Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 89 (28721)
01-08-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by thousands_not_billions
01-08-2003 9:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Interesting idea, but where did the living molecules come from? The entire cell is alive. Even the outer membrane, the cellular wall, is a complex system of ion pumps, chlorine gates, and ID tags. How could this have evolved?
It is really just chemistry. I think too many people get hung up on 'living' vs. 'non-living.' Ultimately, it is all made of the same atoms and molecules, all following the same rules.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-08-2003 9:03 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-08-2003 10:43 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 89 (28743)
01-09-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by thousands_not_billions
01-08-2003 10:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
That's true John, good point :-) . But just think of the intricate machinary of the cell. You have power plants, garbage disposal systems, protein factories, ER, messenger cells, transportation systems, and much more. It seems fairly unlikely that all these would combine together in just the right way to create the cellular life. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. ;-)
Very little of which you actually need... at least is the form it currently exists.
Open the hood of your car. Half of what is in there isn't necessary. That is, an engine can be built without many of those components or with more simple versions of some components. You have to think about such possibilities when you think about cell origins and complexity.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-08-2003 10:43 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-09-2003 8:46 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 89 (28778)
01-09-2003 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by thousands_not_billions
01-09-2003 8:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
True, but those components are in the car for a purpose.
They are in that particular car for a purpose. You do not have to build a car with all of those components. That is the point. The first cars were much more simple but they worked. And before that the components themselves went from very simple to very complicated.
quote:
They aren't in there to look good.
They are there to make fixing ones car painful, but that is beside the point.
quote:
If you remove them, the car will not be as efficient.
So what? Who said it had to be?
quote:
Remove the ribosomes, and no more protein is manufactured.
Not so. This is not the only possible way to synthesize a protein.
Much of the appeal of this hypothesis arises from the realization that RNA- enzymes (ribozymes) would have been far easier to duplicate than proteinaceous enzymes. Whereas coded protein replication requires numerous macromolecular components (including messenger RNAs, transfer RNAs, the ribosome, etc.), replication of a ribozyme requires only a single macromolecular activity: an RNA- dependent RNA polymerase that synthesizes first a complement, and then a copy of the ribozyme.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://scienceweek.com/sw021122.htm
quote:
Remove the ER, and there is no base for the ribosomes to rest on.
But with no ribosomes, why need a perch for them?
quote:
Remove the cytoskeleton, and the cell cannot transport proteins.
Prokaryotes have no cytoskeleton. They seem to do alright.
404
quote:
Remove the golgi complex, and no proteins can be packaged for transport.
Prokaryotes also do not have Golgi Complexes.
quote:
Remove the lysomes, and proteins cannot be recycled.
Ditto. Prokaryotes don't have lysomes.
quote:
Remove the cell membrane, and the cell ceases to exist.
Now you've found a good one. Cell membranes must have been a major milestone, but molecular replication does not require them. Somewhere around this point the line between living and non-living blurs. Like I said, it is all just chemistry anyway.
quote:
All of these components had to be there at once for the cell to function correctlly.
Nope, not the case. I believe what I have posted is correct. If not, someone will correct me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-09-2003 8:46 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-10-2003 9:19 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 89 (28811)
01-10-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by thousands_not_billions
01-10-2003 9:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Good point about the Prokaryotes John.
quote:
But if the first cell was so simple, how did it evolve into a more complex cell?
There is no clear answer to this right now, but there are answers to how some of the parts may have arose. Chloroplasts, for example, look to have been seperate organisms that developed a symbiotic relationship with another organism and eventually lost its ability to survive and reproduce outside its symbiotic partner. Mitochondria are the same. Look up endosymbiont theory.
quote:
Evolution needs a lot of genetic information, which does not seem to arise by natural processes.
Organisms today carry enormous amounts of genetic informations, but todays organisms have had 4 billions years to accumulate such information. The first organism would not have had nearly as much information.
quote:
Also, how did the RNA arise?
It is just chemistry. I can't tell you how it arose. No one can right now. But all you need is a replicating molecule to get the system started. Given half a billion years in a warm chemical rich environment it isn't hard to imagine. Look up abiogenesis and RNA world.
quote:
The simple cars didn't evolve into more complex models.]
Right, because cars don't mate and make babies. It is an analogy to make a point.
quote:
Also, a less efficient cell or organism would be eliminated by natural selection, survival of the fittest.
Leaving the more efficient molecules and cells behind. That is, leaving the cells we are familiar with today, 3.5-4 billion years later.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-10-2003 9:19 AM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-11-2003 8:32 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 89 (28887)
01-11-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by thousands_not_billions
01-11-2003 8:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
There are many problems with the endosymbiont theory. A good look at them is found at http://aig.gospelcom.net/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp Hope this helps. :-)
coragyps is right. There isn't much on that page that can be called information.
Take this for example.
For example, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in close synchronicity?
The implication is that enveloped cells can't reproduce in sync with their hosts. The problem is that hundreds of modern parasites and symbionts do just that. The question is vacuous.
Or this.
How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA?
Remember the prokaryotes? There is no nuclear membrane with which to contend.
Or this.
If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus?
Are not modern symbionts and parasites successful at avoiding the immune systems of the hosts? Again, only a smidgen of common sense shows how vacuous this is.
Then there is this dramatic conclusion.
Furthermore, they have the same Designer!
I almost missed it as it came from nowhere and there is no attempt to support the claim.
This is simply a lie.
The endosymbiont idea was severely dealt with in the 70s and early 80s, and should have died.
The idea is quite strong and genetic evidence is making the case stronger as time passes.
Try again my friend.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
{Fixed 1 shaded quote box - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-11-2003 8:32 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-12-2003 9:44 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 89 (28910)
01-12-2003 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by thousands_not_billions
01-12-2003 9:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Here is another website about the issue. The endosymboint theory seems to state that prokaryotes were ingested by other species to form eukaryotic cells. Am I right? ;-)
http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/...te/articles/eukary.html

