PDA

View Full Version : Creation/Evolution and science


Rev7
12-22-2007, 12:57 AM
Again, correct, but Laws (in the scientific usage) are only applied to very exceptional cases. Gravity is a theory. Electricity is based on a theory. Do you automatically discount them out-of-hand because they aren't designated as Laws? I was going to say something about that. Isn't Gravity a law? Has to do with Newton's Law? Newton's three laws have a lot to do with gravity, I may be mistaken though.
Because you find the substantial evidence for evolution lacking? Or because the science conflicts with your religious views? Mainly because of my religious views, but I just don't think that humans started out as a single cell organism, and 'evolved'. I have always been taught in school that evolution is adaptation over large periods of time. I just find that too extreme that all creatures that we see today all come from the same... single-celled organism. Yes I 'believe' in adaptation, but not evolution. My opinion.

mimartin
12-22-2007, 01:05 AM
I just don't think that humans started out as a single cell organism, Don’t we all start out as a single cell even today? Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdoesasinglece146)

Achilles
12-22-2007, 01:19 AM
I was going to say something about that. Isn't Gravity a law? Has to do with Newton's Law? Newton's three laws have a lot to do with gravity, I may be mistaken though. Newton's three laws are laws of motion. Newton's theory of gravitation was amended by Einstein's theory of relativity.

Mainly because of my religious views, but I just don't think that humans started out as a single cell organism, and 'evolved'."Humans starting out as single cell organisms" isn't 100% accurate. All life springs from single cell organisms (the "tree trunk"). Humans just happen to be a twig on the primate branch (which is an offshoot of the mammal branch, which is an offshoot of the vertebrate branch, etc, etc). Humans "started out" as single cell organisms the same way that snails and roses did. People don't usually jump that many steps when considering our ancestry (at least I don't think they do :confused: ).

EDIT: Except in the context of what mimartin said. My argument was presented in the context of evolutionary development of the human species.

I have always been taught in school that evolution is adaptation over large periods of time. I just find that too extreme that all creatures that we see today all come from the same... single-celled organism. Yes I 'believe' in adaptation, but not evolution. My opinion.Decent with modification paired with natural selection. Odd that people don't contest adaptation, ignore natural selection, and then purport not to accept evolution. It's like saying "I believe that organisms change over time, but I don't believe in the evidence that shows organisms change over time".

Don’t we all start out as a single cell even today? Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdoesasinglece146) Mimartin, ftw.

Rev7
12-22-2007, 01:34 AM
I forgot what the 'scientific' name was for a single celled organism, mono something... I know that humans and all life that we see was once a single celled organism at birth. I just don't think that we started out as a single-celled organism (i.e. bacteria) and eventually evolved into multi-cell creatures. I hope that clarifies.

Achilles
12-22-2007, 01:44 AM
All the evidence supports the theory that we did. If you choose not to accept the evidence, then that is certainly your right. Thanks for your posts.

Rev7
12-22-2007, 01:50 AM
I know that there is evidence that supports it, I chose to believe that the theory of evolution is not true. That is my opinion. Thank you for the civil conversation. :)

mimartin
12-22-2007, 01:54 AM
All the evidence supports the theory that we did. If you choose not to accept the evidence, then that is certainly your right. Just don't expect to get or keep a job a Woods Hole. :D

RobQel-Droma
12-22-2007, 08:08 PM
There seems to be a shortage of Creation evidence. RQD to the rescue.... :)

(1) Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of “primitive” life forms to “more complex” systems we observe today. Only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…. so, the claim of their having taken place to form the geological record you probably know doesn't make sense.

(2) Unfortunately, only a few so-called "transitional fossils" have been found, with not much to indicate that they even were just that. It is probably going to stay this way, due to the lack of this evidence.

(3) To go back to #1, the Earth's layers are actually saturated with “polystrate fossils” (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. The fossil record of plants is also in favor of special creation. (ever heard of the Cambrian explosion, I think its called?)

(4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.
(Dr. Thomas Barnes, at the University of Texas, has published most of this)

(5) "Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."
- Robert Gentry (CREATION’S TINY MYSTERY)

(6) Man-made artifacts have also been found in these layers where, supposedly, humans were not supposed to be around. Examples listed by some archaeologists: the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock. I would think these would all point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Igos
12-22-2007, 08:59 PM
There seems to be a shortage of Creation evidence. RQD to the rescue.... :)

After looking at the rest of your post, it doesn't seem as if you're providing evidence for creationism either, but rather, trying to disprove evolution.

(1) Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of “primitive” life forms to “more complex” systems we observe today. Only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…. so, the claim of their having taken place to form the geological record you probably know doesn't make sense.

Actually, the geologic column has been observed in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G3) is an article that deals with this and #3 as well.

(2) Unfortunately, only a few so-called "transitional fossils" have been found, with not much to indicate that they even were just that. It is probably going to stay this way, due to the lack of this evidence.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. The only way your claim of their non-existance would be justified is to completely redefine "transitional" as a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another at the same time. However, direct lineages are not required as they could not be verified even if found.

The "gaps" you refer to can perfectly coexist with what we already have. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

(3) To go back to #1, the Earth's layers are actually saturated with “polystrate fossils” (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. The fossil record of plants is also in favor of special creation. (ever heard of the Cambrian explosion, I think its called?)

