Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 46 of 89 (29528)
01-18-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by thousands_not_billions
01-18-2003 9:37 PM


"No, this is not evolution. New species can, and do, arise. But what we need is evidence of one species evolving through millions of years into a new, advanced organism. Like a dinosaur evoluting into a bird. "
--Such observations are not predicted by the ToE. Also, speciation is an evolutionary process whether it be significant or not to the question of whether the ToE as a whole is feasible or not.
------------------

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

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 89 (29613)
01-19-2003 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
01-19-2003 1:39 AM


===========
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.
===========
Thanks for clearing this up John. I'll file that away in the mind.
===============
How is it that you define myth, then? The definition must include that myths are supported by mountains of evidence.
===============
A myth is something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact. At least, that's my definition. The mountains of evidence are just not there.
============
Then you know how I feel about your Bible.
============
The Book of the Dead and Gilgamash have no followers today that I know of. 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.
================
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?
===============
Speciation is the rise of new species isn't it? New species rise all the time. 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. 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.
================
Sincerely, I don't care what you believe, but if you have evidence as you claim then please present it.
===============
I tried to. But here are some reasons again.
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.
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.
c: Many fossils indicate that they have been formed quickly. Not over long periods of time. Billions of fossil fish are found in rock layers all over the earth well preserved. Normally, a dead fish decomposes or is eaten soon after it dies. But these are almost perfect skeletons of fish. Fossil fish have been found swallowing another fish or in the process of giving birth. These fish were buried quickly. Also, polystratic fossils are a problem. How did the animal sit there for millions of years while layers slowly formed around them?
d: Processes which are assumed to take millions of years can happen in a short period of time.
1. Coal Formation. Coal has been formed by Argonne in 4-36 weeks.
2. 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.
3. Opals. Len Cram has been growing opals in his backyard for years.
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. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long agers, the absolute max age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions of years.
====================
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.
====================
There are basically three broard views of origins.
a. Evolution. This teaches that we are just the product of chance and that there is no God. It appears that you agree with this view.
b. theistic evolution. This teaches that the first life forms were created by God, who then let evolution take control and complete it.
c. Creationism. This teaches that man is the product of a supreme Diety, who created all life in 6 24 hour days only 6-10 thousand years ago. I am off this group.
There may be more beliefs on origins, but I am being simple. 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. The Bible says "Taste and see that the Lord is good..." I have done that and the Lord is good. A young earth points to the Bible, as it fits in perfectly with all Biblical teaching.
=================
Then you should give up the farce of demanding scientific evidence before you believe something. That, or give up creationism.
=================
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.
================
What things? And why? What MUST BE accepted on faith?
================
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.
==============
That is because it is.
==============
Science can be tested, repeated, and observed. Evolution fails all three of these.
On dictionary.com, I found this definition of science.
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Observation. No body has observed birds evolving from reptiles or fish evolving into amphibians. Evolution has not been observed.
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!
experimental investigation. Evolution cannot be seen to happen in a test tube. It cannot be experimented with.
theoretical explanation. Evolution has tons of this. But one gram of factual evidence over-rides a ton of theory. Just because I can spin up a good story, that doesn't make it true. Richard Dawkins makes a living out of doing this.
===================
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.
===================
That's it. Evidence does not contradict the Bible.
===========
Not by a lot.
============
Why not?
================
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.
===============
True. I don't believe this. 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. What could an even larger event do? You're right about creationist geologists 200 years ago. They abandoned Creationism after Lyell published his "Principles of Geology" which even Gould says was very biased and flawed.
================
This isn't science. The article flat out states that when data contradicts the Bible the data gets tossed out.
================
Knew you wouldn't like that . But when evolution is challenged by evidence, the evidence gets tossed out.
==================
This is an example of simply making something up. It sounds good but there is no supporting evidence for any of this.
=================
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.
=======================
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.
