New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

===========
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.

===============
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 eithera. Transitional Fossils
b. A mechanism that can add information to a systemNew 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 1One 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.

Thanks Bart. I'm standing firm on my Creationist convictions. Evolution is nothing but a metaphysical idea, not science, and it never will be science.
Cheers mate.

============
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...
============How can you disprove them? The captivity in Egypt has been proven, (Searching for Moses), evidence for the Flood abounds (despite what has been claimed), and the cruxifiction story was well documented by Josephus, Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke, and even Roman records.===============
You may repeat yourself endlessly and it won't the assertions true. The evidence does not exist.
===============
Seems like the claim that evidence for Creation does not exist has become an infinate loop.==============
So the evidence is there for evolution. Glad you are coming around.
==============I'm not coming around at all. Sorry mate. ============
Yes. It is typical of creationists to repeat themselves endlessly.
============To say nothing of evolutionists==============
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.
==============Buddism began long after the beginnings of the Bible, and the Hindu religion arose around about the same time as the Bible. But you missed the point. What has Hinduism and Buddism done for the world? The Bible has made America the greatest nation on earth. Where ever the Bible goes, it reforms and elevates mankind. Just look at the difference between say, PNG and Australia. Both right next to each other. But Australia was developed and thriving while PNG was still a third world nation, largely unexplored. What made the difference? The Bible.================
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.
================Many scholars have trouble dating the Vedas. The Bible began to be written with Moses, who was contempary to the ancient Hindus. Hinduism is not older. And as to shaping history, in what direction has the Vedas shaped history? It might have molded India and southeast Asia, but the Bible has influenced the whole world from Europe to Australia. And notice that I asked if the Vedas has brought everlasting good to mankind.===========
A. Everything is transitional
===========Darwin recognized the prob. of transitional fossils in his day. He bemoaned the fact that we do not find transitionals popping out of the fossil record everywhere. Today, evolutionists are still blaming the incompleteness of the fossil record. The handful of supposed transitional fossils that you claim we have (ie: birds, whales, horses, man etc) are highly debatable and provide no evidence at all for evolution. But, evolution needs, not one or two series of fossils, but hundreds of them! No complete series has been found yet.==========
Mutation
==========Mutations are not the driving force of evolution. It's basic biology. Mustations delete and scramble information and often render the organism less effective then before. Most mutations are not beneficial to the organism. No "information increasing" mutation has been observed yet.============
Wanna pose a tougher question?
============Where did all the genetic information come from to turn, say a reptile into a bird, or a fish into an amphibian?===============
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.
===============The mutation could have allowed the bacteria to digest nylon, but it resulted in a loss of information in the species as a whole.let me quote from the article that you posted.=========
Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome.
=========Creationists don't say this at all. Creationists say that mutations decrease information content in the organism. Notice I said that "Most" mutations are not beneficial to the organism. Mutations have sometimes confered an advantage to a species. ie: bacteria are resistant to drugs, beetles don't have wings to prevent them being blown into the sea. These may help the organism, but they all reduce information content.============
My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste. The new enzymes are very inefficient (having only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzymes), but do afford the bacteria a whole new ecological niche.
============The mutation didn't increase information. It gave the bacteria an advantage in that it can now digest nylonlet me quote from AiG================
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids

Cut off half the message.================
Finally, Mr Cerutti is out of date about this new nylon digesting ability allegedly from a frame shift. New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids

Good points Bart. I really liked those quotes. The horse series is not proved at all.btw. Can anybody explain why my message was cut in half?[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-21-2003]