See the link I posted for your first point. It deals specifically with this.

(4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.
(Dr. Thomas Barnes, at the University of Texas, has published most of this)

"Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year(Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-refs.html#ThwaitesAwbrey1982)) [...]

The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.

Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:

((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year = (21.4 days)/Year

Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.

The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science."

From : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html, #20

Secondly, you're overlooking the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity. A documented fact of this phenomena can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly).

Lastly, Dr. Barnes relied on an obsolete model of the Earth's internal structure (Basically representing the Earth's core as a spherical conductor). Elsasser's more modern theory is consistend with Cowling's theorem, thus disproving Dr. Barnes.


(5) "Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form."
- Robert Gentry (CREATION’S TINY MYSTERY)

I tried to shorten the counter arguments for this point, but it was still too long. Suffix to say that here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html) you will find everything you need to know about why Dr.Gendry's theory is unacceptable.

(6) Man-made artifacts have also been found in these layers where, supposedly, humans were not supposed to be around. Examples listed by some archaeologists: the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock. I would think these would all point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Could you provide any source for this claim?
If the artifacts you're referring too are the ones creationists usually come up in their arguments, then you're overlooking the fact that such artifacts are usually encrusted with calcium carbonate. The fossils are often found in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. Thus, there is no evidence that said artifacts are more than a few decades old.

RobQel-Droma
12-23-2007, 01:43 AM
After looking at the rest of your post, it doesn't seem as if you're providing evidence for creationism either, but rather, trying to disprove evolution.

Er....

I'm not sure how you don't see evidence of animals suddenly appearing within the same time period as evidence for Creation....

Actually, the geologic column has been observed in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts.

Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G3) is an article that deals with this and #3 as well.

Hmm, seems I'm running up against this site quite a few times. (just a question, due you happen to have any alternate sources of this evidence for the evolutionary model of the geologic column?) I don't really know much about TalkOrigins - in fact, until a few months ago, I've never heard of it. But now I'm interested, since your entire belief in evolution seems to be based on this one site.

There are plenty of transitional fossils.

Plenty?

The only way your claim of their non-existance would be justified is to completely redefine "transitional" as a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another at the same time.

As far as I know, that is what people mean when they say "transitional." But excuse me - do you have a different definition?

However, direct lineages are not required as they could not be verified even if found.

I don't understand how they aren't required. Are you saying that you don't need evidence for evolution, or what? Sorry, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say.

The "gaps" you refer to can perfectly coexist with what we already have. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

Maybe I read it wrong, but the only thing I got from that is a restating of what I said: there aren't really that many cases of "transitional" fossils, except for the few that are claimed to be... and that it is almost impossible to successfully document such a things due to lack of material found. I don't know - that's what I read. Doesn't sound like that much evidence, just a possible excuse.

"Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year(Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-refs.html#ThwaitesAwbrey1982)) [...]

The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.

Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:

((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year = (21.4 days)/Year

Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.

The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.

(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day

If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science."

From : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html, #20

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. I thought this part of my post was dealing with Earth's magnetic field, not the hours in the day.... or something.

Secondly, you're overlooking the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity. A documented fact of this phenomena can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly).

Maybe I'm just a little slow tonight, and not picking this stuff up, but I'm not sure what the regular movements of the van Allen radiation belt has to do with anything. I would assume that that would not provide that much of a stumbling block to this theory, considering you took it into account. But, please, I'm not that up-to-date on stuff dealing with the radiation belt - if you could explain, that would be most helpful.

Lastly, Dr. Barnes relied on an obsolete model of the Earth's internal structure (Basically representing the Earth's core as a spherical conductor). Elsasser's more modern theory is consistend with Cowling's theorem, thus disproving Dr. Barnes.

Well, surely you won't mind if I look into this Elsasser a bit more?

I tried to shorten the counter arguments for this point, but it was still too long. Suffix to say that here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html) you will find everything you need to know about why Dr.Gendry's theory is unacceptable.

Again, this TalkOrigins site. I'm not trying to just disregard it, but I have never even heard of most of these people before - for instance this "John Brawley", or any of the essays that are posted there. Of course, he could be right, but I don't really know. Unless I decide to try it on my own (which would be nice), or until I know who the heck he is, I'm just a little skeptical. I hope you can understand. It just seems to me that if this theory actually answered the question, I would be able to easily find it somewhere else instead of TalkOrigins, championed by a self-proclaimed "amateur scientist". But, I'll look into it more.

Could you provide any source for this claim?

Clicky (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/13anc03.htm).

If the artifacts you're referring too are the ones creationists usually come up in their arguments, then you're overlooking the fact that such artifacts are usually encrusted with calcium carbonate. The fossils are often found in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. Thus, there is no evidence that said artifacts are more than a few decades old.

I'm not sure how that disproves what I said. If they are in the same layer in the geologic time period, I would venture that it doesn't matter whether it's in the rock two feet away, or rock two yards away....

Scanning ahead, I don't see anything that even comes remotely close to providing evidence for creation.

Well, you can interpret it how you want. It doesn't really make any difference to me. :)

Even if the geologic column were shuffled like a deck of cards, radiometric dating could by used to accurately date fossils (back to 48.6 billion years).

