Evolution vs Creation

Please, stop lying and being so dishonest.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-09-2002]

[comments to Mark and Randy]Randy fondly points out Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. This has always amused me, that evolutionists truly think their theory is falsifiable. Randy, what is the number one test that would falsify evolution for you?I noticed this jewel in the fossil thread that evolutionists proudly cheer as a worthy refutation of my article:Mark: Despite your strawman, Fred, namely, that the current theory of evolution only allows gradualism, The current theory allows rapid evolution, as well as stasis.Oh yes, I forgot! The theory accommodates everything! The fossils are such a wonderful test for the theory. No matter how they appear, they fit within the evolutionary framework, and the test passes! Here is a great example of the adaptability of the evolutionary theory. The truth is, a theory that is set up to explain everything (ie not testable), explains nothing.The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record. Clear-cut lineages showing large-scale evolution would falsify creation. But honest scientists know this has not happened:One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions [gradualism]. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution - Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150BTW, notice that Mark goes off on a story about how increased oxygen is the key to the rapid evolution of body plans! Stories are not science (hence evolution is not science). Besides, his story does not consider the mathematics. Mark should refer to footnote 19 in my article: Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. - Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.I guess Mark thinks increased oxygen elevates the mutation rate? [Note: Ohmo’ s evaluation was made before more recent fossils shrank the Cambriam explosion to below 3 million years! Ohno goes on to explain the problem with his own story, one that approaches theistic evolution because he basically assumes the information is already available in the genes. All this does is push the problem back in time. Where did all this information come from? Will Ohno join the Crick-esque panspermia it came from space aliens story?].

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Please, stop lying and being so dishonest. [/QUOTE]ROTFL! Please, stop posting worthless comments and comments that have no value. LOL!

Originally posted by Fred Williams:ROTFL! Please, stop posting worthless comments and comments that have no value. LOL!Talking to yourself again?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
what is the number one test that would falsify evolution for you?

---

For me it's simple. Observed creation. In the lab. Complex multicelled organism ab nihilo. Post an example if you will. Crosse's Acari, perhaps? But not well enough documented, and even Crosse did not think they were supernaturally generated. But a clear observation of ex nihilo creation actually occuring would be quite sufficient.Interestingly, the opposite would not disprove creation. Observation in the lab of evolution over several generations would still not disprove that an omnipotent God had actually created everything in 6 days with the possibility of subsequent evolution built in.I guess your pet fairy tale is far and away the least falsifiable.

quote:

---

The truth is, a theory that is set up to explain everything (ie not testable), explains nothing.

---

Rather like that theory of an infinitely capable, infinitely knowledgable God who can do anything? With this clarification, I can reject creationism with your blessing.
[B][QUOTE]The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record.[/B][/QUOTE]Not according to Gosse - you should read Omphalos some time. And not according to my relatively minor tweak outlined above. Anyone who can believe in some of the more ludicrous accounts of the global flood would have no problem believing in Creation and Evolution.Really Fred, try a bit harder. That was pathetic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Stories are not science (hence evolution is not science). Besides, his story does not consider the mathematics. Mark should refer to footnote 19 in my article: Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. - Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.

---

Yet this evening I read that wolves and coyotes differ by some 6% in their DNA. Does that mean that the Ark landed 60 million years ago?FK[This message has been edited by Fedmahn Kassad, 09-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I noticed this jewel in the fossil thread that evolutionists proudly cheer as a worthy refutation of my article:

​

Mark: Despite your strawman, Fred, namely, that the current theory of evolution only allows gradualism, The current theory allows rapid evolution, as well as stasis.

​

Oh yes, I forgot! The theory accommodates everything! The fossils are such a wonderful test for the theory. No matter how they appear, they fit within the evolutionary framework, and the test passes! Here is a great example of the adaptability of the evolutionary theory. The truth is, a theory that is set up to explain everything (ie not testable), explains nothing.

---

Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving, Fred. I don't suppose it would occur to you that evolution might just be correct, would it? Nah.

quote:

---

The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record.

