Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 7:24 AM
122 online now:
bluegenes, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,190 Year: 13,796/21,208 Month: 3,278/3,605 Week: 64/556 Day: 15/49 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
pelican
Member (Idle past 2400 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 76 of 121 (404999)
06-10-2007 10:34 PM


Creation v Evolution
Evolution and creation clash at different points in their stories but can also be viewed as running parallel. Is this possible? Could one be describing one thing and the other describing another but could possibly be just two sides of the same coin?
One is the physical growth of the physical human being and the other the spiritual growth of a human being? Both occurring simultaneously?
Could one be creating from physical knowledge and the other creating from inner knowings?
In the realm of possibilities, if it is possible then it is so, just depends on how many believe it. Enjoy the ride.
Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2007 1:02 AM pelican has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18480
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 121 (405056)
06-11-2007 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by pelican
06-10-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Creation v Evolution

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters & other creos

Thanks for joining, dameeva, and welcome to the fray.

Usually great debate topics are limited to the participants listed, however I did just open the door on this one.

Evolution and creation clash at different points in their stories but can also be viewed as running parallel. Is this possible?

It depends which version of creation we talk about. It is certainly possible with the creation of my belief (Deist) among others (including some christian beliefs), but it seems to clash with fundamental young earth creationism. This would tend to indicate that the error is in the fundamentalist thinking on age and evolution is what is wrong.

One is the physical growth of the physical human being and the other the spiritual growth of a human being? Both occurring simultaneously?
Could one be creating from physical knowledge and the other creating from inner knowings?

I would prefer to keep this topic on strictly science issues, and I have a Perceptions of Reality where this could be discussed in more detail. Read message 1 there and see what you think.

Enjoy



ps - in case you don't know, type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters & other creos


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by pelican, posted 06-10-2007 10:34 PM pelican has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18480
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 78 of 121 (405179)
06-11-2007 7:56 PM


Reply to S1WC's swipe on the Moderation Thread
On Message 246 S1WC makes this argument in a place that is NOT for debate of issues, so I have re-directed it here to reply:

I would like to say that I am not interested in debating the argument of "What a real debate is or is not," so I do not wish to debate this matter (or others like defining certain terms) with you.

However, since you have brought up the Lucy matter, (and I apologize if this isn't the most appropriate place for this)I would like to say that I have revised my essay concerning this matter just recently. I have deleted the old statement, which I have learned is not proper, but in its place I have put in the truth about the knee joint and so my argument that Lucy is not a transitional from apes to man is just as strong, if not stronger! You can read what I have revised in my essay here: http://www.freewebs.com/noevolutionguy/evolutionessay.htm

Note: Your sudden attacks at my argument and use of negative comments and bandwagoning that so many other Creationists have declined from using the argument were not what prompted me to realize my mistake. I learned of my mistake when reading 'Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy?' by Malcolm Bowden, where he explained the whole situation in the proper argument, which is what I have in my essay now. So I would like you to know that if you want to approach me and point out my mistakes, I would accept it much better if it were softer and more understanding (this is one of the main reasons I like debating with Anglagard- we actually get somewhere and I have realized the errors in my essay as we debated and fixed them).

I do recall that you have said you would not debate with me until I remove my false Lucy argument, and now I have removed it. But I would still appreciate debating with someone who presents more arguments for "proof" than for only defining terms and saying we cannot debate until we define all the terms. I realize this is your specialty, but I like debating proof, not definitions.

I will probably not reply to any replies made to this post, and it is true that I find little time and determination to debate here, but hopefully :) Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.

Peace my friends. Once again, I apologize for posting this here, but as RAZD has noticed, I do not normally post anywhere except in the Great Debate topics.

I will answer here as this IS a debate forum (and it IS open to you now).

I would like to say that I am not interested in debating the argument of "What a real debate is or is not," so I do not wish to debate this matter (or others like defining certain terms) with you.

quote:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. In Lucy's find the distal (lower) end of the femur is severly fragmented, and this is the part that is to determine whether or not Lucy walked upright. So, to get around this problem evolutionists find a knee joint around 80m (262ft) lower than Lucy and several miles away and claim that this knee joint proves Lucy's ability to walk upright.

...I learned of my mistake when reading 'Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy?' by Malcolm Bowden, where he explained the whole situation in the proper argument,...


There is no inner ear in the Lucy fossil (for gosh sakes LOOK at the fossil), this information about the femur still does not address the issue of walking correctly, you are STILL conflating australopithicus with Lucy, and you still claim that the knee was found after Lucy not before: it was this find that sent the paleontologists back to find more. My comments re LUCY still stand on Lucy - fact or fraud?. You are of course free to post there as well.

IE: Still full of falsehoods. Why am I not surprised when your source for "corrections" is still a creatortionista source and not one that presents the scientific facts:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-books.htm

quote:
Creation and Intelligent design books

Malcolm Bowden - his books are good and well worth getting hold of (The rise of the Evolution Fraud 1982, Ape-Men - Fact or Fallacy? Science vs Creation, True Science agrees with the Bible (1998)). (Young Earth)


Try reading LUCY by Donald Johanson, if you haven't already (you should be able to get it from your library) as it tells about making the discovery.

But I would still appreciate debating with someone who presents more arguments for "proof" than for only defining terms and saying we cannot debate until we define all the terms. I realize this is your specialty, but I like debating proof, not definitions.

The one that dragged that out was MurkeyWaters. The matter is really stunningly simple: you use the definition used in studying the science or you are not talking about the same thing and your argument is based on a false premise.

Analogy: I used the best soap on the market for washing my dishes in the dishwasher, but they came out with a bad taste and streaks on everything and I got the runs. Why? Because I used laundry detergent instead of dishwasher soap. You have to use the proper tools to come to the truth.

I will probably not reply to any replies made to this post, and it is true that I find little time and determination to debate here, but hopefully Anglagard and I can tackle another debate- the one about "proofs" against the Flood.

Peace my friends. Once again, I apologize for posting this here, but as RAZD has noticed, I do not normally post anywhere except in the Great Debate topics.

I'm not surprised. People afraid of the truth will do anything to avoid confronting it. And, as the evidence of your posts and your essay show, you are not interested in the truth no matter how much you claim you are.

Enjoy.

ps - I don't expect you to reply. IF you do we can agree to discuss the age of the earth, as based on the evidence, and avoid the evolution definition and Lucy's knee for now.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Someone who cares, posted 06-12-2007 1:03 AM RAZD has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 79 of 121 (405258)
06-12-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
06-11-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Reply to S1WC's swipe on the Moderation Thread
First off, thanks for finding a spot in your debate for my post, and guess what- I'm in the mood right now to actually debate with you for a bit, so I read your reply and made some further corrections! (Clap, clap)

quote:
There is no inner ear in the Lucy fossil (for gosh sakes LOOK at the fossil), this information about the femur still does not address the issue of walking correctly, you are STILL conflating australopithicus with Lucy, and you still claim that the knee was found after Lucy not before: it was this find that sent the paleontologists back to find more. My comments re LUCY still stand on Thread Lucy - fact or fraud?. You are of course free to post there as well.

Thanks, I have revised my essay a bit more just now. I fixed the problem of mixing Ausralopithecines with Lucy concerning inner ear structure and the time the knee joint was found (Now that I think of it, I can remember reading about that in Bowden's book, but I just didn't pay as much attention to it as the main bulk about the femur).

What do you mean the information about the femur doesn't address the problem?!? Read it over, it clearly addresses the problem that the knee joint cannot be claimed to be related to Lucy, concerning the distance and the bones themselves and how they became relate to Lucy, i.e. through the wrong bone.

quote:
Why am I not surprised when your source for "corrections" is still a creatortionista source and not one that presents the scientific facts:

I didn't use that website, I actually got a hard copy of the book, but hey, thanks for another great resource! :) Of course you shouldn't be surprised, why would I waste my time reading evolutionist books to get some information if I can read Creationist books and get the information PLUS rebuttal to evolutionist "proofs"?

quote:
The one that dragged that out was MurkeyWaters. The matter is really stunningly simple: you use the definition used in studying the science or you are not talking about the same thing and your argument is based on a false premise.

Analogy: I used the best soap on the market for washing my dishes in the dishwasher, but they came out with a bad taste and streaks on everything and I got the runs. Why? Because I used laundry detergent instead of dishwasher soap. You have to use the proper tools to come to the truth.


Maybe Murkywater brought it here this time, but I remember when I first stepped out into the open threads and started debating you, you changed the argument to one about the definition of the terms and not the hard proof... I consider this a logical fallacy of avoiding the issue, maybe you do not, but point is, I do not wish to waste my precious time debating what certain words mean. Let's face it, we all have a rough idea of what the words mean, so we should be well and able to debate the proof, this is what I want in a debate.

quote:
IF you do we can agree to discuss the age of the earth, as based on the evidence, and avoid the evolution definition and Lucy's knee for now.

I don't know... Are you sure you have any "proof" and not just useless babble about definitions and things??? Even if you do, I just don't know how often I would be able to pull myself out here... I know it's summer and all, but there are a ton of home improvement projects waiting for me, and I like to do other things in my leisure time which I find more exciting than debating right now... Besides, we have another topic already started with Anglagard concerning the "proofs" against the Flood, and I don't know if I'd be able to handle two at a time. I honestly don't know.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2007 7:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2007 6:33 AM Someone who cares has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18480
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 80 of 121 (405298)
06-12-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Someone who cares
06-12-2007 1:03 AM


Age of the Earth in stages

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters, S1WC & other creos

Of course you shouldn't be surprised, why would I waste my time reading evolutionist books to get some information if I can read Creationist books and get the information PLUS rebuttal to evolutionist "proofs"?