=======================
Right below this
"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. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter 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"
======================
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.
======================
So Newton, Boyle, Carver, Braun, and others were not scientists? Evolutionists start with a world view of evolution and construct an arguement to support that.
=========================
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.
========================
There are other dates that are more ancient that are out of wack as well. 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.
=====================
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.
=====================
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.
=====================
The Flood cannot be its own mechanism. What powered the flood?
=====================
The Flood, we believe, we powered by the explosion of water from underneath the earth's surface.
These links may help.
Noah's Flood - Where did all that water come from? - ChristianAnswers.Net
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...TJ/TJv14n2_Hypercanes.pdf
==================
Want to tell me how exactly? And this really doesn't address the problem of baking the planet.
==================
During the Flood, the watar exploding from the ground brought magma up with it, which
====================\
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.
=====================
Checked out a history book. It places the dates at 2300 BC. Well within the Biblical time frame.
===================
Then brush up on your evolutionary theory. It does qualify.
===================
How?
=============
We have series of fossils for whales
=============
Mutations | Answers in Genesis
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
===============
horses
===============
Many evolutionists such as David Raup have forsaken this theory. 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.
=========
humans
=========
Many Evolutionists have thrown out man's supposed evolutionary tree. All the austrolopithicines can be classed as extinct apes and a lot of the rest as modern humans.
Human Evolution | Answers in Genesis
========
birds
========
Oh Archaeopteryx? Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says:
‘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.’
All reptilian like features on the bird are seen on some birds today. Like the claws etc.
Did Dinosaurs Turn into Birds? | Answers in Genesis
Another Missing Link Takes Flight | Answers in Genesis
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
===============
By whom? With what evidence? Why are there thousands of unconvinced scientists?
===============
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.
==========
What evidence implies a young earth?
==========
Mentioned above. There's lots more as well.
=============
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.
=============
How can we say that they did exist? That's just another complex thing that has to be evolved. But where did the new information come from to create the ID tags? Viruses and HIV adapt rapidly, but they are still viruses and HIV. They are not evolving. That's Dawkins big thing I believe. He thinks that anything in evolution is possible as long as enough time is allowed.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf
===========
Would this be "Dr. Jay Wile Of Apologia Educational Ministries" by any chance? Author, Speaker, Fisherman, Renaissance Man?
===========
That's the man. I'm doing a Chem. course of his at the moment.
------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 01-19-2003 1:39 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 01-19-2003 11:06 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 50 by John, posted 01-20-2003 1:41 AM thousands_not_billions has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 89 (29615)
01-19-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by thousands_not_billions
01-19-2003 10:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
I tried to. But here are some reasons again.
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.
Please give us data on this. You make a number of assertions here that are completely unsupported. Why can uplift and orogenesis not outpace erosion? In the Borah Peak earthquake of 1983, the peak ended that day 5 inches higher. How could this happen? Do you see 5 inches of erosion per day occurring in any other region anywhere? This is a silly argument.
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.
Oh, no. You're not going to bore us with this one AGAIN, are you? This has amply been refuted on other threads around here.
quote:
c: Many fossils indicate that they have been formed quickly. Not over long periods of time. Billions of fossil fish are found in rock layers all over the earth well preserved. Normally, a dead fish decomposes or is eaten soon after it dies. But these are almost perfect skeletons of fish. Fossil fish have been found swallowing another fish or in the process of giving birth. These fish were buried quickly. Also, polystratic fossils are a problem. How did the animal sit there for millions of years while layers slowly formed around them?
You really don't understand fossilization, do you? Oh well, so much for an education by creationist websites....
quote:
d: Processes which are assumed to take millions of years can happen in a short period of time.
1. Coal Formation. Coal has been formed by Argonne in 4-36 weeks.
Very good. Now tell us what the conditions were and where those conditions occur in nature.
(snip)
Sorry, but this is the usual creationist laundry list aimed at boring evolutionists to death. Please choose your favorite argument and start another thread. All of these items have been refuted to the point of ridicule elswhere. Perhaps you could do a little non-creationist reading before you dive back into this swamp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-19-2003 10:22 PM thousands_not_billions has not 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