Yeah, something like that.
This site also is pretty much devoid of real information. It sounds harsh but don't read creationist sites. They are nothing but propaganda. The arguments contained essentially assume that the original eukaryotes are just like modern ones. This assumption is absurd.
Try reading these:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/145/luckie/margulis.html
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm
Also, look up Paramecium bursaria. It is a modern organism in just the sort of symbiotic relationship with another organism that endosymbiosis proposes.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-12-2003 9:44 AM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-13-2003 9:28 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 89 (28994)
01-13-2003 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by thousands_not_billions
01-13-2003 9:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
===================================
everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously
===================================

You quote this as if it is something I said. I do not remember making this statement, nor can I find this statement in any of my posts. Please do not misquote me.
quote:
This is a sweeping claim. Not everybody excepts the endosymbiosis theory at all. Some biochemists like Behe disagree with it.
It is a sweeping claim, but I did not make it. Take up the issue with whomever did make the claim. I would however agree that pretty much all biologists take the theory seriously, if this is not taken to mean that everyone agrees with it. I am sure some do not agree. It is a very well founded theory and it has a some good evidence in its favor.
quote:
=============================================
The first organisms were extremely simple--microscopic droplets of water containing a few genes and enzymes surrounded by a membrane.
=============================================

This isn't my statement, though I tend to agree. Please be clear about these things.
quote:
Wait, this doesn't explain "how" the first organisms evolved!
It doesn't appear to be an attempt to explain how the first organisms evolved. Percy has addressed this the bulk of this so there really is no need for me to do the same.
quote:
Genes are composed of highly complex DNA, which cannot be "evolved" step by step.
How do you know? You don't. You can't know because the requisite information does not exist.
quote:
Any little error in the DNA, and the cell is damaged or destroyed. Also, where did the DNA come from?
There are tons of little errors in DNA. It happens all the time.
DNA is nothing but atoms held together by chemical bonds. What do you mean where did it come from?
quote:
=============================================
Although such a scenario may seem far-fetched, we know that similar partnerships exist today. For example, the unusual ciliate Paramecium bursaria is host to many unicellular green algae in the genus Chlorella.
=============================================

Yet again, not my statement. Please quote what I say, not what someone else says.
quote:
I agree, it does seem far-fetched.
Far-fetched or not, the evidence suports it.
quote:
The paramecium bursaria is just an example of symbiosis occuring today.
Yes it is, and it directly contradicts a statement made in one of the articles you posted. The statement was that endosymbiosis could not happen because the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided.
quote:
the organism is not evolving into another complex organism.
Irrelevant. As above, the example was a response to a particular objection.
quote:
The algae is just living inside the paramecium, just as bacteria lives in humans.
Which is just what the endosymbiont theory proposes. How is this a problem?
quote:
Also, this doesn't explain how the paramecium could swallow another cell, and become more complex.
The paramecium does swallow another cell and the whole is more complex. How is this an objection?
quote:
A Prokaryotic cell is not as simple as most people think however.
Funny, given that a few posts ago you were appeared to have no knowledge of prokaryotes at all.
But what is the point? With your list of cell requirements you are making the same mistake you first made, which is to assume that early life worked like modern life. The assumption is not justifiable.
quote:
These are just the minimal requirements for life! Anyway, hope this helps. ;-)
Actually, these are the minimal requirements for modern cellular life, excepting the parts Percy commented upon. It does not follow that these are the minimum requirements for LIFE, much less for precursors to life like replicating molecules. What is and isn't alive is largely definitional anyway. The edges are blurred.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 01-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-13-2003 9:28 AM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 01-13-2003 2:20 PM John has not replied
 Message 20 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-13-2003 10:17 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 89 (29066)
01-13-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by thousands_not_billions
01-13-2003 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
I'm sorry if I was confusing John. I should have indicated where I got the quotes from. Again, sorry :-).
Its ok. Just be careful with the citation.
quote:
DNA is comprised of an enormous amount of bases. The bases must pair up with each other in a precise way.
hmmmm... I don't think the pairing up is much of a problem. They snap together like lego.
You want to concern yourself with the order of the bases, for two reasons. 1) The protein codes are in the order of the bases. 2) The earliest replicating molecules were likely something more like RNA which is not a paired base molecule.
quote:
It is unlikely that natural processes, through trial and error matched up the bases.
It isn't matching the bases. In all sincerity, you aren't going to be able to make much of an argument until you up your basic knowledge of this sort of thing.
quote:
Say that some bases DID form in the "early earth". If they paired up incorrectly, then the cell is defective, and the process must begin again.
You are making the same mistake again that you in the beginning-- assuming a starting point much too far along the line. You wouldn't start with cells, just bare molecules that happen to replicate themselves. It may sound strange but some molecules do replicate themselves.
quote:
===============================
the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided.
==============================
Did I say this? I forget.