For the simple reason that you can't tell that the creationist book is representing the story correctly without reading the original source. The LUCY book is an easy read, not as dry as articles in journals (the ultimate source for facts on scientific studies).

I don't know... Are you sure you have any "proof" and not just useless babble about definitions and things??

We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29

quote:
Methuselah (estimated germination 2832 BC) is a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California, which was 4,789 years old when sampled in 1957 (when the trees were originally being surveyed by Schulman and Harlan). It is the oldest living organism currently known and documented. It is named after Methuselah, a Biblical figure reputed to have lived 969 years. Located at approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, its exact location is currently undisclosed to the public as a protection against vandalism; the coordinates cited refer to the Methuselah Grove Visitor Center.

Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.

Any Comment so far?

{ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE}

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE
RAZD v MurkyWaters, S1WC & other creos

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle change added banners

Edited by RAZD, : abe


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Someone who cares, posted 06-12-2007 1:03 AM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 3:26 PM RAZD has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 81 of 121 (405546)
06-13-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
06-12-2007 6:33 AM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
Hmmm... Well if we take it step by step, this debate may be possible. I will see, but right now I have some time so I will start debating, and don't be surprised if it may take me weeks before I reply sometimes because I may be very busy. Here goes...

quote:
Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.


I don't see how come this is supposed to disprove a young earth... I mean, accepted dates for a young earth by most Creationists can be anything from 6 to 10 thousand years, 6 being the best estimate. But if your point is that this age doesn't exactly fit with an estimate for when the Flood was, I still have a rebuttal: Tree ring dating can be misleading under certain conditions, such as when there are two or more wet seasons in a year, the tree will develop extra growth rings and thus appear older than it actually is.

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2007 6:33 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 3:42 PM Someone who cares has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18480
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 82 of 121 (405549)
06-13-2007 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Someone who cares
06-13-2007 3:26 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
... and don't be surprised if it may take me weeks before I reply sometimes ...

That is not a problem. I too may be unable to reply at times.

Tree ring dating can be misleading under certain conditions, such as when there are two or more wet seasons in a year, the tree will develop extra growth rings and thus appear older than it actually is.

Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice.

I don't see how come this is supposed to disprove a young earth...

It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 3:26 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 4:32 PM RAZD has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 83 of 121 (405555)
06-13-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
06-13-2007 3:42 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
quote:
Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice.

Yes, here is a good example: "Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

quote:
It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.

You didn't get it, but I assume that you use this "proof" because it supposedly outdates the Flood.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 3:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 6:15 PM Someone who cares has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18480
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 84 of 121 (405573)
06-13-2007 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Someone who cares
06-13-2007 4:32 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
You didn't get it, but I assume that you use this "proof" because it supposedly outdates the Flood.

No, I realize that this date is not that controversial for YEC position. All it is is a foundation for later evidence.

Yes, here is a good example: "Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced" http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

Yes, a good example typical of creatortionista misrepresentations, misleading statements and false conclusions. I'll explain in a bit, but first I want to add the second piece, as it basically duplicates the first and is part of the refutation of Dr. Batten's article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29

quote:
Prometheus (aka WPN-114) is the nickname given to the oldest non-clonal organism ever known, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree about 4900 years old growing at treeline on a mountain in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was cut down on August 6, 1964 by a graduate student and U.S. Forest Service personnel for research purposes, though at the time they did not know of its world-record age. The cutting of the tree remains controversial.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/earle/pi/pin/longaeva.htm

quote:
The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4,789 years are verified by crossdating. An age of 4,844 years was determined post-mortem (after being cut down) for specimen WPM-114 from Wheeler Peak, NV. The age is largely crossdated (6). Naturally, these ages underestimate the true ages of the respective trees (see Tree Age Determination for details), perhaps by hundreds of years in view of the fact that pith dates were not recovered for these trees. It seems likely that trees at least 5000 years old exist.

With an age of 4,789 years in 1964 when the tree was cut down this means that "Prometheus" or WPM-114 has an estimatd germination date of 2,880 BCE, just a little bit older than "Methusula." This is substantiating evidence of this age, and we will get to this below in greater detail.

Now we come to Don Batten's article, which is also available at:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

This is a review I have written of that article (I have shortened it here to provide the highlights - the full article is available at Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud):

quote:
Dendrochronology is the study of time and climate through the evidence of tree-rings and related data. There are several thousand dendrochronologies currently being used and expanded in the world, some of these are "floating" chronologies (where the end dates are not know) and some are absolute. At first blush one would not think that young earth creationists (YEC) would have a problem with something that doesn't measure ages in the billions of years.

However the YEC problem is that the chronological age of several tree-ring dendrochronologies are older than their model for the age of the earth. Two continuous absolute dendrochronologies make the concept of a world wide flood invalid for any time in the last 8,000 years.
Don Batten wrote "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" attempting to discredit the whole field of dendrochronology in order to maintain a delusion in a young earth, and in that article he says:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 (9)

quote:
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be "incorrect" (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 "age"). So the carbon "date" is used to constrain just which match is acceptable.

The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. ... Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.


He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas, that confirm the information from these two trees: dendrochronologies are built from many overlapping specimens, not from single trees.

Notice two things: first is the intentional mis-direction to a completely different species that grows in a different environment (with the implication that they are the same - the hallmark of a scam and a con), and second is that he knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled. We'll look at both these issues in greater detail:

Misdirection and Misinformation

The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same. This is the hallmark of a scam, a con and a fraud. The genus Pinus - which includes all pine trees - includes some 115 different species in three subgenus divisions: Strobus (white or soft pines), Ducampopinus (pinyon, lacebark and bristlecone pines) and Pinus (yellow or hard pines)[6]. The Monterey Pine is in the subgenus Pinus[4], while the Bristlecone Pines are in the subgenus Ducampopinus.

Now let's look into his claim of using a "similar" species. First the Monterey Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html (10)

quote:
The currently accepted scientific name of Monterey pine is Pinus radiata D. Don [12,31,32,33,43]. There are three recognized varieties [10,38]:
Pinus radiata var. radiata
Pinus radiata var. binata Lemmon
Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis (Howell) Axelrod.

Monterey pine hybridizes with knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) and bishop pine (Pinus muricata) [12,32,25].
The typical variety of Monterey pine occurs along the coast of California in three disjunct populations in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Monterey County, and San Luis Obispo County. Pinus radiata var. binata occurs on Guadalupe Island, Mexico [12,32,33,35,42]. Pinus radiata var. cedrosensis is found on Cedros Island, Mexico [10,12,38].
Monterey pine is part of the coastal closed-cone coniferous woodland [23].

See an image of the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata (3).

quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, 4 to 6 inches long, 3 per fascicle, slender; shiny green; persist 3 years

The Bristlecone Pine chronology does not rely on just one species, but uses two closely related species for a cross-reference:

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/growth.html (14)

quote:
On dry windswept mountaintops of the Great Basin in the western United States grow earth's oldest living inhabitants, the bristlecones (Pinus longaeva, Pinus aristata). Many of the trees living today were seedlings when the pyramids were being constructed, mature in the time of Christ, and ancient patriarchs today. Bristlecones occur in only six western states, but of these the oldest are found at the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California.

The bristlecone has adjusted to places on earth that no other tree wants to inhabit, and in these harsh environments, has flourished, free of competition.

Until 1970 bristlecones were regarded as a single species. D.K. Bailey, an amateur botanist, demonstrated that the western most trees differ enough in structure of their needles and cones from the bristlecones of the eastern region, to warrant a new species name, Pinus longaeva.

Bristlecones don't grow very tall, 60 ft. (18.3m) at the most, but usually much less. Girth of the largest one, the Patriarch is 36' 8" (11.2m), and this tree is relatively young at 1,500 years. The average age is about 1,000 years with only a few over 4,000 years. The oldest trees grow on outcrops of dolomite­an alkaline calcareous substrate of low nutrient but of higher moisture content than the surrounding sandstone. The dolomite can reflect more sunlight than other rocks, co ntributing to cooler root zones, and saving moisture.

Spring comes to the bristlecone pines in early May with the melting of snow and higher temperatures. Each year the tree increases in girth only 1/100th of an inch, often less, and new cones andtwigs are formed. In this subalpine zone there are only three warm summer months, often only 6 weeks, to produce growth and reserves for overwintering. All of this must be accomplished on a mere 10" (25.4cm) precipitation.


Description of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html (11)

quote:
Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine, Great Basin bristlecone pine (P. longaeva), and foxtail pine (P. balfouriana) share a common ancestor [114,149]. Taxa within the bristlecone-foxtail pine complex (Pinus, subgenus Strobus, section Parrya Mayr, subsection Balfourianae Englm.) are distinguished by growth form, bark, and differences in chemical composition [8,31,90,97]. Bristlecone and foxtail pines readily produce fertile hybrids in the laboratory [128,149]. Disjunct distributions, and possibly other factors, prevent natural hybridization among the 3 species.

Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine occurs in upper montane and subalpine communities [146]. Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and limber pine (Pinus flexilis) associate with Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine throughout most of Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range. Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine tends to exclude Engelmann spruce and limber pine on upper subalpine and timberline sites. Even in lower subalpine sites, Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine is more common in mesic areas than limber pine [104]. Brunstein [22] noted limber pine was absent from Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities on the east slope of the Park Range of Colorado. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) may co-occur throughout Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine's range on seral sites including burns. Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) also occurs on new burns and other disturbed sites in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine communities [70,104].


