are less dense than water saturated rocks they are produced in, they rise upwards towards the surface of the earth.  Most hydrocarbons escape into the atmosphere, but some are "trapped" by an impermeable layer, which means that they are stuck under a layer of rock which does not permit them to flow through.  So you see, the whole situation has changed.  His arguments are quite ridiculous now, and show that he really has no idea what he is talking about.  I see this again and again when dealing with creationist arguments.  It is exhausting and frustrating to have to explain how the theory works in every situation, when all this information is published in innumerable textbooks and journals.  The very fact that they put this much effort into their attacks  and not into research is the worst part!  Think what these people could offer if they were to just guide their energy for this subject into something effective.  Creative criticism is a great tool, but when they are not doing their homework it is a waste of time.
Anyway I have to go, I will come back later.

p.s. sorry for the crappy grammar and spelling, I am in a rush tody.


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 5:28 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis -

If you will note the use of the "**" caveat -

** The original published ages on these samples were 539 +/- 14 Ma by Andersen and Taylor (1988).

This goes to show how dates that are not consistent are thrown out and it is retested until they get dates they do like.  

As both Austin and Snelling found in their blind tests of young rocks (recent lava flows) they were radio dated with hundreds of thousands to millions of years (when the rocks were in the dacade age range) by very prestigous radiometric dating labs.

TalkOrigins tried to dismiss this stating that the 'advertisments' from the dating lab stated that it was not in the position to date young rocks, and that doing so would dramatically unpredictable results.  This is precisely the point of creationists.  According to the creationist model, ALL rocks are young rocks (approx 6000 years or less).  If part of the assumptive process of 'accurately' radio dating a rock assumes that it is at lease some millions of years old, it has already predetermined it's own failure.  

I can give you plenty of additional examples of radiometric dating inconsistencies if you want.


(Edited by Gup20 4/22/2004 at 5:45 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:42 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bunch of stuff on coal formation, in a lab, plus low grade fossil fuels formed in a short time, once again, hit and run tactics.

Actually, the point is, these canyons ONLY HAD thousands of years to form (under the creationist paradigm) and would this possible.  The answer is a resounding yes, it is possible.  

Read again.  Canyon in loose sand/soil in 150 years.  Grand canyon (cutting through numerous strata of rock in a very short time?  Use your head.  The two examples are very different.  You have to consider the material that is being eroded as well as the length of time.

Here we are back to Demon interpreting the Bible?  So, it's up to you, who admits a disbelief in the Bible aready to 'correctly interpret' the Bible?  Ha!  Not likely.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually didn't understand what Demon is saying here.  The point he is making is that trying to shoe horn evidence to fit with a preconceived notion is not science.  Science goes where the evidence leads.  

Again, it's not a creationists position to disprove millions of years evolution.  We need only to prove (which we do consistantly) that it is POSSIBLE to happen within the Biblical timeframe.

Are you actually serious here.  Coal formed in a lab soes not prove a young earth.  A gully cut in soil and sand does not prove a young earth.

The creation timeframe is plausible and possible, regardless of how much humanists hate the idea.  

Once again, all evolutionists are not humanists.  Please explain to me why the concept of flood geology and creationism was proven false by christian scientists who were looking for the very evidence you keep trumpeting that you have.

Speaking of lying, misquoting and misrepresenting, have you ever heard of a thing called the ToE?

Yeah, it's the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.  It's also the theory that explains the fossil record.  It's also the theory that best fits all the evidence that is available.

Have you ever heard of radiometric dating?

Yeah, that's the thing that assigned actual ages to the geological column (which was actually put forth by Christian scientists (ie "creationists") in the late 1700's/early 1800's when they began searching for proof of a global flood and couldn't find it.  It's also a technique that you keep insisting is false, even though anyone who uses it correctly obtains concordant dates.