---

And what do you suspect that we see? Hominids immediately above Vendian metazoans? Indeed, in the greater scale of things, evolution is gradual, however there are jumps that are explained by PE.

quote:

---

Clear-cut lineages showing large-scale evolution would falsify creation. But honest scientists know this has not happened:

---

Actually, large scale evolution is clearly defined in the fossil record. And what about the other scientists? All dishonest, eh?

quote:

---

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions [gradualism]. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46

---

Still fighting the gradualism battle, eh, Fred? Did you notice that Eldredge and Tattersall are evolutionists? Why is that? Can you give me anyone here who is a strict gradualist? If not, why not, and why are you beating this dead horse?

quote:

---

For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution - Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150

---

All phyla? Are you sure about this? Besides what is a short period of time to you? Did you know that the animal Kingdom appeared at one point in time! Now, there's evidence against evolution!

quote:

---

BTW, notice that Mark goes off on a story about how increased oxygen is the key to the rapid evolution of body plans! Stories are not science (hence evolution is not science). Besides, his story does not consider the mathematics. Mark should refer to footnote 19 in my article: Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10 -9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. - Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.

---

Oh Fred, talk about stories! How many assumptions are you basing yours on? [quote] Please document this. How do you come up with this time span?

From Fairy Tale Fred

quote:

---

Randy fondly points out Of course Fred knows full well that evolution could be falsified. This has always amused me, that evolutionists truly think their theory is falsifiable. Randy, what is the number one test that would falsify evolution for you?

---

Why do you only ask for one when you know there is more than one? How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before. Creationism can’t explain why these don’t exist. Would you like some others that you have seen before.

quote:

---

The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record.

---

Of course, Darwinian gradualistic or not the fossil record falsifies the flood. I do agree that Young Earth Creationism is falsifiable (unless you accept the Omphalos idea). It is clearly falsifiable because it is falsified multiple times by:1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition. Several creationist attempts to rationalize the world’s geology with the flood are shown to be false on the Flood Forum.And there are probably other falsification of YEC that I left out.
Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.Randy

I'm still here guys. Mark has been providing a lot of information, but I'm willing to listen to anything for or against my beliefs. I will not be a hit and run on this board. No one posted for a while, so I began asking Mark and Schrafniator through emails. Thank you both for all the time taken out of your lives. I hope more of you began talking about the original questions and not debating each other on various other points. Thanks Erik

Oh Good! Williams is back form his hiatus.Hopefully, he will retiurn to the threads he left dangling rather than simply engage in his ad hominem assaults on everyone that disagrees with his layman's grasp of evolutionary biology and his relaianbce upon repeated assertion in lieu of actual positive evidence for his postion.Here are a sprinkling of the threads that Fred left, only to return to a new thread, often bringing up the same tripe:http://EvC Forum: Why can creationists give straight answers? -->EvC Forum: Why can creationists give straight answers?http://EvC Forum: Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma -->EvC Forum: Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemmahttp://EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolution -->EvC Forum: Give your one best shot - against evolutionhttp://EvC Forum: Information and Genetics -->EvC Forum: Information and Genetics

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
LOL! Erik, you asked some good questions to start this thread, and here we are a month later and all the evolutionists here *still* have not provided the evidence you requested.

---

Fred,I am not sure why you - of all people - are 'loling' this.You were asked probably dozens of times MORE THAN A YEAR AGO to provide citations - even one! - that supported your creationism fairy tale regarding "non-random mutation". Your pitiful excuse then was that you were working on some sort of 'article' and didn't want to give away your best points, or some such nonsense.Now, more than a year later - No article, no citations.I wonder who should be doing the "LOLing"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
The Creation model, on the other hand, would be falsified by a Darwinian gradualistic fossil record. Clear-cut lineages showing large-scale evolution would falsify creation.