See an image of the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone pine, Pinus aristata (1).

quote:
Leaf: Evergreen needles, short (1 to 1 1/2 inches long), curved, fascicles of 5, dark green but usually covered with white dots of dried resin. Remain on tree for 10-17 years, giving a bushy appearance that resembles a fox's tail.

Description of the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html (12)

quote:
Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs in a relatively narrow latitudinal range in California, Nevada, and Utah [86,94]. In California it occurs on the summits of the Panamint, Inyo, and White mountains of Mono and Inyo counties [53]. In Nevada it has scattered occurrences on high mountain ranges from the White Mountains in Esmeralda County; north to the southern Ruby Mountains of south-central Elko County; south to the Spring Mountains of west-central Clark County; and east to the Ruby Mountains and Snake Range of White Pine County [31,63,94]. In western Utah Great Basin bristlecone pine occurs on the western edge of the Colorado Plateau from the Confusion Range of Millard County; north to the Uinta Mountains of Summit, Wasatch, and Duchesne counties; south to the Pine Valley Mountains of Washington County and northern Kane County; and east to the Wasatch Plateau of Emery County [94,136]. The U.S. Geological Survey provides a distributional map of Great Basin bristlecone and Rocky Mountain pines.

The ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 bristlecone pine species for millennia.


See an image of the Great Basin Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva (14).

The two Bristlecone Pine species have been separated for thousands of years, the Monterey Pine has been separated for much longer, especially considering the differences between the needles. What is certain is that he is comparing a very distantly related, coastal species with two high altitude species and saying they are the same - species that grows in an entirely {different habitat\ecology}. Perhaps he intentionally chose a species cultivated for rapid growth (for the timber industry), living in an entirely different seasonal growth environment where he can intentionally take samples from trees that are known to frequently have false rings. Certainly Dr. Batten is not telling the truth when he says these species are comparable in the way they grow.

Dr. Batten is also not telling the full truth when he mentions the microscope, as that is not the only tool used, either by himself to identify the false rings, or by dendrochronologists that do honest work. He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

False Ring Identification

That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary. The only way anyone can count the number of false rings that occurred in one year is to have been able to distinguish the false rings from real ones. He does this in the same way that dendrochronologists employ to identify false rings in order to account for them in the data and make the necessary corrections. Nor does he tell you how many times false rings were found during normal growth, what the distribution of error was, or what the average error was, he just reports the maximum rate he was able to find with the implication that amount this is common in all trees all the time. Is this a 1% error or a 10% error in the life of the tree? Dr. Batten is mum on that issue.

Nobody has claimed that there are trees that produce no false rings, or no missing rings either - another common problem that makes the trees appear younger than they really are (and which Dr. Batten in all his "honesty" fails to mention). The difference is that dendrochronologists know how to find the evidence of false rings - as does Dr. Batten when he notes "up to five rings per year" of false rings - but they use this information to correct the chronology.

Both the species of Bristlecone Pine would not have the same numbers of false rings and missing rings, as they grow in different locations and environments, and yet the chronology that is built from their evidence is consistent from one to the other. Consistent because false rings and missing rings have been accounted for by the honest scientists.

So how do the scientists deal with these problems? Here is information from an on-line slide show on dendrochronology - pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm (5)

Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.

quote:
(Slide 6)Under certain climatic conditions, some species will form intra-annual or false rings . If climatic conditions are unfavorable to growth during the growing season, the tree may mistakenly sense that the end of the season is near, and produce dark, thick-walled latewood cells. Improved conditions will cause the tree to produce lighter, thinner-walled cells once again, until the true end of the season. The resulting annual ring looks like two rings, but when this first ring is closely inspected it can be identified as false because the latewood boundary grades back into the earlywood. False rings occur in a number of species such as the Mexican cypress pictured here. Young ponderosa pines in southeastern Arizona commonly contain false rings as well. In this region, winter and early spring rains provide moisture to trees in the early part of the growing season. By May and June, the driest part of the year, trees have used up the available moisture and, if stressed enough, will begin to produce latewood cells. However, monsoon moisture usually begins to fall in July, and with this moisture, trees will again produce earlywood cells.

(Slide 7)Under other climate conditions, trees may produce only a partial ring or may fail to produce a ring at all. This may occur in a year in which conditions for growth are particularly harsh. These rings are called locally absent or missing rings and are commonly found in trees which are extremely sensitive to climate. ... This ring gets pinched between the rings to the left and right of it and is not visible at all in the lower portion of the slide. Very old and/or stressed trees may also produce very small, barely visible rings only a few cells wide which are called micro-rings. Because of the occurrence of false, locally absent, micro, and missing rings, it is especially important to prepare surfaces carefully and use the technique of crossdating to ensure exact calendar year dates for individual rings.

(Slide 8)The work of a dendrochronologist starts with the collection of samples in the field. The particular problem being addressed will dictate site and tree selection so that trees sampled are sensitive to the environmental variable of interest. ... Most commonly, tree-ring samples are collected using a hand-held increment borer to remove a small core of wood roughly 5mm in diameter from the trunk of the tree, ideally from bark to pith. ...Usually, two cores are taken from each tree to facilitate crossdating and to reduce the effects of ring-width variations related to differences in the two sides of the tree. The number of trees sampled from the site depends on how sensitive the trees are to the environment, but the average is about 20-30 trees.


Ponderosa Pines, for the record, are in the same subgenus - Pinus - as the Moneterey Pine(7).

Of particular note is the cause of false rings with specific reference to the type of environmental conditions that would prevail in certain locations with the Monterey Pine, Pinus radiata, used by Dr. Batten. By contrast the conditions that prevail for the Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva, are more likely to produce missing or micro rings, a condition that would make the trees appear younger than they really are.

.... (cut material) ....

Conclusions

  • The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

  • Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

  • Dr. Batten is a fraud, a scam and a con, pretending to tell the truth to gullible people who want to believe a delusion, when in fact he is hiding the truth, misdirecting the issues and misrepresenting evidence.

    Enjoy.



    References

    1. Anonymous "Bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?id="224"
    2. Anonymous "Methuselah (tree)" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29
    3. Anonymous "Monterey pine Pinaceae Pinus radiata" Forest Biology and Dendrology Educational Sites at Virginia Tech. 16 Aug 2002. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?id="232"
    4. Anonymous "Monterey Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 12 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Pine
    5. Anonymous "Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change " NOAA Paleoclimatology. Updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index18.htm
    6. Anonymous "Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 14 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine
    7. Anonymous "Ponderosa Pine" Wikipedia. Updated 9 Jan 2007. accessed 14 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponderosa_pine
    8. Anonymous "Prometheus (tree)" Wikipedia. updated 7 Jan 2007. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29
    9. Batten, Don, "Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)" Creation on the Web. undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441
    10. Cope, Amy B., "SPECIES: Pinus radiata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. Undated. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinrad/all.html
    11. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus aristata - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html
    12. Howard, Janet L., "SPECIES: Pinus longaeva - Introductory" USDA Forest Service. 2004. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinlon/all.html
    13. Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html
    14. Miller, Leonard, "Growth Characteristics" Sonic.net/bristlecone. Updated 2 Jan 2005. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/growth.html
    15. Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf

  • I have taken out parts that refer to later evidence, and we can go back to those when we come to that evidence.

    The net result of Don Batten's work is

    • he badly misrepresents the status of Pinus radiata as closely related when it is in a different subgenus, it has been cultivated by the timber industry for fast growth (ie selected for false ring growth) and grows in an entirely different ecology. For someone with his status as a plant biologist this is inexcusable unless his purpose is to deceive gullible and ignorant people and he is not worried about scientific truth in this article (which is not peer reviewed).
    • he claims that false rings cannot be found, then claims that he found 5 false rings in one specimen. These claims are mutually exclusive and one or the other must be totally false.
    • he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.
    • he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.
    • he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.
    • he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

    In other words Don Batten on this one article has shown that when he is writing for creatortionista websites that he is a completely unreliable source that willingly provide false witness to deceive gullible and ignorant people.

    In other words two things:

    (1) false tree rings (and missing rings) are a known phenomenon in dendrochronology and a scientific methodology has been developed to eliminate their effect from the chronologies, and
    (2) Don Batten actually demonstrates how effective this methodology is when he uses it to determine the number of false rings in his samples

    The tree rings record not only age but climate variations (mild winters, long summers, etc) and that the dendrochronologies take this into account in matching samples. The two trees - "metusula" and "prometeus" - match for climate data as well as for age, even though they come from different groves on different mountains, thus validating the rings (along with samples from other trees in several groves). Dendrochronologies are not based on single samples but hundreds with a lot of duplication to completely rule out false and missing rings. Finally, the age for "prometheus" is a minimum age because the center of the tree is missing, the tree was so badly weathered that the core was gone. We will come back to the issue of correlations between data more as we go farther.

    Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time

    Ready to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?

    Enjoy.

    ps -- this seems longer than it really is. The important information is:

  • Don Batten's article is false and misleading and he actually confirms the validity of dendochronology.
  • There is another tree with the same age
  • Both Trees correlate for climate and age

    Edited by RAZD, : formating for clarity


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 83 by Someone who cares, posted 06-13-2007 4:32 PM Someone who cares has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 85 by Someone who cares, posted 06-19-2007 11:40 PM RAZD has responded

  • Someone who cares
    Member (Idle past 3165 days)
    Posts: 192
    Joined: 06-06-2006


    Message 85 of 121 (406431)
    06-19-2007 11:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
    06-13-2007 6:15 PM


    Re: Age of the Earth in stages
    quote:
    ps -- this seems longer than it really is

    Yes, you'll have to understand that I am a busy person and if posts continue to be this large, I may not be able to debate more with you than a few points before school starts up again... Notice my rebutals take only a couple sentences and possibly a quote, wheras your rebutal requires a whole essay to make it seem as if you really have a strong rebutal, when in reality, your argument is still weak and some MAIN points are purposely avoided. This I will attempt to show here, briefly:

    quote:
    He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas

    I think that this example of false rings in one species is decently enough to cast doubt on the dates of other tree species. Why? Well you're missing an important point, we as Creationists believe that the "kind" which is referenced in Genesis is much broader than the contemporary "species", which would mean that it is possible that an example from one "family" (possibly even broader) of trees would be enough to cast doubt on the dating of all those trees.