You didn't say this, no. But...
Yes it is, and it directly contradicts a statement made in one of the articles you posted. The statement was that endosymbiosis could not happen because the host cell contains enzymes that would break down the symbiont-- ie. digest it. This is clearly false. We have a living example, which I provided.
I don't remember which article it was which made the statement.
quote:
The alge is in the same position. It is living inside the other cell. This is an example of symbiosis, not the endosymbiont theory. There is quite a difference between the example of one cell swallowing another and becoming more complex, and the example of a cell swallowing some algae.
The example adequately addresses several objections to the endosymbiont theory-- primarily that cells cannot live inside other cells and that organisms cannot develop synchronized reproductive cycles.
quote:
But how can we prove that "early life" was different?
I don't know that we can right now. We may never be able to prove it. But to insist that things 4 billion years ago are exactly what they are today is still unjustifiable. You are basically claiming that cells are the bottom line when in fact we don't know what the bottom line is.
quote:
The big issue is where did the first prokaryotic cells come from? How did they evolve. Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
Don't know. A lot of people are working on it, though, that is the best we can do.
Just curious, do you insist that everything be answered scientifically before you believe it?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-13-2003 10:17 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 01-13-2003 11:50 PM John has not replied
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 12:08 AM John has replied
 Message 30 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-14-2003 8:56 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 89 (29091)
01-14-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by peter borger
01-14-2003 12:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
1) The protein codes are in the order of the bases.
Yes, I do think this, PB. Do you think differently?
quote:
PB: What do you need a code for if you don't have a translator?
Which brings us to the following...
quote:
2) The earliest replicating molecules were likely something more like RNA which is not a paired base molecule.
Yes indeed.
quote:
PB: Except science fiction lovers
Thought you'd be at the top 'o that list.
quote:
nobody holds this view anymore.
Outside of your mind, this simply isn't true. You shouldn't make assertions so easily refuted. Now, if you meant to say that not everyone accepts the hypothesis, then you'd have a leg to stand on. That NO ONE holds this view is silly.
quote:
Where do you think RNA's are made of?
Sugar and spice and everything nice?
quote:
The compounds will NOT form spontaneously.
I don't think RNA will form spontaneously. That is why I did not say RNA but said 'something more like RNA.' Any familiarity with the hypothesis which you criticise-- the RNA World Hypothesis-- should have provided you with enough data to avoid these shallow objections.
quote:
Keep it scientific, please.
Why must I follow rules which you do not?
quote:
And don't misrepresent the data.
Respectfully, yes you do and every opportunity.
quote:
Go here for a fair presentation:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

Fair, because you approve? You cannot be serious.
Kinda funny though.... The author states:
We find ourselves, however, distinctly in the minority of biologists.
.... thereby contradicting your earlier statement that NO ONE believes the RNA World Hypothesis.
The author also attacks a straw man. The RNA World Hypothesis postulates that RNA came prior to DNA. It does not postulate that there are no RNA precursors, yet the author behaves as if this were the case.
quote:
It must be said, you have a strong belief.
Must it be said? Seems kinda childish to me.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 12:08 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 7:47 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 89 (29149)
01-14-2003 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
01-14-2003 7:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
I was under the impression that YOU were a skeptic. Apperently, you are only selectively skeptic.
Sorry, but I am not like that. I am a real skeptic (as mentioned before), and I only believe what can be scientifically proven AND my own experiences.
Best wishes,
Peter

That is just about the funniest thing I have heard in weeks.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 7:47 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 01-14-2003 10:36 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 89 (29158)
01-14-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by thousands_not_billions
01-14-2003 8:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Not quite as simple :-).
The rules of base pairing (or nucleotide pairing) are:
A with T: the purine adenine (A) always pairs with the pyrimidine thymine (T)
C with G: the pyrimidine cytosine (C) always pairs with the purine guanine (G)
This is consistent with there not being enough space for two purines to fit within the helix and too much space for two pyrimidines to get close enough to each other to form hydrogen bonds between them.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BasePairing.html
It is due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Yeah, it kinda is that simple.
quote:
True, the bases snap together, but if the wrong bases snap together, this causes all sorts of problems.
The wrong bases can't snap together due to the bonding properties of the chemicals involved. Maybe you are talking about REPLICATION? Copying errors can and do occur during replication. This is not a base pairing problem. It involves much more complicated sequences of reactions.
quote:
But RNA is complex as well.
Yes, but is less complicated.
quote:
But, RNA, is transcribed from DNA, which means that DNA had to come first.
Quite a few researchers think otherwise. RNA is quite capable of performing the requisite functions. You may also note that RNA is the molecule that does the work. DNA is something of a storage medium.
quote:
But where did the chemicals come from to form molecules.
Exploding stars for the most part. Fusion reactions synthesize the heavier elements from lighter elements.
quote:
And wouldn't any molecules that did start to form in the "early earth" be destroyed by the harsh conditions?
The whole planet is made of molecules, but you mean organic molecules, yes? The snippy answer is "obviously those molecules were not destroyed as we are here talking about it." The more detailed answer is that we don't know what the conditions were nor do we know what the first molecules were, so making a pronouncement of what they could or could not endure is impossible.
quote:
Which means that we probably never will know.
Maybe, life sucks like that sometimes.
quote:
I don't believe that things were the same 4 billion years ago, as I don't believe in the 4 billion years. I believe that things were the same 6000 years ago at Creation.
Stick around. There are more holes in that theory than you can imagine.
quote:
I want to have scientific evidence for most things. Some things I have to accept by faith, like Creation, which cannot be proven by science. But neither can evolution be proven by science.
As I suspected. Don't you feel a sinking feeling in your gut when you demand other people provide evidence but accept your own ideas uncritically?
quote:
To clear up any missunderstanding, I have outlined by objections to the endosymbinot theory.
I: How did the first prokaryotic cellular life form to swallow other cellular life?