As far as I know, radiometric dating is based on three assumptions:

1. The decay rate was constant. (which, I think, was probably true)
2. Started with no known daughter component. (unlikely)
3. There was no external loss/addition or parent or daughter components. (which - over "millions" of years? - is unlikely)

There are many other methods of dating, you know - all are subject to flaws, of course - and some of them date much differently the age of the Earth. For example:

Salt build-up in the ocean - 76 million years
Sediment build-up in the ocean - 15 million years
Helium build-up in the atmosphere - 1.8 million years
Decay of short-period comets - 10,000 years
Influx of radiocarbon to Earth - 10,000 years

All widely varied, aren't they? As I said, all of these have their flaws - but I think it would be safe to say that radiocarbon dating isn't as accurate as it is claimed to be.

All fossils are transitional. Saying that we don't have record of transitional fossils is like going outside and saying we don't have any evidence of air.

If you would like a clarification of "transitional", I was referring to the specific fossils that have been stated as to be the evidence of species that lived between the evolution of certain species. Such as a half-man, half-monkey fossil (to put it plainly).

Cambrian explosion had to do with the sudden (tens of millions of years) appearance of a variety of complex animals. 70-80 million years hardly seems like "special creation". This argument is consistent with all other flavors of "goddidit": Science doesn't have it 100% figured out, therefore god must have done it.

I never approached this with that attitude. I merely stated that such an "explosion" would tend to support Creationism more than it would Evolutionism. If you tend to see people like myself as turning to God every time science can't figure something out, well... I do think that God has the answers, and we don't, but that doesn't mean I'm just saying "God!" every time scientists can't explain something. If there is some other theory out there besides Creation and Evolution, then perhaps you could tell me about it. But right now, the discussion is between these specific two.

Wow. It's amazing that a planet made out of iron (such as Mercury) didn't get sucked into the Earth (obliterating all life). Or maybe who ever came up with this stuff got it wrong.

You seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of "Evolution can't work with this, so it must be wrong...."

Define "a few thousand years", please. Keep in mind that recorded history spans approximately 6,000 years.

And I would say that the Earth has been around for around 6,000 years.

Of course, who knows how God created it. Maybe the Earth was sitting around for a few million years before He started the Creation process. Who knows. It could have happened that way.

"However, -snip-
Emphasis mine.
Link

Well, sounds valid enough. I'll check it out. :)

Ever hear of burying the dead? Usually involves digging holes into the ground and putting stuff in the hole that doesn't "belong" there.

Wait.... so you're saying that the reason for this, is that early humans decided to dig down a hundred feet into the ground, into the next layer recording "millions" of years of history, to bury their dead? :rolleyes: Right....

Igos
12-23-2007, 03:30 AM
I'm not sure how you don't see evidence of animals suddenly appearing within the same time period as evidence for Creation....

What "evidence" for creation? I haven't seen any so far.

Hmm, seems I'm running up against this site quite a few times. (just a question, due you happen to have any alternate sources of this evidence for the evolutionary model of the geologic column?)

Is another source needed? Talkorigins had tons of references on that article - I do not see the need for any more.

Plenty?

Yes, plenty. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) are just some examples in answer #2

I don't understand how they aren't required. Are you saying that you don't need evidence for evolution, or what? Sorry, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say.

Direct lineage is not required to verify the pattern of evolution. What transitional fossils show you are the traits intermediate between 2 other fossils. Transitional fossils show likely relationships clearly (For example, the transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals show how the inner ear bones developed). Such patterns are shown whether the fossils are connected by direct ancestry or by another close relationship. However, and like I said before, direct lineage is not a requirement.

Maybe I read it wrong, but the only thing I got from that is a restating of what I said: there aren't really that many cases of "transitional" fossils

Actually, the article quite clearly states that there are more than enough transitional fossils to document the changes. As it says in one passage "in order to document transitions between species, you need specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (every 20,000-80,000 years)", while it was previously stated that Clarks Fork had a collection of fossils from the Eocen period, whose ages are separated by 27,000 years. That is, a whole period with documented transitional fossils - I don't know how anyone can claim that there aren't "many cases".

You also appear to have skipped the final part of the article in which the transition for each taxonomic unit is detailed, showing the "gaps". In most cases, you'll see only single ancestors being missing, whereas the vast mayority is covered.


and that it is almost impossible to successfully document such a things due to lack of material found. I don't know - that's what I read. Doesn't sound like that much evidence, just a possible excuse.


You misunderstood. The point is that it's impossible to have full documentation because of the reasons mentioned in the "gaps" article. However, (and as stated in that very article), such thing isn't needed when you have fossils whose ages differ in only tens of thousands of years.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. I thought this part of my post was dealing with Earth's magnetic field, not the hours in the day.... or something.

Your claim was the Earth's magnetic field decrease was evidence of a young Earth. However, given the measure of the magnetic field decay variable, the calculation shows that it's in fact evidence of an old Earth.

Maybe I'm just a little slow tonight, and not picking this stuff up, but I'm not sure what the regular movements of the van Allen radiation belt has to do with anything. I would assume that that would not provide that much of a stumbling block to this theory, considering you took it into account. But, please, I'm not that up-to-date on stuff dealing with the radiation belt - if you could explain, that would be most helpful.

You asserted that the Earth's magnetic field had to be constant. I showed you an example as to how this isn't true.

