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
     Evolution is Failing

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so let me get this straight.  You have 100 years of data regarding decay rates of various isotopes.  That must be an awesome volume of data.  So tell me, how is it that you take this data you have amassed, and use it to interpret evidence?  Could it possibly be that you EXTRAPOLATE (oh, no, wait, I think you ASSUME) that the data for 100 years must conclusively predict what should have happened thousands if not millions of years ago.  I believe that's what I hear you
saying.  


Well, you believe wrong!  Did you miss the part where we have seen the same decay rates in supernovas over 100's of thousands of years?  So now we know that decay rates haven't changed in at least 200,000 years, creationism is disproven.  
Now let's look at the evidence that decay rates have never changed since the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago.  There are 29 known radioactive isotopes that have a half life of one million years or more and are not continually produced by natural nuclear reactions.  Of that list 17 of them are still present in the earth, the rest are not.  Why?
Because the 17 that are still present have not had enough time to totally decay according to the decay rates we have found for them.  The rest are not found in nature because their decay rates show that they would have completely decayed by now.  Why does this list show us precisely what we would expect to see if the atomic theory is correct and the decay rates never changed?  What evidence do you have that indicates that the decay rates DID change?  What conditions on earth caused this change and when did it occur?  And you're avoiding the fact that radiometric dating concurrs with all other methods of dating?  And I'm still waiting for evidence that scientists doctor dates to supprt the theory of evolution as you claimed...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:29 PM on August 24, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One other thing, demon.   I think it a bit arrogant of you to make statements such as, "ALL geologists concur...", "ALL biologists concur..."   That is not a man of science who makes a statement like that.  Pure hyperbole, intended to intimidate and distract from the central argument.

Pure hyperbole?  I think not.  Over 99.9% of the biologists in the world accept evolution.  Those few who don't accept evolution base their incorrect belief not on the evidence but on religious beliefs.  In other words, they can't scientifically support their denial of evolution.
Same with geologists, an old earth is the accepted paradigm, no evidence has been found that refutes it.  A young earth was thouroughly disproven over 200 years ago.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:32 PM on August 24, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, my trip was cut short, but I still see that demon38 has been busy.  

quote from demon38:  "Of that list 17 of them are still present in the earth, the rest are not.  Why?"

Ummm, why indeed.  

"Because the 17 that are still present have not had enough time to totally decay according to the decay rates we have found for them.  The rest are not found in nature because their decay rates show that they would have completely decayed by now."

That is not a fact, that is an assumption based on interpretation of evidence.  Could it be possible to learn new information that would refute the theory that decay rates have remained constant?  Yes.  We do not have data present from the time a sample was created, therefore we cannot conclusively state that the decay rate has remained constant as if it were fact.  It may be a well-founded assumption (I never said it wasn't) but it is still an assumption.

Interesting that you still don't deny Darwin's use of extrapolation.  I don't care how far the theory has been advanced since then, the fact is there are assumptions present.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:49 PM on August 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is not a fact, that is an assumption based on interpretation of evidence.

From here:
Dictionary

"Assumption:
1. n. The act of assuming, or taking to or upon one's self; the act of taking up or adopting.
2. n. The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim."

I think the second definition is the one we're looking for.  You're confusing 'assumption' with 'conclusion'.  Since we have a great deal of evidence that supports unchanging decay rates, it is NOT an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.  And it IS a fact that we find only those isotopes in nature that have an extemely long half life.
The atomic theory predicts that isotopic decay rates will remain unchanged, more evidence, so unchanging decay rates is not an assumption.  We have looked at decay rates in novas so we can look back 200,000 years and see they have not changed, more evidence, so it's not an assumption.  Radiometric dates concurr with all other dating techniques, once again, evidence, so unchanging decay rates are not an assumption.    The only assumption being made here ( and it's a particularyly bad assumption) is that at some unknown time, an unknown phenomenon we have no evidence for, magically, unexplainably, not only changed all radioactive decay rates but changed them so they all falsely concurr not only with each other but with all other unrelated dating techniques!  Please!  Yes, all theories are potentially falsifiable, that's the beauty of the scientific method, but you need empirical evidence to do so, not a fairytale.  You have nothing to base your claim on that decay rates have changed, you have nothing to refute the conclusions drawn from all geological evidence found so far.   You're attempt to equate creationism and modern geology by saying they're both based on assumptions is incorrect, an old earth is based on the conclusions drawn from all available evidence, creationism is based on the ASSUMPTION that multiple scientific disciplines are wrong.

Interesting that you still don't deny Darwin's use of extrapolation.  I don't care how far the theory has been advanced since then, the fact is there are assumptions
present


It looks like you don't know the definition of
'extrapolation'  so here it is, from here:
Dictionary

"extrapolation
1.  an inference about the future or about some hypothetical situation based on known facts and observations "

So 'assumption' and 'extrapolation' are not the same thing.  So I don't deny Darwin used exptrapolation, I just deny he based his theory on assumptions.  But looking at the big picture, how Darwin formulated the theory of evolution is exactly how all scientists create theories.  An hypothesis is created for a set of related observations, this hypothesis is further tested and researched, it makes predictions that are either borne out or refuted, it states what evidence or tests will falsify it, it is subjected to peer review by other experts who attempt to rip it apart.  Only when it is unable to be falsified is it declared a scientific theory.  Darwin based his initial theory on his observations of the natural world, no assumptions made.  Since then the theory of evolution has grown and changed.  The discovery of genetics has become an integral part of the modern theory of evolution.  The TOE has made thousands of predictions that have been borne out.  We've discovered literally 10's of thousands of clearly transitional fossils and more are found every day.  Biologists have tried to falsify it for over 150 years, no one has been able to.  And we use evolution in many practical applications.  
So once again, the theory of evolution is not based on any assumptions.  When Darwin first proposed it, he based that proposal on the evidence he had gathered, and not on any assumptions.
Hey, I seem to be answering all the questions here.  You keep avoiding answering any of the questions I've put to you.  Have you realized your many mistakes or are you just dodging the ones you can't answer (all of them).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:48 AM on August 26, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well for one thing, you still haven't convinced me of lack of assumptions.  If you want to define it in a "scientifically" acceptable terminology so that you can be more comfortable with it, go right ahead.  But when you attempt to extrapolate data, you are making an assumption.  

I'll use an example here, and I'll grant that I'm not a physicist either so I'm sure you'll jump all over this.  But look at the sound barrier prior to its being surpassed.  How many scientists disagreed as to the characteristics of this invisible barrier and what it would do to an aircraft?  Weren't there schools of thought (and very educated ones at that) that were certain of an aircraft's destruction if it were to exceed the sound barrier?  I'm sure there were "hypotheses" and "theories" as to the anticipated effect of the sound barrier as an aircraft attempted to speed beyond it.  My point is, there was data -- a prolific amount of it -- regarding the characteristics of an airfoil moving within our atmosphere.  If the data is viewed up to the trans-sonic realm, it is very predictable.  If scientists extrapolated that data one way or another, they could have had confidence of certain reactions into the supersonic realm.  Well to make a long story short, many theories about transsonic and supersonic flight proved false after supersonic flight speeds were actually attained.  The characteristics did not follow the extrapolated data.  (I have piloted an aircraft at supersonic speeds, so although I am not a scientist, I have experienced the changes that occur when the aircraft transistions through the sonic wave, the changes that were not originally predicted by many scientists.)  My point is that your data is extrapolated and therefore is subject to error, hence it is an assumption based on your knowledge of present conditions.  If you want to cloak the word "assumption" in scientific jargon so you can feel better about it, go right ahead.  But don't try to tell me its not an assumption.  Regardless of how the evidence might predict an event, if you weren't there to see it occur for yourself, you are making an assumption.  

Gotta go, have fun.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 05:58 AM on August 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well for one thing, you still haven't convinced me of lack of assumptions.

And you have been unable to show us ANY assumptions the theory of evolution is based on, so I stand by my point, no assumptions in the TOE.

If you want to define it in a "scientifically" acceptable terminology so that you can be more comfortable with it, go right ahead.  But when you attempt to extrapolate data, you are making an assumption.

Since "assumption" and "extrapolation" mean the same thing to a scientist and a layman, I didn't use any "scientifically" acceptable terminalogy.  I took the definitions straight from the dictionary.  And guess what, an extrapolation is NOT the same as making an assumption.  One is based on evidence, one is not.

If you want to cloak the word "assumption" in scientific jargon so you can feel better about it, go right ahead.  But don't try to tell me its not an assumption.  Regardless of how the evidence might predict an event, if you weren't there to see it occur for yourself, you are making an assumption.

So no, evolution is NOT based on any assumptions, just the evidence (same with modern geology).  And since almost all of science is based on evidence not first hand accounts, are you claiming this applies to everything we have learned from science????
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:23 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Post from demon38:  "And since almost all of science is based on evidence not first hand accounts, are you claiming this applies to everything we have learned from science????"

I am claiming that any realm of science that relies on present-day observable evidence to predict past activity and/or events is making an assumption, if it attempts to represent that the past event can be concluded positively based on the present-day evidence.  You are making the claim you can draw a factual conclusion about past events, and I am claiming that you cannot because you were not there to observe the event directly.  I would make this claim for either creation or evolution theory.  

This is not to say that I feel that we should throw up our hands and not do any research, as you mockingly stated early on with me.  The only thing I would state is that we should avoid pre-conceived ideas and assumptions based on our frame of reference, and perhaps we could allow ourselves to learn even more about our environment.  

Funny how you didn't argue with my statement about the sound barrier.  No rebuttal?  When scientists were faced with first-hand information regarding the actual penetration of the sound barrier by an aircraft, they threw out their assumptions and bias and looked at their ideas freshly.  Why couldn't they look at the existing evidence of airfoil performance and draw a solid conclusion regarding penetration of the sound barrier?  Because they only had available to them data that did not include penetration of the sound barrier, and they had to extrapolate that information to predict what would occur at the sound barrier.  At (or slightly before) the sound barrier, the data will not extrapolate.  If you would like me to stop using the term "assumption" and start using the term "extrapolation" I'll be happy to do that.  Still indicates a risky and unsupportable conclusion is possible.  