Don't know, but we've been through this.
How did a lump of dirt manage to grow internal organs?
quote:
II: How did the DNA in the first prokaryote form?
The jury is still out. Answer this and you'll be famous.
quote:
III: If a prokaryote ate another prokaryote, how could the internal prokaryote develop into mitochondria etc.?
Well.... how may be a tricky question, but it has been observed to actually happen.
In some astonishing experiments , the American researcher K. W. Jeon and his colleagues in Buffalo, USA, witnessed an endosymbiotic integration actually occurring and maturing to full-scale interdependence of host and symbiont in the laboratory. For many years Jeon had been maintaining the giant amoeba A. Proteus with no problems. One year it was noticed that the organisms became sick, growing more slowly and dividing less often. Nevertheless they continued to grow and were carefully nurtured by Jeon’s team. Right from the start it was realised that the apparent cause of their sickness was the appearance in their cytoplasms of numerous bacteria. Clearly the amoebae had found the initial invasion disagreeable, but after a few months, their growth improved, albeit not quite to the same level as before. By this time the bacteria had become extremely numerous in the cytoplasm, to the extent of around 40,000 per amoeba. They still looked recognisably like bacteria. The astonishing thing was that now the amoebae were totally dependent on the little invaders; exposure to antibiotics of the kind that normally only affect bacteria resulted in the death of the amoebae themselves.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2001/endosymbionts.htm
quote:
IV: The theory states that genomes from the captured prokaryote traveled to the nucleus which was formed by the captured prokaryote. How could they enter the nucleus, when only RNA can travel out through the nucleus and DNA cannot travel in?
Viruses manage this all the time. You, in fact, carry viral and bacterial genes that have been passed along parent to child for who knows how long.
quote:
V: The host cell would destroy any DNA which would be passed to it from the host cell. Bacteria contain enzymes which destroy DNA.
But such transfers of DNA happen quite frequently. This has been documented. Viruses manage it. Bacteria trade genes all the time even between species and genera. You may object, but it happens nontheless.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-14-2003 8:56 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-16-2003 8:41 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 89 (29387)
01-17-2003 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by thousands_not_billions
01-16-2003 8:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember from Biology that they said that a mutation was caused by the incorrect bases matching up during replication.
Like I said, it is the order of the bases not the pairing.
quote:
Where did the matter come from to form the stars?
From energy. e=mc² Where did the energy come from? I don't really know.
quote:
Yea, organic molecules. It's easy to say that "we're here, so molecules were not destroyed. But consider that we're here because of Special Creation?
Which myth? There are thousands.
quote:
Hmm. What holes?
What is wrong with a 6000 year old Earth?
1) There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
2) Radiometric dating gives 4.5 or so billion years
3) There is a varve sequence in Japan dating back 40,000 years.
4) Bits and pieces of the continents show signs of having been in contact. Given the rates of movement we can estimate when they were connected. This points to millions of years of movement, not thousands of years.
5) 6000 years ago there were millions of humans, not two.
6) There is ample evicence of human habitation globally well before 6000 years ago.
7) 5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
8) Mitochondrial DNA mutation rates point to greater than 6000 years.
Really, there is too much to list.
quote:
I knew this was coming ;-)
You should have known. It is a dead obvious observation.
quote:
But a lot of evidence points to a young earth and creation.
Such as? I have yet to see anything remotely convincing.
quote:
Much more then the "evidence" that points to evolution.
You mean better than observed speciation many times over?
quote:
Science is testable, and has evidence pointing to it. Evolution has neither.
There is a reason most biologists accept evolution. That reason is that there is overwhelming evidence for the theory.
quote:
I can be sure of creation, as that's what God's word the Bible says.
Interesting. Did anyone see God write the Bible? Did anyone see creation?
quote:
Easy. It didn't. ;-)
Genesis 2:7 writes:
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
You need to read your Bible.
quote:
No, I don't object that viruses and bacteria exchange DNA. But viruses have special ID tags that fool the cell into accepting them. Once inside, they reprogram the cells internal structure.
So you accept that it can happen now, but do not accept that it could happen in the past? This makes no sense.
quote:
But the DNA is from both bacteria of the same kind, and so is not destroyed.
Bacteria swap genes cross species. And what is this about DNA being destroyed?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-16-2003 8:41 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-17-2003 7:23 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 89 (29452)
01-18-2003 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by thousands_not_billions
01-17-2003 7:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
But they have to pair up in the correct order. ;-)
I only brought this up to save you from future humiliation. You sound like you might be getting it but you also sound like a smart-assed kid with chip on your shoulder.
Write your name. >> THOUSANDS
Associate each letter with the another one like so:
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
and combine
THOUSANDS
GUBHFNAQF
Now think about it. Is the information in the sequence or in the pairing?
quote:
I don't think that anybody really knows. That's what the superstring theory is working on I think.
Superstring theory is an attempt to rectify the incompatibilities between quantum theory and relativity.
quote:
For one thing, the only "myth" is evolution.
So the Vedas do not contain myths? Or the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Or the Epic of Gilgamesh? Wow.....
quote:
I believe the Biblical account of Creation.
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
quote:
a: God created in 6 ordinary 24 hour days
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
quote:
b: Noah's flood was an actual global event.
And it left no evidence at all. You can't be serious.
quote:
====================
There are tree ring sequences reaching back 9000 years
==================
Statement of Faith | Answers in Genesis