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 89 (29626)
01-20-2003 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
01-18-2003 10:47 AM


Hi Percy,
Just a quick note while I'm trying to catch up on a month's worth of posts. Andya is quite correct about Denton's volte-face. His most recent book, "Nature's Destiny", is about a solid a recantation of his first book, "Theory in Crisis", as you could ask for. "Destiny" is an omphalos-type "fine tuning" argument - so he's gone from YEC to "god set the laws in motion" for life. Here's my favorite quote from the preface to "Destiny":
quote:
It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii).
Interestingly, "Nature's Destiny" is out of print, even though published about ten years after "Theory in Crisis", which is still highly touted and well-publicized by the creationists. Go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 01-18-2003 10:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 01-20-2003 9:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 89 (29660)
01-20-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Quetzal
01-20-2003 4:04 AM


Wow! I know I've been busy, but how did I miss this? Thanks for the info.
Amazon doesn't seem to think Nature's Destiny is out of print, but if it is then I think it would make sense to me . Naturally it has no appeal for Creationists, and as Denton has nothing original to contribute scientifically it holds no special attraction for evolutionists, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 01-20-2003 4:04 AM Quetzal has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 89 (29661)
01-20-2003 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Andya Primanda
01-18-2003 1:55 AM


Sorry for doubting you about Denton - thanks for the info!!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-18-2003 1:55 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

thousands_not_billions
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 89 (29716)
01-20-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John
01-20-2003 1:41 AM