I submit that barring a first-hand account of the origin of life, we can only make assumptions (extrapolations) based on our frame of reference as to what actually took place.  We can try to develop models that attempt to represent what we think to be true, and we can even modify those models based on adaptation of new observable evidence.  But we cannot conclusively state that we are certain of one beginning or the other.  And I further submit that our frame of reference is biased by what we choose to believe -- that is, what seems "right" to us, and more often than not we tend to try to see the evidence in a way that will support our frame of reference rather than refute it.  I'm sure you won't be able to admit that, but I'm confident that most people (including scientists) would agree with me.  You can do much to eliminate your frame-of-reference bias, but if you do you risk having to alter your belief system.  I believe that the most objective men of science understand this and confront it as much as they possibly can.  If they choose not to confront it, their theories end up biased.  Comment?


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:30 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll say this also:  Since, within the framework of science, I cannot rely on my frame of reference to draw a factual conclusion about the origin of life, I will choose to step back from science and rely on information that is available outside of science:  the Bible.  It tells me that I can believe in an absolute truth, regardless of my frame of reference.  And that truth is that earth and its inhabitants were created.  I have no reason to vary from that.  Science is man-made and therefore fallible.  God is not.  I take that on faith.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:45 PM on August 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am claiming that any realm of science that relies on present-day observable evidence to predict past activity and/or events is making an assumption, if it attempts to represent that the past event can be concluded positively based on the present-day evidence.

That's all of science.  And you've already been shown the difference between assumptions and extrapolation, they are not the same.  Assumptions are based on no evidence, no proof, no support, extrapolation is based on evidence.  They are completely different.
You're inablitiy to see the difference between them is typical of the creationist mindset that tries to twist or deny any facts that contradict their worldview.  You're fooling yourself but not anyone else.
And all science is based on present day examination of evidence to support past events.  We base the heliocentric theory (that the earth orbits the sun) on present day examination of the evidence since we cannot directly observe it.  Even the fact that there is a sun is based on examining the data (light from the sun) that comes from the past, it takes minutes for that light to reach our eyes.  Where do you draw the line?  Science says if there is data to be examined, no matter how old, we can draw conclusions from it without making any assumptions.  For all you talk, you haven't been able to show us any assumptions in the theory of evolution.  You haven't been able to show us any assumptions made when radiodating samples.
You have been thouroughly unable to support this position.

You are making the claim you can draw a factual conclusion about past events, and I am claiming that you cannot because you were not there to observe the event directly.

Direct observation is the least reliable evidence in science and nothing is based solely on direct observation.  You don't seem to understand how science works.

I would make this claim for either creation or evolution theory.

Creationism was completely disproven over 200 years ago.  Creation by God cannpt be tested by science and so is not scientific.  Evoltuion is an observable fact, the theory of evolution explains it and is accepted by over 99.9% of the biologists in the world.

This is not to say that I feel that we should throw up our hands and not do any research, as you mockingly stated early on with me.  The only thing I would state is that we should avoid pre-conceived ideas and assumptions based on our frame of reference, and perhaps we could allow ourselves to learn even more about our environment.

The scientific method is designed to be the most objective means available for examining the natural world.  It goes where the data leads.  Creationists already claim to know the "truth" and twist or deny any evidence or facts that contradict this truth.  

Funny how you didn't argue with my statement about the sound barrier.  No rebuttal?

I haven't studied the history of supersonic flight, so what's the point.  But since you won't accept the difference between extrapolation and assumptions, why bother.

I submit that barring a first-hand account of the origin of life, we can only make assumptions (extrapolations) based on our frame of reference as to what actually took place.

And I submit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution and I don't understand why you mention it in a discussion about evolution.  But once again, though we don't have enough evidence for a strong theory on how life first arose, we do have some evidence, and that means it's not an assumption.  Also, as stated before, first hand accounts are very subjective and by themselves are worthless to science.  Scientific theories are based on evidence.  What is your explaination of the evidence for abiogenesis?

And I further submit that our frame of reference is biased by what we choose to believe -- that is, what seems "right" to us, and more often than not we tend to try to see the evidence in a way that will support our frame of reference rather than refute it.

And since we find christian biologists, jewish biologists, muslim biologists, budist biologists, hindu biologists who all accept the theory of evoltuion, your statement is disproven.  By using the scientific method, evidence can be objectively evaluated despite our frame of references.  Evoltuion is objectively supported by all evidence found to date in multiple scientific disciplines.  And you have been unable to refute this.

I'm sure you won't be able to admit that, but I'm confident that most people (including scientists) would agree with me.

And I'm confident that they wouldn't agree with you.

You can do much to eliminate your frame-of-reference bias, but if you do you risk having to alter your belief system.

And since there are scientists of all belief systems that accept the TOE, you are wrong.

I believe that the most objective men of science understand this and confront it as much as they possibly can.

And these are the men and women who accept the theory of evolution.

If they choose not to confront it, their theories end up biased.  

That would be the creationists.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:48 PM on August 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll say this also:  Since, within the framework of science, I cannot rely on my frame of reference to draw a factual conclusion about the origin of life, I will choose to step back from science and rely on information that is available outside of science:  the Bible.

You don't understand it so Goddidit!  

It tells me that I can believe in an absolute truth, regardless of my frame of reference.

But the bible is not a book of science, it's numerous mistakes atest to that.

And that truth is that earth and its inhabitants were created.

Please show me where in the bible it gives a scientific explaination of how God created...

Science is man-made and therefore fallible.  God is not.  I take that on faith.

But the bible was written by fallible men, not God.

And why are you talking about abiogenesis in a thread about evolution?  The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only how it diversified.  If God magically zapped the first life into existance, this wouldn't change the evidence supporting evolution one iota.  It appears you don't know what evolution is if you are confusing the origin of life with evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:54 PM on August 27, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting, also, is your claim that creationist theory was refuted 200 years ago.  That begs the question, why are there so many scientists today who are willing to boldly state that they support the creation theory, even when this statement might earn them rejection by their colleagues?  Why is there even still a debate about it?  Why are we even having this discussion?  Sounds to me like creation theory is still alive and kicking, as much as you would like to see it go away.  

You stated that it doesn't matter whether God "zapped" life into existence, that doesn't affect the theory of evolution.  Well, in fact, it does affect evolution because evolution assumes a natural process by which life evolves from lower forms of life.  God created man in His image, which means that Adam was very much like people of today, except that his DNA didn't contain mutations.  (I would call that an assumption on my part, deduced from the premise that God created a perfect man to fellowship with him.)  

You know, it strikes me that your point of view is the one that is weak, because you rely solely on science to determine your beliefs, while I am able to step back from science and rely on God.  Its a pity that you limit yourself in such a way.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:29 PM on August 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting, also, is your claim that creationist theory was refuted 200 years ago.  That begs the question, why are there so many scientists today who are willing to boldly state that they support the creation theory, even when this statement might earn them rejection by their colleagues?

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing.  Creationism, the theory that the earth was created 6 - 10 thousands years ago, that there was a global flood and all life was created unchanging by God.  That is what was definitively refuted over 200 years ago.  No evidence found to date has reversed this position.  Any scientist who supports fundamental creationism has no evidence to back them up and accepts it purely on faith.

You stated that it doesn't matter whether God "zapped" life into existence, that doesn't affect the theory of evolution.  Well, in fact, it does affect evolution because evolution assumes a natural process by which life evolves from lower forms of life.

Yes, evolution describes (not assumes) how life diversifies.  How that life first arose is inconsequential to how it evolves.  Abiogenesis and evolution are based on completely different mechanisms, they are studied by different disciplines of science, abiogenesis by biochemists, evolution by biologists.  So my statement stands, doesn't matter where the first life came from, once it was here, it evolved.

God created man in His image, which means that Adam was very much like people of today, except that his DNA didn't contain
mutations.


Got any proof?  Have any evidence that Adam even existed?  Until you do, your just trying to claim an impossible myth is real science.  And you seem to misunderstand what mutations are.  By looking at the mlecular clock in our genetics, we can actually see what mutations we inherited from our non human ancestors and approximately when they first appearred.
Are you trying to tell us that Adam didn't have these mutations, some of which are what makes us human?!?

(I would call that an assumption on my part, deduced from the premise that God created a perfect man to fellowship with
him.)


You directly contradict yourself, Adam was a perfect man, and was very much like man is today?  Then how do you account for the many design flaws in the human body?  The poor design of the human spinal column makes back pain almost inevitable and while evoluiton explains this perectly, only a moron would have INTELLIGENTLY designed it this way.  The human eye is highly flawed and once again, this is easily explainable by evolution, which co-opts systems and structures, which jury rigs and goes with what works not with whats best, we can only guess at why a supposedly omnipotent creator would make such fundamental flaws as to have the light sensitive cells of the eye face the back of the eye instead of facing the front where the light comes from, instead it must now pass through the nerve cells of the eye before they can be interpretted.  Giant squids don't have this problem, their eyes are better constructed, did God like squids better than he did humans?  And why in the world would God have us breath and eat through the same tube?  You call that intelligently designed?  Now, if Adam was perfect as you say, he couldn't have had these design defects inherent in the human body, so he couldn't have looked anything like us.  How do you explain these design flaws without evolution?

You know, it strikes me that your point of view is the one that is weak, because you rely solely on science to determine your beliefs, while I am able to step back from science and rely on God.  Its a pity that you limit yourself in such a way.  

Science has nothing to do with my beliefs, as I stated before, I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I accept it based on the evidence.  And when one is examining the natural world, science is the only way to do it.  If you step back and rely on primitive myths written by ignorant sheepherders 3000 years ago, you are assured of being wrong.  And as science has demonstrated over and over again, when you base your view of the natural world on a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are wrong.

Once again, are you going to deal with any of the evidence that has directly refuted all of your points, or are you going to keep ignoring it just like the way you keep ignoring the real definitions for assumption and extrapolation....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:54 PM on August 27, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All of the following information is taken from an article entitled "Six False Assumptions Concerning Evolution" by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon. [url=http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC4W0204.pdf]

On page 3 of the PDF document, there is a discussion of the large gaps in the fossil record which seem to indicate no gradual evolution, but rather sudden explosions of groups.  