Well, surely you won't mind if I look into this Elsasser a bit more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_M._Elsasser

"John Brawley", or any of the essays that are posted there. Of course, he could be right, but I don't really know. Unless I decide to try it on my own (which would be nice), or until I know who the heck he is, I'm just a little skeptical. I hope you can understand.

I understand your concerns. Keep in mind however, that the article has a list of references at the bottom, which you can check.

Clicky.

Ok.

Guadeloupe woman: There appears to be no argument here. The author simply says that since these fossils do not appear in any textbook, then it was covered by evolutionists. Given how it does not make any attempt to justify his position, then I do not see the need to address this point.

Caveras skull: Very old hoax perpetrated by miners.

Castenodolo Skull: The Castendolo bones belong to skeletons of several men, women, and children. They are a recent burial in Pliocene sediments, evidenced by the fact that other fossils but not the human bones were impregnated with salt. See this (http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/skbones.htm).

Moab skeleton: See this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#moab). In fact, that page has all the anomalous fossils you have presented, including others.

Achilles
12-23-2007, 05:01 AM
Well, you can interpret it how you want. It doesn't really make any difference to me. :) Well there are either arguments for creation or there are not. None of your points tell us anything about what happened at creation, how long it took, when did it happen, who did it, how, or why.

To be generous, since science only concerns itself with what happened, how long, when, and how, I think that any argument for creation should only have to provide testable hypothesis for the same (even though it also presumes to know the who and why).

As far as I know, radiometric dating is based on three assumptions:

<snip>I've posted this before in another thread, but here it is again for those that missed it:

Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG, Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM)(a YT clip about radiometric dating).

There are many other methods of dating, you know - all are subject to flaws, of course - and some of them date much differently the age of the Earth. For example:

Salt build-up in the ocean - 76 million years
Sediment build-up in the ocean - 15 million years
Helium build-up in the atmosphere - 1.8 million years
Decay of short-period comets - 10,000 years
Influx of radiocarbon to Earth - 10,000 years

All widely varied, aren't they? As I said, all of these have their flaws - but I think it would be safe to say that radiocarbon dating isn't as accurate as it is claimed to be. How does radiometric dating relate to any of these other methods? Considering the difficulty in estabilishing controls, I can't imagine that anyone finds these methods of dating preferable.

If you would like a clarification of "transitional", I was referring to the specific fossils that have been stated as to be the evidence of species that lived between the evolution of certain species. Such as a half-man, half-monkey fossil (to put it plainly). Oh. Intermediate forms. Well we have a lot of those too (not necessarily for our species though).

I never approached this with that attitude. I merely stated that such an "explosion" would tend to support Creationism more than it would Evolutionism. Without evidence, the argument doesn't "tend" to support anything other than "goddidit". The fact that it happened does tend to support that it did happen. How and/or why are different matters entirely. "Creation" is one possible explanation, but just like "sudden increases in information transfer capability as RNA evolved to DNA", it requires supporting evidence.

If you tend to see people like myself as turning to God every time science can't figure something out, well... I do think that God has the answers, and we don't, but that doesn't mean I'm just saying "God!" every time scientists can't explain something. Indeed.

If there is some other theory out there besides Creation and Evolution, then perhaps you could tell me about it. But right now, the discussion is between these specific two. Well, I'm sure there is as you seem to have bundled cosmology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, and physics under the Theory of evolution, which is belongs to biology. In fact, very little of your post made any mention of biology, so I wasn't aware that this was a straight "evolution vs creation" tangent until just now. Based on your earlier post I thought we'd be branching out into big bang theory, inflationary theory, abiogenesis, quantum theory, etc, etc.

See, while creationism is a one-trick pony (i.e. everything is explaned via one explanation), science uses lots of different theories for lots of different problems (big bang for how the universe came into being, abiogensis for how life started, evolution for how it changed into the lifeforms we see today, etc). I hope this helps to clear up any potential misunderstandings going forward.

You seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of "Evolution can't work with this, so it must be wrong...." Evolution would't presume to work with this; it's an astronomy problem. And a pretty simple one too: Earth = magnetic star. Mercury = made out of iron. Earth + Mercury = big mess on Earth and no more Mercury. Seems that the existence of Mercury...and us!...would falsify that hypothesis pretty quickly.

And I would say that the Earth has been around for around 6,000 years. Ok. Based on what evidence? And how does this evidence account for the scientific evidence that shows that it's 4.5 billion years old?

Of course, who knows how God created it. Maybe the Earth was sitting around for a few million years before He started the Creation process. Who knows. It could have happened that way. Sure it could have. And it could have been that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not god that started it. Are you going to take me at my word or would you like to see evidence for my claim (before you answer, you should know that the church of the flying spaghetti monster also has a holy text that validates our claims)?

Wait.... so you're saying that the reason for this, is that early humans decided to dig down a hundred feet into the ground, into the next layer recording "millions" of years of history, to bury their dead? :rolleyes: Right....Dig down a hundred feet in relation to what? How do you know they would have to dig 100 feet? 100 feet down now (maybe, depending on where you dig), but 100,000 years ago? Didn't you claim earlier that the geologic column was almost entirely corrupt? You aren't trying to have it both ways, are you?

Thanks for your post! Take care.

