Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my basis sound?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 16 of 21 (653400)
02-20-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Meaker
02-20-2012 4:00 PM


"In order to accept the theory about fossils 'more complicated life appearing before its precursor' you have to believe that there are noticeable 'layers' in the crust, but there are not.
Yes there are. Sheesh.
There is no specific layer in which we can see the process of evolution.
If you think about it, which clearly you haven't, evolution would show up in the difference between layers, not in a specific layer.
Really, what are you thinking? This is like looking at a video and saying: "There is no specific frame in which we can see motion". Well, of course not.
As with dating, we do not see a smooth progression back in time. Quite a lot of the dates we get are erratically different from others.
"Quite a lot"? That's rather vague. Could you put that in percentage terms?
Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks.
Scientists, many of whom are not complete idiots, date crystals in which it is chemically and/or physically impossible for the daughter isotope to have been included at the time of the crystals' formation.
Also, you're example don't make much sense, as you presume that there would be an unchangeable constant process, with no variable affecting this, but this is not true and is something we just will not ever be able to prove.
The constancy of decay rates can be proved the same way every other scientific law can be proved, e.g. "energy is conserved"; "opposite charges attract"; "the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant". It is proved by the absence of exceptions. If you wish to overturn such a law, it's up to you to find an exception, for example finding circumstances under which opposite charges repel. Merely fantasizing that there might be circumstances under which this occurs doesn't cut it.
No, you don't have to accept micro and macro evolution together. You should read a book called 'The Beak of the Finch' by Jonathon Weiner, in which it explores micro evolution causing differences in the beaks of Darwin's finches and at no point does it mention how it proves Macro evolution.
No-one claims that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. That would be proved by morphology, genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, etc.
There is nothing wrong with my approach to the dodo questions and I feel you're side stepping the point I tried to make. I'd like it if when you mention 'evidence' you could show me it, as opposed to briefly mentioning it. What evidence is there that the dodo did fly? Your belief allows you to presume that it always lived there and developed in that one island? No, that is obscure. We have animals settling in places all the time, where the surrounding environments suit their needs. This could simply be the case with the dodo. It is an extremely poor example to use. You still never explained how it could have gotten to the island. Who's to say that that island was was always an island as well? Before the flood the world would not have been covered in as much water. Or you can come from the view point that much of the water at that point in time was frozen and at that point the island may not have been an island. Another possibility is that it did fly before hand, but because of micro evolution, it simply lost the need to fly.
In the time it would take for the dodo to lose the ability to fly, it would take quite a few years and the landscape could change a lot in that time. So what's to say it didn't just walk? There's no evidence to suggest it didn't.
Is there any evidence to suggest that Mauritius, which is a volcanic island rising out of the abyssal plain, could once be reached from the mainland by foot?
Also, you've still not explained how the Bible's hundreds and hundreds of prophesies have come true including ones about cities, nations, individuals etc.
They haven't.
In the eleventh month of the twelfth year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’ therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock [...] I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. [...] I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Tyre has a population of approximately 117,000, making it the fourth largest city in Lebanon. The Bible said that it would "never be rebuilt" after it was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. The prophecy failed.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 4:00 PM Meaker has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 17 of 21 (653402)
02-20-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Meaker
02-20-2012 4:00 PM


Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks.
Also, you're example don't make much sense, as you presume that there would be an unchangeable constant process, with no variable affecting this, but this is not true and is something we just will not ever be able to prove. I'll have a read through your dating methods list, but I've had a brief look and can already see many problems with some of them which affect how old the earth could be.
See Message 4. In the vast majority of applications we are not making any such assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 4:00 PM Meaker has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 21 (653403)
02-20-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Meaker
02-20-2012 4:00 PM


another resource
Hi Meaker, and welcome to the fray.
As with dating, we do not see a smooth progression back in time. Quite a lot of the dates we get are erratically different from others. Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks.
May I recommend reading the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread for some evidence of the calibration of dating mechanisms, as well as correlations between a variety of methods.
Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 4:00 PM Meaker has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 19 of 21 (653406)
02-20-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Meaker
02-20-2012 4:00 PM


Also, you've still not explained how the Bible's hundreds and hundreds of prophesies have come true including ones about cities, nations, individuals etc. Remember, these prophesies were made hundreds of years before they happened are are extremely precise. Some were written 700 years before the event actually happened.
And there is the answer.
Your friend is simply unwilling to actually look at the evidence including the Bible itself. There are not hundreds and hundreds of prophesies that have come true, and in fact he does not even know what "Biblical prophecy" is.
Smile at your friend, pat him on the head and then let him go back to the sand box with the other kiddies. Keep an eye on him and try to warn him when he is trying to poke his eye out with the big crayon.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 4:00 PM Meaker has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 20 of 21 (653449)
02-21-2012 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Meaker
02-20-2012 4:00 PM


The tools of battle
Sounds like you're debating in writing. In this case you have time to check his (and your) facts. Judicious googling can get you started but you have to look carefully at your sources. Arguing a topic this way can be a fast track to learning and will even show you when you're wrong about details.
It's a good bet that eventually, it will come down to his belief against the evidence. It's up to him from there - either he will see or he won't. Either way, you'll learn a lot about it yourself.
Three useful links for you amongst many potential others...
An Index to Creationist Claims
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
and
The Fine Art of Baloney Detection - RationalWiki

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 4:00 PM Meaker has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 21 of 21 (653465)
02-21-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meaker
02-20-2012 8:09 AM


Welcome
I'd like to welcome you to this website, and I hope that you stick around even after your current debate is concluded.
As for your friend, is he interested, at all, in joining as well? He might learn a few things, and we can always use more pople with a creationist viewpoint around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meaker, posted 02-20-2012 8:09 AM Meaker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024