    Also, I imagine that as a dendrochronologist, if one were dealing with a very old tree, they would try to count up enough rings to get the oldest tree, because it would bring them fame, and this can bring error in counting false rings. Remember, humans are fallible, especially in science when funds and acceptance depend on the "common" mindset of evolution.

    quote:
    in a different environment

    Hmmm... I wonder if the Flood would be considered a different environment, and the directly post-Flood conditions-possible ice ages, etc. You must realize that the environment was not always the same, right after the Flood the conditions could be unstable for years...

    quote:
    The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same.

    Refer to above for first part, but he did not say they were the same exact species or subgenus, he said they were the same genus, and as I stated above, the Biblical kind can be as broad as family or beyond...

    quote:
    He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

    This may be, but if there is error in ANY number, in ANY species, I think it is well enough to cast doubt on the dates using this method. Of course, it only casts doubt on some of the dates, not totally debunk any usuage of the method with corrections for the false rings and hidden rings, etc. What we are debating here is a certain example, an example which is a bit old, not the whole method, so I think we could move on or else not get much anywhere.

    quote:
    That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary.

    Yes, perhaps it is easier to find false rings when the date goes against your belief, or in the case of the old examples-when the date could "debunk" your opponenets' beliefs if you measured a bit less carefully...

    quote:
    The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

    Cross-references may be a bit difficult when you are dealing with only a handful of specimens which are as old as they are said to be...

    quote:
    Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

    I do not think that after such a find he would trust this as the best method to use...

    I must wonder, are you manipulating the data to fit your argument? You quoted http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 but didn't include these quotes from the SAME article: * "Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?." and * "Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era."
    I must seriously doubt your whole argument just from this cover up of replies to your attacks in the same article that you quoted...

    quote:
    he claims that false rings cannot be found

    Does he say they cannot possibly be found, or just difficult to find?...

    quote:
    he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.

    Perhaps these methods would be abandoned when dealing with the possibly oldest living tree which would bring you great fame? Humans are fallible, especially when it comes to fame...

    quote:
    he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.

    Of course, it would not support his argument, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist! When you write something, you do not want to confuse your readers... I'm sure that any one of us, as fallible humans, is fully capable of doing this as I have just demonstrated what you did with your quote...

    quote:
    he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.

    Perhaps this is so, but consider the above post and your own hiding used in your quote...

    quote:
    he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

    This is merely a restatement of the point 3 points above

    quote:
    Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time

    Still, tree ring dating is in doubt when such and similar situations occur.

    quote:
    Ready to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?

    I'm always ready to move on, considering the limited time and will power I have... But it seems we could debate this one point the whole summer and not get anywhere. I suggest this, we do it here like I did with Anglagard, you post your Old Age Correlations one by one, and I make one rebutal to each, we do this until we reach the end of your list, then you go through and say anything that you have against my rebutal and I what I have against that, through the whole list, repeat. So that way we can get throught the whole list in the summer with at least one claim/rebutal each. What do you say?

    Peace.

    Off topic, but is that your picture?

    Edited by Someone who cares, : Noticed picture


    "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 84 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 6:15 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2007 9:54 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18480
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 86 of 121 (406520)
    06-20-2007 9:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Someone who cares
    06-19-2007 11:40 PM


    Re: Age of the Earth in stages
    Note that I have moved this reply and copied the preceding related messages to a new Great Debate Thread to reduce confusion with other topics being pursued here: Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only

    I have deleted the text of this message so that you can reply on the new thread. Thus you can take your time and not feel inundated by other posts that interfere with our debate.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : science thread comment.

    Edited by RAZD, : moved to new thread.


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Someone who cares, posted 06-19-2007 11:40 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3460 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 87 of 121 (407086)
    06-24-2007 1:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
    04-01-2007 4:48 PM


    Analysis of the definitions (again)

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

    Instead of arguing this issue on a logical basis, you continue to nit pick these definitions which don’t support your argument anyway. I must assume that this is because you simply don’t have any logical arguments left to refute those that I have made. You continue to accuse me of misrepresentation, but you are the one that is misrepresenting the whole basis of this argument and the definitions as well.

    I'll note at the start that you are still misrepresenting the evidence. When an encyclopedia or article on evolution is cited, you don't search for where they say what you want to say and claim that is part of the definition - you look for the definition ("evolution is ...") statement and stop when they start discussing the application of that to the evidence.

    You are the one who is searching through a source to find where they say what you want it to say, not me. To my recollection, in only one case was the information I presented separated from the main definition and there was a valid reason for doing so which I will point out when it comes up. On the other hand, you are searching through the definition to cherry pick the part that agrees with you. A clarification or explanation which immediately follows the first sentence IS part of the definition. A clarification which is necessary to understand the meaning of a short-hand slogan, IS part of the definition. A definition does not have to be one sentence.

    As I’ve pointed out many times, change in species over time is simply an observation which is a part of the theory. The theory itself is a statement of what is trying to be proven by the observations. Defining the change as responsible for all the diversity of life on earth is NOT an “application” of the definition to the evidence. Quite the reverse, evidence such as “change in species over time” is applied to test the theory, that it IS responsible for all the diversity of life on earth. You don’t necessarily look for “evolution is..” statement because you don’t know if they are defining the process or the theory. What you look for is “the theory of evolution” or “theory of evolution states…” or “according to the theory of evolution…” or …is known as the theory of evolution” or “the theory of evolution explains…”. If these are absent, you look for what it states is the RESULT of the process since then they would be talking about the theory, not the process itself. This debate is to define what the theory of evolution is, not the processes which are part of the theory or by which the theory is realized.

    The place to “stop” is at the end of the paragraph or section labeled as the definition or explanation. This is particularly true of references on the web. If you are looking up a definition for evolution and it presents you with a paragraph which it says is the definition for evolution, you are misrepresenting the definition by simply cherry picking the first sentence. You are attempting to define evolution with a cute slogan, but it takes more than that to make it clear what it is we are actually talking about.

    Likewise when a dictionary definition is used and there is an entry for "biol." then that is the entry to use (they are talking about the biology definition not the general definition).

    I find it almost humorous and completely hypocritical of you to point this out when you have been the one attempting all along to apply the general definition of evolution to biology when it suits you (change in “something” over time), but when the general definition disagrees with your argument (ie lower to more complex states), than you want to exclude it! You can’t have it both ways. Evolution is evolution. All generic overriding definitions apply. Biology is just a more specialized case of the general term. You cannot stop at the general term as you have been attempting to do with CISOT. You must be more specific for biology.

    Despite the fact that there were only 2 or 3 definitions which even provided the general term, making little difference anyway, there is another reason which makes using the general term a perfectly valid thing to do. 16% of the definitions used the term “evolution” or “evolutionary” within the definition of evolution. For example “the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms”. Since the use of the word evolution within the definition would be reason to invalidate the definition because of circular reasoning, we can only conclude that they are using the “general” definition of evolution within the body of the main definition. These definitions are therefore validating the use of the general definition. It would then be reasonable for us to look up the general definition and substitute it’s meaning into the definition. The definition would then become “the sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms leading to different and more advanced Kinds”.


    (ABC) - Development of new features, complexity, speciation, responsibility for all the diversity of life or a common ancestor is included in the definition. This qualifies the type of change involved as molecules to man evolution since change in species over time is vague, confusing and requires explanation.

    How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? How is a species NOT changed by becoming a new species? How is a species NOT changed by a change in complexity? No, Development of new features IS change in species over time, Speciation IS change in species over time, Complexity IS change in species over time. You lump these together with other elements to misrepresent the definition given and misrepresent your results. This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin.

    You just don’t get it. However, after 70 posts I find that very hard to believe. I have stated my position too many times to count and yet you simply ignore it. You could not have even read my last post since I spent considerable time explaining this and yet you continue this deception after it has been pointed out. You are the one that has misrepresented the results with this deception. The question is whether the definition states ONLY “change in species over time” or if instead it qualifies that change with other characteristics or features. I’ll repeat. We are not looking for something that is “not change over time”, we are looking for something that is in ADDITION to change over time.

    It is completely appropriate to lump those characteristics together because they all mean basically the same thing and they are in direct contrast to ONLY change over time. You have lumped all the different kinds of “change” together to misrepresent your results by calling everything change over time but it’s ok for you to do it? How hypocritical!

    Who has ever said that evolution did not involve change in species over time? I certainly have not! It was recognized long before Darwin that species change over time. How then, can that be called the “theory of evolution”? How is a species NOT changed by the development of a new feature? Who said it was NOT changed? The answer is in the very quote you have cited, but apparently failed to read. I think I know how you have been able to respond so quickly now. You simply ignore most of what I have written (or don’t read it at all) and just see the things that you want to see. This is the same thing you are doing with the definitions.

    The “development of a new feature” specifies the TYPE of change involved. This is regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it still qualifies the TYPE of change. We all know that species change over time. But what kind of change is it? Suppose the theory of evolution stated that all species develop horns over time. How does defining it as “change in species over time” explain that theory? You could argue “how is species NOT changed by developing horns?” But the theory doesn’t state any change, it specifically says species develop horns. It is a logical fallacy to equate the two. In the same way, the theory of evolution states that this change is one that is responsible for all the diversity of life or the development of new features etc., not just any change.