===============
As, for example, most everything in the Bible.
===============
Examples?
================
For many things the evidence isn't there, but ignoring or denying evidence that is there does not make that evidence go away.
================
Good idea for the evolutionists. Don't ignore the evidence for Creation. The evidence isn't just there for evolution. Think we've been through this before
=============
The number of followers has to do with what?
=============
How long the myth has lasted. The Book of the Dead died out as soon as Egypt fell.
==============
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.
=============
So. What has the Vedas done for the Hindus? The Bible has shaped civilization and molded history ever since it was written. It has transformed millions of lives and brought everlasting good to mankind. Has the Vedas done this?
==========
I wouldn't call it a 'rise' more of a development.
==========
Same thing almost. But again, new species does not prove evolution. What evolutionists need is either
a. Transitional Fossils
b. A mechanism that can add information to a system
New species always remain in the same genus as the parent stock, even if they cannot breed. But they never evolve into a higher order. And no new genetic information is created, but it is lost instead, going against evolution.
=============
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool, nor of this speciation at lightning speed.
=============
Yes. There is evidence of fast speciation.
a. New species of mosquito arose in 100 years.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
b. Peter Grant has shown that new species can rise in only 200 years. But they can arise quicker, as it seen.
c. Lizards, guppies, daisies, and mice have also been seen to adapt quickly.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
===============
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.
===============
Improbably yes. But possible. They are still in the genus Cannis. A Biblical kind is defined to include any two animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Animals that do not breed in the wild can and do breed in captivity.
================
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.
================
Erosion carries sediment away much faster then this.
================
You seem to be forgetting or ignoring the obvious. Helium does not stay in the atmosphere indefinitely. It escapes into space.
================
Yes. But earth's gravity holds it in for a long time.
=============
Yes, they were buried quickly which is why they became fossils and not lunch.
=============
They were buried quickly. During the flood
==============
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.
=============
What. Impossible that I will see it or impossible that I will dig? Sorry mate. No tree in the back yard. But I've dug up trees before, and only a small fraction of the tree is often buried. How do you explain whole trees or animals that stretch over many layers of sediment? If each of the layers was laid down over millions of years, this is leaving the relm of logic.
==================
Oh? Can you pick out which version of the story is correct so that we can discuss it more?
==================
Number 1
One creationist model is that during the flood, millions of trees were uprooted and as they floated on the surface of the water, the bark was stripped off and deposited at the bottom. This was turned into coal by heat and pressure. Everything up to the heat and pressure stage has been observed at Mt. St. Helens by Steve Austin proving that this theory has something to it.
Coal Beds and Noah’s Flood | Answers in Genesis
=================
Got a reference? From what I can find those stalactites were LAVA. This is not nearly the same thing.
=================
Creation Magazine. Vol. 23
How Old Does the Earth Look? | Answers in Genesis
Mt. Isa is not a currently active volcanic area. I have the photo of the formations in front of me and they are absolutely not lava.
===================
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.
===================
My mother and grandparents used to know Len Cram really well. He has made a lot of money out of his opels. I can't imagine him being too unhappy with the results. But his opals look just the same under the electron microscope as those found in the field. No millions of years created his.
=================
Actually a whole lot of it returns to land as evidenced by the massive salt deposits we have in various parts of the world.
=================
But this is only a fraction of what was carried into the sea.
============
A faith that works???? Every faith works. That is what is so good about faith. It requires nothing-- no evidence, no thought, nothing.
============
Mine is no "blind faith". I know what I believe in and will stick to that. I have looked at both creation/evolution, and can see what I have faith in. There is evidence for my faith.
===========
It has been tested and retested for 150 years and it has not been disproven thus far.
===========
Disproven many times. Just look at the Cambrian Explosion. Where were the steps leading up to the widely diverse life forms contained in the Cambrian layers? There are none. In fact, evolutionist D Axelrod writes "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater ages." There is no evidence of complex life forms before the explosion. Did evolution happen?
===============
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.
===============
No. What I said was that neither of us was there to see creation or evolution. But we can see the effects of atoms and their existance fits in very nicely with all available evidence. I believe that dogs exist that I have never seen, as others have seen them, photographed them, and provided evidence that they do exist. No body was there to see evolution. But somebody was there to see Creation. God has written what he did in His Word. We have very reliable witness.
=============
What then are all the scientists doing in there labs?
You just ruled out astronomy as a science too, btw.
=============
Well, they're not proving evolution whatever they're doing. And astronomy is based on evidence.
============
We have the fossil record. We have genetics. We can infer a great deal.
============
Genetics and the fossil record work against the ToE. Read "Evolution. The Fossils Still Say No".
==============
You are inconsistent. You say evolutionists are very good at describing yet claim there is no evidence. How can one describe nothing?
==============
That's exactlly what they're doing. Describing nothing. Just listen to some of Dawkins' descriptions.
=============
Thousands of scientists are experimenting with the various mechanisms of evolution.
============
And finding that they don't work
================
Yes, it could but thus far that one gram has not been found.
===============
There is tons of evidence for Creation. Tons of theory for Evolution.
=======
LOL......
=======
LOL......
=================
Mt. St. Helens produced nothing like the grand canyon despite what your creationist heroes claim.
=================
Nothing but a canyon wide enough to fly a plane through.
There's lots more too.
==============
There is no evidence to toss out.
==============
lol. Here we go again
=============
