Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 283 (154698)
10-31-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
06-09-2004 11:22 AM


"And that is one of the strong arguments for evolution. If we suddenly saw something new created, Creationists would win hands down. But until they can show Creation happening, they have no argument. Evolutionists can show evolution happening. Creationists have never been able to show Creation happening."
I am new here, I will probably be posting more later, but it takes so long to read through these threads :-). I was just curious what evidence evolutionists have that can "show evolution happening."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 11:22 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2004 11:18 PM winston123180 has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 283 (154699)
10-31-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Loudmouth
06-09-2004 11:58 AM


"Not when they are buried under hundreds of feet of rock that could only have formed over millions of years."
Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate (I do not know enough about any of this stuff to argue with you people, I am mainly reading this mb for educational purposes), how could a bone that is several inches thick still be intact in the time that it would take for sediment to form a layer tall enough to cover it? You said millions of years, but even hundreds seems like it would be to many. This makes me think of all of the buffalo that were wiped out in the plains in the days of early America. Their bones are gone.
Some people would say that the only explainable way for this to happen is through a universal catastrophe (ie. the Genesis flood).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 06-09-2004 11:58 AM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by lfen, posted 10-31-2004 11:11 PM winston123180 has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 93 of 283 (154707)
10-31-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by winston123180
10-31-2004 10:56 PM


how could a bone that is several inches thick still be intact in the time that it would take for sediment to form a layer tall enough to cover it? You said millions of years, but even hundreds seems like it would be to many. This makes me think of all of the buffalo that were wiped out in the plains in the days of early America. Their bones are gone.
"Seems like"? You could get some books out of the library on geology and how scientists have studied these things. Science is not about sitting and thinking if something seems reasonable to you. If you are writing "seems like it would be too many" as a hypothesis then how would you prove it? How would you falsify it?
Some people would say that the only explainable way for this to happen is through a universal catastrophe (ie. the Genesis flood).
There are those who say that. What do you say? Are you aware of the scientific explanations? How much flooding would it take to bury a bone? What if the animal died in or near water and the bones dropped into a soft sediment? Science and mathamatics do not have to satisfy what seems possible to us. Rather it has to satisfy observations of what happens. That is the theory must fit the data. Universal flood does not fit the data.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 10:56 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:23 PM lfen has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 283 (154709)
10-31-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by winston123180
10-31-2004 10:49 PM


I was just curious what evidence evolutionists have that can "show evolution happening."
Well, how about direct observation of evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 10:49 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 283 (154712)
10-31-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by lfen
10-31-2004 11:11 PM


So you're telling me that a few bones can lay around for hundreds or thousands of years and still remain whole? Wind and rain can wear holes in huge rocks, but these bones will just lay there undisturbed?
The fact that it is not seemingly possible from a scientific or mathamatic perspective seems bigger to me than what you try to make it. I don't know the whole argument, which is why I was looking for a logical or even better, a scientific answer, not a criticism of the way I word things.
Also, are you suggesting that every fossil that is found today is of a creature that stepped into some "soft soil?"
This message has been edited by winston123180, 10-31-2004 11:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by lfen, posted 10-31-2004 11:11 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 10-31-2004 11:42 PM winston123180 has replied
 Message 100 by lfen, posted 10-31-2004 11:49 PM winston123180 has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 283 (154713)
10-31-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
10-31-2004 11:18 PM


This is exactly my point. When has it been directly observed? I was looking for a specific example that I might be able to read up on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2004 11:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 10-31-2004 11:47 PM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 7:02 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 97 of 283 (154714)
10-31-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by winston123180
10-31-2004 11:23 PM


So you're telling me that a few bones can lay around for hundreds or thousands of years and still remain whole? Wind and rain can wear holes in huge rocks, but these bones will just lay there undisturbed?
You're missing something. Fossils aren't bones. Fossilization occurs when the bone is replaced by minerals, or the bone leaves an imprint on the rock surrounding it.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:23 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:45 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 283 (154715)
10-31-2004 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DrJones*
10-31-2004 11:42 PM


Sure, I understand that. What I'm not missing is the fact that they would still have to be around and intact for the time that it would take for these things to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DrJones*, posted 10-31-2004 11:42 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 12:37 AM winston123180 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 99 of 283 (154716)
10-31-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by winston123180
10-31-2004 11:26 PM


I'm sure someone will come along with a more detailed answer but here's mine:
How about the rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria? Because bacteria reproduce asexually the only way these strains could have come about was from a random mutation that granted this resistance. The antibiotic comes along and kills all the bacteria that don't have this mutation, the resistant bacteria thrive and pass this mutation down to their offspring/clones. Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:26 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 100 of 283 (154718)
10-31-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by winston123180
10-31-2004 11:23 PM


I wasn't criticizing how you word things. I was criticizing what looked like an assumption on your part that facts should fit your notion of how they should be.
So you're telling me that a few bones can lay around for hundreds or thousands of years and still remain whole? Wind and rain can wear holes in huge rocks, but these bones will just lay there undisturbed?
I didn't tell you this. They don't lay around exposed. They are buried and a number of different processes can occur. It is when they are somehow exposed sometimes by erosion, sometimes by digging that they are brought to the surface.
Also, are you suggesting that every fossil that is found today is of a creature that stepped into some "soft soil?"
No.
Type this into google, How are fossils made?
Here is a link to get you started.
http://caca.essortment.com/howarefossils_rirf.htm
If you are not just trolling this group and are sincerely interested in learning what science has found then google is a start. There are far better sources of explanation then what I can type in here in my spare time.
lfen
edited to correct the webpage link
This message has been edited by lfen, 10-31-2004 11:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:23 PM winston123180 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by winston123180, posted 11-01-2004 12:00 AM lfen has replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 283 (154720)
11-01-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by lfen
10-31-2004 11:49 PM