MJ-W4
12-23-2007, 02:53 PM
(4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.
(Dr. Thomas Barnes, at the University of Texas, has published most of this)This is what science does say about the Earth's core and magnetism:

A) A look at the Earth's interior (http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html)

B) How the Earth's magnetic field works (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html)

C) More on the dynamo effect (http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html)

D) Why the Earth's magnetic field is inconsitent (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm)

Ray Jones
12-23-2007, 05:36 PM
The Moab Skeletons. Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock (supposedly dated at 100 million years) in Moab, Utah, about 15 feet below the surface.

Both skeletons were definitely human and ancient. They had been undisturbed till they were found. When tested for age, they were only a few thousand years old.—pp. 29-30. Fascinating. So we have some thousand years old human skeletons found in millions of years old rocks.

And?

RobQel-Droma
12-25-2007, 02:08 AM
Fascinating. So we have some thousand years old human skeletons found in millions of years old rocks.

And?

:confused:
Well there are either arguments for creation or there are not. None of your points tell us anything about what happened at creation, how long it took, when did it happen, who did it, how, or why.

Maybe I should just go back and edit my post. Would that make you feel better? ;)

Which, by the way, if it is evidence *against* evolution, and not for *Creation* - well, if its not evolution, what do you think happened? Its either an accident, or design. There isn't any middle ground with those two.

To be generous, since science only concerns itself with what happened, how long, when, and how, I think that any argument for creation should only have to provide testable hypothesis for the same (even though it also presumes to know the who and why).

And you are perfectly correct. I just wonder why you would think it necessary to quibble over my wording of a sentence.

I've posted this before in another thread, but here it is again for those that missed it:

Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG, Part II(a YT clip about radiometric dating).

First of all, I noticed nothing in that video that addressed the flaws I mentioned in my previous post.

Secondly (to deal with a specific part itself), I didn't understand what the video was talking about in one section. Early on, it states, when showing an example of Argon in magma, that "Since no Argon is in the rock when it soldifies, the clock is set to zero." However, they go on to say that that "Argon can't escape from the solid rock," and they show Argon inside the solid rock. Sorry, this just confused me - it seems contradictory.

How does radiometric dating relate to any of these other methods? Considering the difficulty in estabilishing controls, I can't imagine that anyone finds these methods of dating preferable.

All of them point to very different dates, other than the ones radiometric dating points to. Since all of the dating methods have flaws, and all produce different results, I'm not sure how you could rely that much on one.

Oh. Intermediate forms. Well we have a lot of those too (not necessarily for our species though).

Would you mind showing me? I don't think we have as many as you seem to intimate.

Also, why, if these evolvings of species took place over millions of years, cannot a single fossil be found of these so-called "intermediate forms"? Especially when we have no trouble finding the "regular" fossils, the non-transitional ones?

Without evidence, the argument doesn't "tend" to support anything other than "goddidit". The fact that it happened does tend to support that it did happen. How and/or why are different matters entirely. "Creation" is one possible explanation, but just like "sudden increases in information transfer capability as RNA evolved to DNA", it requires supporting evidence.

As I said, if its not one, its the other. Call me naive, but thats what it looks like.

Well, I'm sure there is as you seem to have bundled cosmology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, and physics under the Theory of evolution, which is belongs to biology. In fact, very little of your post made any mention of biology, so I wasn't aware that this was a straight "evolution vs creation" tangent until just now. Based on your earlier post I thought we'd be branching out into big bang theory, inflationary theory, abiogenesis, quantum theory, etc, etc.

I'm sorry, I'll clarify. Creationism versus "All the theories that maintain that God did not create the world."

See, while creationism is a one-trick pony (i.e. everything is explaned via one explanation), science uses lots of different theories for lots of different problems (big bang for how the universe came into being, abiogensis for how life started, evolution for how it changed into the lifeforms we see today, etc). I hope this helps to clear up any potential misunderstandings going forward.

Creationism doesn't look at everything in the world and say "God!" to everything, at least not the way you put it. It is a theory of how the world started. Not how things *happen* (well, short of miracles), but how they started. You seem to be bundling cosmology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, and physics under the Theory of Creation. :D

Evolution would't presume to work with this; it's an astronomy problem. And a pretty simple one too: Earth = magnetic star. Mercury = made out of iron. Earth + Mercury = big mess on Earth and no more Mercury. Seems that the existence of Mercury...and us!...would falsify that hypothesis pretty quickly.

So because of the fact that: if evolution was true, and the Earth really was millions of years old; then the planet would be in pieces, this theory can't possible be true? How circular is that? How about... if this theory is true, and Earth could not have possibly survived turning into a magnetic star, then the Earth must be far younger than you say?

Sure it could have. And it could have been that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not god that started it. Are you going to take me at my word or would you like to see evidence for my claim (before you answer, you should know that the church of the flying spaghetti monster also has a holy text that validates our claims)?

I think I lost track of you around "spaghetti monster."

Dig down a hundred feet in relation to what? How do you know they would have to dig 100 feet? 100 feet down now (maybe, depending on where you dig), but 100,000 years ago?

So you're saying that 100,000 years ago, (for example), the Triassic Period and the like were mere feet from, say, the Cambrian period?

Didn't you claim earlier that the geologic column was almost entirely corrupt? You aren't trying to have it both ways, are you?