 YOu try to make a mockery out of this argument by referring to the 's.s.c'

Hey, you brought it up.  I was just humouring you.

yet that is EXACTLY what you think of creationists and AiG in particular.  Isn't this the EXACT impression that you are trying to attribute to us?  That we are some conglomeration of individuals set out to decieve innocent bystanders?  Your duplicity is rediculously transpearant.

No, I think you are ignorant people who are afraid of reality.  People who's faith is so fragile they must manufacture any reason they can think off to support their complete lack of faith.  I also think you should use a spell checker.

WOW - EXACTLY as AiG and ICR do.  Yet you invoke the S.S.C. to try to explain it away!  Clearly I am mocking you, but it is with purpose; to show the duplicitous nature of your comments.  

Allow me to let you in on a little secret:  Quote mining does not count as referencing.  Little foonotes with no detail on how to source the original papers does not count as referencing.  Lifting articles from the pop press does not count as referencing.  

It is a desparate humanist mindset that invokes the ToE as it's basic assumptive framework to misinterpret actual data as representing millions of years.  In actuality, as evolutonists themselves say, what we can observe over decades with actual science is only a snapshot to the millions of years evolution requires.  It is therefore impossible to observe millions of years (as there is no eyewitness, or written record of eyewitness accounts).

So, by your standards, physics, astronomy, chemistry and forensics are not examples of science?



This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc."  


Interesting that the author of talkorigins.org would say there were no examples where a macroevolutionary charge resulted from a mutation

Especially interesting since he didn't say that.  What he did say is: "no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations." (ie the exactmutations in the evolutionary sequence are unknown).  This in no way invalidates the ToE

I would remind you of where your 4.5billion years figure comes from:

You seem to have left out the part where they've dated rocks on earth to about 3.8 BYO.  Must have slipped your mind.  I'm sure you weren't attempting to quote mine again.

It comes from an assumption (earth formed same time as other bodies),


I'll give you that one, though it is a reasonable assumption.
based on an assumption (radiometric dating),

Once again, your say so don't make it so.
based on an unprovable theory (millions of years in ToE)

Nope
based on the humanistic religion (god doesn't exist and man is only answerable to himself).

Wrong again.  Wow, four points, and only one right.  You aren't doing too hot here gup.
YOU may not accept the evidence, but we already know your mind is closed to begin with,

Says the guy who knows the earth is only 6KYO, despite all evidence to the contrary.
so I am not really worried about it.  

Bully for you.  Me neither.
Your broad, unsubstancial generalizations continue to flow with regularity, though, I see.  

unsubstantiated generalizations like "radiometric dating is false!", and "evolution is a religion!", and "evolution is a humanisitic tool!". and "scientists have to bury the truth, or the S.S.C. will get them!"?  Those kind of generealizations?  Or did you have something different in mind?

No, but the fact that you completely ignore evidence that is right in front of your face is astounding.

Once again, you have provided us your assertion of events, events which are better explained using traditional models from various disciplines, and which fit together as a whole when viewed in such a manner

.
You and Demon write long winded messages

It's called referencing.  Try it, you'll like it
attempting to discredit and dispell the evidence I provide

Seems more of a slam dunk than an attempt, but OK
(grand canyon, plate techtonics, genetics, etc etc etc)

Nice stories with no facts
and then claim that I never presented evidence.  Well, then you spend a lot of time arguing with statements I never made.

Let's put this in little words for you:  Arguing that something is false does not make it true.  Clear?

I have shown you several different articles regarding the grand canyon

Many of which end with "of course, this is wrong, as we know the earth is only 6KYO."  Wow, I'm convinced.  If I had known that all I had to do to be a scientist was make things up, I would have done it years ago.  From now on, call me Dr. Q, Ph. D.!

several instances where science has observed canyons forming in short periods of time

Through, loose, unconsolidated soils.  Not through solid stone.

there are at least 3 different sources in the information I posted in this post for the quick development of oil.

Agreed.  But this (what you provided) is not "sources" or referencing.  Instead, you provide snippets or headlines.  But, I'm bored so let's go a-googling!