I'm not a troll, but I"ve been called one on alot of boards. I am a twenty-three year old person who is trying to form a worldview. I grew up in public school, being taught evolution like it is undisputed fact, then I see people like Lee Strobel "Case for a Creator" and Jobe Martin "The Evolution of a Creationist" who dispute it. I like to read, and I try to read as much as I can from all opposing sides. I also like to pick the brains of people who seem to know what they are talking about, which is why I bring questions that I have to places like this. I guess the way that I come off sounds "trollish" but my intentions are otherwise, please believe me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by lfen, posted 10-31-2004 11:49 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by winston123180, posted 11-01-2004 12:08 AM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 105 by lfen, posted 11-01-2004 12:47 AM winston123180 has not replied
 Message 106 by AdminNosy, posted 11-01-2004 12:49 AM winston123180 has not replied

  
winston123180
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 283 (154722)
11-01-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by winston123180
11-01-2004 12:00 AM


PS: If there's a better place for me to take this, let me know. I just read through this whole thread, and was posting a few questions that I had.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by winston123180, posted 11-01-2004 12:00 AM winston123180 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by AdminNosy, posted 11-01-2004 12:41 AM winston123180 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 103 of 283 (154727)
11-01-2004 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by winston123180
10-31-2004 11:45 PM


Taphonomy
The study of how fossils form is called taphonomy. If you google that you will find a ton of stuff on it.
Basically, you are right: it takes some pretty special circumstances for a fossil to be allowed to form. They must be protected from the environment pretty quickly.
This is a major reason why a very large percentage (I don't how much) of fossils are of marine creatures.
If you look at the fossils we do find you see them associated with what had been rivers, volcanic eruptions, sand, amber and other things allowing for rapid burial. In other cases they are in an environment with little or no oxygen to support other creatures (some lake bottoms).
Taphonomy gives us some idea both of how fossils form and just what a very tiny percentage of all living things will be fossilzed.
It does require something to protect them. This is frequently a "catastrophe". However, it is just a catastrophe for that particular creature (a local mud slide, volcano or flood) not a world wide catastrophe.
In fact, when you think about it the nature of the fossils we do (or don't) find demonstrates a lack of one big, global catastrophe. This would have formed a large number of fossils at one level, under a homogenized layer of sediment with no living animals to scavange the fossils. What we see instead are discreet, local, rare and sometimes partially scavanged remains.
So in summary, you're right. They have to have something special happen to them to protect them. Those somethings are known, usually determinable from the fossil site and very, very rare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by winston123180, posted 10-31-2004 11:45 PM winston123180 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 104 of 283 (154728)
11-01-2004 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by winston123180
11-01-2004 12:08 AM


Better place.
Actually the formation of fossils is an interesting topic of its own.
Amazingly we haven't, that I recall, had a thread on just that topic. I say amazingly because almost all topics you might possible think of have already been done a number of times.
The fossil formation one has been discussed as a side issue a number of times though.
If you want to dig deeply into it I suggest you do to Proposed New Topics and create a topic there to discuss just fossil formation. There is a great deal to say about it and it would be interesting.
I will approve it if you word it clearly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by winston123180, posted 11-01-2004 12:08 AM winston123180 has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 105 of 283 (154730)
11-01-2004 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by winston123180
11-01-2004 12:00 AM


I guess the way that I come off sounds "trollish" but my intentions are otherwise, please believe me.
Okay. Making very generalized simplistic statements without citing supports is what struck me as trolling.
Science can be very complex. Creationist websites way over simplify what science is. On the other hand creationist website's simplicty is easier to understand than science. A world wide flood is a notion that can briefly be used to "explain" a number of things. Science requires a lot of verified data and the findings and theories must be peer reviewed by other scientists in that field.
There are a number of ways that bones, plants, footprints, bugs, pollen have been preserved. I don't have the information or knack of condensing this down. A local flooding is one way of burying an animal. Falling into the ocean, or lake, or a river and being covered by mud and sediment is another. The various finds of fossils around the world have been cataloged and documented and subject to geological and other verification.
The statement that only a world wide flood could bury animals quickly enough is not a supported scientific theory. It has been repeatedly falsified. Those who put that theory forward have a religious not a scientific agenda. They want the Bible to be literally true so they can believe that that ancient world view is indeed true. If that is what you wish then go ahead and believe it. If what you seek is scientific fact then go and read what scientists have studied.
There are many world views. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Read over some of the threads you find here, use google, but your local libary is a better place to find information in my opinion. But I'll tell you animal bones did not lie around on the ground for hundreds of years being slowly covered up nor were they all buried in a world wide Noahic flood. They were buried within days to months and the processes of mineralization to cite only one kind of preservation process then took place over much longer periods of time.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by winston123180, posted 11-01-2004 12:00 AM winston123180 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024