Again you have no evidence. You've just made something up. And what makes you think ice age weather would less pronounced?
=============
I didn't make it up. Ice age weather would have been less pronounced, as the massive ice sheets would have created a cooler climate in the summer
==============
No, actually not. Ice cores give us a pretty good idea of what the atmosphere actually was like.
==============
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis
===============
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.
===============
Big Coal Beds.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
====================
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.
====================
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
============
You are mistaken. Scientist use the best descriptions they have but those desciptions are not sacrosanct. Theory can change as the data changes.
============
Why hasn't embryonic recapitulation been changed?
============
Dates are cross checked via several method and lots of individual samples. They all line up pretty well.
============
Different methods can give dates thousands of years different then each other.
================
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.
================
light material would have been laid down and then dense material. Also. Denser submarine landslides can cover lighter material. These would have occured many times during the Flood.
==================
Which what? Don't keep me in suspense!
==================
Don't know what happened there
During the Flood, the watar exploding from the ground brought magma up with it, which created runaway subduction. The intense volcanic activity could have moved the continents.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
====================
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.
===================
Notice that with many ancient dates, the dates have a "c" in front of it. This indicates that the dates are approximate. We believe that the Sumarian civ. was founded shortly after the Flood, which puts it in the right time frame.
==============
A change in the frequency of traits in a population constitutes evolution. That's it really.
==============
You mean, different traits added?
=============
Why not study real science?
=============
What is a definition of "real science". Certainly not evolution.
=========
That horses evolved? You can't be serious.
==========
The palaeontologist David Raup wrote: ‘The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be modified or discarded as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated.’ D.M. Raup, ‘Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology’
================
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.
================
Really. I am.
================
Before you start tossing around that idea of 'kinds' why don't you define it for us. No one has yet to do so.
===============
Done so.
================
Basically, your claim is absurd.
================
Checked out the site. Nice pics. But eohippus is only a hyrx, which has been found in Europe as well. But here's the catch. A fossil of a supposed ancestor to a "later" branch on the horse tree was found buried in the same layer with it. You would expect to find them in different layers. Also, the differences between the fossils are found in modern horses as well. Even Marsh recognized this.
===============
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.
===============
Wrong. Many are. In public though, they keep pushing the same stuff.
===================
AIG is not the source for reliable information. Check out the universities. You know, real science.
===================
In what was is it not reliable. In that is doesn't accept evolution?
=================
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.
=================
So that's what happens when a quote is thrown in that you don't like? I quoted out of context? The quote says that evolutionists have tried to turn a perching bird into a feathered, earthbound dinosaur. It just didn't happen.
=======
Cite your source.
======
"In 6 Days" Published by Master Books".
On page 337, we read that the number of scientists in the US who believe in God are estimated to be at around 25000 or more. I couldn't find the page with Humphry's quote on it. It's there. I'll keep looking.
============
You do know that just 50 or so years ago HIV was not HIV?
============
HIV keeps changing. But it's still just HIV. It isn't changing into anything else. The new "species" are just varations on the theme. A loss of information happens here. But this doesn't explain how prokayotes could have evolved information for ID tags.
==========
So that is why you are so fired up.
==========
Actually no. AiG fired me up. Wile barely touches on evolution in his course. He has got a tape out though explaining why he is a Creationist.
------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John, posted 01-20-2003 1:41 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 01-21-2003 1:58 AM thousands_not_billions has replied
 Message 56 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 6:39 AM thousands_not_billions has not replied
 Message 62 by Bart007, posted 01-21-2003 8:28 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 89 (29723)
01-21-2003 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by thousands_not_billions
01-20-2003 10:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
Examples?
Of things, in the Bible, that are "legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact?" Pretty much everything. Adam and Eve, The Flood, the captivity in Egypt, the cruxifiction story...
quote:
Good idea for the evolutionists. Don't ignore the evidence for Creation.
You may repeat yourself endlessly and it won't the assertions true. The evidence does not exist.
quote:
The evidence isn't just there for evolution.
So the evidence is there for evolution. Glad you are coming around.
quote:
Think we've been through this before
Yes. It is typical of creationists to repeat themselves endlessly.
quote:
How long the myth has lasted. The Book of the Dead died out as soon as Egypt fell.
And? What is the point? Apparently there is some connection to an exchange in post #48.
A myth is something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact. At least, that's my definition. The mountains of evidence are just not there.
============
Then you know how I feel about your Bible.
============
What does the number of followers or the length of time a religion lasts have to do with whether it is "something that is legendery, and not proven, but believed as fact?"
Are you making the argument that age is a proof of truth? Then you should be Buddhist. It is an older religion. Or better still, Hindu, as it is even older. And both are still going strong.
quote:
So. What has the Vedas done for the Hindus? The Bible has shaped civilization and molded history ever since it was written. It has transformed millions of lives and brought everlasting good to mankind. Has the Vedas done this?
In a word, yes. The Vedas have molded civilization and history and have done so for much longer than the Bible has. Your arrogance is staggering and your ignorance of history is blinding.
quote:
a. Transitional Fossils
b. A mechanism that can add information to a system