1)
“Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes.” Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)

Yep, just like mom used to make!
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/wood_to_oil.html
Not exactly as its formed in nature, is it?  A large factory, pretreating of th ecomponents, ridiculously high pressures, etc.


2)
" British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..." Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982

Well, this one is scatched, since this snipet is all that's available and that's only on three YEC sites.  If this actually occured, why is there no paper on it?  No record other than a 22 year old newspaper headline?  Provide me with a source and I'll examine it more closely.  Until then...

3)
Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal, Bruner, "Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations." The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p. 6-12

Once again, a headline with no way of referencing the actual article outside of digging through the PESA back issues (which I don't have access to).  All that comes up when I search is the same three YEC sites.  Find th eoriginal article (in its entirety) and I'll read it over.

For example, Argonne National Laboratories have reported that lignin (the major component of wood), water and acidic clay heated in a sealed container to only 150°C produced brown coal in just two to eight months.3


Once again, lab conditions which streamline the process.  The use the chemical constituent of wood and optimal processes.  In nature, contaminants and varying conditions would add to this process.  Plus, how long will it take the materials to be buried to a sufficient depth to be under a temperature of aout 150 degrees?

Links where where the results are verified, repeatable, and observed?

1. Austin/Mt. St. Helen's-It's only repeatable if you totally screw the pooch like he did.  Remember, in calculations, there is precision, then there is accuracy.  Which one do you prefer?  Me, I like accuracy.

2.Snelling on dating-
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;5

After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and

The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.


Did we not cover this already?  Demon, I'm sure you and I covered this, didn't we?
Once again, K-Ar doesn't work on young rocks.  Wrong tool = wrong results (am I going too quickly for you here?) BTW, if I'm reading correctly, the majority of dates given were less than 270, 000 years.  That's an eyeblink in geological time.  There were a couple results higher, but those would have been retested, and if unable to be confirmed, the majoity vote would be taken.  Seems ok to me, considering the abuse of the tool.
3. By this one I assume you are speaking of the tow results that were discarded.  The results which were discarded for many of the reasons you say that radiometric dating doesn't work.  The ones that were discarded because the lab caught the errors and knew that the results weren't correct because of the reasons you say it isn't correct.  Are those the ones?  Once again, can you possibly be this simple?  


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:19 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag:  Hi I'm new here, and have been reading through most of this discussion.  I believe in conventional planetary evolution.  I am a geophysicist and so I take a keen interest in almost anything relating to geology.

Hello, and welcome.  We look forward to your input in the discussion.  

Might I suggest the following reading:

Answers in Genesis Geology FAQ

This will explain thoroughly the Creationists point of view (at least the Young Earth Creationist) of geology.  The site you quoted sounds like an Old Earth creationist (theistic evolution, or progressive creation).  

So far we have been debating a 6000 year old earth (young creation model) VS the Theory of Evolution's (ToE) model.

One thing I have been trying to get accross is that we don't share the same paradigm of the evolutionary timescale.  We think that the most geologic evidence is a result of the global flood and it's influences (massive plate shifts, volcanism of global proportions, the earth being flooded from sub-terrestrial water, etc).  We take the Bible literally and that means accepting a ~6000 year old earth.  While the Bible isn't a scientific textbook, we do believe that it is accurate when it touches on science and history.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:42 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing I have been trying to get accross is that we don't share the same paradigm of the evolutionary timescale.

And one thing I have been trying to get across is I don't believe in any paradigm either.  I do however believe in evidence.

We think that the most geologic evidence is a result of the global flood and it's influences (massive plate shifts, volcanism of global proportions, the earth being flooded from sub-terrestrial water, etc).

You forgot to add "despite all the evidence to the contrary."

While the Bible isn't a scientific textbook, we do believe that it is accurate when it touches on science and history.

You forgot to add "even though this has been proven false as well."

Sheesh gup!  It's a good thing I'm here to correct your typos for you.  Where would you be without me?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:48 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello again, I am presently busy reading through the young earth creationist web information.  I am impressed with the level of structure that has been layed down, but not with the lack of evidence to support their models.  Anyway, I am still only beginning so I have a bunch more to read.