Why do you think I care about AIGs statement of faith? It tells me they are apologists not scientists. Why does this help your case?
I am sure that AIG has some article somewhere criticising dendrochronology but I don't feel like sloshing through the garbage in search of it. Maybe you could bother to learn how the method works and construct your own argument?
quote:
Radiometric dating is flawed!
Yes, in a lot of ways, and those problems are documented and are compensated for when tests are done.
quote:
We have no way of knowing how much of an iosotope was in a mineral to begin with. That's just a guess, which can easily be wrong.
You must mean that you are guessing about how the process works. Yes, that could easily be wrong.
Here, learn something.
Radiometric Dating
quote:
After Mt. St. Helens erruption, they did some tests on a block of volcanic rock and guess what? The results were that the rock was about 1,000,000 years old! The erruption only occured 23 ago.
Yes, of course it gave a weird date. This also is touched upon in the article I gave you.
quote:
Again, if dating is wrong, then the dates are wrong!
Do you know what a varve is? It is a predictable layering of sediment. You count the layers and you get years. What dating throws off the dates?
quote:
During the flood, rapid subduction carried the continents apart.
BS.
1) There is no known mechanism that could generate this much power
2) The enormous energy released to do this would bake the planet many times over.
quote:
Evidence?
Egypt. Sumer. China. The Olmec. The evidence that there were millions of us is that there are massive civilizations and near civilizations all over the globe around 6000 years ago. It isn't hard to figure out.
quote:
================
5000 years ago we see the rise of civilization in Sumer. They didn't notice the flood.
================
Ancient chronologies are often out, sometimes by 1000 years.

Meaning what? The Sumerians were around 5000 years ago. What was out by a thousand years?
quote:
There's plenty, if you look for it.
Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis

And it is all non-sense. Do you think I am unaware of AIG?
quote:
Rapid speciation is part of the Creationist model as well! No Creationist denies speciation. It is not evolution.
So one species can 'speciate' into several but this isn't evolution? LOL.....
quote:
You can't see evidence for a young world. I really can't see evidence for evolution.
That's nice, but you avoided the issue.
quote:
God wrote the Bible by inspiring great and holy men of old, who wrote as they were directed by Him.
Right. Or so the great and holy men said.... I seem to recall that when people do that today they are labeled quacks.
quote:
Neither Creation or evolution can be proven scientifically, though evolution can be disproven scientifically.
Yes, it could be disproven but it hasn't been in over 150 years. Why do you think that is?
quote:
Please note however, that science can prove a young earth.
No it can't or we wouldn't have this problem. We'd all be young earthers.
quote:
I do. Every day. The dirt had no power in itself to become life. Life was created when God breathed into man, which he had created, and "man became a living soul".
So magic is an OK explaination? What happened to:
Until this can be answered scientifically, I cannot accept this theory.
quote:
No please. What I am pointing out is that viruses can inject DNA into other cells, as they have ID tags to fool the cell into taking them. The first prokaryote did not have these.
And you know what these prokaryotes had? Maybe you could share with us? Basically, you've just made this up. Fess up.
quote:
Also, a group of protists, the Archezoa, have no mitochondria.
Whatdayaknow? A transitional form.
quote:
But they have genes that code for mitochondrial proteins.
Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources.
[quote]The diversity of mitochondrial genes among the eukaryotes, would imply that endosymbiosis occured more then once, making it even more improbable.[/b][/quote]
Numerous organelles were aquired this way.
quote:
Forign DNA in an organism is destroyed.
You've been shown that this is not always true.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-17-2003 7:23 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-18-2003 9:37 PM John has replied
 Message 45 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-18-2003 10:04 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 89 (29540)
01-19-2003 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by thousands_not_billions
01-18-2003 9:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
First. I would like to clear up any ill feelings that might have been created.
I appreciate the thought, but you haven't done anything to create ill-will. I can be blunt and may come across as angry but real live animosity is pretty hard to evoke in me these days.
quote:
This is my first debate, and I am liable to make mistakes. But everybody does while learning.
Not a problem. We all screw up.
quote:
I don't know everything about creation/evolution, but I am learning. That is why I signed up to these forums.
I couldn't ask more of anyone.
quote:
Right mate. It is. But the string theory is used to try and explain the big bang isn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong.
String or brane theory might explain the BB if anyone could get a consistent model-- which no on has-- and find a way to test it -- which seems practically impossible right now.
quote:
I should have been more specific. I was not talking about the old pagan legands.
aha...
quote:
I was talking about the creation/evolution issue. The only myth there is evolution.
How is it that you define myth, then? The definition must include that myths are supported by mountains of evidence.
quote:
Of course, I believe that the Book of the Dead, and Gilgamesh are myths.
Then you know how I feel about your Bible.
quote:
First, Neither Creation or Evolution can be proved by science, as no body was there to see it happen.
hmmm... speciation has been observed to happen and parts of the ToE it can be tested and manipulated in the lab. Whereas with creation, there is not even that much. There is nothing. How do you think the two are on an even playing field?
quote:
I believe that the evidence points towards a young earth
Sincerely, I don't care what you believe, but if you have evidence as you claim then please present it.
quote:
suggesting the Biblical account of Creation.
Why Biblical? There are countless other creation myths. Why does a young earth point to the Bible? My guess is that you don't know why. You just want to believe what mommie told you.
quote:
But I cannot prove that Creation occured scientifically.
Then you should give up the farce of demanding scientific evidence before you believe something. That, or give up creationism.
quote:
Some things have to be accepted by faith.
What things? And why? What MUST BE accepted on faith?
quote:
Evolution is classed as "science".
That is because it is.
quote:
For my scientific knowledge, I like to have evidence.
Good for you, but when that evidence contradicts your religious assumptions you ignore it. It is an impressive posture in church I suppose, but it doesn't fly in the real world.
quote:
Both of us accept some things by faith. In fact, everybody does.
Yes, of course.
quote:
I am serious. Features like coal beds, and the Grand Canyon are evidence of a world wide Flood.
Not by a lot.
quote:
Also, reading secular geological texts gives me the impression that they say that many landforms were formed by water.
Many landforms were formed by water. The issue is not the water but the time-frame.
quote:
They offer other explanations, but couldn't it have been water from Noah's flood?
No. Acceptance of the Flood basically requires that you abandon most of science. I know you don't believe this. Geology goes out the window first off. Think about it. Two hundred years ago virtually all geologists were creationists. Geologist slowly abandonned the idea because it didn't jibe with the data.
quote:
I'm so sorry John. I posted the wrong link Forgive me. Here's the link
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis

Yes, it does help.
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. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
This isn't science. The article flat out states that when data contradicts the Bible the data gets tossed out.
Moving along, we find this:
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.
1) There is no citation for this claim. This automatically makes the claim suspicious, and it is typical of creationist 'science' -- yet another reason such science is not taken seriously.
2) There are some conditions that can produce false rings. This is no secret. Five rings per year is doubtful though. To throw a date of significantly such false rings would have to be very frequent and if that were the case no one would be using the method to date anything. The fact is that it is tolerable reliable. I dare you to core a tree of known age-- something your parents planted maybe-- and count the rings.
And then this....
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.
This is an example of simply making something up. It sounds good but there is no supporting evidence for any of this.
Here is another example of the same:
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so.
There is no evidence for this. None. They don't even bother to try to provide evidence. Why? It isn't science. It is is meant for people who don't know anything about the subject and who won't bother to learn anything.
quote:
But that brings up apologists. Why can't a scientist be an apologist and a scientist? Newton was both.
An apologists starts with a conclusion or world view and constructs an argument to support it. A scientist starts with observation and constructs a description of it. Apology is like advertising. It is propaganda.
quote:
Interesting article. I'll read it all. But here are some articles that might help to answer some questions.
Radiometric Dating | Answers in Genesis

Look. When you apply a test with a million year margin of error to a rock that solidified yesterday you are going to get a bad date. This is what these articles are about. They misapply the technology and then complain that it doesn't work. Sorry, I am not convinced and frankly the technique is dishonest.
quote:
Yes. They say that the Green River valves take one year each to form, and there are thousands of valves there, so that disproves young earth. But in the Flood, millions of tons of sediment was scraped and layed down all over the earth. This can explain the layers.
Think this through. Have you ever seen a flood deposit neat layers of sediment? You get a big layer of mud, not thousands of orderly layers. It is common sense.
quote:
The Flood
The Flood cannot be its own mechanism. What powered the flood?
quote:
Intense volcanic activity could provide the mechanism for propelling the continents.
Want to tell me how exactly? And this really doesn't address the problem of baking the planet.
quote:
Sure these cultures existed. But as I said, ancient dates are often way out, sometimes by thousands of years.
Why don't you give evidence for this, as you insist on repeating it? Me thinks you've just made this up. Dates for recent ciilizations are pretty solid. In mesopotamia, china and mesoamerica the occupation was continous.
[quote]The 5000 years. Maybe the dates were out by more then thousands of years.[quote] Maybe? Where is your evidence?
quote:
Not for a moment did I think that. AiG is well known. But in what way is it nonsense?
Well, just think about the radio-dating discussion above, for example. The science is distorted, but you'll eventually figure that out if you stay here long enough.
quote:
No, this is not evolution. New species can, and do, arise.
Then brush up on your evolutionary theory. It does qualify.
quote:
But what we need is evidence of one species evolving through millions of years into a new, advanced organism.
We have such evidence. We have a lot of it. We have series of fossils for whales, horses, humans, birds, etc. All you have to do is look.
quote:
In my opinion, it has been disproved many times.
By whom? With what evidence? Why are there thousands of unconvinced scientists?
quote:
Creationists themselves say that you cannot prove Creation, but you can see great evidence pointing to it.
LOL... but the same is not allowed of the evolutionists!!! I'd bet that you have already used just this argument against me in replying to my comments about fossil sequences. Of course, you now have the chance to edit your post accordingly so we may never know. I've shown my hand.
quote:
I can't run a test and say. "Look, that proves Creation" but I can look at the world and say "Look, this proves a young earth and that implies Creation".
What evidence implies a young earth?
quote:
Well. The prokaryotes did not have ID tags. This is just logical reasoning. I did make this up, but it makes sense.
ummmm.... no it does not make sense. Why would such tags not exist? We have billions of years between the first cells and the first eukaryotes. Viruses adapt very rapidly. HIV adapts, it seems, on a daily basis. Why, in billions of years, would one cell not evolve to survive inside another? After all it is about survival, about not being eaten/digested? Seems reasonable that they would have such mechanisms and have them for the same reason modern critters have them.
quote:
==================
Your source? It would be a lot easier if you would cite some sources.
==================
Private email from Dr. Jay Wile.