---

Considering the fact that the creationism myth posits all extant diversity to have originated within the few thousand years since the mythological flood, WHERE ARE THE CLEAR-CUT LINEAGES SHOWING ALL OF THIS VARIATION?It seems to me that it would be far easier for the creationist to produice fossil evidence for their version of reality that the evolutionist, considering the fact that time wreaks havoc on all evidence.

quote:

---

But honest scientists know this has not happened:

​

One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions [gradualism]. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46

---

Funny - it appears that this quote is form a book on human evolution, not evolution in general. It is also 10 years old. Tell us Fred - what creationist quote-mining source did you get that from? It is highly doubtful that you read it yourself, just as was the case with the Kimura papers and such that you simply lifted quotes from ReMine's book ( a book that I have shown is less than forthcoming on its quoting and referencing).

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. - Susumo Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA: Vol 93, No 16, 8475-78, August 6, 1996.

---

I guess Williams the paleontologist has never heard of the Precambrian period.Or much else, by the looks of it...

quote:

---

Edge: Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving,

---

Funny, after your post the fossil record was the first test Randy invoked for evolution, and the first test he claims falsifies creation. He is reflecting the common evolutionist argument. So, what I picked out of Mark’s post is the most common test given for evolution. Methinks it is you who should examine his logic circuits. I must say I enjoy watching you guys step all over each other. [quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------See my article for reference. You can also search the web and find other sources.

quote:

---

Randy: How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before.

---

Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution! BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away. So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there. Admit it, if one where found you would go along with the party-line explanation (story) that explains it away. I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them. You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.

quote:

---

1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.

---

LOL! The very fact we even have fossils, trillions of them all over the world, the vast majority of which require deposition and rapid burial in mud, is a powerful testimony to some sort of global catastrophe involving water, wouldn’t you say? But ole Randy and his evolutionists dare not admit there was a disaster involving water some time in the past! Oh wait, there are now some evolutionists admitting that most of the fossils were buried by water catastrophes. But it couldn’t have been on a global nature (because that would be favorable to that Book they oppose) so they claim they’re a bunch of separate, localized events. Uh huh.Dream all you want, Randy. The fossil record is solid evidence for creation and powerful evidence against evolution. I again refer the common sense reader to my article which exposes the evolutionary minsinformation: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.
3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.

---

Yada Yada. Point me to your post, or make what you think is the most powerful evidence against rapid divergence here.

quote:

---

4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition.

---

Like Mt St Helens? Good thing we witnessed it, else evolutionists would have told us those 100-ft canyons carved out 20 years ago were the result of millions of years of erosion.

quote:

---

Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.

---

This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw!

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Yes! That is exactly what Mark said: 'evolution accomodates everything.' So perceptive of you Fred, to pick that out of what Mark wrote. I'm concerned that your logic circuits are devolving,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Funny, after your post the fossil record was the first test Randy invoked for evolution, and the first test he claims falsifies creation. He is reflecting the common evolutionist argument. So, what I picked out of Mark’s post is the most common test given for evolution. Methinks it is you who should examine his logic circuits. I must say I enjoy watching you guys step all over each other.

---

Did Mark say that evolution could explain anything or that it does explain what is actually seen in the fossil record? That’s a pretty big difference. [quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I got the Ohno paper here.
Just a moment...I think PNAS is free to everyon.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy: How about mammalian fossils in undisturbed Cambrian strata? I know you have seen that one before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution!

---

Hmm that’s funny our local museum has several complete or nearly complete skeletons of some very large fossil mammals including a spectacular Jefferson's ground sloth. How about a dinosaur fossil in the Precambrian then. But I have a question for you. Were mammals only a tiny sliver of life on earth at the time of the flood? If everything got buried at once why are mammals such a tiny fraction of the fossil record? If all life on earth was buried at once why is 95% of the fossil record from marine invertebrates? It seems to me that a flood that went up over land should have preferentially buried land creatures and not the sea creatures who could supposedly survive.

quote:

---

BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away. So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there. Admit it, if one where found you would go along with the party-line explanation (story) that explains it away. I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them. You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.