"Simpson thinks that the fossil record is almost complete for the larger terrestrial forms of North America and yet 'The regular absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon' among all orders of all classes of animals and analogous categories of plants.  [G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (1953) and G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)].


"If so, it is not surprising to hear Professor E. J. H. Corner of the Botany Department of Cambridge University say that, although he believes there is evidence for evolution in other fields,
"'...but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation....  Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?  The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.'"  [E. J. H. Corner, "Evolution" in A. M. McLeod and L. S. Cobley, eds, Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago, IL:  Quadrangle Books, 1961)]

Bracketed text are the footnotes accompanying the material.  

That's all I have time for, but there is at least one scientist who refers to assumptions underlying the theory of evolution.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:35 PM on August 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, John Ankerberg is a christian talk show host, not a biologist and John Weldon is also not a biologist, they are creationist and are therefore bias.  As to their interpretation of Simpson's work, they are typical creationist, that is, they twist and distort what Simpson is really saying.  Even though Simpsons book was published in 1953, over 50 years ago and much evidence has been found since then, they still have to lie about his conclusions.  Let's see what Simpson really says about transitional fossils....
From here:
GeorgeSimpson

"…Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because spitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely really adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families also are known, but are less common."

So we see that Dr. Simpson states that there is not a regular absence of transitional fossils, that examples of gradual evolution are "exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms".  Your sources are liars.
Dr. Simpson most readily supports gradual evolutionary changes and finds the evidence most compelling.  Now what's your comment on the dishonesty of your quoted sources?

As to Prof. Corner, once again your sources are deceitful.  Proffesor Corner most definitely accepted evolution.  Let's take a look at your quote in context:
From here:
ProfCorner

"The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution - from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition."

Of course Corner was an evolutionist, what he had a problem with was main stream botanists ignoring the record of plant evolution provided in the tropics in favor of concentrating on the sparser record of more temperate countries.  And of course, his book is over 40 years out of date.  It's very telling that you can't support any of your points with modern science, you have to use out of context quotes from 40 or 50 years in the past.  Do you have any idea how far we've come in 50 years?  How much more we know about biology and evolution, how much more evidence has been found, how much more we know about genetics??

That's all I have time for, but there is at least one scientist who refers to assumptions underlying the theory of evolution.

One scientist 50 years out of date, who accepted the theory of evolution, what's your point...You STILL haven't been able to show any assumptions that current evolutionary theory is based on, let alone refute it.

And are you ever going to address any of the points that have been made, or are you conceding them?  Like evoltuion is a fact (you were shown examples) and radiometric dating is accurate.  If you want to debate, stick to a topic and stop jumping to another topic as soon as you are shot down...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:47 AM on August 29, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I stand by my post.  A SCIENTIST referred to the ASSUMPTIONS inherent in evolution theory.  My discussion all along is regarding the fact that both evolution and creation theory rely on assumptions.  

There are gaps in the fossil record (fact).  I have shown at least one scientist who calls into question the use of assumptions to explain that gap.  

"Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption?"

By your own admission, this is an evolutionist making this statement.  And the fact that the statement is 50 years old makes no difference, since you are stating that creation theory was refuted 200 years ago.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 06:28 AM on August 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I stand by my post.  A SCIENTIST referred to the ASSUMPTIONS inherent in evolution theory.  My discussion all along is regarding the fact that both evolution and creation theory rely on assumptions.

But if you had bothered to read Corner's work, instead of quote mining it, you would see that he wasn't saying that at all.  And just what is the assumption he's making?  You have ignored the rest of the quote:
"The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition"
And according to Corner's book, Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, if that evolutionist looks at the huge range of plants in the tropics, an evolutionist CAN answer that question, without assumptions, with evidence.

There are gaps in the fossil record (fact).  I have shown at least one scientist who calls into question the use of assumptions to explain that gap.

No you haven't, you've misquoted his work in a desperate to support your failing claim.  The fossil record is full of gaps, a tiny percentage of life is fossilized, but it's not these gaps that support evolution, it's the transitional fossils and the lineages we have found that support it.  According to creationism, none should be found.  Since there are, such as Arhaeopteryx, Acanthostega, the reptile to mammal line, creationism is disproven.

By your own admission, this is an evolutionist making this statement.  And the fact that the statement is 50 years old makes no difference, since you are stating that creation theory was refuted 200 years ago.

Yes he is an evolutionist, but you have misquoted him, doing what all creationists are forced to do, twist and distort the real facts.  Corner accepts evolution and says that by looking at tropical plants, evolution is supported.  
And your mention of creationism being refuted 200 years ago somehow gives you the right to use out of date quotes is ridiculous.  Science is cumulative, it builds on what has gone before.
Evolution has come a long way in 50 years, all evidence found in multiple disciplines has still supported it.  Creationism, meanwhile, WAS disproven over 200 years ago.  NO evidence found since then has caused biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists to reverse this position.  And much more evidence has been found to falsify it.  I mentioned a few things that disprove creationism earlier in this thread, you haven't been able to refute them.

Oh, any comment on the fact that you were dishonest in using the quote from Prof. Simpson, or are you just going to ignore that one too...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:08 PM on August 29, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First off, John Ankerberg is a christian talk show host, not a biologist and John Weldon is also not a biologist, they are creationist and are therefore bias."

First off, you are an evolutionist and are therefore biased.  

I do not take responsibility for any dishonesty.  I provided the entire posting in the context from which it was found.  If you choose to call the authors dishonest, that is your prerogative, but I am not dishonest.  

As for your attempt to refute the idea being conveyed by Corner, I am still reading it the way I presented it previously.  Even within the context you have provided, it still seems to me that he is saying that the ASSUMPTION of common origin of the listed plants is not supported by the evidence, when viewed by an UNPREJUDICED observer.  

In any case, I have found a very interesting website, presented by a PhD in Biology, in which he states numerous times that there must be assumptions present in either theory.  And he says this in such a matter-of-fact, casual way, that I must reason that this is a commonly held understanding within the scientific community.  

I say, once again, that you cannot be an unbiased man of science unless you are willing to concede the presence of assumptions.  An unwillingness to concede this point indicates your obvious bias which will always stunt your growth in science.  

http://www.mhrc.net/michaelb.htm


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:51 PM on August 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, you are an evolutionist and are therefore biased.  

Biased?!?  How so...Like any good "evolutionist" I go where the data leads.
Show me unrefuted evidence that supports creationism and disproves evolution and I will renounce the theory of evolution and proclaim myself a creationist!  Unfortunately, you, and the rest of the creationist community hasn't been able to do this.  You, on the other hand, have already stated that facts are not as important to you as "faith".

I do not take responsibility for any dishonesty.  I provided the entire posting in the context from which it was found.  If you choose to call the authors dishonest, that is your prerogative, but I am not dishonest.

How about you admitting your sources were dishonest and therefore can't be used to support your claim...

As for your attempt to refute the idea being conveyed by Corner, I am still reading it the way I presented it previously.  Even within the context you have provided, it still seems to me that he is saying that the ASSUMPTION of common origin of the listed plants is not supported by the evidence, when viewed by an UNPREJUDICED observer.

So you're basing your entire evaluation of Corner's work on on out of context quote from sources already demonstrated to be dishonest?!?!  Do a little research...

In any case, I have found a very interesting website, presented by a PhD in Biology, in which he states numerous times that there must be assumptions present in either
theory.


Yeah, Micheal Brown Ph.D., who started off as a creationist and tries to twist scientific evidence to fit his beliefs.  Who cares what he says?!?  He makes numerous mistakes on his
"Mike's Origins Resources", typical creationist rhetoric, like:

"Mainstream science basically teaches that life began as a marvelous accident allowing molecules to come together in an organized form that we might call a living cell."

No mainstream bochemist thinks life began as a "marvelous accident", chemicals react according to their intrinsic properties, not by chance.

"No god has overseen the process and there is no future to any of us once we die."

Science doesn't say anything of the kind!  It is not atheistic but agnostic by necessity.  Only a creationist scientist could be this dishonest!

Sorry, you have presented a creationist scientist who is trained but even he can't refute the evidence for evolution.  Who still uses the same old creationist cannards and PRATTs.  
The scientific method was designed to be objective, go where the data leads, creationists already break this rule when they claim to have the truth BEFORE doing any research.

Your attempts to equate creationism and evolution by claiming they both are based on assumptions is worthless because you still haven't been able to name the assumptions evolution is supposed to be based on.  you also fail to realize that creationism was decisively disproven over 200 years ago and no evidence, experiments or tests have resurrected it.  The TOE has continually been supported by new evidence found almost daily.
your inablility to deal with these facts destroys your entire argument.  For instance, in a previous post you denied that evolution was a fact.  I provided you with a couple of quick examples of speciation (or macroevolution), you have been unable to respond to this challenge and have ignored it as you have every other fact presented you.  So there you go, we have directly observed new species arise in the wild and in the lab, macroevolution is a fact.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:55 PM on August 30, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For anyone besides demon38, who obviously is cultic in his belief of evolution, there is a rebuttal site to talk.origins which from my point of view makes a very compelling argument that creationism is indeed not dead and which confirms to me that inherent biases possessed by evolutionists condemn them to be unable to accept the possibility of another theory of the origin of life on this planet.  I have never stated that I cannot possibly accept the theory of evolution.  All I have said is that from my point of view there are enough holes and questions about the theory, that I can accept another possibility.  When that other possibility dovetails nicely with my faith and belief in the bible as the inerrant word of God, I choose to accept it.  I say again, BOTH theories are accepted on faith, it just depends on where your faith leads you.  

One juicy tidbit from trueorigin "dot" org, and I'll leave it to demon38 to rant awhile longer.