Er... no. The main purpose for my claim was that to show that the Geologic Column as constructed by evolutionists is faulty. I believe you were the one that was using the Geologic Column and trying to tell me that humans could have buried their dead in layers supposedly dated to millions of years earlier that were miraculously right under the surface.....

Thanks for your post! Take care.

You too. Sorry for the delay in posting.

Is another source needed? Talkorigins had tons of references on that article - I do not see the need for any more.

To be more specific, I was talking about the self-experiments these "amateur scientists" are performing. Not to mention that I would imagine seeing much more of a reaction from the general scientific community if evolution is so definitely proven as you think.


Direct lineage is not required to verify the pattern of evolution.

As I said: you can prove it without definitive evidence?

What transitional fossils show you are the traits intermediate between 2 other fossils. Transitional fossils show likely relationships clearly (For example, the transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals show how the inner ear bones developed). Such patterns are shown whether the fossils are connected by direct ancestry or by another close relationship. However, and like I said before, direct lineage is not a requirement.

And how exactly do you know that these transitional fossils were somehow the descendant of one species and the ancestor of another species that evolution claims to have evolved into each other? Simply because they are similar to both?

Actually, the article quite clearly states that there are more than enough transitional fossils to document the changes. As it says in one passage "in order to document transitions between species, you need specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (every 20,000-80,000 years)", while it was previously stated that Dr. Fork had a collection of fossils from the Eocen period, whose ages are separated by 27,000 years. That is, a whole period with documented transitional fossils - I don't know how anyone can claim that there aren't "many cases".

You also appear to have skipped the final part of the article in which the transition for each taxonomic unit is detailed, showing the "gaps". In most cases, you'll see only single ancestors being missing, whereas the vast mayority is covered.


I'm amazed that after this kind of a discovery, I and many others have never ever heard about it. Would you mind providing an alternate link? (lol) Or is there a link provided on the article?

Your claim was the Earth's magnetic field decrease was evidence of a young Earth. However, given the measure of the magnetic field decay variable, the calculation shows that it's in fact evidence of an old Earth.

I went back and reread your post, but I don't see how telling me what the hours in the day were back millions of years ago proves something.... Sorry if I'm making you repeat, I'm just not getting it.

You asserted that the Earth's magnetic field had to be constant. I showed you an example as to how this isn't true.

A question: the van Allen radiation belt, when this anomaly occurs - does this regularly happen.

Guadeloupe woman: There appears to be no argument here. The author simply says that since these fossils do not appear in any textbook, then it was covered by evolutionists. Given how it does not make any attempt to justify his position, then I do not see the need to address this point.

Er... why not? Are you just disregarding it, or claiming that the fossil is a fake?

And I'm guessing that all of the other claims made on that page can be refuted by you... or by "TalkOrigins".

Thanks for your reply.

Igos
12-25-2007, 03:38 AM
To be more specific, I was talking about the self-experiments these "amateur scientists" are performing.

These experiments are based on the work of more recognized scientists. For instance, John Brawley's article heavily borrows from Carl Merschat's research on Biotites. I can safely say that the "credentials" of the scientists presented in all the articles I posted can be very well certified.

Not to mention that I would imagine seeing much more of a reaction from the general scientific community if evolution is so definitely proven as you think.

The general consensus of the scientific community is that the theory of evolution is likely to become a fact (As seen here (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/evolution.htm)). The scientific arguments against evolution are generally outdated and have been disproven (At least to my knowledge), and the only opposition evolutionists find is in religious environments.

As I said: you can prove it without definitive evidence?

Like I said: Full documentation is impossible to achieve. However, perfect knowledge is not necessary to verify a pattern. You don't need to watch the Earth 24 hours without blinking to know it orbits around the Sun.

The same way, we know that common descent implies a pattern of gradual change and diversification through time. The hundreds of thousands of fossils which have been discovered are consistent with this pattern, and they are not consistent with any other pattern that has been proposed. When someone claims that fossils which have not been found might differ wildly from this pattern, it'd be the same as if other person claimed that the Earth might zigzag across the Solar System while we blinked, but there is absolutely no reason to think it would.

And how exactly do you know that these transitional fossils were somehow the descendant of one species and the ancestor of another species that evolution claims to have evolved into each other? Simply because they are similar to both?

No. They are described that way because they present what is known as "Species-to-species transition". That is, a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. Through the use of successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species, so they're not simply "similar to both", no, they present specific anatomical similarities that are consistent with empirical observations.

I'm amazed that after this kind of a discovery, I and many others have never ever heard about it. Would you mind providing an alternate link? (lol) Or is there a link provided on the article?

"The Paleocene and Eocene fossil record of the Bighorn and Clarks Fork Basins of northwestern Wyoming provides an excellent opportunity to test these (evolutionary)hypotheses because these two contiguous basins contain a stratigraphic fossil sequence (...)
These attributes have long been recognized by paleontologists, and several of the more abundant taxa from the Clarks Fork and Bighorn Basins have been used to discuss macroevolutionary trends(...)
Furthermore, the geologic record of the Clarks Fork and Bighorn Basins is particularly valuable for testing theories of stasis because the Paleocene-Eocene strata of these two basins document climatic changes as indicated by detailed stable isotope records and paleobotanical estimates"

Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200704/ai_n19432527/pg_1)

Be sure to check the references (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs) for the article in question as well.