Right now I just had a thought about the flood event:  how does the young earth creation (YEC) theory explain the distinct animals living in Australia?  Tad Walker states that it is unlikely that animals would have traveled from Australia to the Arc, and then back after; furthermore, he states that it was unlikely that Australia was a separate continent until post flood (new world era).  I assume that animals would have spread from the arc out to re-populate the earth; therefore, some would have made it to Australia where they would spend the next ~4000 years in relative isolation.  So, if maco-evolution does not occur (by the Creationist model) how did distinct animals like platypus, kangaroo etc. develop?  They can’t evolve?

One solution is to have these animals exist before the food, and to later go extinct everywhere else with the exception of Australia.  But I don't know of any fossil evidence of animals like kangaroos etc. outside Australia in the fossil record (pre-flood era)?  How does the current YEC model explain this?

Talk to you guys later.



-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 10:09 PM on April 22, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

godyag:  I am impressed with the level of structure that has been layed down, but not with the lack of evidence to support their models.

Your balanced approach is refreshing.  There are (comparatively to evolution or old earth scientists) few doing the work in the science of a young earth.  It is, however, gaining momentum and there are more and more people turning towards a young earth model every day.  As with any scientific endevour, theories change and are shapened with evidence and time.  

As to your question on YEC theory to explain the distinct animals living in Australia, you can see on AiG's site that this has also been touched on.  

In response to how could distinct animals come about without maco-evolutionary changes, please see this thread:

Macro-evolution

In it, I tried to convey that mutations typically consist of genetic losses.  Even in the case where gene duplication takes place, and mutation happens to 'one of the copies', it is still bound by the 'information' originally available in which to deviate from.  Not all mutations are detrimental to an organism, some may, in fact be beneficial, but they are still a loss of information (which is the wrong directional change for macroevolution).  For example, one of the 'macro-evolutionary' changes evolutionists use is to say that a many legged cretacious creature had the genes for many legs switched off, thereby limiting it to 6 legs, and this was part of it's macro-evolutionary change from a sea dwelling creature to a modern day insect.  Well, if you follow that course of thought, you can see that it was a loss of information.  

In the case of macro-evolution, you would expect to see millions of transitional fossils that exibited transitional changes.  For example in going from creature A with a swimming tail, to creature B with legs, you would expect to see a fossil record such as this:   tail=100%  legs=0%  --->  tail=80%   legs=20%  ---->  tail=60%  legs=40%   ---->  tail=40%  legs=60%  ----> tail=20%  legs=80%  ----> tail=0%  legs=100%.   But we don't see this type of fossil record.  The best evolution can come up with is a few fossils here and there that seem to be one animal, but have some features of another.  Nothing conclusive, nothing concrete.  Certainly not the millions of transitions you would expect to find.  There are many 'gaps' in the evolutionary chain.  And then we come back to the information issue again.  For a creature that does not have wings to suddenly grow them is beyond an impossibility as a macro-evolutonary change.  There are MANY sub-systems that make wings and flight work - changes to bone structure, changes to nerve structure, changes to musscle structure changes to lung structure, etc etc etc.  All of these would have to change at once.  If you have a gradual transition from one to another, surely natural selection would weed those out as the creature would have to deal with all these vestigial deformations which didn't seem to have a purpose.  Natural Selection doesn't favor the weak.   (but this is a Geology thread, so we'll keep that discussion for the Mutation or Maco-evolution threads).

The gist of the YEC model is that when God created animals/plants/man he said "it was good".  When Adam sinned, death (separation from God and his eternal, sustaining influence), sickness, pain, disease entered the world.  This would indicate that the originally created 'kinds' probably had all the genetic information for all the variety we see today.  For example, if Adam was indeed the first (and only) man, all the genetic information for every racial feature we see today (african, aisan, european, indian, etc) came from the genes he possessed.  In the same way, there were originally less 'species' within a 'kind' but many species came about through isolation of a genetic trait or group.  This means that the original 'kinds', like Adam, had enough genetic variety for all the species we see today.  Taking dogs as an example, there are many dog varieties... but Noah would have only needed to take a couple dog kinds that could have speciated to all the variety we see today.