This excerpt from an article on trueorigin entitled, "Five major EVOLUTIONIST Misconceptions about Evolution", an article which proceeds very methodically to shred the supposedly scientific reasoning being presented at talk.origins.  I encourage anyone to view both sites and draw your own conclusions.  (Oh, and just for your consideration, demon38, the address on the article is May 17, 2005, lest you think I dusted off a relic from 40 or 50 years ago.)

The author of the article discusses several issues, but this one in particular is discussing the definition of a "theory" and Mark Isaak's inability to support evolution as even a "theory".... Granted, the author does take a little bit of poetic license by stating the following:

"Isaak would have us define “theory” for our purposes as “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,” but to do so would be to ignore the question of what specific “class of phenomena” evolutionism proposes to explain.  To date, evolutionary theory has not explained any observed phenomenon—rather, it serves up speculation and conjecture that unobserved (and unobservable) phenomena are responsible for life as we know it.  This does not qualify evolutionism as a theory according to the definition offered by Isaak.
A better definition (no. 2 from the same dictionary used by Isaak) would be


a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact."

The discussion goes on to state,

"Thus, evolutionary theory provides a conjectural, proposed explanation in reporting on the origin and diversity (matters) of life as we know it—life as we know it being actual fact.

"“Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely,” Isaak tells us.  A little less generality is in order here, however, as the term “law” in science refers to a description of invariable, observable, results or phenomena under like conditions, whereas the term “theory” refers to a proposed description or explanation, usually based at least in part on repeatability and observation (i.e., the scientific process).  The difference is hardly that one “can be expressed more tersely” than the other."

Ooooh, now it gets interesting...

"Curiously, Isaak now proceeds to set up for himself a straw man by saying “...a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.  (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything.  When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)”

YIKES!  Creationist theory makes falsifiable predictions, and they prove false!

Well read on:

"Yet thus far, our analysis of Isaak’s own claims concerning evolution reveal it to fail even as a theory, by this auxiliary definition:


-- Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
 1.  by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment
 2.  in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
-- Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
 1.  the fossil record
 2.  geology
 3.  genetics
 4.  molecular biology
 5.  thermodynamics
 6.  dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)
 7.  probability mathematics
-- Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced
 1.  no new advancements in scientific knowledge or technology
 2.  no advancements in medicine—and actually has hindered past research because of false claims (now discarded) concerning “vestigial” organs
 3.  no positive contribution to society through evolution-based social “sciences”—having served as a pseudo-scientific justification for racism, nazism, communism, and other societal/ideological ills.

"
To state, in the face of these circumstances, that “Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because ... it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything,” betrays what should be an embarrassingly gross case of ignorance on the part of Isaak.  Unable to defend evolutionism in the face of his own definition of a theory, Isaak has resorted to a baseless, dismissive attack on a “Creationism” straw man."

Come and get it, demon.






-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:34 PM on August 30, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, wait, I just can't resist another post.  I have been saying on here all along that there is no way to prove the origin of life or evolution vs. creation because we can't view the actual information.  All we can do is interpret the evidence before us.  And when that interpretation is made from a biased point of view, it causes a biased result.  Again from the same article I excerpted above, another tidbit:  

"“Lack of proof isn’t a weakness, either,” Isaak now reiterates. “...In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence ... What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has—evidence, and lots of it.”

Again, careful and objective study of the empirical, scientific data does not lead us to Isaak’s conclusion concerning “evidence.” Those predisposed to an evolutionary belief system (or at least a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophical view of things) will naturally be eager to agree with the “findings” of the Mark Isaaks of the world.  But let’s not pretend that this is what “science” is all about."

Yes, let's not pretend that the biases of evolution OR creation do not impact our analyses.  
demon38 chooses to deny the existence of bias, and yet there is, in my opinion, a very emotional tone to his presentations, which leads me to believe that he needs to prove himself viable by intimidation, precisely because he has a bias which he chooses not to acknowledge.  "Where the evidence leads" is not so clear-cut and absolute as the demon38s of the world would have us believe.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:43 PM on August 30, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting that demon38 chooses to dismiss  any possible relevance of Dr.  Brown because he is creationist, but there is no refutation of Brown's line of research, and no refutation of his generous discussion of assumptions in research.  Demon38 only chooses to attempt to discredit the scientist because of his world view.  Sounds like bias to me, if not outright prejudice.  

I guess that means that I can disregard any statements presented by demon38 which come from evolutionists, because I choose not to accept their points of view.  

Anyone who chooses to peruse the vast archive I alluded to in my past 2 posts (trueorigins "dot" org)will see that there are some very valid and logical rebuttals to the many supposedly scientific claims being made at talk.origins.  But please, I encourage you to keep an open mind and view BOTH sites, and see which one is more logical and methodical in its approach, and which one appears to be far less complete in its discussion.  

I state my list of assumptions again:

1.  Evolution assumes an "old-earth" and therefore attempts to "date" fossils to fit the old-earth model.  There is an interesting article at trueorigins discussing the fact that while isotope-dating methods placed the age of a core at millions of years, there appeared to be far too much helium within zircon crystals found in the core, and the scientist presented a research paper IN A SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW publication discussing this anomaly.  Apparently an evolutionist geologist attempted to refute the research and dismiss it, and the scientist who performed the research presents a scathing rebuttal of this refutation.  ["Helium Evidence for a Young Earth" (Russ Humphreys)—rebuts Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms of the peer-reviewed RATE findings, see trueorigins website]

2.  Data used to indicate so-called "macro-evolution" actually only indicates "micro-evolution" and then is presented as being evidence of "macro-evolution" also.  When one assumes that macro-evolution can be the only model, one arrives at conclusions slanted by that bias.  I suggest you read this string of discussions:  

1.  http://www.talkorigins "dot" org/faqs/fitness.html ("Dr. Edward E. Max posted an essay entitled The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation Plus Selection")

2.  http://www.trueorigin "dot" org/spetner1.asp (Article entitled "A Scientific Critique of Evolution", Dr. Lee Spetner "in an exchange with Dr. Edward Lee Max")

I don't have time to list further discussions, but there are ample links at trueorigins.  

Assumption 3 of evolution theory:  In attempting to date fossils and the strata from which they come, evolutionists use radio-isotope dating which contains the following assumptions:

1.  No inert final elements (such as lead) present at the formation of the fossil. (i.e. all lead must be formed by the decay from the isotope)
2.  Constant rate of isotope decay
3.  No transfer of the isotope from surrounding strata to the item being tested.

Please see an article entitled "The Radiometric Dating Game" at trueorigins "dot" org for futher discussion.  

Assumption 4:  Evolution can avoid the effects of entropy (skirting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).  I would urge you to read the talk.origins piece attempting to make the creationist view of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "pseudo-science," then I would also encourage you to read the rebuttal at trueorigins and then tell me which one is more even-handed and logical in its presentation of teh material.  

That's all I have time for now, I need to get some sleep, long hours at work prevent my continual attention to this site.  I'll return when I can.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:09 PM on August 31, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For anyone besides demon38, who obviously is cultic in his belief of evolution, there is a rebuttal site to talk.origins which from my point of view makes a very compelling argument that creationism is indeed not dead and which confirms to me that inherent biases possessed by evolutionists condemn them to be unable to accept the possibility of another theory of the origin of life on this planet.

Let's see, you've already admitted that you don't base your point on evidence, but on faith.
It's been explained to you that the theory of evoluiton doesn't deal with the origin of life on this or any other planet.  That you don't understand this shows who the real cultist is.

I have never stated that I cannot possibly accept the theory of evolution.  All I have said is that from my point of view there are enough holes and questions about the theory, that I can accept another possibility.

Besides the fact that you don't even understand what evolution is, you haven't been able to list any real holes in the theory of evolution.

When that other possibility dovetails nicely with my faith and belief in the bible as the inerrant word of God, I choose to accept it.

Except creationism, the theory that the earth is 6000 years old, that a world wide flood engulfed the earth and life is unchanging, has been decisively disproven.  

say again, BOTH theories are accepted on faith, it just depends on where your faith leads you.

And I (and the rest of the world of science) says you are wrong.  Where is the faith involved in the theory of evoluiton???  I'm still asking you this question and you still can not answer it!

One juicy tidbit from trueorigin "dot" org, and I'll leave it to demon38 to rant awhile longer.

Trueorigins is nothing but PRATTs, it brings nothing new to the table but the same old lies, misconceptions and out of context quotes.

"Isaak would have us define “theory” for our purposes as “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena,” but to do so would be to ignore the question of what specific “class of phenomena” evolutionism proposes to explain.  To date, evolutionary theory has not explained any observed phenomenon—rather, it serves up speculation and conjecture that unobserved (and unobservable) phenomena are responsible for life as we know it.  This does not qualify evolutionism as a theory according to the definition offered by Isaak.
A better definition (no. 2 from the same dictionary used by Isaak) would bea proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in reporting matters of actual fact."


what a load of nonsense!  Yes, this is the typical bullcrap Trueorigins serves up.  What class of phenomenon does evolution explain?!?
The observed allele changes in populations of organisms.  Where is this observed?  Everywhere.  We see new species (macroevolution) arising in nature and in the lab.  This is confirmed by the genetics, we can see the changes, we can see when they occurred.  We see evidence of these changes in the fossil record. So yes, the theory of evolution explains observable changes, it directly explains the evidence we find.  It does explain observable phenomenon, your source is just flat out wrong!

"Thus, evolutionary theory provides a conjectural, proposed explanation in reporting on the origin and diversity (matters) of life as we know it—life as we know it being actual fact.

Since evolutionary theory makes accurate predictions based on the evidence, since these predictions have been borne out thousands of times.  Since it has been tested and retested almost continually for 150 years and has not found to be in error, once again your source is flat out wrong.

YIKES!  Creationist theory makes falsifiable predictions, and they prove false!

Exactly, that makes it a disproven scientific theory.  

-- Evolutionism fails to be self-consistent
1.  by requiring multiple “definitions”, depending on the need of the moment


Multilple definitions?!?!  Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
I dare you to show us any other definition accepted by biologists!  This statement is dead wrong.