    For someone that accuses everyone else of logical fallacies, you go right ahead and commit one of the most egregious without a bat of an eye. The development of a new feature implies change has occurred, but change does not imply that it will result in the development of a new feature. If the kind of change you are talking about is the kind that is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today than why not say so? What are you afraid of? Lack of evidence perhaps? Or maybe unwillingness to admit the deceitful equivocation of definitions?
    This kind of misrepresentation falsifies your accounting before you begin. I stand by my latest analysis which remains completely valid. Nothing you have presented contradicts it in any way. You have introduced misrepresentations of the definitions intended solely to inflate your position rather than staying true to the intent of the authors. The following errors below completely invalidate your analysis:


    1. Cherry picking from the full definitions and even from the discussions following in completely different paragraphs to misrepresent the intent of the authors.
    2. Selecting definitions of evolutionary processes when the theory of evolution is clearly stated from the same source.
    3. Separating factors that belong together to minimize their impact
    4. Taking terms out of context to misrepresent their meaning
    5. Utilizing the general definition of the word “evolution” to construct your own definition (used no where in science) but disallowing its use when it disagrees with you.
    6. Utilizing “discussions” to dispute definitions that don’t agree with yours but disallowing the use of discussions to clarify definitions which you believe agrees with your misrepresentations.
    7. Categorizing all the definitions as ONLY “change in species over time” when they clearly contain additional elements (which are part of my definition) that you have ignored.

    I will clarify those misrepresentations further if I have not already addressed each one. It makes absolutely no sense to repeat and refute all the individual definitions again as most fall into the categories above. Even your interpretation of the parts that you THINK are the definition is flawed. I will point a couple of these out as examples and also respond to some of your other comments and then summarize at the end.


    (D) - Change in species over time, including change in frequency of alleles and descent with modification and other variations (although these are not equivalent) is the ONLY part of the definition with no other explanation that includes ABC or F.

    These are equivalent, as I have pointed out and used them several times to make just that point.

    Just because you say they are equivalent doesn’t make them so. We are talking about a definition for the theory of evolution which can stand on it’s own. Do you really think that some stranger reading your definition (change in species over time) for the first time is going to know what YOU personally REALLY mean by it? In fact, that is exactly what you and other evolutionists are hoping for. Someone reading that definition will be deluded into thinking that any change they might see is evolution, so evolution must be a fact, when in reality it is a complete deception.

    And yet you still go and add back other parts into your evaluation that ARE part of the discussion and not the definition. That is misrepresenting what is the definition in those discussions. You do this again here even when it has already been pointed out as false misrepresentation of the definitions involved.

    And who are you to say what is a false misrepresentation (who has proposed the mother of all false misrepresentations)? Just because you think it is a misrepresentation because it doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean it is.

    Let's cut to the chase: the disagreement is over whether "change in species over time" is a complete definition of the scientific theory.

    You’ve just now come to that conclusion? You’ve not read the more than dozens of times that I have stated that “change in species over time” is insufficient by itself? If you’ve come to this conclusion than why is that you don’t logically refute this notion? Could it be that it’s not defensible?

    (R) = "change in species over time" (and variations previously noted) OR
    (X) = something else is said and "change in species over time" is NOT included at all in the definition

    Again, you could not have even read my last post since I dispelled this misrepresentation numerous times. The argument isn’t whether “change in species over time” (or your invalid interpretation of something you think means JUST change in species over time) is part of the definition or not. No one is arguing that “change in species over time” does not occur. It is certainly implied in every definition. The argument is whether it is the ONLY thing that appears. If there are other elements present (those that are part of the correct definition that I have proposed) that qualify the type of change, then it cannot be counted as ONLY “change in species over time” and therefore you are wrong in these designations. This immediately disqualifies the bulk of your analysis since it is a misrepresentation of the entire argument.

    EVOLUTION [Lexicon]
    Process that has led to the appearance and transformation of living species on earth.

    Appearance of living species would be the descent of living species from (no longer living) ancestors. Transformation of living species would be change from those ancestors.

    No. How deceitful! You cherry pick what you want out of the definition, then ignore the explanation so you can misinterpret what’s left. This single sentence is clearly saying that evolution is a process that has “led to the appearance” (Abiogenesis) of life on earth and then the subsequent transformation into all the diversity we see today. The subsequent sentence (which is part of the definition) makes this clear - “The first living beings…appeared 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, life forms have diversified and adapted to their environments. All living species today have, therefore, the same origin.” That’s why all of it is the definition, so people that want to deceive do not take it out of context. Only you could interpret it another way simply to inflate your position.

    (5) Berkely U
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
    The Explanation:
    Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
    Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

    It kind of amazes me that you repeat this misrepresentation after it has already been uncovered in previous posts and repeated as evidence of such on your part.

    It kind of amazes me that you consider it a misrepresentation. It has not been “uncovered” since it was never “covered” in the first place. What HAS been uncovered is your attempts to misrepresent what the definitions mean. I believe this may be the only instance that I referred to earlier where I included something that was not immediately adjacent to the main definition. However, there is good reason. How can the “central idea of biological evolution” not be an equivalent definition? You have repeatedly implied that the central idea of biological evolution is “change is species over time” (because no source defines it this way), but when a reference uses this same technique, you want to ignore it.

    The fact of the matter is that the “central idea of biological evolution…” is equivalent to “Biological evolution, simply put, is the idea (theory) that all life on earth shares a common ancestor”. They go on to say that “descent with modification” is a “process”. Therefore, the first sentence of the definition is defining a process. The theory of evolution itself, which is what this debate is about, is stated in the explanation. The section labeled explanation is explaining the definition, not evolution or the details of the processes involved, and is therefore part of the definition.

    Note the selective picking of elements that fit your preconceived notion of what the definition is rather than looking for what the article says is the definition: this is blatant misrepresentation of the definition here.

    This is laughable. You accuse me of cherry picking but you leave out what you don’t like from the paragraph which is clearly labeled “The Definition”! Again, how hypocritical! Also, there was no selective picking of elements on my part. I could have just as well included “just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother” or other parts, but clearly indicated that I was leaving them out (…) simply to save space because they added nothing.

    This definition contains concepts (micro and macro evolution) that obviously need further explanation. The part that follows is the explanation of the definition and is therefore part of the definition. If a word within a definition is being explained, it is valid to substitute that explanation into the definition and it remains valid. The ONLY reason I can fathom that you would want to EXCLUDE explanations and clarifications of the definitions is because you want to be deceptive as to the definition’s meaning. You don’t agree so you want to leave them out. This is true misrepresentation and out right deceit. Notice that the explanation clearly states that evolution “is NOT simply a matter of change over time”.

    (6) Modern Biology, Its Conceptual Foundations” by Elof Axel Carlson
    evolution: a theory of complexity in the organization of life from the origins of life to the present with the premise that all life is related by common descent to the first forms of life on earth. 6, 229, 257, 260, 264, 267, 319

    Looking at these (briefly), p 6 is the introduction and it discusses the difference between fact and theory, p 229 is the start of Section V: Evolution, and it discusses some of the historical theories, p 257 discusses "recapitulation" and the study of heredity in germ-cells, p 260 discusses the random probability distribution of mutations and a tendency for statis in stable environments, change in unstable environments, p 264 discusses 3 competing theories of evolution, p 267 says evolution is an application of basic scientific processes, and p319 involves a study of the changes in hemoglobin between humans and other apes. In none of those references is the descent from a single common ancestor at the origins of life necessary to the discussion of evolution.

    Unbelievable! You just scolded me for referring to an “explanation” but hypocritically when the definition doesn’t fit what you want, you attempt to discredit it by using explanations separated by many pages and entirely different sections of the whole book. However, if the definition IS supposedly what you want, then explanations of the definition immediately following are invalidated.

    (7) Barnes and Noble Thesaurus of Biology

    evolution: the process by which more complex forms of life have arisen from simpler forms over millions of years (see geological time scale p226 and natural selection).

    This is still change in species over time. The change from simpler to more complex is still change. Millions of years is also only the time span for the evolution of Homo sapiens from Homo habilis, not that significant in the total evolutionary picture.

    I point this one out as an example of how blatant your misrepresentation of these definitions are, particularly after I have spent literally paragraphs in my last post explaining this deception. It does not matter whether you happen to interpret it as ONLY “change in species over time”. The definition does not say this. It makes it very clear that the TYPE of change is one in which complex forms of life have arisen from simpler ones over millions of years. “Change in species over time” does NOT specify the type of change. This definition agrees with the definition I have proposed, not yours.

    Also, 4.5 billion years IS “millions of years”. It does not say it’s only the span of time between homo sapiens and homo habilis. The explanation indicates it is the span of time since life first appeared on earth (all the geological periods).


    (9) U of Michigan - The university of Michigan teaches that Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: 1) Organisms have changed over time 2) All organisms are derived from common ancestors 3) Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time and 4) The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection(ABC) (F)

    This one gets a little long ... and I've left out some parts.
    This is a discussion of Darwin's theory of evolution and not the modern science one. Furthermore, the summary section would list the elements that are critical to it, and that summary is all about "change in species over time" ...
    But that is not all: the previous lesson in the series has the current scientific definitions:
    Both of those definitions of biological evolution involve "change in species over time" and that is what the University of Michigan really teaches as the definitions of evolution. You completely ignore the definitions listed for evolution and go on until you can find something - anything - that meets your false misconception of what the definition should be. This is not the way honest research is done.