We have both.
A. Everything is transitional
B. Mutation
Wanna pose a tougher question?
quote:
New species always remain in the same genus as the parent stock, even if they cannot breed.
Yes, and one foot always falls in front of the other but you aren't limited to walking only one step.
quote:
But they never evolve into a higher order.
No one says that species evolve into a higher or lower anything. Populations just change.
quote:
And no new genetic information is created, but it is lost instead, going against evolution.
Creationist staple. Don't feel bad. No one else can support it either.
Maybe you could look at the nylon-eating bacteria. What you have here is a mutation which allow this bacteria to digest nylon, a substance that did not exist until 50(?) years ago. Sure seems like new info to me. And it sure makes no sense in the 'can only lose information' context.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
quote:
Yes. There is evidence of fast speciation.
Sneaky, but you forgot part of the objection. Lets review.
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
This is the part you did not address.
nor of this speciation at lightning speed.
quote:
a. New species of mosquito arose in 100 years.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

First, you really must stop relying on not-science for your information.
I looked up the bug in question, culex molestus, and found a more complicated tale than told at AIG. The change is so minor and is so fluid across the insects range that a lot of scientists don't consider it a seperate species. Not to mention:
Furthermore, intermediate forms with a mixture of molestus and pipiens traits were detected, suggesting that hybridization between the two forms was occurring.
Now, I am quite happy with considering the insect a new species. The problem for you is that it is an insect and insects adapt rapidly. No secret there. Fifty years is a long time when you have a life cycle lasting three months. That one species of mosquito can make a minor change to adapt to the 'Tube' in a fifty years does not imply that 'the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more' in a few centuries as your AIG article states. Lets see, at four generations per year you have 200 generations is fifty years at millions of individuals each generation and you come up with slight changes. With grizzly bears the female reaches maturity at four to seven years old, this means that on average in 200 years a grizzly populations goes through about 37 generations at a few hunded per generation. Comparing the two is silly and by extension, comparing any large animal with insect reproductive rates is silly.
They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more.5 The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.
quote:
b. Peter Grant has shown that new species can rise in only 200 years. But they can arise quicker, as it seen.
You are over simplifying the problem. You need for things to evolve from what is on the arc. Since the arc won't hold very many animals-- a few thousand tops-- you have a lot more change that you imagine.
quote:
Improbably yes. But possible. They are still in the genus Cannis. A Biblical kind is defined to include any two animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Animals that do not breed in the wild can and do breed in captivity.
Please note that this is every bit as speciated as the mosquito example used by AIG. You are equivocating.
You seem to be confusing Genus and species. First you make the point that the are in the Genus Cannis, then go on to define Kind as scientist define species. Which is it?
quote:
Erosion carries sediment away much faster then this.
This is absurd. WE CAN MEASURE THE RATE A MOUNTAIN GROWS. How exactly is it that erosion outstrips uplift if we can measure the uplift and get a positive number? Think about it. You are directly and blatantly contradicting what can actually be measured.
quote:
Yes. But earth's gravity holds it in for a long time.
oh, does it really? How long?
"Banks and Holzer [1] have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 106 ions / cm2.sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +- 1.5) x 106 atoms / cm2.sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." --- Dalrymple, 1984, p. 112
[1] Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind. Geophys. Res. J. 74: 6317-6332.
[2] Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals. Geophys. Res. J. 77: 6194- 6201.
quote:
They were buried quickly. During the flood
Don't be an idiot. This has been explained to you.
quote:
Impossible that I will see it or impossible that I will dig?
Impossible that you would find a polystrate fossil without the assistance of the flood.
quote:
How do you explain whole trees or animals that stretch over many layers of sediment?
Want to show me a whole tree or animal stretched out over many layers? And don't cite AIG. Actually, large parts of tree wouldn't be too odd. Trees petrify and after that they are pretty durable. I can even see bone being exposed and recovered. And lets think about gophers. Burrowing animals traverse many layers as they dig. Should one die in its hole it could leave a fossil across several layers. But what I want to see is something significant.
quote:
Number 1
LOL..... that is funny. How is it that you know? You just like this one? Ok. Now, prove it.
quote:
Everything up to the heat and pressure stage has been observed at Mt. St. Helens by Steve Austin proving that this theory has something to it.
BS. Anyone know where that MSH thread is where this came up?
quote:
Creation Magazine. Vol. 23
AIG Earth How Old
[Shortened too long link. --Admin]