(edited in:  note - I don't want to turn this into another mutation, macro-evolution thread.  If you want to reply to what I have said on that, please do so in the macro-evolution thread)

(Edited by Gup20 4/23/2004 at 2:35 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 2:31 PM on April 23, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In it, I tried to convey that mutations typically consist of genetic losses.  Even in the case where gene duplication takes place, and mutation happens to 'one of the copies', it is still bound by the 'information' originally available in which to deviate from.  Not all mutations are detrimental to an organism, some may, in fact be beneficial, but they are still a loss of information

Wrong, you have yet to even attempt to prove this.

In the case of macro-evolution, you would expect to see millions of transitional fossils that exibited transitional changes.  For example in going from creature A with a swimming tail, to creature B with legs, you would expect to see a fossil record such as this:   tail=100%  legs=0%  --->  tail=80%   legs=20%  ---->  tail=60%  legs=40%   ---->  tail=40%  legs=60%  ----> tail=20%  legs=80%  ----> tail=0%  legs=100%.   But we don't see this type of fossil record.

Of course we don't see this.  Evolution does not propose a "chimera" creature.  As well, the fossil record (as you've stated many times yourself) is spotty, with a small fraction of a percent of the organisms that lived actually being fossilized.  Here are examples of transitionals:

transitional fossils FAQ

And here is your allegation answered:

Why are there so few transitionals?

For example, if Adam was indeed the first (and only) man, all the genetic information for every racial feature we see today (african, aisan, european, indian, etc) came from the genes he possessed.  In the same way, there were originally less 'species' within a 'kind' but many species came about through isolation of a genetic trait or group.  This means that the original 'kinds', like Adam, had enough genetic variety for all the species we see today.  Taking dogs as an example, there are many dog varieties... but Noah would have only needed to take a couple dog kinds that could have speciated to all the variety we see today.

Of course, there is no evidence to support this, and "kind" has never once had a definition attached to it, so it's a useless term used by creationists to cloud the waters

I don't want this thread to spill over either, but your allegations had to be answered, so that's all I have to say on the subject.




-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 3:04 PM on April 23, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When you say that creation couldn't have happened because the earth is millions of years old, you have officially recinded any claim to objective science.  Objectively, one MUST admit that since no one was there millions of years ago, and written history (eyewitness account) does not go back more than a few thousand years that we CANNOT rely (objectively) on assumptions of millions of years.

We say that creationism is false because all the evidence says the earth is much older than 10,000 years.  Creationism doesn't stand up to an examination of the evidence!  Your claim about that a direct observer is needed for science is ridiculous!  Many things in science can not be directly observed, yet they are supported by the evidence to such a degree that they are tenative facts.  We can't directly observe electrons, yet the atomic theory is supported by science.  We can't observe gravity, don't even really know what it is, and yet we understand how it operates.  Where do you draw the line for direct observation and why?  

And you have yet to give a broad generalization that was true.  Your version of scrutiny is to say that it does't agree with your millions of years paradigm, or that 'evidence' based on assumption based on wishful thinking (such as radiometric dating, for example) somehow discredits written history or actual observed science.

No, again you are wrong.  An old earth is the best theory derived from studying the evidence, not wishful thinking.  You forget that 300 years ago the bias was that the earth was young, but christian geologists were forced to change their theories when they acutually began studying the earth.  Despite the strong bias they had in favor of the bible, they went with the evidence.  Science is NOT subjective, it is the most objective method we have of investigating our planet.  And using the most objective method we have, the scientific method, the conclusion is the earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Radiometric dating, which has proved extremely reliable and consistant has only reinforced this conclusion.  You have failed miserably to change this conclusion, you have shown no reason to doubut radiometric dating.  The only reason you cling to a young earth belief is because it would destroy your superstitious myths if you were to admit it was true.