I went back and reread your post, but I don't see how telling me what the hours in the day were back millions of years ago proves something.... Sorry if I'm making you repeat, I'm just not getting it.

It is very simple. The amount of hours per day was calculated in 2 different ways: First and foremost, using what is known as a "geological clock", which yields a 14 hour day. Then, it was calculated using the Earth rotation variable decay, which gives roughly the same result. Therefore, the argument is moot.

And I still don't understand why you keep bringing this issue. I already showed you that the model of the Earth's core used for this claim is obsolete.


A question: the van Allen radiation belt, when this anomaly occurs - does this regularly happen.

It is not known how often it happens, but it was observed in 1958 and again in 1962. Its occurrence is likely to be erratic (i.e, it does not follow a pattern), but it's not unusual.

Er... why not? Are you just disregarding it, or claiming that the fossil is a fake?

The author's claim can be rephrased as: "Said fossils do not appear in any textbook, therefore they were covered by evolutionists because it disproves the theory".

Now, do I really need to formulate a response for that? If so, then I'd direct you to the link I posted at the end of my post. It contains an explanation for these fossils as well.

And I'm guessing that all of the other claims made on that page can be refuted by you... or by "TalkOrigins".

Feel free to argue against the site if you doubt its accuracy. However, I'd advise you not to, as TalkOrigins basically represents the mainstream scientific consensus on evolution.

Thanks for your reply.

Thanks to you too.

Jae Onasi
12-25-2007, 04:58 AM
Thread split from the Christian biologist fired for beliefs (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=184290). It may get merged with another evolution/creation thread if the topics are sufficiently similar.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 05:08 AM
Maybe I should just go back and edit my post. Would that make you feel better? ;) LOL!:D

Which, by the way, if it is evidence *against* evolution, and not for *Creation* - well, if its not evolution, what do you think happened? First, their status as arguments against evolution is suspect :)

Second, even if they were arguments against evolution, that does not automatically refute evolution.

Third, even if they did automatically refute evolution, that does not mean that creationism wins by default. Proving that the crayon is not blue does not mean that it's automatically red. It could be yellow, or pink, or purple or any other color. The creationism vs. evolution debate is not a boxing match: it's not like the last one standing is a the winner.

Its either an accident, or design. There isn't any middle ground with those two.It's possible that this is true. 1,000 years ago, the idea that there would be anything other than creation was preposterous. Perhaps 1,000 years from now there will be 3 or even 4 options. I'd like to agree with you that it's either/or, but since I can't say for sure, I don't want to be guilty of subscribing to a false dichotomy.

PS: I'm intentionally ignoring your use of "accident" :)

And you are perfectly correct. I just wonder why you would think it necessary to quibble over my wording of a sentence. Wording is important. ;)

First of all, I noticed nothing in that video that addressed the flaws I mentioned in my previous post. I shared it in hopes of increasing your understanding of radiometric dating. Keep in mind he's only demonstrating how one (of many) types of radiometric dating is performed.

Secondly (to deal with a specific part itself), I didn't understand what the video was talking about in one section. Early on, it states, when showing an example of Argon in magma, that "Since no Argon is in the rock when it soldifies, the clock is set to zero." However, they go on to say that that "Argon can't escape from the solid rock," and they show Argon inside the solid rock. Sorry, this just confused me - it seems contradictory.He skipped an explanatory step. Once the magma cools (becomes rock) argon will begin to accumulate. By determining how much argon is in the rock in relation to the potassium, you can figure out how long ago the rock cooled (the part showed after the "can't escape" bit). I hope that helps.

All of them point to very different dates, other than the ones radiometric dating points to. Since all of the dating methods have flaws, and all produce different results, I'm not sure how you could rely that much on one. Right, but they aren't other forms of radiometric dating. Surely you can acknowledge that some forms of measurement are going to be more precise and therefore more reliable than others?

The methods you listed seem damn near impossible to provide controls for, therefore I can't imagine that anyone would want to use them or consider them reliable. For example, salt build up in the ocean: in order to be reliable you have to first identify all the possible means that salt could be introduced, identify the means that is the most reliable/consistent, find a way to factor out all the other methods, account for distribution of salt content via tides, currents, etc, factor for changes in those tides/currents over time, the list goes on and on.

If a great big salt meteor struck the earth 100 millions years ago and artificically increased the salt content of the earth's oceans but 10%, you'd better be able to account for it if you want your method of measurement to mean anything.

That's just one of the methods you listed. All of them have similar problems.

Would you mind showing me? I don't think we have as many as you seem to intimate. Sure thing. Here's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=34eKAm48LfM) another YT clip from Ken Miller discussing intermediate forms. Also, here's (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms_Between_Classes) a more detailed web resource for you.

Here's a quote you may or may not find persuasive:
"So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed." (National Academy of Sciences: Science and Creationism, page 21. National Academy Press, 1999)

Also, why, if these evolvings of species took place over millions of years, cannot a single fossil be found of these so-called "intermediate forms"? Since intermediate forms are determined by their fossils, I'm not sure I understand the question.

Especially when we have no trouble finding the "regular" fossils, the non-transitional ones? As I have already pointed out once, all fossils are transitional :)

As I said, if its not one, its the other. Call me naive, but thats what it looks like. I understand that's your take, but that's not how it works. See the earlier crayon analogy for further clarification.