2.  in the varied, and contradictory camps connected with thermodynamics, phylogeny, proposed mechanisms, and various sub-theories, etc.
-- Evolutionism fails to agree with observations in
1.  the fossil record


Wrong, evolution is the only unfalsified explaination of the fossil record.  Show us how it fails to agree with the fossil record or withdraw the claim.  All the experts, the people who actually study the fossils, agree, the only explaination for the fossil record is evolution.  Your source claims the fossil record doesn't agree with evolution, they are lieing.
You can give us no examples of how the fossil record doesn't agree with evolution, nothing to support this dishonest claim.
From here:
Fossilaccuracy

"Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great 'tree of life'. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites. "

This is the fact.  No out of place fossils, no fossils that evolution is unable to explain.  Show us unexplainable fossils or withdraw the claim, simple as that.

2.  geology

How does geology NOT confirm evolution?!?
The earth has been shown to be roughly 4.5 billion years old by multiple lines of evidence.
The theory of evolution fits very nicely in this time frame and all the fossil evidence fits nicely within this time frame.  How is it inconsistant with the theory of evolution?  Once again, explain it to us or withdraw the claim.

3.  genetics
4.  molecular biology


From here:
BerkeleyUniversity

"All living things are fundamentally alike. At the cellular and molecular level living things are remarkably similar to each other. These fundamental similarities are most easily explained by evolutionary theory: life shares a common ancestor. "

Genetics is part of the modern synthesis, the modern theory of evolution.  All evidence from genetics and molecular biology supports evolution.  Once again, you and your sources can make all the baseless claims you want, but you haven't been able to back them up,
you and your sources are dead wrong.

5.  thermodynamics

Haha!  NOTHING in the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution.  Many creationists try to make this claim, but it stems from an ignorance of evolution and thermodynamics.  From here:
2LOT

""There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes."
So thermodynamics provides no evidence against evolution and no support for creationism.

6.  dozens of dating methods (both radiometric and geological/geophysical)

Radiometric dating completely supports the theory of evolution.  It is confirmed by different isotops and by non radiometric dating.  Let's see the examples of bad dating or withdraw the claim.  From here:
Radiodating

"The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other. "

7.  probability mathematics

Useless and meaningless, unless you have something new to show us.  Support the claim or withdraw it.

-- Evolutionism has failed to prove useful, having produced

Out right lie.
From here:
TalkOrigins

" Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002). "

From here:
DarwinianMed

"Darwinian Medicine applies the advances that have revolutionized evolutionary biology to the problems of medicine and tries to provide, for each disease, an explanation for why the body isn't better. These evolutionary explanations for disease fit nicely into just a few categories: defenses, infection, novel environments, genes, design compromises, and evolutionary legacies."

From here:
KJMorrow

" I would assert that the whole reason for using the paradigm of evolution and natural selection is because it works for biologists, and because it has been largely responsible for the tremendous advances we've seen and the practical consequences that have accrued from developments in molecular biology. There may be molecular biologists who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, and it may be possible for them to function creatively. But I believe that they place themselves at a tremendous disadvantage by not using the concept of evolution in the formulation of their hypotheses."

From here:
BerkeleyAgain

"Finally, paleontology is an increasingly important component of historical biology. The life around us today has been shaped through its long history, and understanding its past is important to understanding its present situation. There are a number of techniques and fields that deal with reconstructing the past, but paleontology provides hard data on past events. Paleontology can potentially provide much data on the evolutionary relationships of organisms, which in turn gives a deeper understanding of biodiversity. "

The claim that the theory of evolution has failed to prove useful is dishonest, completely refuted and shows a serious lack of knowledge of how science works.  Evolution is the most important concept of biology and has been incredibly useful to us so far and will only grow in usefullness as we explore it further.

How can evolution be based on faith when we directly observe, test, catalogue, apply and experiment with macroevolution daily.  You never did respond to the examples of speciation I provided.  It is an obsevable fact.
How can evolution be based on faith when we study the evidence in the fossil record, all fossils are found in a strict pattern that is only explained by evolution.  You and your sources were unable to produce ONE example of an out of place fossil or one that could not be explained by evolution.  How can evolution be supported by faith when we see clearly transitional fossils in earth's past that directly contradict creationism and support only evolution.  How can evolution be based on assumptions when we can look at the genetic code of organisms and actually see when mutations and changes caused lineages to split off into new organisms. Here's a nice item from the news:
ChimpNews

"Scientists unleashed a torrent of studies comparing the genetic coding for humans and chimpanzees on Wednesday, reporting that 96 percent of our DNA sequences are identical. Even more intriguingly, the other 4 percent appears to contain clues to how we became different from our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, they said.
"We're really looking at an individual evolutionary event, and this is spectacular," said University of Washington geneticist Robert Waterston, senior author of a study in the journal Nature presenting the draft of the chimpanzee genome.
The achievement should lead to discoveries with implications for human health, including new approaches to treating age-old diseases, said Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute."

So all your points have been refuted.  You haven't been able to back up any of your claims.  It's clear you still don't understand evolution or how science works.







 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:00 PM on September 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, wait, I just can't resist another post.  I have been saying on here all along that there is no way to prove the origin of life or evolution vs. creation because we can't view the actual information.

In science nothing is proven 100%, evidence either supports a theory or falsifies it.  Evolution is supported by all the evidence, creationism has been disproven.  We do view the actual evidence for evolution, the fossil record, genetics, physiology, homologies.  Your premise is anti science.

Again, careful and objective study of the empirical, scientific data does not lead us to Isaak’s conclusion concerning “evidence.”

Yes it does.  

Those predisposed to an evolutionary belief system (or at least a naturalistic, mechanistic philosophical view of things) will naturally be eager to agree with the “findings” of the Mark Isaaks of the world.  But let’s not pretend that this is what “science” is all about."

Science can only deal with the natural, mechanistic view, the supernatural is beyond science's ability to test.  And you have given us no evidence to even support the existance of the supernatural.

Yes, let's not pretend that the biases of evolution OR creation do not impact our analyses.

Yes, everyone is biased, but using the scientific method, the most objective method of investigating the natural world, these biases are greatly reduced.  And you never could explain why scientists with different religious beliefs would accept the theory of evolution.  Their biases did not hinder them from agreeing on the validity of the TOE.  

demon38 chooses to deny the existence of bias

No I don't, but the worst bias is claiming to have the "truth" before you even consider the evidence, as creationists do.  As we have seen by you siting True.origins, creationists are forced to lie, ignore evidence, misquote the experts to twist what they say.  This isn't even bad science, it's a desperate, dishonest trick to scare people into believing in their religious fantasies.

and yet there is, in my opinion, a very emotional tone to his presentations, which leads me to believe that he needs to prove himself viable by intimidation, precisely because he has a bias which he chooses not to acknowledge.

You're opinion doesn't count for much.  You have been unable to refute the specific evidences I've presented, you ignore them, just as your sources do and try to shift the discussion to vague generalities or question my emotional state, in a vain attempt to distract from failure to support your claims.

"Where the evidence leads" is not so clear-cut and absolute as the demon38s of the world would have us believe.

Sure it is, you can't claim to have the truth before you consider the evidence.  Science has no ultimate truth, everything is subject to change, nothing is taken dogmatically.  If ANYONE had valid evidence to support creationism, it would be aknowledged, but you're problem is there is creationism was disproven over 200 years ago and evolution has so much evidence supporting it, it is accepted as valid by over 99.9% of the world's biologists.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:17 PM on September 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting that demon38 chooses to dismiss  any possible relevance of Dr.  Brown because he is creationist, but there is no refutation of Brown's line of research, and no refutation of his generous discussion of assumptions in research.

Sure there is.  Even though Brown is a scientists, he does bad science.  Here he says:
"Because of my personal experience with Jesus Christ I am convinced that God is real and personal. I also believe He created all things as described in Genesis. So I am choosing to include God in my theories rather than excluding Him. "

So he is basing his bias not on facts but on a personal belief.  This proves he is doing bad science, all his views are now suspect.  The cardinal rule for science, "go where the evidence leads!"  Brown is no longer doing this.

I guess that means that I can disregard any statements presented by demon38 which come from evolutionists, because I choose not to accept their points of view.

You've been doing this all along, but your problem is you can't refute any of them.  Ignore all you want, but that doesn't change the facts, evolution happens, and it has happened as long as there has been life on the planet.

Anyone who chooses to peruse the vast archive I alluded to in my past 2 posts (trueorigins "dot" org)will see that there are some very valid and logical rebuttals to the many supposedly scientific claims being made at talk.origins.  

No there's not, I refuted the points you listed quite easily.  True.origins is worthless.

1.  Evolution assumes an "old-earth" and therefore attempts to "date" fossils to fit the old-earth model.

Please explain how evolutioin "assumes" an old earth?  Over 200 years ago christian geologists realized by observing volcanic activity and sedimentation rates that the earth could not possibly have formed in a few thousands of years.  They realized that fossils found lower in the earth were older.  Look up superposition.  In the 1920's when radiometric dating was in it's infancy, it was determined that the earth had to be billions of years old.  In the 1950's, as radiodating became more precise, it was determined that the earth was over 4 billion years old.  Since then we have continually refined those measurements to arrive at 4.5 billion years old.  Now using genetics and molecular clocks in the the cells of organisms we see that when certain mutations occurred, when lineages split coincide with the dates we arrive at for the fossils using radiodating.  No assumptions, convergence of data from multiple disciplines.

There is an interesting article at trueorigins discussing the fact that while isotope-dating methods placed the age of a core at millions of years, there appeared to be far too much helium within zircon crystals found in the core, and the scientist presented a research paper IN A SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW publication discussing this anomaly.

Sorry, another PRATT, Point Refuted A Thousand Times.  They are completely refuted
Here
and
Here
and
here
Sorry, you lose.

2.  Data used to indicate so-called "macro-evolution" actually only indicates "micro-evolution" and then is presented as being evidence of "macro-evolution" also.

Incorrect.  Macroevolution is defined as change at or above the species level.  Since we have already observed, both in the lab and in the wild, new species arising, macroevolution is a fact.