And you guys continue to create new threads and argue and quote my 'lists of evidece' even as you dismiss it and make unsubstancial generalizations such as 'absolutely no facts'.  In fact, if you look at the first post in this thread, Demon has spent a good deal of time refuting some of those 'facts' you say 'have NEVER been presented' or 'absolutely don't exist'.  Yet again, you manage to make another broad generalization that simply isn't true.  It's like your brain doesn't allow for the slightest hint of truth to creep in lest you be swayed.  Yet, you claim that I am unobjective?  I think anyone with a shred of intelligence can see what's really going on here.

You're the one who presents data that you (or the sources you parrot) haven't fully investigated and claim it is evidence for a young earth.  All we have done is show you the errors you've made.  Your refusal to accept the facts is your problem.

So it is, yet again, your assertion that none of the articles I have linked to in my arguments have included verifiable, repeatable test results?  

Yes!  Your facts do not support a young earth and you do lousy research.  Once again, the experts all accept a very old earth, you have done nothing to disprove them.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:49 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EVOLUTIONIST geologists maintain that most of the oil they pump out of the ground was formed many millions of years ago from biological debris. But in the Guaymas Basin, in the Gulf of California, oil seeping out of the sediments has been dated at less than 4,300 years old.

First of all, geologists are not evolutionists!  They don't care about evolution.  And all evidence supports an old earth.  Because of your paranoid delusions, everyone who disagrees with you is an EVOLUTIONIST!, geologists don't study evolution.

As to Guaymas Basin, as usual, you leave out pertinent information...from here:OIL

"The picture geologists draw of the Guaymas Basin is that of a spreading center covered by perhaps a half kilometer of sediments. Spewing up from the spreading center is hot water at 300-350°C, which "cracks" the organic material in the sediments, converting it into petroleum only 10-30 meters below the sea floor. (Hecht, Jeff; "Youngest Oil Deposit Found below Gulf of California," New Scientist, p. 19, April 6, 1991.)

Comment. Since spreading centers are really cracks in the earth's crust, it is possible that some of the feed materials for this modern "petroleum factory" in the Guaymas Basin could consist of abiogenic, primordial methane and other organics seeping up from deep within the earth."

Since oil normally forms at temperatures of up to 200 degrees, the basin, with it's hydrothermal vents is very different from where oil normally forms.  Also, we see that there is the very real possiblity of older organic material seeping into the mix.  Regardless, no geologist is saying that this is the way oil normally forms.  It still takes millions of years to form, you have yet to give us any evidence that any geologist says this isn't the case.  You also ignore how long it would take for enough organic material to build up to account for our present sources of oil, this is a process that would take millions of years by itself, but you don't even address it because it shows how your young earth estimates are wrong.  Then you don't address how long it would take for the limestone and sandstone above the oil would take to form, again, this would take considerably longer than a few thosaund years.  From here:  
OILII

"What is the chief evidence that disputes the Creationist proposal? The migration of petroleum from their strata of origin into surrounding rocks takes a long time, measured in millions of years, not centuries. This is based on the physics of fluid flow through semi-permeable material under a pressure gradient. There is nothing speculative about this mechanism, anymore than there is controversy over how water flows through a garden hose. There is also the problem of the time scale for conversion 'or cracking' of organic matter into oil and gas derivatives under the rather gentle temperature and pressure conditions found in nature. Again this is a matter of organic chemistry, not speculation, and the time scales are again measured in millions of years not days or centuries."

You pick and choose the isolated "facts" that, when not viewed in context, seem to support a young earth.  But when all the evidence is weighed in, an old earth is the only conclusion.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on April 25, 2004 | IP
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gup20 at 5:42 PM on April 22, 2004 :
Apoapsis -

If you will note the use of the "**" caveat -

** The original published ages on these samples were 539 +/- 14 Ma by Andersen and Taylor (1988).

This goes to show how dates that are not consistent are thrown out and it is retested until they get dates they do like.  