Would this be "Dr. Jay Wile Of Apologia Educational Ministries" by any chance? Author, Speaker, Fisherman, Renaissance Man?
337p粉嫩日本欧洲亚洲大胆,337p日本大胆欧洲亚洲色噜噜,337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆精品,337p日本欧洲亚洲大胆精筑
quote:
But if it is hard to accept it happening once, which it is, then it is much harder accepting it happening dozens of times.
Hard to accept or not, it happened. The DNA evidence is pretty solid for at least a couple of organelles-- mitochondria and chloroplasts.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-18-2003 9:37 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-19-2003 10:22 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 89 (29621)
01-20-2003 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by thousands_not_billions
01-19-2003 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
A myth is something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact.
As, for example, most everything in the Bible.
quote:
The mountains of evidence are just not there.
For many things the evidence isn't there, but ignoring or denying evidence that is there does not make that evidence go away.
quote:
The Book of the Dead and Gilgamash have no followers today that I know of.
The number of followers has to do with what?
quote:
But the Bible has changed lives and benefited humanity ever since it was written for thousands of years. No myth has stood the test of time or so deeply affected people like this.
The Vedas are older than the Bible and are still held sacred by millions of people. The Upanishads date from 600BC -- older than the NT-- and so do many Buddhist works. Your objection is empty and vain.
quote:
Speciation is the rise of new species isn't it?
I wouldn't call it a 'rise' more of a development.
quote:
But this is actually an important part of the Creationist model. After the ark, organisms had a large genetic pool and new species arose quickly.
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool, nor of this speciation at lightning speed.
quote:
Just look at the breeds of horses, dogs, cats etc that we have. This is not evolution. The dogs are still dogs. It doesn't matter if they are dingos, wolves, or poodles.
Tell me, if you had a pack of wolves and a pack of chihuahuas, how likely do you think they are to interbreed and produce viable offspring? I'd give it virtually no chance. This fits the definition for speciation.
quote:
a: Continents eroding too quickly. If the earth was billions of years old, then the continents would have been worn down by erosion many times over. Mountain building and uplift are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.
I live on right on top of a segment of land that was uplifted from a few hundred feet above sea level to about 800' during the Miocene. Not far from here the land reaches 1900' and I believe parts get to 3000'. Volcanoes can make mountains in a matter of days or weeks. Mount Everest is still rising by 2.4 inches a year. This can be measured. If erosion overtook uplifting as you say then it would be impossible for Everest to RISE.
quote:
b: Not enough Helium in the atmosphere. Helium is formed during radioactive decay. It rapdily escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster then it can escape Earth's gravity. Even if the world was created with zero helium, the small amount that we have in the atmosphere would have taken at most 2 mil years to form. This is far less then the assumed 3000 million year age of the atmosphere. And if the earth was created with helium already in it, that would lower the age even more.
You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the obvious. Helium does not stay in the atmosphere indefinitely. It escapes into space.
quote:
c: Many fossils indicate that they have been formed quickly. Not over long periods of time. ... These fish were buried quickly.
Yes, they were buried quickly which is why they became fossils and not lunch. Common sense will tell you that the dead thing must be protected or it will be eaten. Burial is a good way of achieving this end. Thus, the fossil record will be heavily weighted towards such fortunate (for us) deaths.
quote:
Also, polystratic fossils are a problem. How did the animal sit there for millions of years while layers slowly formed around them?
Look out your window. Pick a tree. If that tree were to fossilize where it stands it would be 'polystratic' -- a creationist term, by the way. Tree roots penetrate the soil and what is soil but the upper layers of strata. Get a shovel and did. You ought to be able to see several easily demarcated layers of sediment. Of course, this is impossible.
quote:
1. Coal Formation. Coal has been formed by Argonne in 4-36 weeks.
Oh? Can you pick out which version of the story is correct so that we can discuss it more?
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.
Or when hearing of real precious opal formed in months,8 or coal from simple heating of wood in 28 days.
Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (with no added pressure) at 150 C for 28 days, and obtained high-grade black coal.
These researchers at Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (without oxygen, and no added pressure) at 150 oC for 2—8 months. [Ed. Note: Or to be more precise than was necessary in a family magazine, the reaction included the major wood stiffener, lignin; other reactions contained the other major wood component, cellulose. So the principle is the same. They are hydrothermal reactions, hence the explanation in the magazine that water was an ingredient although obviously no scientific abstract would bother stating it and an essential one. See E. Pennisi, ‘Water, water, everywhere’, Science News 143:121—5, 20 Feb. 1993]
See [url]No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy_II.htm2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote][/quote]Account Suspended2. Cave formations. Stalactites and Stalagmites have been observed to form very rapidly. In Mount Isa, formations at least 30 feet high were formed in 50 years.quote][/quote]
Got a reference? From what I can find those stalactites were LAVA. This is not nearly the same thing.
quote:
3. Opals. Len Cram has been growing opals in his backyard for years.
Synthetic opal has been around since 1963(?). Big deal, we can make diamonds too but this doesn't prove they were made in the earth in a matter of hours. Cram's opals are experiments and I can't find much info but it looks like Cram isn't happy with the results. The opals aren't 'natural' enough.
quote:
e: Oceans are not salty enough. Each year, rivers and streams carry millions of tonnes of salt into the sea. Only a fraction of this returns to the land.
Actually a whole lot of it returns to land as evidenced by the massive salt deposits we have in various parts of the world.
quote:
There are basically three broard views of origins.
Fine, but that wasn't the question.
Why Biblical? There are countless other creation myths. Why does a young earth point to the Bible? My guess is that you don't know why. You just want to believe what mommie told you.
quote:
I follow what the Bible says about origins. It is not a blind faith that I am following because of what my parents have taught me. It is a faith that works.
A faith that works???? Every faith works. That is what is so good about faith. It requires nothing-- no evidence, no thought, nothing.
quote:
Like I said before. We don't say that we can prove creation, but we can disprove evolution. Evolution claims to be science and should be able to be tested as science. It cannot be tested scientifically.
It has been tested and retested for 150 years and it has not been disproven thus far.
quote:
Things like origins. You were not there to see the first cells evolve. I was not there to see creation. You have faith in evolution. I have faith in Creation.
Apply this logic across the board. Do you believe in atoms? No one has ever seen them. Do you believe that dogs exist which you have never seen? I bet you do. Why? Inference. You can infer a great deal about the world, but here you argue against this very process. Basically, you deny that we can infer things veyond what we can actually see. Yet you only apply this objection selectively. This makes you inconsistent.
quote:
Science can be tested, repeated, and observed. Evolution fails all three of these.
What then are all the scientists doing in there labs?
You just ruled out astronomy as a science too, btw.
quote:
Observation. No body has observed birds evolving from reptiles or fish evolving into amphibians. Evolution has not been observed.
We have the fossil record. We have genetics. We can infer a great deal.
quote:
Description. I must admit. Evolutionists have done a good job here. They have taken no evidence and created a gigantic theory out of it. Amazing!
You are inconsistent. You say evolutionists are very good at describing yet claim there is no evidence. How can one describe nothing?
Evolution describes all of the observations we have concerning the origens of species.
quote:
experimental investigation. Evolution cannot be seen to happen in a test tube. It cannot be experimented with.
Thousands of scientists are experimenting with the various mechanisms of evolution.
quote:
theoretical explanation. Evolution has tons of this. But one gram of factual evidence over-rides a ton of theory.
Yes, it could but thus far that one gram has not been found.
quote:
That's it. Evidence does not contradict the Bible.
LOL......
quote:
True. I don't believe this.
What?
quote:
Geology goes out the window with Evolution. Just look at Mt. St. Helens. It created canyons 1/40 the scale of the Grand Canyon and totally rearranged the landscape in several hours.
Mt. St. Helens produced nothing like the grand canyon despite what your creationist heroes claim.
quote:
Knew you wouldn't like that . But when evolution is challenged by evidence, the evidence gets tossed out.
There is no evidence to toss out.
quote:
This is actually, quite reasonable. The ice age would have been much wetter, which means that seasons would not have been so pronounced, thereby creating false rings.
Again you have no evidence. You've just made something up. And what makes you think ice age weather would less pronounced?
[quote][b]
From the article:
"Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere."
No, actually not. Ice cores give us a pretty good idea of what the atmosphere actually was like.
quote:
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter
If it was buried where is it? We ought to have a thick layer somewhere with lots of dead things. We don't have such a layer.
quote:
containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period"
Doesn't make sense. The critical factor is atmospheric carbon not the organic matter that a flood would bury. The atmospheric carbon should remain basically the same in proportion to the atmospheric nitrogen.
quote:
Evolutionists start with a world view of evolution and construct an arguement to support that.
You are mistaken. Scientist use the best descriptions they have but those desciptions are not sacrosanct. Theory can change as the data changes.
quote:
There are other dates that are more ancient that are out of wack as well.
Yes there are. People screw up. Samples get contaminated. Some people intentionally do the tests poorly.
Dates are cross checked via several method and lots of individual samples. They all line up pretty well.
quote:
And if there was a million year margin of error, the process can be very flawed, as the world is less then 1 mil years old.
It is based on the half-life of the isotopes involved. The world could have been created yesterday and those values would still be the same.
quote:
As the flood waters calmed down, it took a long time for them to dry away. Over half a year really. During that time, sediments would have settled down in orderly layers. Take a long glass cylinder and fill it with water and sediment. Turn it over and very orderly layers will form.
Yes. Try your own experiment. You will get ordering by density and grain size. You will not get alternating layers of two different materials. You will not get dense material on top of light material. Yet such things are found all the time in the geological column.
quote:
The Flood, we believe, we powered by the explosion of water from underneath the earth's surface.
Just like in the Bible. The rest of the evidence is just made up.
quote:
During the Flood, the watar exploding from the ground brought magma up with it, which
Which what? Don't keep me in suspense!
quote:
Checked out a history book. It places the dates at 2300 BC. Well within the Biblical time frame.
ummmm..... yes. So why didn't they notice the flood? Start at creation at around 6000 years ago or 4000BC. Add about 1400 years-- the time between creation and the flood-- and were are you? About 2600BC. So why did they not notice the flood.
quote:
How?
A change in the frequency of traits in a population constitutes evolution. That's it really.
quote:
=============
We have series of fossils for whales
=============
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