    I was going to pass this one up until you made an accusation regarding the “honesty” of my research. I left some of your response out for brevity. I did exactly what you did except perhaps with more relevancy. This debate is to determine a statement of the “Theory of evolution”, not the “process” and that’s what I searched the web for. Your more current definitions are invalid because they are NOT talking about the theory of evolution which is what this debate is about. When did Darwin’s theory become invalid? It may have been propped up or added to by mechanisms which supposedly can produce the results theorized by Darwin but that does not change the theory. I simply stated a source which defined the “Theory”. You are the one which has gone on and produced literally pages of text searching to find something – anything – that meets your false misconception of what the definition of the theory should be. That is not the way honest research is done. Find references which define the theory of evolution, not modern processes which support the theory and have no relevance to this discussion.

    Just to emphasize the point further, here is a quote from “The book of Life”, 1993 by various authors – “The theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Indeed, some of the best evidence is still based on the kinds of field observations which he had made over the previous thirty years before he published his famous book.” There are many other sources which point this out, at least one other I reference later.

    16) The Compact Oxford English Dictionary

    1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.

    This doesn't really describe what is going on or what the process is. Is it change in species over time or something else? We can't really tell from this (too concise?).

    It’s perfectly clear, but you don’t want to admit it. It says evolution is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms, not just any change.

    They also list a number of other links for comparison. So I also looked up "evolve" with this result:
    And "speciation" ...
    And "Darwinism" ...
    And "develop" ...

    Wonderful! If the definition doesn’t say what you want it to, let’s look up some irrelevant terms to boost your argument.

    I don't see anything in this that is NOT change in species over time.

    As previously stated, ALL definitions involve change over time. They’d better or else all life on earth could not have supposedly developed from nothing. That they involve change is irrelevant. What’s important is that it specifies the type of change – that which is responsible for the development of different “KINDS” of organisms. Therefore, this definition cannot be counted for stating ONLY change in species over time.

    (18) Wiktionary
    1. (general) A gradual process of development, formation, or growth, esp. one leading to a more advanced or complex form.
    2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

    Do I need to say it? You even omitted where it said "(general)" in your misrepresentation of the definition. Do you really think this is valid?

    Do you really think it’s not? Really, it makes little difference one way or the other since the definitions still report overwhelmingly in my favor. However on principal, yes, it is absolutely valid. As I said previously, I find it very hypocritical of you to use the general definition of evolution (change in “something” over time), and apply it to biology to come up with “Change in species over time” but exclude the general definition when it doesn’t appear to work in your favor. NONE of the definitions define evolution as “Change in species over time”. You are interpreting what they say based on the general definition of evolution to come to this conclusion. The biological definition is a more specific example of the general case with qualifiers added to specify the type of change. This in no way invalidates the general definition.

    It is a logical fallacy to deny that the general definition does not apply. Is an automobile accident an example of “change in cars over time”? Of course it is. But you cannot describe accidents as ONLY “change in cars over time” since you could also be describing change in car designs or rusting of cars over long periods. You need a more specific definition to tell you what type of change you are referring to. Plus, I’ve shown that the general definition is used and validated within other definitions.


    (21) Ultralingua Online Dictionaryhttp://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms; theory of evolution n. A scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals(ABC)

    and I find the definition for "theory of evolution" rather lacking.-- where is the rest of what we know of life, the much more numerous species that are not just plants and animals?
    I also do not get hung up over the use of "origins" here, seeing as they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life).
    An event that is A beginning, not THE beginning, and attributable to one's ancestry. Speciation is A beginning of a species.

    First, this debate is specifically about the “theory of evolution”, not the process or whatever, so this definition is certainly applicable. While we have discovered life that may be hard to classify, the term “plants and animals” has generally and historically been accepted to include ALL life.

    In regards to “origins”, how do you know that “they are talking about the origins of individual species of plants and animals (and not the origins of life)”? On the contrary, they ARE talking about the origins of ALL life. Your argument reminds me of the panspermia theory. You can’t explain how life evolved here, so let’s push the argument out to somewhere else…but that doesn’t explain how life evolved “somewhere else”.

    Darwin was not proposing his theory to explain the beginning of a particular “species”, like a variety of finch. Everyone already knew that this happens as could plainly be seen by domestic breeding. His theory was meant to explain how ALL life (ALL species) evolved. He clearly stated this on numerous occasions and postulated about the first “prototype” life from which all others are derived. This is all part of his theory which is stated in the definition. If you look at the beginning of a particular species, you must ask yourself what the species was prior to that, and then prior to that and again until inevitably you get to the “origin” of the first species. This is clearly part of the “sequence of events involved” in the origin of species.


    (24) Websters 1913 Unabridged Dictionary http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=evolution&use1913=on&use1828=on6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.(ABC)

    Again, what part of this is NOT change in species over time?

    Well, first of all, it’s the “history of steps”. Taken to its logical conclusion, the definitions which list this feature are telling us in no uncertain terms that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Second, the change is “gradual”. Gradual is defined as changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees. As we’ve seen, sources which are not attempting to be as concise as dictionaries generally expand this to be millions of years. However, all the other evidence taken together is overwhelming enough that we don’t need to debate what they mean by “gradual”. The point, however, is that it is still a qualifier of the change, not just any change.


    (26) AllWords Online Dictionaryhttp://www.allwords.com/index.php3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.(ABC) (F)

    What do they mean by "long periods of time"? A couple of days is a "long period of time" for the evolution of bacteria. A better description would be "over many generations" as that would take into account the different life spans of different species. There is nothing here that is NOT change in species over time.

    While this definition is similar to many that I have already pointed out, I’ll highlight this one to be clear since some of the terms used may not be as specific but nevertheless you continue to use the same fallacious arguments. Bacteria do not evolve at all, so your statement regarding days being a “long period of time” for them is not only irrelevant but is a logical fallacy. While I agree that long periods of time can be interpreted differently in various contexts, it is almost always interpreted as millions/billions of years in regards to evolution. This is due to the fact that we do not observe creatures changing into different kinds except in the fallacious interpretation of the fossil record which is considered to span billions of years. Why do you suppose evolutionists were surprised to find finch beaks changing observably in less than hundreds of years?

    The fact this involves change in species over time is completely and totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that it qualifies the type of change as one which results “in the development of new types of organisms over long periods of time”. Of course, “type” is synonymous with “kind”. Therefore this definition cannot be counted as one which specifies ONLY change in species over time.

    (29)(a) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
    http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/biological%20evolution
    Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
    The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.
    As the theory of evolution by natural selection has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism.
    Scientific theory
    Currently, the modern synthesis is by scientific consensus the best theory of the evolution of species. This is the synthesis of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel's theory of the gene made possible by population genetics. This theory conceives of evolution as any change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. In the modern synthesis, change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms, such as natural selection or genetic drift. The genetic isolation of two populations, which allows their gene pools to diverge, results in speciation.
    The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects:
    1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
    2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
    3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

    "Often used" does not mean "always used", nor is Darwin's ("this theory") necessarily the same as the modern scientific theory of evolution (see UMich, #9, above). You are also taking elements from the discussion of the application of the theory to the evidence. The scientific definition is clearly delineated by the first paragraph break.

    This definition supports my contention in almost every aspect, so you are climbing the wrong tree here. I have stated endlessly that the “word” evolution can mean many things. When you come across one that talks about it’s meaning as the “theory of evolution”, that’s the one you take since that is what this discussion is about. Use of the term “often used” simply recognizes the fact that it can be used different ways in other disciplines, as a process, or as a general term and does not negate its meaning as the “theory of evolution”. The first paragraph clearly states it is referring to a “process”. The second paragraph is clearly the correct statement of the “theory of evolution”.

    In addition, it says that this theory (the second paragraph which corresponds almost identically with my definition) is universally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.

    Lest you think that the “synthesis” has discarded the basic theory, the article goes on to describe that it still includes the basic tenants of my definition, namely, descent of all organisms from a single ancestor (which of course is supposed to have happened billions of years ago) and the origin of “novel” (completely new) traits as being a requirement.

    (29)(b) Dictionary by Labor Law Talk
    http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Evolutionary_biology
    Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, i.e. their evolution. One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or less frequently evolutionist…

    NOT listed in the list of disciplines is abiogenesis. This is also change in species over time: speciation and descent with modification.

    Grasping at more straws…This one will need to be removed. This source has already defined the theory of evolution previously. The definition of the science of evolutionary biology is completely irrelevant. And why should abiogenesis necessarily appear in a list of disciplines? I don’t want to get into a debate about whether abiogenesis is a “discipline” or not. However, it is a theory which can be studied by any number of “disciplines”. Stanley Miller was a “biologist” and so was Pasteur.

    (29)(c) Evolution
    http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/evolution
    quote:

    1. evolution - a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer"
    Antonyms: degeneration, devolution - the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality
    Synonyms: development
    2. evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
    Synonyms: phylogeny, phylogenesis

    I’m also eliminating this one. This is simply a repeat of the Word-net definition (14). On this very same page it list the definition of the theory of evolution that we’ve already discussed from this source and which is the topic of this debate. While it still supports my definition, it is clear that they are using the “noun” as a definition of the process, not the theory which is defined just below it. The article needs to be taken as a whole. If we are going to cherry pick every mention of evolution from a single source, than as I’ve said previously, I’d challenge you to find ANY comprehensive source which does not mention that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today or any of the other basic tenants of my definition.


    (32) Dinosauria Onlinehttp://www.dinosauria.com/dml/diction.htm#Eevolution v. changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time (D)

    Agreed again.