JM: You need to be very careful about making such accusations.  The original ages published by Andersen and Taylor are discussed in all publications related to the Fen Complex ages including my web page.  The pyrochlore samples used in that study were metamict and spongy and should not have been analyzed.   However, even if we include those results, the overlap of ages is a compelling argument for the age of the Fen Complex within a narrow range using several different isotopic systems (see below).  I think what you fail to realize is that all analysis of ages should be done in conjunction with a physical examination of the minerals involved.  

Cheers

Joe Meert




 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 08:34 AM on April 26, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK gup, time for you to accuse Mr. Meert of being one of the ringleaders of the S.S.C.  After all, here he is defending his own work!  He's so obviously one of the masterminds, possilbly even one of Gould's high priests!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:54 PM on April 26, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's continue demolishing Gup20's list of so called evidence for a young earth...

7) Lake Missoula - OK, I'm stumped, how is this evidence for a young earth???
From here: LakeMissoula

"During the Pleistocene Epoch Ice Age, beginning about 2.5 million years ago, virtually all of southwestern Canada was repeatedly glaciated by ice sheets that also covered much of Alaska, northern Washington, Idaho, Montana, and the rest of northern United States. In North America, the most recent glacial event is the Wisconsin glaciation, which began about 80,000 years ago and ended around 10,000 years ago. ...
At the end of the last Ice Age, a finger of the Cordilleran ice sheet crept southward into the Idaho panhandle, forming a large ice dam that blocked the mouth of the Clark Fork River, creating a massive lake 2000 feet deep and containing more than 500 cubic miles of water. Glacial Lake Missoula stretched eastward for some 200 miles and contained more water than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined. When the highest of these ice dams failed, lake water burst through, shooting out at a rate 10 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world.
This towering mass of water and ice literally shook the ground as it thundered toward the Pacific Ocean, stripping away hundreds of feet of soil and cutting deep canyons -- "coulees" -- into the underlying bedrock. With flood speeds approaching 65 miles per hour, the lake would have drained in as little as 48 hours.
Over time the Cordilleran ice sheet continued moving south and blocked the Clark Fork River again and again, recreating Glacial Lake Missoula. Over approximately 2,500 years, the lake, ice dam and flooding sequence was repeated dozens of times, leaving a lasting mark on the landscape. "
No evidence of a young earth here.

8)Three Sisters - Again, please explain how this is evidence for a young earth!  From here:
3Sisters

"Like most formations around the area the Sisters were carved from the surrounding sandstone cliffs over millions of years by erosion. This process can be witnessed today during a heavy rainstorm as water gushes down between the cracks between the pinnacles."

NO evidence of a young earth, the experts all agree, the Three Sisters are very old.

9)Paleosols - How can you twist paleosols to be evidence of a young earth??  They only form in areas not covered by water!  From here:
Paleosols

" Paleosols are ancient soils that develop during periods of extensive subaerial weathering and they are sometimes preserved in the geologic record.   The key is that paleosols are found throughout the geologic column and represent  periods of Earth history when the region they were found in WAS NOT covered by water.   Paleosols in the midst of a global flood are not possible. "

10)Rapid Rock - I checked out what AIG had to say about this, and true to form, they really don't make any sense.  Where is the evidence that this has happened in nature?  So no, this is not evidence for a young earth!

11)  Grand Canyon -  We all ready clobbered Gup20 on this one, the Grand Canyon is definitely not evidence of a young earth or a global flood.  Remember this?  From here:
GrandCanyon

"The Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a vast sea of sand dunes which was blown down from the north around 270 million years ago. "

You never could explain how wind blown, petrified sand dunes made of wind blown sand (and obviously NOT water formed sand) could form in a flood...

No, your entire list is mangled facts, none represent a young earth, all the evidence you have listed supports an old earth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:02 AM on April 27, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.