You have got to be joking.
quote:
Mt. Isa is not a currently active volcanic area. I have the photo of the formations in front of me and they are absolutely not lava.
So you can't prove what you say then? There isn't any real science to it?
quote:
My mother and grandparents used to know Len Cram really well. He has made a lot of money out of his opels. I can't imagine him being too unhappy with the results. But his opals look just the same under the electron microscope as those found in the field. No millions of years created his.
The ONLY thing I could find about this was that Cram's opals aren't quite right. Nonetheless, the real point is that what we can do in the lab does not mean it could be done the same way outside the lab. We can make diamonds with a big hydraulic press, but is that how diamonds are made in the earth? Nope.
quote:
But this is only a fraction of what was carried into the sea.
Look. Support this crap or shut up. You are just making thing up to buttress your myth. I am very close to deciding not to bother with you.
EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science
Thick Salt Beds (11)
Thick salt beds formed by evaporation of sea water are a common feature of geologic columns in many parts of the world. The "young earth geologists" interpret almost all classic stratigraphic units as deposits produced during the flood year: hence, they must also account for interbedded salt formations as part of those events (Figure 6). Some of the more extensive salt formations with the U.S. are in the Jurassic of the Gulf Coast (Worrall and Snelson, 1989), the Silurian of the New York to Chicago region (Alling and Briggs, 1961; Smosna and Patchen, 1978), and the Permian of the Paradox Basin of Utah (Baars and Stevenson, 1982). In the center of the Paradox Basin these salts reach a depositional thickness of 1.5 km (Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Atlas, 1972) with at least 29 separate cycles of salt deposition (Hite, 1960). To deposit just these beds in a single year would require the salt to form at an average rate of 4 meters per day (17 cm per hour or 2.8 mm per minute) - and this by evaporation during a world-wide flood event!
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm
quote:
Mine is no "blind faith". I know what I believe in and will stick to that.
LOL.....
quote:
I have looked at both creation/evolution, and can see what I have faith in. There is evidence for my faith.
You cannot have looked and remain so ignorant about so many relevant fields.
quote:
Just look at the Cambrian Explosion.
Bloody hell.
EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
quote:
But we can see the effects of atoms and their existance fits in very nicely with all available evidence.
So you are quite happy selectively using your brain rather than using it all the time?
quote:
But somebody was there to see Creation. God has written what he did in His Word. We have very reliable witness.
No one was there to see God write the Book. There is no reason to believe that he did. So why should I care? It is myth.
quote:
Well, they're not proving evolution whatever they're doing. And astronomy is based on evidence.
So you don't know what the scientists are doing? Maybe you should find out?
Astronomy is based on exactly the same type of evidence as evolution-- observation and inference. Please make up you mind about what constitutes evidence.
quote:
Genetics and the fossil record work against the ToE.
Which is why overwhelming numbers of scientists consider evolution to be the best theory we have? You can't be serious.
quote:
And finding that they don't work
Of course you haven't bothered to look, and likely don't even know what to look for. This means you are blindly spouting nonsense. Assertions don't make a thing true. Try it. Say "I don't have zits" about a hundred time and then see if magically becomes true.
quote:
Nothing but a canyon wide enough to fly a plane through.
No one will tell you that there are not canyons in the MSH ash, but pyroclastic mudflows do not look like sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock. The MSH analogy is moronic.
quote:
I didn't make it up. Ice age weather would have been less pronounced, as the massive ice sheets would have created a cooler climate in the summer
You did make it up. See, if you had a leg to stand on you would have given me a reference to a ice age climatic model, but you don't bother with details like evidence eh?
quote:
Do Greenland Ice Cores Show One Hundred Thousand Years? | Answers in Genesis
This doesn't even address the point I made.
quote:
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
Make your own arguments.
quote:
Why hasn't embryonic recapitulation been changed?
ummmm... it has.
quote:
Different methods can give dates thousands of years different then each other.
Yup, and when you date something that is 250 million years old it hardly matters.
quote:
light material would have been laid down and then dense material.
In what universe?
quote:
Also. Denser submarine landslides can cover lighter material. These would have occured many times during the Flood.
Why? Flood geologists have never been able to make this idea work.
quote:
During the Flood, the watar exploding from the ground brought magma up with it, which created runaway subduction. The intense volcanic activity could have moved the continents.
Uh-huh. And baked everything. The energy release would boil the oceans several times over.
quote:
Notice that with many ancient dates, the dates have a "c" in front of it. This indicates that the dates are approximate. We believe that the Sumarian civ. was founded shortly after the Flood, which puts it in the right time frame.
Yes, in the right time frame!!!! Why didn't they notice the flood?
quote:
==============
A change in the frequency of traits in a population constitutes evolution. That's it really.
==============
You mean, different traits added?

An addition of traits via some mutation doesn't really constitute a change in the average traits of the populations. Only when a selective force is involved do you have the average traits change.
quote:
Really. I am.
If, as you say, you are here to learn then start backing up what you say with hard evidence. AIG doesn't count. Look, for every one AIG 'researcher' there are thousands-- probably ten of thousand-- of scientists in the various related fields who will tell you that the stuff at AIG is crap. AIG is so flawed its silly. It is the Monty Python's Flying Circus of Science, but not nearly so clever.
quote:
Done so.
You mean your 'kind' definition that places kinds at the species level? Creationists don't typically do that because then you are forced into accepting that hundreds of millions of animals were on a boat just larger than the biggest of the old sailing ships.
quote:
But eohippus is only a hyrx, which has been found in Europe as well.
And the significance is?
quote:
But here's the catch. A fossil of a supposed ancestor to a "later" branch on the horse tree was found buried in the same layer with it. You would expect to find them in different layers.
Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.
quote:
Also, the differences between the fossils are found in modern horses as well. Even Marsh recognized this.
What?
quote:
In what was is it not reliable. In that is doesn't accept evolution?
Imagine you give someone a machine and instructions on how to use it. Then give them a test to perform. The people do the tests incorrectly and blatantly so, then publish that the machine is unreliable. The machine, not the methods are unreliable. AIG does just this with the radiometric dating. Only one example of many.
quote:
So that's what happens when a quote is thrown in that you don't like?
Just cite the source and you won't have this problem.
quote:
HIV keeps changing. But it's still just HIV.
And seventy years ago it didn't exist. It was a virus called SIV.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by Admin, 01-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-20-2003 10:36 PM thousands_not_billions has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 7:01 AM John has replied
 Message 64 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-21-2003 11:02 PM John has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 56 of 89 (29741)
01-21-2003 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by thousands_not_billions
01-20-2003 10:36 PM


