Evolution vs Creation

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

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.

---

Well, as usual, I have to slow things down a bit for Fred. Okay, try this: What Mark said did NOT indicate that 'evolution accomodates everything,' as you somehow interpreted it. He said, I believe, that evolution explains the entire fossil record. That is hardly 'everything.' This is a simple propaganda tactic on your part and really adds nothing to the discussion.

A few more points regarding Fred's latest post.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yep, there's a reason for that.

quote:

---

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!

---

It is also a miniscule part of the record that must be explained. Or would you rather ignore it?

quote:

---

BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away.

---

Yep, there's a reason for that, too. They are not credible finds.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, let's see... It couldn't be that the theory of evolution is correct, could it? Seems to me that any theory that contradicts yours is, by definition, wrong. Is that what you call science?

quote:

---

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?

---

No, it could be that they were buried as they died in water and were buried by normal sedimentary processes. How does you data refute this possibility?

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, they must be wrong.

quote:

---

Dream all you want, Randy. The fossil record is solid evidence for creation and powerful evidence against evolution.

---

Not at all. As your floundering on the issues shows us, creationism cannot explain the fossil record. You have made our point quite well, thank you.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, since mudflows eroded steep canyons in soft pyroclastics, you think that this proves all canyons were cut in the same way? Please, Fred, learn a little geology before you embarass yourself further.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Same way, every time? Now did I say that? No. Regardless, Mt St Helens showed canyon carving can be done in hours, not millions of years.

---

So then, you agree that some canyons may take 'millions of years,' or at least a very long time? If not, then what are you saying?

quote:

---

Heck, there's even a little creek runnin' down that valley. A miniature grand canyon, cooked up in the matter of hours. Mt St Helens was also the reason evolutionists now admit the so-called fossilized forest in Yellowstone was not the result of millions of years of forests buried on top of each other, but instead a single event from a flood that transported them there some time in the past.

---

NOw, which geologists are these? You mean Steve Austin? Or is that Stuart Nevins? Or both?

quote:

---

To the credit of the Yellowstone Park crew, the sign that misled people for years of how this forest got there is now long gone.

---

I'm not aware of a sign.

quote:

---

Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?

---

Probably. I'm not sure of the length of time, but it was certainly more than 4000 years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Please lose the evo-handbook with the "how to answer a cretionist" parrot phrases. We are interested in debate here, not evo-babble rhetoric from T.O. hacks. Please advise your pal Fedmahn to do the same. Thanks!

---

Fred:I think you meant to say, "...how to answer a cretionist parroted phrase."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

Fred: Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?

​

Edge: Probably.

​

Do you believe it is unreasonable for others, including evolutionists, to attribute the Grand Canyon to some catastrophic event in the past involving water?

---

To a single event? Yes.

quote:

---

BTW, some time ago I heard the argument that the Grand Canyon elevation is higher at the exit point than the entry point of the Colorado river, and thus argues against the Colorado river as the canyon creator. I’m curious what the uniformitarian answer (story?) is to this.

---

You have to assume first that the story is true. I think this is a misunderstanding of the stream capture hypothesis or some other fairly complex geological concept.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Randy:Fred your source is talking about a different petrified forest.

​

Fred: You're right. my bad.

​

I'll look in to this furhter.

​

BTW, I recall that Austin showed that trees were buried in different sediment layers in Spirit lake, which emulates what is observed at the Yellowstone forest.

---

I do not recall such a thing. Could you document this? How did Austin/Nevins investigate multiple layers of sediment in Spirit Lake? Were the trees standing upright in the deeper sediments?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sonofasailor:
I think my original post is being forgotten. SOS[/B][/QUOTE]Yes, that happens. Many times, threads turn into personal soap boxes and the original line of thought is completely lost. Unfortunately, much of what has happened here has gone on many times before (just in case you didn't get the undercurrent of a history). And much of what we have read on this thread has been posted many times before. You get used it.

quote:

---

Fred: Good point. Like I said before, there is a good reason. It is very, very difficult to defend the fairlytale of evolution.

---

Yep, heard this before. Not a substantial statement, but part of the routine.

quote:

---

You must believe and accept it on blind faith, not evidence. You are required to make your mind up despite the evidence. Soon, if you take this route, you'll begin to convince yourself that there is evidence for the theory.

---

This is actually contrary to what usually happens. Most evolutionists were steeped in creation lore for the first dozen years or more of life before seeing the actual evidence. But never mind. This is part of creationist legend.

quote:

---

Stories from Dawkins, et al, will "evolve" from fantasy to reality. But all the while the evidence didn't change, just your perception of it.

---

Yes, I remember reading Dawkins in my youth. [/sarcasm]

quote:

---

Fred: Someone want to post answers to each of Erik's 5 questions in this thread? Nothing like good story-telling before the weekend!

---

Actually, this has been done at least to a large degree. However, perhaps I should take a quick stab at # 4.

quote:

---

4. How do I know Radio carbon dating is accurate in its dating techniques?

---

The short answer is: unless you know something additional about about any particular date, you don't know that it is accurate. The best thing to do is check on the credibility of the researcher. If the author is creationist, then you can pretty much bet that the radiocarbon date is invalid. I would go with authors published in the peer-reviewed literature.There are a lot of ways to screw up a radiocarbon date. That is why we don't leave it to amateurs at any step in the process. The only real problem is that some people feel that if there is a potential source of error, then the entire method is invalid. This is over-simplified logic. If we used it in every day life, we would still be living in caves.Basically, check the credentials of the author and you can make a qualitative judgement as to the validity of a radiocarbon date. If you want to get further into this, there are many websites and books that deal with the methodology of carbon dating. Even most high school textbooks will give you a general idea, including some of the pitfalls waiting for the uninitiated researcher.To Fred: Remember, I'd like to hear about the research by Austin/Nevins on the stratified log beds in Spirit Lake; and also the story (fairy tale?) about the Grand Canyon outlet being at a higher elevation than the inlet. Seems to me that someone might have noticed this and it would be one of the wonders of the world. Both of these stories you have told are kind of vague and difficult to respond to unless you can give us more information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Fred, the weekend seems to be well and truly over.

​

Are you going to address the outstanding matters on this thread?

---

Just a gentle reminder for Fred. He has made a lot of assertions on this thread. It would be good form to answer at least some of the issues, rather than coming back every two months and dumping the same old 'stuff.'