Why not study real science?
quote:
Many evolutionists such as David Raup have forsaken this theory.
That horses evolved? You can't be serious.
quote:
Eohippus has been classified as just a rock hyrax and the rest of the fossils are just allowed variations in the modern horse kind. IE. Horses are sometimes born with three toes and different number of ribs.
You can go to any number of real live educational institutes to find out just how wrong you are, but you won't do so because fact is not the issue, religion is.
When you started posting, you insisted that you were here to learn. Now I am beginning to believe otherwise. You appear to not even bother to look up what you assert but rather just vomit back up whatever the creationists tell you.
Basically, your claim is absurd.
Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
Before you start tossing around that idea of 'kinds' why don't you define it for us. No one has yet to do so.
quote:
Many Evolutionists have thrown out man's supposed evolutionary tree.
Simply wrong. You are so far off base now that I don't care to help. You are old enough to find this information but you chose not to do so.
quote:
All the austrolopithicines can be classed as extinct apes and a lot of the rest as modern humans.
Human Evolution | Answers in Genesis

AIG is not the source for reliable information. Check out the universities. You know, real science.
quote:
‘Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.’
You willingness to quote out of context is very disturbing. The debate is not about whether birds evolved but about whether they evolved from dinosaurs or not.
quote:
All reptilian like features on the bird are seen on some birds today. Like the claws etc.
So?
quote:
Science has disproved it. R. Humphreys has estimated that there are several tens of thousands of scientists in the US alone who have problems with evolution.
Cite your source.
quote:
How can we say that they did exist? That's just another complex thing that has to be evolved.
What?
quote:
But where did the new information come from to create the ID tags?
quote:
Viruses and HIV adapt rapidly, but they are still viruses and HIV. They are not evolving.
You do know that just 50 or so years ago HIV was not HIV?
quote:
That's the man. I'm doing a Chem. course of his at the moment.
So that is why you are so fired up.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 01-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-19-2003 10:22 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-20-2003 10:36 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024