    Actually, I’ve changed my mind about this one. Since it refers to changes in “character states” of clades (“a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor.”), it is implying that evolution includes the change of organisms since the first prototype (billions of years ago) resulting in all the diversity we see today and therefore is clearly indicating that it is more than just ANY change. As I pointed out previously, this would be treated in a similar way to definitions which include statements regarding the “sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organism” or “changes throughout time” since this sequence logically takes you back to the origin of life or implies all the time since life has been on the earth.

    I happen to have Encarta Encyclopedia, 1997:
    Evolution, in biology, the complex of processes by which living organisms originated on earth and have been diversified and modified through sustained changes in form and function. The earliest known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago. Evolution has resulted in successive radiations of new types of organisms, many of which have become extinct, but some of which have developed into the present fauna and flora of the world. Extinction and diversification continue today.

    This clears up the apparent reference to abiogenesis from your quote and shows they are talking about the diversification of species after the first known life form from the fossil record.

    This clears up nothing of the sort. The definition clearly spells out that they are including how living organisms “originated on earth” (abiogenesis). Nowhere does it specifically exclude it after that statement.


    (46) Ernst Mayr, “What Evolution is”: Evolution – The gradual process by which the living world has been developing following the origin of life. (ABC) (F)

    [Various quotes/references from the book]
    This is still change in species over time. Mayr also obviously believes that the evidence for this happening since the origin of life is overwhelming, but this doesn't make that part of the definition of evolution - that is just the application of the theory to the evidence. He doesn't say that long periods of time are a necessary part of the theory, just that they are part of the evidence for evolution.

    The referenced quote IS the definition of evolution used by Mayr. That’s what a glossary is - a definition of terms used. You have referenced them as well. I find it amazingly hypocritical of you to go back through various widely separated sections of this book in an attempt to explain what he meant by this definition when you THINK it agrees with you, but you want to exclude from consideration sentences immediately following the first sentence in a complete definition when it doesn’t agree with you! If you are opening up the full discussion of evolution as a tool to “interpret” the definition, then you have done yourself in. EVERY complete discussion on evolution will include the various concepts I have pointed out such as millions/billions of years, all life evolving from a single common ancestor, responsibility for all the diversity of life and even abiogenesis (as Mayr’s book does). The definitions either stand on their own or they don’t. You can’t selectively and deceptively use explanations only when it suits you.

    In any case, Mayr specifies that evolution has been occurring since the origin of life (supposedly billions of years ago), clearly implying that evolution is responsible for all the diversity of life we see today. Therefore, this is NOT simply any “change in species over time”.
    I do find it interesting that you chose to quote his diatribe regarding how evolution is a “fact”. “That evolution has occurred and takes place all the time is a fact so overwhelmingly established that it has become irrational to call it a theory” Mayr says. How deluded! This is exactly the confusion and equivocation of terms that I have talked about and how prominent evolutionists have touted evolution as being a “fact”. Many scientists on the other hand have trouble raising evolution even to the level of a hypothesis. Karl Popper, arguably the greatest science philosopher of all time said the following regarding evolution “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme” - a valid reason why some of the “metaphysical” (religious) definitions of evolution should apply.


    (47) Kerkut: “General Theory of Evolution” (GTE) - The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (ABC) (F)

    and again I can't verify this at this time. The fact that this is presented as a "GTE" rather than a normal "theory of evolution" leaves me unimpressed that his has to be included in the list until I can see what he is talking about.

    I’d be happy to remove definitions from evaluation if you have provided evidence that it doesn’t belong. However, to decide you’re not going to include it because you don’t like what it says and can’t verify it, is not acceptable. The “GTE” is what this debate is about. The majority of definitions you have produced don’t even mention the “theory of evolution”. By that line of reasoning, they should all be tossed. And actually, I think they should.


    (48) Biology, Campbell, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Addison-Wesley, 1993: Evolution - All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today. (ABC) (F)

    Another blank at the library. Note that "from its earliest beginnings" applies to a 6000 year creation as much as it does to a 3.5 billion year expanse of life. This is just change in species over time, change that can be applied "from its earliest beginnings" but those beginnings are not defined.

    Come on! You know as well as I do that since this is a definition for evolution that they are talking about 3.5 billion years. This would definitely go under the column of millions/billions of years even though it is implied instead of stated directly. If not, you are again being hypocritical. If you are discounting the age because it applies equally to the creationist’s timeframe, than why isn’t CISOT itself discounted since it applies equally to the creationist’s position as well?


    (50) Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution Evolution - the development of the higher kinds of animals (eg man), plants etc, from the lower kinds. (ABC)

    This is change in species over time, plus some undefined "higher" versus "lower" direction. What is "higher"?

    This is laughable. “Change in species over time” – what is this except some undefined change! What kind of change? No one reading this definition would understand what you mean. I’ve stated many times that you are proposing a completely nebulous, confusing and ambiguous definition which could mean almost anything and yet you express consternation over a completely clear term of “higher”. Any reader would understand that in this context higher means more advanced, more complex, more developed, and any scientist would understand that it means greater genetic information content. They even provided an example of what higher is. My goodness!

    (51) - Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, 2nd edition, Marshal Cavendish Corporation, 1996,2004
    Evolution is genetic change that takes place over time within a group of organisms.
    Evolution can be discussed either in terms of the development of a species as it adapts to its surrounding environment over successive generations (microevolution) or according to the theory that life on Earth has gradually developed from simple to complex organisms over a four-billion-year history (macroevolution).

    Change in species over time. Covers both microevolution and macroevolution.

    Wrong. First, it is ridiculous to consider ANY genetic change to be evolution and they are incorrect to include it as part of the definition. A few other sources do this as well and of course that is what this debate is about. How can the many groups of organisms (people) in this county that have a myriad of genetic diseases be considered evolution? If that’s evolution, I don’t want it! Or, a less damaging example is simply groups of people born with blue or brown eyes. Genetics is the way in which the design of an organism is passed on to it’s offspring, defects and all. It’s good observable and operational science, but it is not the theory of evolution.

    As noted earlier, the theory of evolution by natural selection has not changed at all in its basic principles since it was formulated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Once Evolutionists discovered a new genetic mechanism that they think could account for evolutionary changes, they started calling this evolution. However, this is only an evolutionary mechanism by their “definition” since there is zero real operational scientific evidence that genetic change can create macro evolutionary changes.

    What they have defined is a genetic “mechanism” or process, NOT the theory of evolution which has not fundamentally changed and is what this debate is about. Notice that they associate micro evolution with adaptation (which I have stated is what CISOT really is) and then define the “theory” as almost EXACTLY what I have said is the real statement of the theory of evolution, calling it macro-evolution. This should answer your question about how I define macro-evolution.

    This definition confirms that “micro-evolution” is simply adaptation and “macro-evolution” is Darwin’s theory of evolution – 2 very different things. Equating the two without any scientific evidence under the umbrella of “any genetic change” is the deceit that I have repeatedly pointed out. Genetic change is the cause of adaptation, but NOT evolution.
    The definition of the THEORY is what we are looking for and this source supports my contention nicely.

    (52) [REMOVED]- Encyclopedia of Evolution, vol 1, Oxford University Press, 2002
    Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time. It is distinct from maturational changes that occur during development or in organisms that have metamorphosis. In some contexts - most conspicuously when discussing "human evolution" - the term often acquires an implicit sense of progress such that later forms are assumed to be more complex and sophisticated than their primitive ancestors. In other contexts, "evolution" connotes a sense of adaptation, such that evolved forms are better suited to coping with the demands of the environment.

    I’m going to have to eliminate this one. “Applied to biology, evolution describes genetic changes that occur in organisms over time” is not a definition. Evolution also describes how all life evolved on earth. The fact is that most reference books don’t define evolution at all, they just discuss it. If we are going to pick things out of discussions, then as I’ve said repeatedly, EVERY textbook that describes evolution in detail, will talk about how it is the source of all the diversity of life we see today. In addition, they will almost always talk about abiogenesis. We are also looking for a statement of the theory of evolution, not a “definition” of the word evolution or the processes involved.

    (52) - Concise Encyclopedia of Biology, (seem to be missing publisher and date)
    Evolutionary theory: a theory founded in particular by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), that the variety of living forms on the Earth is the result of a lengthy and complicated process known as evolution, and that this process still continues today. In the course of evolution, the numerous and various modern living forms descended from a few primitive forms with a low level of organisation. The E.t. is now accepted by all serious scientists
    Synthetic theory of evolution: A modern theory of evolution incorporating Darwin's theory of selection, Mendelian genetics, and genetics at the molecular level. Five mechanisms are assumed to operate…
    Selection primarily ensures that phylogenetic evolution results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment. In contrast, the other four mechanisms occur more or less accidentally and are nondirectional with respect to the form and function of the organism. Both microevolution (differentiation and divergence up to the status of species) and macroevolution (formation of larger and more comprehensive taxa, e.g. at and above the rank of genus) are ultimately due to the operation of these five factors within populations.

    These 5 mechanisms add up to change in species over time. Note the emphasis on nondirectional changes, and the fact that the only mechanism that provides any kind of direction only "results in more appropriate adaptations of the organism to the environment" - there is no "progress" or "higher" or "more complex" just more "appropriate" adaptation. This also means that these concepts are not required parts of the theory of evolution.

    Talk about cherry picking! This source clearly defines the theory of evolution in the first paragraph. Since you don’t like what it says, you search through the discussion to cherry pick what you want. How hypocritical, since you falsely accuse me of doing the same thing.
    You are confusing various concepts and terms here. From the first paragraph, this source clearly defines the theory of evolution (which again is what this debate is about) as being responsible for all the “modern” diversity of life we see today over the history of the earth beginning with a few “primitive” forms (kinds) with a “Low” level of organization (information). Since he is contrasting “low level of organization” and “primitive” with “modern” the clear implication is that modern means “higher” and more complex.