I simply can't let this bit slide:
quote:
Checked out the site. Nice pics. But eohippus is only a hyrx, which has been found in Europe as well. But here's the catch. A fossil of a supposed ancestor to a "later" branch on the horse tree was found buried in the same layer with it. You would expect to find them in different layers. Also, the differences between the fossils are found in modern horses as well. Even Marsh recognized this.
You really should look at the differences between Hyracotherium and a hyrax (Procavia capensis). They're not anywhere near alike - they don't even have the same dentition, not even approximately. You've been gulled by a creationist website - probably AiG (this was one of Gish's favorite misconceptions). Looky here:
Hyrax:
Hyracotherium:
Hmm. Don't look very similar, do they? Bottom line: Not one of the identified 18 species of Hyracotherium (note the name refers to a genus, not a species) is even in the same order as hyrax (order Hyracoidae) which is more closely related to elephants than horses, and are exclusively African...
As far as the "modern horse found in same strata" bit, it appears that AiG (which I again assume is your primary if not only source of information) is once again in error. Jon Barber did an excellent bit of detective work to trace down the origins of this claim. You can read about the whole thing at Did Hyracotherium and Equus Live at the Same Time?.
I obviously don't expect you to change your tune. I've never yet met a creationist who's willing to consider evidence and change their mind (with the possible exception of TC from this board). But perhaps you should spend some time double-checking your creationist sources for accuracy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by thousands_not_billions, posted 01-20-2003 10:36 PM thousands_not_billions has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 6:46 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 66 by Bart007, posted 01-21-2003 11:04 PM Quetzal has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 57 of 89 (29742)
01-21-2003 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Quetzal
01-21-2003 6:39 AM


Dear Quetzal,
Indeed, nice pics. However, where do you see horses and where do you see elephants? I had a very careful look at the pictures, but I didn't see them. Could you please point them out for me? I would be grateful.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 6:39 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Quetzal, posted 01-21-2003 7:16 AM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 58 of 89 (29743)
01-21-2003 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by John
01-21-2003 1:58 AM


Dear John,
There is no reason to doubt that HIV -not SIV- was present in the human genome before the 1950s (recent Nature, will look it up if you like). You refer to the only imaginable evolutionary explanation, but there is an alternative through NONRANDOM mechanisms.
Wanna discuss the origin of HIV, viruses in general? Anybody?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John, posted 01-21-2003 1:58 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 01-21-2003 6:23 PM peter borger has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 59 of 89 (29744)
01-21-2003 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by peter borger
01-21-2003 6:46 AM


Hi Peter,
Weeell, I can see the very start of the horse in ol' Hyracotherium, especially in what can be seen of the skull and teeth. OTOH, remember that Hyracotherium was a fairly undifferentiated perissodactyl - the family that eventually gave rise to modern equiids (Hyracotherium vassacciense is the most likely species ancestor), modern tapirids (probably Homagalex), and rhinos (probably Hyrachyus). You're talking 55 my of change and dozens of species before you get to the two modern horses. There was a lot of change in that period.
I honestly don't see a relationship between the hyrax and elephants, but both molecular systematics and paleontologists claim the common ancestor of both was a condylarth called Hyopsodus. I don't see it from the skull - but the point was to show the profound differences between a hyrax and a Hyracotherium. You can see that much, n'est-ce pas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 6:46 AM peter borger has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 89 (29799)
01-21-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by peter borger
01-21-2003 7:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
There is no reason to doubt that HIV -not SIV- was present in the human genome before the 1950s (recent Nature, will look it up if you like). You refer to the only imaginable evolutionary explanation, but there is an alternative through NONRANDOM mechanisms.
Wanna discuss the origin of HIV, viruses in general? Anybody?
Best wishes,
Peter

Peter,
It wouldn't hurt you to actually make a case once in awhile. Here we have typical PeterB bombast and nothing more. Why should I care? Got references maybe?
I am, by the way, aware that the date HIV first differentiated from its parent population(s) is disputed. Some people put it at 50 years ago, some at 70, some at 200, some at 700, some at several thousand. Whatever the case, I don't see anyone denying that it did speciate.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 7:01 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by peter borger, posted 01-21-2003 7:04 PM John has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024