Assumption 3 of evolution theory:  In attempting to date fossils and the strata from which they come, evolutionists use radio-isotope dating which contains the following assumptions:

All these incorrect statements are dealt with here:
RadiometricChristians

1.  No inert final elements (such as lead) present at the formation of the fossil. (i.e. all lead must be formed by the decay from the isotope)

This can be determined, it is not a problem, read the article.  

2.  Constant rate of isotope decay

Already replied to this, you couldn't refute it.
We have directly observed stable decay rates back almost 200,000 years.  The atomic theory predicts that rates will remain stable.  What evidence do you have that they have changed?  I've asked you this numerous times, but you can't answer.  Typical creationist, ignore the evidence, ignore the questions you can't answer.

3.  No transfer of the isotope from surrounding strata to the item being tested.


Once a sample is selaed (it has cooled), there is no transfer of isotope.

Now youhave been unable to explain why ALL 44 different radiometric dating techniques agree with each other.  You have been unable to explain why all other non radiometric dating methods agree.  You claimed that scientists are dishonest when using radiometric dating and throw out dates they don't like, but, strangely enough, you have been unable to support this accusation.

Assumption 4:  Evolution can avoid the effects of entropy (skirting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

The 2LOT deals with usable heat energy in a closed system.  We directly observe millions of processes avoiding your inaccurate definition of the 2LOT every second.  A sperm cell and an egg cell combine to form a more complex organism, simple chemical elements combine to form more complex compounds.  The earth is even a closed system since energy is streaming from the sun every nanosecond.  And allow me to repost this statement:
"""There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes."

This is what physicists accept, the people who really work with the 2LOT, who know it much better than the religious liars at True.origins.

And let's look at what real scientists say about evolution, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."

From the  AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY:
"Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation. Scientific explanations of the natural world have been reached through observation and experimentation, are testable through observation and manipulation of natural systems, and can be modified as a result of new information. The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public education—the preparation of a scientifically literate workforce."

From the American Geophysical Union:
"Science employs a logical and empirical methodology to understand the natural world. Scientific research entails observation of natural phenomena, formulation of hypotheses as tentative, testable statements to explain these phenomena, and experiments or observations to test these hypotheses. Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory.
"Creation science" is based on faith and is not supported by scientific observations of the natural world. Creationism is not science and does not have a legitimate place in any science curriculum."

So there you  go, all your points have been refuted, your sources have been proven wrong.  What else do you have?







 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:23 PM on September 2, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice quotes by evolutionists to support your side.  But they are evolutionists so I therefore do not accept their statements due to their bias.  Sorry, you lose.


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:10 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
WitsFool

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What I don't get, is why this discussion is even occuring?
One person here won't accept anything on faith, and the other won't accept anything without faith.  And like all human beings, both are simply going to see what they want to see.
If someone was blind, and had never had sight, and they didn't want to believe that you had something they didn't, how are you going to convince them of sight?  It doesn't matter what you do or say, they will simply decide that it is a trick or a lie or whatever, and that is the end of the discussion as far as they are concerned.
The Bible says, "Do not cast your pearls before swine"... not to be offensive but the person writing that at the time was referring to "unbelievers".  If someone believes, then they don't need to debate.  If they don't believe, they aren't going to no matter what you say.  YOU don't bring people to God, God does.
All you are doing with your snide remarks is making your own religion look bad to those who may be wavering.  Creationism IS a faith based belief, and therefore will not make sense to someone who expects absolute facts.

Oh well, that's just my opinion.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 6:14 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice quotes by evolutionists to support your side.  But they are evolutionists so I therefore do not accept their statements due to their bias.  Sorry, you lose.

Incapable of responding to my points?  That's understandable.  Once we really look at the evidence creationists are reduced to your tactics.  Deny, deny deny, anything to avoid really examining the evidence.  So let's see, True.origins has been shown to be worhtless and incorrect, what's your responce?  You've been presented with evidence that can only be explained by evolution.  What's your response?  All the so called assumptions you've claimed that evolution is based on have been shown to be untrue, what's your response...  I don't think the theory of evolution is is in any danger of being falsifed by you or any creationist.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:58 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the only scientists that still hang on to evolution is geologists.  They haven't accepted the proof given by other sciences that show that C14 datings has a major flaw.  Here is the context of another post I have on this site.  Make of it what you will.

The following are scientific FACTS.

The moon is receding from the earth at a steady rate.  Since the moon would never survive at a distance of less than 115000 miles we know that (based on currant distant and speed of recession) the earth can not possibly be older than 1.4 billion years (actually, much younger than that as that would be the time the moon and earth would've been physically touching).

Also, the one hundred billion stars of our galaxy rotate around a galactic center.  The inner stars rotate at a faster rate than the outer ones.  Based on those rates, if the galaxy itself were older than a few hundred million (not billion) years old, the galaxy would be a featureless disk, not a spiral.  Evolutionists admit the "winding-up" dilemma (their terminology, not mine) and can not explain it.

Again, meteorites prove a young earth.  No meteorites are found buried in rocks that are 'alleged' to be old.  Also, all meteorite craters found on the earth seem to be of recent origin.  

Micrometeoroids (microscopic particles of meteor dust) exit in abundance in the solar system.  The very existence of this dust provides evidence of a young system.  The dust is being removed much more quickly (smaller particles being flung out of the system and larger ones spiraling into the sun).  According to Frank Low of the University of Arizona "particles this small can only survive in stable orbits for a few ten-thousand years".

Comets:  Astronomer's estimate that the maximum life of a short-term comet vary from ten thousand to twenty-five thousand years.  There is also no known way for comets to be created.  They are considered to have been formed at the beginning of the universe's creation.  Therefore there should be no more comets circling our sun if the solar system is more than twenty-five thousand years old.

The earth's rotation is known to be slowing.  It takes 118,000 years to lose one solar day per year.  Extrapolating backwords, if the earth were 4.7 billion years old, the earth would have been spinning 34,000 times (annually) with 15-minute solar days and the equator whirling at 100,000 mph.  This can be verified by Co-ordinated Universal Time (of which the Nationa Bureau of Standards and the U.S. National Observatory are part).  

Erosion.  The modern form of continental surface is "thought" to be 100 million years old and composed of 3.5 billion year old rock.  Evolutionists claim that erosion has been cutting continental surfaces down for the past 70 million years.  The annual (verified) amount of sediment carried from the continents into the seas is 27.5 billion tons.  At that rate, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in about 14 million years (makes you wonder just how high these continents were 70 million years ago).  Atop that, there are 410 million billion tons of sediment residing on the ocean bottom, averaging a depth of less than twelve hundred feet.  Base on the 27.5 million tons of sediment per year that is being dumped into the ocean, we know that the ocean floor's age cannot exceed 15 million years at the MOST.  

Glaciars.  It has been proven that the artic and antarctic ice pacts were once luxuriant forests and had a tropical climate.  Now two-thirds of the world's fress water supply is frozen there.  We also know that whatever caused this happened quickly.  Mammoths and mastadons were frozen so quickly that there remains have been mummified.  Based on the current rate of glaciar height increase we can prove that the glaciars are about nine hundred years ago (based on the discovery of P-38 fighters that were lost on July 15,1942 and were found 260 feet below the surface of a glaciar in Greenland.  Also, maps from the early 1500's (on display in the National Museum of Turkey) show the coastline of Antarctica (showing rivers and mountains, not featureless ice).  The mountains and portions of the coastline shown on those maps has been confirmed by scientific studies since 1952.  The Bauche map (circa 1754) show that the antarctic continent was actually two island (a fact not reestablished until 1958) yet geologists try to say that the ice has been there for many tens of thousands of years.

Accumulation of sea salts.  Geochemical studies of the oceans prove that the earth can not be that old.  Even assuming that there were NO chemicals present in the oceans at the time of creation (purported by evolutionists) then based on the current rate of chemicals entering the ocean the earth would be a MAXIMUM of 62 million years old (and if there had been no chemicals in the oceans at the time that the earth was created, then there would also have been no sea life).

Argument: Oil, gas and coal take millions of years to form.  Actually it has been demonstrated that cellulosic material can be converted into a good grade of petrolium in twenty minutes.  Wood or other cullulosic material has been converted into coal in a matter of hours.   The incredible pressure found in gas and oil wells indicate that these reservoirs are of a relatively young age.  Human fossil evidence has been found in many coal beds.

Also, based on the release of methane gasses (one of the methods for finding an oil field is testing for methane absorption in the plant life) then the oldest any of the current natural gas reservoirs possibly be is about three million years old or they would no longer have enough pressure (the gas is escaping, remember) to be located this way.

Point.  In 1958, Dr. Johannes Huerzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Switzerland, found a child's human jawbone at a depth of six hundred feet in a coal mine in Italy.  The coal it was removed from had been dated at twenty million years (i'll get to dating in a minute).
In 1885 at the Heimathaus Museum in Australia a cast iron block was found inside a coal block that had been dated at sixty million years.  Guess we've been casting iron block longer than anyone knew.
Here at home an 18-carat gold chain was found in a lump of coal that is claimed to have been three hundred million years old. (Morrisonville, Illinois; 1891)
And an iron pot in 1912 (Thomas, Oklahoma) in another three hundred million years old coal seem.

Here's an interesting tidbit.  From 1924 to 1988 Carlsbad Caverns had a sign stating that it was 260 million years old.
In 1988 a new sign was put up claiming it was 7 to 10 million years old.
A 2 million years old sign followed.
Currently there is no sign.

As our ability to date items has improved, the actual age of items has steadily decreased.  

In 1964, Dr. Clifford Burdick conducted a sampling of pollen from various strata, supposedly three to six HUNDRED MILLION years old at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.  Along with pollen of extinct species he also found pollen from plants that now grow at the top of the canyon (evergreens, conifers, oaks, etc.).  Scientists at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University couldn't believe it and examined his samples.  Assuming that it was a farce they then conducted their own studies in 1970 and got the same results.  They had now disproved the age of the Grand Canyon.