    In addition, it very clearly and refreshingly differentiates the “theory of evolution” stated above (and again what this debate is about), with the “process known as evolution”. The definition uses the term “evolution” referring to the “process” within the definition of the theory. In other words, you can use the word “evolution” as referring to the process of evolution or as a statement of the theory. Several other sources made this clear as well. The theory is not a factual observation but talks about the theoretical RESULTS of the processes involved and again agrees with my definition. Not only that, it states that this evolutionary theory is TODAY accepted by all serious scientists. Therefore, you ought to be using the definition accepted by scientists, not your personally made up slogan of “change in species over time”.

    Regarding synthetic theory, this source does not really define it. It comments on the fact that it involves 5 mechanisms (processes) that are “assumed” to operate. Meaning, of course, that they are only assumed (presupposition) to produce evolutionary results without any real scientific evidence of doing so. I’ve not repeated the descriptions of the 5 mechanisms to save space.

    Regardless, when I have I ever said that evolutionary mechanisms are directional? What’s the “direction” of a mutation? If it has ANY direction it is “down”. Creationists know that there is no upward direction to these processes. Random directionless processes produce nothing but random directionless results. The evolutionists are the ones that have been fooled into thinking that they can produce higher order. In contrast to the processes or mechanisms, the “theory” of evolution dictates that over time that the “appropriate” adaptations produce higher complexity and information. How else could all the variety of life today be produced from primordial soup? Therefore, changes which do not produce higher complexity (in “synthetic” terms meaning greater genetic information content) is NOT evolution, it is simply an example of the wonderful ability of the created kinds to adapt to their environment.

    It also comments that both micro and macro evolution are due to these 5 factors. Of course, all scientists, both creationists and evolutionists alike, agree that they contribute to adaptation (micro evolution). However, there is no real world operational scientific evidence to suggest that they can produce macro evolutionary changes (real evolution). The only evidence for that is a false and manufactured interpretation of the fossil record.

    Therefore, to only mention micro evolution (change in species over time) in the definition is where the disagreement lies because you are deceptively hiding the fact that you also mean macro evolution. If micro and macro evolution were the same thing, than why are there 2 different terms? Since this reference also discusses macro evolution, at least it makes it clear that evolution is responsible for the “larger and more comprehensive” set of organisms and therefore different “kinds” which agrees with my definition not yours.

    Since you’ve taken the opportunity to add some definitions, I’ll include a few extra as well.

    (53) “Life before man”, Zdenek V. Spinar, American Heritage Press, 1972
    “Evolution – The process by which living things develop from simpler, generalized forms to the more complex and specialized, each generation being better fitted to survive and propagate in the particular niche of the environment it occupies. When the environment changes, the too highly specialized types are unable to adapt and so become extinct.”

    This is the entire entry from the glossary. Notice the movement from simple


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-01-2007 4:48 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM MurkyWaters has responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3460 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 88 of 121 (407092)
    06-24-2007 1:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
    06-10-2007 9:57 AM


    Re: Proceeding Once Again ...

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

    I have made several compromises, but see no change in your position at all: that is not debate, it is just spouting your position with your fingers in your ears ignoring the conflicting evidence.

    Look who's talking. I have suggested just as many compromises as you have and I have seen no change in your position at all. All your compromises have done is suggest we define evolution your way. That's not a compromise. In addition, all you have done is re-hash definitions, ignoring the overwhelmingly evidence (regarding the defintions) which supports my position. Lastly, you have refused to debate the appropriateness of our opposing defintions on their actual merits, supposedly because you lack any valid arguments to make. Your refusal to accept the obvious indicates that you wish to continue to deceive yourself and others into thinking that evolution has and is occuring regardless of the evidence. ...mw

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 9:57 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 3460 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 89 of 121 (407096)
    06-24-2007 2:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
    06-10-2007 12:40 PM


    Re: Calling All Creos ... Calling All Creo ...

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

    The only thing I will ask for is agreement on the definition of evolution as used in the science

    For over 70 posts now you have insisted that "Change in species over time" is a statement of the theory of evolution. This definiton is NOT used in science or in any dictionary, encylopedia or scientific reference. This is a cute slogan made up by you in order to deceive yourself and others into thinking that real evolution has occurred.

    I have overwhelming demonstrated in my latest post (87) and prior posts that the theory of evolution can be stated as follows:

    "All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form"

    This is overwhelmingly supported by both universal and scientific references plus common sense and logic. Any evidence for evolution must be weighed against this defintion in order to judge it's validity.

    You have now added heredity to your definition of micro evolution. However, this is only the proposed PROCESS by which evolution according to the THEORY is said to occur. It is NOT a statement of the theory of evolution.

    In addition, the defintion you use for macroevolution is identical except that you have added speciation. However, macroevolution is defined overwhelmingly in scientific sources as the THEORY of evolution which I have stated above. This means it is responsible for all the diversity of life we see on earth from a common ancestor billions of years ago, NOT simply speciation.

    By using this deceptive definition, you want to make it appear that evolution is a fact simply by the observation that species have changed over time. However, adaptation has nothing to do with the real theory of evolution as stated above. Scientific evidence for adaptation supports creation theory and the variation of species within the created kinds.

    If we are to continue a discussion of the evidence, you must first use the defintion of evolution that is used in science.
    ...mw

    GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 12:40 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 18480
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 90 of 121 (407159)
    06-24-2007 5:10 PM
    Reply to: Message 87 by MurkyWaters
    06-24-2007 1:15 AM


    Move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE
    RAZD vs MurkyWaters and others

    Welcome back Murk, long time.

    Instead of arguing this issue on a logical basis, you continue to nit pick these definitions which don’t support your argument anyway. I must assume that this is because you simply don’t have any logical arguments left to refute those that I have made. You continue to accuse me of misrepresentation, but you are the one that is misrepresenting the whole basis of this argument and the definitions as well.

    And still no change. The concept is simple: two universities that teach the science of evolution specifically define evolution as change in species over time. Everything else is from discussion of the effect of evolution over time: diversity, "macro"evolution are effects.

    The concept of the debate is also simple: if my definition is inadequate, then challenge it to produce the goods. Failure to do that is refusal to move the debate forward.

    We are not looking for something that is “not change over time”, we are looking for something that is in ADDITION to change over time.

    Define that "something" and we can proceed. Insisting on "something" that you leave undefined does not move the debate forward nor resolve the issue, it is just stonewalling. If you cannot define it then it does not exist except as a figment of your imagination.

    {abe} Without "something" being defined it cannot be tested and thus it is

    The Definition:
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

    Note that the next sentence starts with "this definition" meaning that the first sentence is THE DEFINITION. You continue to conflate it with the discussion of the results of the theory, the predictions, and the science of evolution.

    What HAS been uncovered is your attempts to misrepresent what the definitions mean. I believe this may be the only instance that I referred to earlier where I included something that was not immediately adjacent to the main definition.

    There is no main part, there is THE definition and then a discussion of how it is applied in the SCIENCE of evolution. It is typical of every other misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution.

    The rest of your post is just more of the same and has already been refuted. Stop wasting bandwidth and deal with thie issue: can the theory of evolution as change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see?

    Yes. That has already been demonstrated with the Foraminifera and Pelycodus and several other examples: diversity happens as a result of change in species over time. Every speciation event has resulted in a new species, that is a diversification.

    Can the theory of evolution as the change in species over time explain the diversity of life we see with our classification system? I say yes. It is just more diversity over more time.

    If you disagree all you need to do is say "show me" and anything else is a waste of time at this point.

    (2) The theory of evolution, on the other hand, can be stated as “All the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form.” This can be equated with the commonly used terms “macroevolution” (used by evolutionist) or simply “theory of evolution” (used by creationists).

    This is the result of the theory not the theory. You are conflating the science of evolution with the theory of evolution. Your whole argument is based on a false premise and thus your conclusions are necessarily invalid. The fact that you call this the creationist definition shows that you are not using the scientific definition but a strawman.

    If for some reason you do not accept compromise #1, which I think is extremely reasonable, and If you are truly interested in a compromise, then let’s you and I debate the actual merits of the definitions point by point and bring this endless analysis of definitions to a close.

    You have offered no compromise at all but acceptance of your position without modification and with complete denial of evidence to the contrary. It appears all you are interested in doing is rehashing old ground. The simple thing to do to move the debate forward is to APPLY the theory and see if it works. That is how science is done.

    Anything less is stonewalling. Stop wasting bandwidth and start applying science.

    Message 89
    For over 70 posts now you have insisted that "Change in species over time" is a statement of the theory of evolution. This definiton is NOT used in science or in any dictionary, encylopedia or scientific reference. This is a cute slogan made up by you in order to deceive yourself and others into thinking that real evolution has occurred.

    Prove it. Let's proceed to application of "my" theory to see where we end up. That is how science works. It's that simple.

    Enjoy.

    ps - I've invited other creationists to participate in the debate due to your unwillingness to move forward.

    GREAT DEBATE
    RAZD vs MurkyWaters and others

    Edited by RAZD, : abe


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 87 by MurkyWaters, posted 06-24-2007 1:15 AM MurkyWaters has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 91 by shiloh, posted 06-25-2007 1:59 AM RAZD has responded
     Message 97 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-04-2007 1:58 PM RAZD has responded

    Prev1
    ...
    45
    6
    789Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017