---

Finding a living dinosaur would just mean the a dinosaur population had somehow survived until now. It seems very unlikely. But if all the dinosaur kinds were saved on the ark how is it that they all died out so fast right after the flood as to leave no record?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The fossil record. All creationist attempts to explain fossil ordering degenerate into complete and utter nonsense. There are several posts on the Geology and the Flood forum and some others showing this clearly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

LOL! The very fact we even have fossils, trillions of them all over the world, the vast majority of which require deposition and rapid burial in mud, is a powerful testimony to some sort of global catastrophe involving water, wouldn’t you say? But ole Randy and his evolutionists dare not admit there was a disaster involving water some time in the past! Oh wait, there are now some evolutionists admitting that most of the fossils were buried by water catastrophes. But it couldn’t have been on a global nature (because that would be favorable to that Book they oppose) so they claim they’re a bunch of separate, localized events. Uh huh.

​

Dream all you want, Randy. The fossil record is solid evidence for creation and powerful evidence against evolution. I again refer the common sense reader to my article which exposes the evolutionary minsinformation:

​

404 Not Found

---

And I guess all those trillions of critters were all living at the same time but got buried in ordered layers all at once.Here are some threads showing the absurdity of creationist explanations of the fossil record.
EvC Forum: Fossil Ordering Re-Visited
http://EvC Forum: Flood sorting -->EvC Forum: Flood sortingAnd one that you abandoned after getting your butt kicked.http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Biogeography: This is another one that leaves YEC without a logical answer. See the Geology and the Flood forum.
3. Biodiversity: I have posted on insect biodiversity on the Flood forum but other organisms have diversity that falsifies the idea that they are descended from two of each kind coming off a boat in the Middle East onto a flood devastated earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Yada Yada. Point me to your post, or make what you think is the most powerful evidence against rapid divergence here.

---

OK
EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.Maybe you think all those families of marsupials in Australia diverged from a couple of individuals in a few thousand years. Maybe you think Koalas were omnivores and Marsupial moles could fly and Gila Monsters had fur coats when they left the ark a few thousand years ago. I wouldn’t put it past you. The "kinds barrier" seems to mean nothing to the post-ark hyperspeciation fantasy.http://EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.You had no answer for Insect diversity when I posted it on OCW. Maybe you can do better now. KC said the flood could have collected a forest along with its dirt to preserve ground dwelling insects for a year. That sounds like a fairy tale you would like.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Geology: There are many features in so-called flood deposited strata that are totally inconsistent with flood deposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Like Mt St Helens? Good thing we witnessed it, else evolutionists would have told us those 100-ft canyons carved out 20 years ago were the result of millions of years of erosion.

---

I have been to Mt St. Helens twice since the eruption. The sediments that were carved by Touttle River are still so unconsolidated you can dig them up with your bare hands. BTW I think you will find that the rapidly carved "canyons" collapsed into the river and the sediments had to be removed by a massive dredging project.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course none of this bothers Fairy Tale Fred in the least. He is totally confident that his myth is reality. However, anyone still capable of rational thought should see through Fred’s handwaving easily enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw!

---

No it’s the view that all land dwelling life and all the people on earth are descended from a 600 year old man and his small family and a bunch of animals they cared for on a giant wooden boat during a year of worldwide flood a few thousand years ago that is irrational. The idea that the world’s geology and paleontology can be explained by a worldwide flood is also irrational. I don’t think life evolved from a pile of dirt but then again I don’t think all humans are descended from a single man who was created directly from a pile of dirt and a woman made from his rib either. That's your fairytale.Randy

Originally posted by Fred Williams:This coming from someone who thinks all life evolved from a pile of dirt! Yes, I am totally confident by distant ancestor is not a piece of clod off my shoe. Life is so vastly complex it cannot possibly be the result of blind naturalistic mechanisms. But according to Randy this view is irrational. Yee Haw! I see that you still don't have a single clue of what evolution is. It has nothing to do with how life "got started". Besides we've never said anything about being from dirt, the bible makes that claim. It is organic and inorganic compounds. Everything on this planet is made from the same basic elements called CHON (All others are just trace elements), including dirt and us as well.You are only hurting your "cause" by displaying your ignorance for all to see.