How about a clincher.  Atmospheric Helium.  Sensors have measured the rate of helium released into the atmosphere at 13 million atoms per square inch per second.  They theorize that the rate of escape in outer space is about .3 million atoms per square inch per second.  It's accumulating 40 times as fast as it is being released.  Even assuming there was NO primordial (yeah, right) helium, the current atmosphere can be calculated to be NO older than 370,000 years old.

And, finally, unless you need more scientific proof.  The earth's magnetic field.  It is a known fact that the earth's electromagnetic field is decaying.  By extrapolating the decay and heat loss backwards (based on the current verifiable rate of decay) the earth can be no more than ten thousand years old.  Older than that and it would have been too hot for life (any life) to exist.  If life is no more than ten thousand years old, it can not possibly have evolved as evolutionists say.  Which brings us back to carbon dating.  Since the earth's magnetic field shields us from the sun's broiling clouds of electrified gas and deadly cosmic rays, this depletion has had two known side effects: (1) future harmful biological effects are going to happen and (2) we must lower our current carbon 14 dating dates.  Decay is measured in half-lives (that's how we carbon date, for instance).  Using the current known half-life of earth's magnetic field (NASA discovered this in 1971) and taking into account the loss of rotating electrical engergy we can specify that the half-life of the our magnetic field is 1400 years.  5 of these half-lives (or 7000 years) would put the current magnetic field at 1/32 of it's original value).  Based on the data from the last 165+ years, both past and future energy levels can then be estimated.  Ten thousand years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been 150 times as strong as it is today.  The same as some magnetic stars.  In 20,000 B.C. it would be 60,000 times as strong and would have generated enough heat (by associated electrical current) to have caused a complete and total meltdown of the earth).  Knowing that the stronger magnetic field of the past would have also given us better shielding of the earth and its atmosphere from primay comsic rays, we know that the production of radioactive C14 into the atmoshpere was also reduced.  Smaller rate of C14 production means that we must markedly reduce the age of our previous C14 dating.  The older the assumed date, the higher the margin of error would be.

The byproduct of all this science is that we also can assume the end of the earth.  If the rate of magnetic decay continues at its currently linear rate, then the dipole moment will vanish abround A.D. 3991 (I won't be here to see it).  Even with a more reserved exponential rate of decay, we are at most looking at A.D. 11,000.  But this is just a side note.  

One more, just in case you aren't conviced.  Modern genetecists (studying the genetics of women in the present and past populations trace the genes back to a single female (whom they have, of course, nicknamed "Eve").  Using the current research methods, they date her to be have existed approximately sixty-five hundred years ago.
Additionally, the current population of six billion (or so) people could be generated by an original number of eight people in about forty-five hundred years.  If we assume that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans (in some form or another) hae existed for fifty thousand years (and considering the rate of decay of human bones) then our current population should be much larger and we would literally be tripping over skeletons.




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:37 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the only scientists that still hang on to evolution is geologists

Geologists don't even study geology!  Biologists study the theory of evolution.  And 99.9% of the world's biologists accept evoltuion, 95% of all scientists accept evolution.

They haven't accepted the proof given by other sciences that show that C14 datings has a major flaw.

There are no flaws in C-14 dating or in radiometric dating.

As our ability to date items has improved, the actual age of items has steadily decreased.

Untrue.  In the 1940's the earth was estimated to be 4 billion years old.  As we have refined our dating techniques, we can now say it is 4.5 billion years old.  The age of the earth is NOT decreasing.

I'll deal with your "proofs" in your other thread, but essentially they are all wrong, they were all disproven decades ago.  You should do some real research to stop looking like such a fool.  Evolution is one of the strongest theories in science, it is a virtual fact.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:45 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

virtual: adj Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. -Webster

Good choice of words.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:52 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Geologist n A person who specializes in Geology. - Webster.

Geologists don't even study geology?  Where did we get this guy from?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:56 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Geologists don't even study geology?  Where did we get this guy from

Sorry, typo, geologists don't study evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:18 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, but their use of C14 dating is what is continually used to try to prove the age of the universe.  If they would apply the known discoveries of other legitimate sciences to their area of expertise and apply them accordingly, we could all be on the same page.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:04 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 2:04 PM on September 7, 2005 :
True, but their use of C14 dating is what is continually used to try to prove the age of the universe.  If they would apply the known discoveries of other legitimate sciences to their area of expertise and apply them accordingly, we could all be on the same page.


Geologists don't use C14 dating, historians, archeologists and anthropologists do.




-------
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: 4:56 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, but their use of C14 dating is what is continually used to try to prove the age of the universe

No it's not.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:14 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

virtual: adj Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. -Webster
Good choice of words.


Yeah, but you skipped the first definition,

"Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo."

So let's clear this up for you.  Evolution is a fact, we observe it, we test it, we use it in industry and medicine.  The theory of evolution explains it.  Now, no theory in science can ever become a fact, but the theory of evolution is so well supported by the evidence, so well tested by experimentation, that it is considered valid by 99.9% of the world's biologists and 95% of the world's scientists.  
So calling the TOE a virtual fact is pretty accurate.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:20 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, you're right (I'm tired) C14 is not the dating process used by geologists.  I apologize.  The geological process uses uranium-lead or potassium-argon methods which assume that (a) no daughter elements existed in the original material, (b) that the material being measured has been in a closed system with no outside influences and (c) that the rate of decay has always been constant (as you pointed out in my argument about the rate of decay for the magnetic field, rate of decay can not be proven constant).

Can one assume that no daughter elements existed in the material being measured?  I can find no evidence stating that this can be known, especially when dating material considered to be billions of years old.

Can one assume that no outside factors have affected the material?  Nothing interacted with the material for billions of years?  I'm not sure I'm buying that.

Can one assume that the rate of decay is absolutely constant (you've shown me that it can't)?  

You seem to like sources...  

William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'." *

* William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84

Frederick B. Jueneman:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." **

**  Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism," Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21

My guess is that you'll say any and all evolutionists who ever shed any doubt on evolution are secretly creationists in disguise or something so this whole discussion is probably moot.  However, it is something for the more broad minded individuals who may be reading this to think about.  Again I apologize for my sleep-induced C14/geologist comment earlier... too much reading... zzz



-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:53 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The geological process uses uranium-lead or potassium-argon methods which assume that (a) no daughter elements existed in the original material, (b) that the material being measured has been in a closed system with no outside influences and (c) that the rate of decay has always been constant (as you pointed out in my argument about the rate of decay for the magnetic field, rate of decay can not be proven constant).

a)  We can tell how much daughter element existed in the sample when it was formed by comparing the different ratios of parent to daughter elements from different isotopes from the same sample.  This site explains it nicely and in depth:
RadiodatingforChristians

b) When an igneous rock cools, it becomes a closed system, the parent and daughter elements are no longer affected by outside forces.  If the sample is heated to a molten temperature, this is readily apparent.  Again, read the site from above.

c) According to the atomic theory, the rate of decay must remain constant.  No naturally occurring force on earth can alter it.  We have been measuring the decay rates of elements directly for almost a 100 years, they have not changed.  We have seen the same decay rates in super novas 200,000 light years away using mass spectrometers, they have not changed.  In order for the decay rates to have changed to match the data we have now the half lives of these elements would have to be increased by a magnitude of a million.  If this happened the heat they produced would be cataclysmic.  We have no evidence of massive radioactive heat melting the earth's crust.

William D. Stansfield

Stansfield is not a nuclear physicist, what he has to say about radiometric dating is irrelevent, and his book is also almost 40 years out of date.

Frederick B. Jueneman

He really shows us no evidence, just his opinion.  Is he an expert on radiometric dating?
Where is his data?

My guess is that you'll say any and all evolutionists who ever shed any doubt on evolution are secretly creationists in disguise or something so this whole discussion is probably moot.  However, it is something for the more broad minded individuals who may be reading this to think about.

No, real scientists go where the data leads, creationists can present no empirical evidence to support their claims.  Broad minded individuals should examine the evidence objectively, as the scientific method does.

What you haven't been able to account for is the fact that radiometric dates all agree, there are over 44 different methods and they are in concurrence.  Not only that, radiometric dates agree with other non radiometroc dating techniques.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:50 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, been working long hours, not much time to stay caught up with this.  An article at AnswersInGenesis "dot" org, entitled "Evolution and Creation, Science and Religion, Facts and Bias," contains the following excerpt (which serves to take my discussion back to my original statement:  that evolution AND creation theories contain assumptions, and are accepted to some extent on faith.  I would like to add to that initial point:  Bias affects our interpretation of evidence.  If we immediately assume that there cannot possibly be any explanation besides evolution, are we not going to attempt to fit the evidence to that paradigm?)

"It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! Actually, Teaching about Evolution admits in the dialogue on pages 22–25 that science isn’t just about facts, and it is tentative, not dogmatic. But the rest of the book is dogmatic that evolution is a fact!

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment.... It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Footnote 3:  Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.


Back to me:

One of the most important assumptions seems to be that somehow, there is a mechanism by which information carried within DNA becomes more complex (i.e. "new" information is created).  This does not seem to jive with the entropy discussion, nor does it seem (in my opinion and the opinions of creation scientists) to make sense given that the vast majority of mutations are neutral or damaging, and so-called "beneficial" mutations are very very rare, and in any case mutations still do not create NEW information.  

And, presumably one argument that supports "speciation" having taken place is that interbreeding can no longer occur.  This does not necessarily point to "new" information being placed in the DNA, it may only point to such a LOSS of information that interbreeding is impossible.  

According to what I've been reading on several creationist sites, it seems to be reasonably accepted within the community of biology scientists that formation of a NEW species requires an increase in information within DNA, and this cannot be proven to occur.  On the contrary, it is often shown that there was an inherent LOSS of information that created the VARIATION of the species.  It seems to me that there would have to be a necessary assumption by evolutionists that some magic mechanism can account for  necessary NEW information to be added to an existing DNA.  (For example, new information would have to be available in order for a reptile to begin forming feathers.  A LOSS of information may affect the reptile's skin or any other attribute, but it still can't tell the DNA to begin defining NEW material such as feathers.)

So, an evolutionist must continue ON FAITH that this mystery mechanism can be discovered or some plausible theory about its existence can be invented.  