I'm sorry, I'll clarify. Creationism versus "All the theories that maintain that God did not create the world." Well that sounds like a cosmological debate between creationism and big bang theory and geology. Evolution (biology) would have no role in it whatsoever.

Creationism versus "All the theories that maintain that God did not create life." would be creation vs. abiogenesis (chemistry and/or biochemistry)

Creationism versus "All the theories that maintain that God did not create all living things in current form." would be creation vs. evolution (biology), although there would probably be repercussions for anthropology and paleontology as well.

Creationism doesn't look at everything in the world and say "God!" to everything, at least not the way you put it. Well if there was creation, then it seems that there would have to be a creator. And if I were to ask who that creator was and you were to say "god", then it would seem that my characterization of your argument would be spot on. :)

It is a theory of how the world started. Not how things *happen* (well, short of miracles), but how they started. I guess I'm not understanding the distinctions. It seems like "the start" would be something that "happened", don't you think?

You seem to be bundling cosmology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, anthropology, and physics under the Theory of Creation. :D Not I, sir. Creation does that all by itself.

How did the universe come into being (cosmology)? Creation.
How did the earth form (geology)? Creation.
How did life start (chemistry)? Creation.
How did life come to take the forms we see today (biology)? Creation.

In the purview of creationism, the answer to every question is "creation" aka "goddidit". "All roads point to god" as it were. That was not my decision :)

So because of the fact that: if evolution was true, and the Earth really was millions of years old; then the planet would be in pieces, this theory can't possible be true?No, as I already pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with this. The argument is: if the argument you presented were true, then a metalic planet would have sucked into a planet with a magnetic field equivalent to a magnetic star. Since Mercury is still where it is and the earth was not obliterated by an impact with Mercury, then the hypothesis (if it can even be called that seeing as it's obviously not based on any facts or observations) can't possibly be true.

How circular is that? How about... if this theory is true, and Earth could not have possibly survived turning into a magnetic star, then the Earth must be far younger than you say?Sure. Based on what? Your say so?
Again, you might find parts of this discussion significantly easier to comprehend if you consider that your sources are wrong/lying/have an agenda.

I think I lost track of you around "spaghetti monster." I'll try again with fewer words. Apologies in advance if it comes across as bluntness:

Invisible pink unicorns created the universe. Prove me wrong.

Now, you may not realize it, but you can't prove me wrong. Are you going to accept this statement simply because I say so? Are you going to accept it because you can't falsify it (can't prove it wrong, therefore it must be true)? Or are you going to withhold making a decision either way until I can furnish some form of proof to support the existence of invisible pink unicorns?

Maybe you would consider a text that states that invisible pink unicorns are real as sufficient evidence. If I could provide one, would you then be persuaded or would consider that such a text doesn't really prove much of anything other than someone was capable of producing a text that states that invisible pink unicorns are real? Maybe you would want some sort of objective evidence that can't be fabricated. And maybe I wouldn't blame you ;)

So you're saying that 100,000 years ago, (for example), the Triassic Period and the like were mere feet from, say, the Cambrian period? I'm saying that you yourself pointed out that geologic column has been displaced over time (due to erosion, seismic activity, changes in climate, change in ecology, etc, etc). I'm saying that you can't say that geologic column is largely unstable on one hand to support your point of view and then turn around and say that it is largely stable on the other hand to also support your point of view. It's contradictory.

We know that humans bury their dead and have for tens of thousands of years. If they do so in an area where older layers have been moved closer to the surface via geologic change and then more geologic change comes along later and moves those layers around even more, then it would seem that there is at least one possible logical explanation for the "evidence" that you provided.

Er... no. The main purpose for my claim was that to show that the Geologic Column as constructed by evolutionists is faulty. Again, based on your say so or...?

I believe you were the one that was using the Geologic Column and trying to tell me that humans could have buried their dead in layers supposedly dated to millions of years earlier that were miraculously right under the surface..... Which I have addressed above.

Thanks for your response!

EDIT: Sorry Jae, I was drafting while you were moderating and missed the memo. Please move this where you need to. Thanks!
No worries. :) --Jae

Achilles
12-25-2007, 05:32 AM
..."every time you defend creationism with a poor argument, god kills a kitten."

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

For those of you not familiar with AiG they are a prominent creationist website. If they are recommending that you not use one of these arguments, then that should probably say something. This is not to say that they used sound reasoning to come to the conclusion that they did in each of these cases, however if the argument doesn't jive with their "logic" then it most certainly won't hold up against real logic either.

So what is your favorite "Do not use" argument from the list?

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 06:23 AM
Well it is obvious somebody used to frequent DAF(possibly still does:D).

Achilles
12-25-2007, 06:31 AM
What is a "DAF"?

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 06:49 AM
Darwin Awards Forums.
That is where the IPU(invisible Pink Unicorn) comes from.

Achilles
12-25-2007, 06:57 AM
Actually I've never been to the Darwin Award Forums.

IIRC, I think I first saw it used in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, although I'm sure that he got it from somewhere (maybe DAF).

EDIT: Or maybe not? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn#History).

Tommycat
12-25-2007, 07:26 AM
Wow Thanks. Was not aware of its Origins™:D

Jae Onasi
12-25-2007, 10:23 AM
Merged 'Answers in Genesis' thread with this one since the AIG site discusses arguments that are being used in this thread.