Meanwhile, the creationist argument is that, of course there isn't any "NEW" information, we're stuck with the information God placed within our DNA, and that information either mutates such that a loss of information occurs and that loss is perpetuated in further generations, or the information is garbled so badly that it cannot be used at all.  This seems to make the most sense to me, because it fits with the entropy model suggested by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and it fits with God's Word which states that all life was created.  










(Edited by deductive-christian 9/16/2005 at 4:17 PM).

(Edited by deductive-christian 9/16/2005 at 4:18 PM).

(Edited by deductive-christian 9/16/2005 at 4:18 PM).


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 8:53 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I don't know what I did to affect the thread presentation.  One more remark:

A comment for WitsFool:  I'm sorry but I don't read anywhere in the bible that I should not debate.  Jesus presented opportunities for debate often, in order that the Truth could be stated.  Aren't Christians tasked with getting "the Truth" to the world?  In order for God to gain souls, we Christians are directed to plant the seeds, correct?  What better way to plant seeds than to debate someone on his own ground?  You just never know what seed may be planted in the mind of the Demon38s of the world, and how that seed might or might not produce fruit for God.  



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:13 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of the most important assumptions seems to be that somehow, there is a mechanism by which information carried within DNA becomes more complex (i.e. "new" information is created).  This does not seem to jive with the entropy discussion, nor does it seem (in my opinion and the opinions of creation scientists) to make sense given that the vast majority of mutations are neutral or damaging, and so-called "beneficial" mutations are very very rare, and in any case mutations still do not create NEW information.

But they do create new information.  In nylon eating bacteria, the ability to digest nylon is new information, the bacteria did not have this ability before a mutation allowed them to do it.
you keep making this statement, but then you can't give us a definition of "new information".
A mutation that gives an organism something it didn't have before is new information.  Here's a whole page on beneficial mutations in humans:
BeneficialMutations

Gene duplication and translocation in a genome can lead to new functions, we have observed it.  So where is the barrier to new information arising?

And, presumably one argument that supports "speciation" having taken place is that interbreeding can no longer occur.  This does not necessarily point to "new" information being placed in the DNA, it may only point to such a LOSS of information that interbreeding is impossible.

So what, addition AND loss of information is evolution.  So now you're admitting that evoltuion does take place.  

According to what I've been reading on several creationist sites,

There's your major problem, creationist sites are notorious for lieing, quote mining and twisting the facts.  REad some real science.

it seems to be reasonably accepted within the community of biology scientists that formation of a NEW species requires an increase in information within DNA, and this cannot be proven to occur.  

Wrong.  It can and is proven to occur.
This is from a recent news story about comparison of human genome and chimpanzee genome:
HumanChimp
"Brain genes key: A comparison of gene expression in various tissues indicated that most of the genetic changes occurring during the evolution of chimps and humans had neither a positive nor a negative effect. However, the testes in the males of both species showed strong evidence of a positive effect. Also, genes active in the brain showed much more accumulated change in humans than in chimps — suggesting that those genes played a special role in human evolution."

Not only have we found the "new information" that seperates us from our nearest relative in the tree of life, we are decoding it.

On the contrary, it is often shown that there was an inherent LOSS of information that created the VARIATION of the species.

Can you back this up with examples?  You haven't been able to back up any of your claims yet.  The example I provided above shows that "new information" is added in the formation of some species.

It seems to me that there would have to be a necessary assumption by evolutionists that some magic mechanism can account for  necessary NEW information to be added to an existing DNA.

No magic mechanism, just the ones we already observe, gene duplication mutations and translocation mutations, filtered through natural selection.  You're the only one who needs magic for their claims, the mechanisms of evolution are observed.  

For example, new information would have to be available in order for a reptile to begin forming feathers.  A LOSS of information may affect the reptile's skin or any other attribute, but it still can't tell the DNA to begin defining NEW material such as feathers.)

Then explain how dinosaurs evolved feathers, since we know for a fact they possesed them.
The fossil record shows us that feathers evolved before birds and that birds inherited them from a more ancient ancestor, most likely the therapod dinosaur.  Since they are much more complicated than scales, they are a perfect example of an addition of new information.

So, an evolutionist must continue ON FAITH that this mystery mechanism can be discovered or some plausible theory about its existence can be invented.

No, biologists study the evidence to draw conclusions, the evolution of feathers is no different.  No faith involved.

Meanwhile, the creationist argument is that, of course there isn't any "NEW" information, we're stuck with the information God placed within our DNA, and that information either mutates such that a loss of information occurs and that loss is perpetuated in further generations, or the information is garbled so badly that it cannot be used at all.  

But this claim has already been disproven.

This seems to make the most sense to me, because it fits with the entropy model suggested by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and it fits with God's Word which states that all life was created.

It makes the most sense to you because you don't understand science, biology or evolution.  It's already been shown to you that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent evolution at all.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:35 AM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 9:13 PM on September 9, 2005 :
Sorry, I don't know what I did to affect the thread presentation.  


The tag at the end of the first quote "materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3" is another quote rather than a close quote.  If you edit it and fix it, it will solve the problem.




-------
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: 8:25 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A mutation that gives an organism something it didn't have before is new information.  Here's a whole page on beneficial mutations in humans:


Mutation does not equal evolution.  If I grow a second head, I might be a mutant, but I'm not the next link on an evolutionary change.   Are the Vadoma evolving?  No, they are deformed.  Are bats some transitional phase between rodents and some new flying species?  Hardly.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:02 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And before anyone goes ballistic, yes I know bats aren't rodents, they're mammals, but you get the point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:04 PM on September 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mutation does not equal evolution.

Yes, mutations by themselves do not equal evolution, they need to be selected by the environment they occur in as either beneficial or detrimental, natural selection.

If I grow a second head, I might be a mutant, but I'm not the next link on an evolutionary change.

Quite correct, but this statement on your part indicates that you still don't understand the theory of evolution.  Single organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.

Are the Vadoma evolving?  No, they are deformed.

You mean the tribe in Africa were some of the tribe members have only 2 toes on their feet?
Not all the tribe members have this defect and the members that do are related.  The defect provides neither advantage nor disadvantage, who said they were evolving?

Are bats some transitional phase between rodents and some new flying species?
Hardly.


All species are transitional between what came before them and what will come in the future.  Since we can't know what environmental changes will occur in the future, we can't know what present species will evolve into.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:10 PM on September 13, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for your advice, Apoapsis, I have edited the offending remark.  

Sorry, no time to rebut comments at this time, very busy, and must get my boat running for the weekend!  :-)


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:22 PM on September 16, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Question:  Is the fossil record rich with evidence linking one species to its alleged ancestor(s)?  (i.e., are there sufficient "transitional" fossils present to create a clear lineage?)

Question:  Are there large numbers of species which have a reasonably intact lineage, or relatively few?  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:07 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Question:  What explains the occasional discovery of an evolved species in or near the same strata as its alleged ancestor?

Question:  Given only the evidence at hand, to wit:  A species presumed to be macro-evolved is discovered within a very short time span geologically from a distant ancestor species, but to date no transitional fossil evidence exists to indicate the transitional lineage between these two fossils presently in hand; what can we deduce from this immediate evidence?  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:16 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 1:07 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Question:  Is the fossil record rich with evidence linking one species to its alleged ancestor(s)?  (i.e., are there sufficient "transitional" fossils present to create a clear lineage?)

Question:  Are there large numbers of species which have a reasonably intact lineage, or relatively few?  



do you know how fossils are created?  how rare it is for a fossil to actually survive without being crumbled up into indistinguishable pieces?

the reason the earth isn't littered with the fossils of all the creatures that have ever lived on the planet is because of the geological activity of the earth as well as the numerous microorganisms that destroy carcasses.

if a body isn't destroyed completely by bacteria and scavengers, it will most likely be destroyed by geological process.  Typical erosion, glacier movement, movement of tectonic plates, etc.

the fossils available for research (including ones not even found yet) probably make up less than 2% of the animals that existed in the history of the earth.

there are no complete lineages for any animal.  and that is because there are so many minute changes in the geneology of a certain animal that it would be almost impossible to track, even if we had been around for it.  what's your point?

Quote from deductive-christian at 1:16 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Question:  What explains the occasional discovery of an evolved species in or near the same strata as its alleged ancestor?


humans live in the same era as apes.  i dont see the problem with an ancestor of a species living in the same time period as another animal that evolved from it, as long as each has its seperate food source.

Quote from deductive-christian at 1:16 PM on September 22, 2005 :Question:  Given only the evidence at hand, to wit:  A species presumed to be macro-evolved is discovered within a very short time span geologically from a distant ancestor species, but to date no transitional fossil evidence exists to indicate the transitional lineage between these two fossils presently in hand; what can we deduce from this immediate evidence?  


from this immediate evidence we can deduce nothing.  just because there is no fossil evidence now, doesnt mean there never was ever.  refer to my first statements in this post.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 9/22/2005 at 6:54 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 6:53 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Post from RoyLennigan:

"there are no complete lineages for any animal.  and that is because there are so many minute changes in the geneology of a certain animal that it would be almost impossible to track, even if we had been around for it.  what's your point?"

My point, as it has been since I joined this thread, is that there are assumptions made (by BOTH evolutionists AND creationists) to justify their position.  It is often ASSUMED that there must be a lineage, even if one does not exist in the fossil record.  

And just for the record, if we use your number that 2% of all living creatures in the past have fossilized, wouldn't we have literally billions of fossils from which to deduce a transition a la macro-evolution?  

RoyLennigan said:
"the reason the earth isn't littered with the fossils of all the creatures that have ever lived on the planet is because of the geological activity of the earth as well as the numerous microorganisms that destroy carcasses.

if a body isn't destroyed completely by bacteria and scavengers, it will most likely be destroyed by geological process.  Typical erosion, glacier movement, movement of tectonic plates, etc."

Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like you're making a case that fossils are more likely to remain intact if they were buried rapidly, or shall we say, catastrophically?  


(Edited by deductive-christian 9/22/2005 at 9:35 PM).


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:25 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
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.