=========
Sorry bud, more AIG fantasy.
=========Hmm. You won't listen to the truth will you.============
Funny that only those who start out believing in the flood ever see the evidence for it.
============Funny that evolutionists close their eyes to the evidence for the Flood.
The Flood | Answers in Genesis ==========
None of whom ever knew Christ. They all wrote long after the fact.
==========Oh come on! Peter, Luke, and Matthew knew Christ really well. They were three of his disciples. Paul and Mark were well acquainted with Christ, and Paul saw Him in vision===========
But more than 600 years before the advent of christianity... You are a christian right?
===========I am. But the foundations of Christianity were laid down before Buddism, with the 10 Commandments and Genesis.==========
Got your facts wrong again. The oldest book of the Bible-- Job- dates to somewhere around 1500 BC. The rest of the Bible is much younger-- Genesis, as you know it, dating from about 1000 BC, for example. The Rig Vedas date from around the same time. That is, THE WHOLE THING dates from around 1500 BC, not just the oldest fragment of it.
==========Actually, I didn't get my facts wrong again. Moses wrote the books of Job, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and half of Deuteronomy. That's quite a few.============
Enormous amounts of mathematics and technology and science that you think are western were actually borrowed from Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In fact, parts of your Bible prolly came from them as well.
============
The west took these ideas and shaped them and built on them to create the Algebra and mathematics we know today. So it was a joint effort. And the Bible is not borrowed from the Hindu religion. In fact, overwelming evidence that Buddism and Hinduism borrowed from the Bible has been found. (Truth Triumphant) B.G. Wilkinson.==========
Seems like the exploitation of a continent did that.
==========Exploitation is not the best word to use. America's greatness came from it's Biblical ethics and Bible believing people.==========
Now you have opened the door for me to point out the atrocities done in Jesus' name. See, if you can use the 'good' the Bible has done and use prevailing social structures and climates as proof, then I can use the nasty bits as proof that the Bible causes hell on Earth. Will you accept that as fair play? I doubt it. I suspect that you'll tell me that I can't criticise the Bible for the actions of people. Well, that being so, you can't use the actions of people to prove the Bible to be good. Get it? Be careful of the doors you open.
==========True, much has been done in the name of Jesus that has been evil. But neither He, nor the Bible can be blamed for this. Those who have done this things were not following what the Bible says, and so were not Christians. What you call yourself and what you are are two different things. But the Bible has awakened many minds to search for truth, and in their search for truth, they have been uplifted. Also, the Bible provided a basis for the wonderful advances in technology, and science that have come about. Many early scientists were Christians, and believed in the Bible fully. God's blessing attended them, and He allowed them to unlock the mysteries of His creation.========
Money.
========What caused the economy of these countries like Australia to boom? God's blessing on the country for one.=====
And we are the worse for it as well.
=====Exactlly in what way?======
Of course, you don't even know how paleantologists piece together the evidence. There is a lot of measurement, and lot of math and not nearly as much guessing as you seem to believe. It is actually quite logical. You should try it, if only to avoid arguing about something you know nothing about.
=======Do you know? And there seems to be tons of guessing. Just look at Nebraska Man. Evolutionists guessed that he was an ancestor of homo sapians, but he turned out to be an extinct pig.
404 Not Found Here's a humorous look at Nebraska man. Quite funny actually. Lord Zuckerman, an evolutionist, says that in regards to the search for fossil man "we then move right of the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory preception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible--and where the ardent believe is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." (S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower. p. 19) Notice he used the words "faithful" and "believer" in regards to evolutionists. lol.===========
creationist staple!!!! What we've got ain't never good enough. LOL....Sorry but we only have what we have.
===========You miss my arguement. What evolution predicts is millions of transitional fossils, but only a handful of specimans, which are extremely debatable, have been found. The handful of specimans however, are most certainly not true transitional fossils.===========
Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.
===========Really? Why don't you tell this to someone suffering from Cystic Fibrosis. They might appreciate this. Actually, mutations almost always have a harmful affect on a species, and they always scramble information.quote from a biology book written by Gregory Parker and Brian Ashbaugh,"Mutations are almost always harmful to an organism. When mutations damage the genes that control certain aspects of cell reproduction, tumors, often leading to cancer, may result..."===========
What is an "information increasing" mutation? Any copy error produces a gene that is DIFFERENT from the gene that was copied. Different information is new information.
===========If I have a printing press that deletes each tenth letter in a book, is new information being produced? The book is different from the origional, but no new information is formed. In fact, information is lost.==========
You know the answer. What I think you don't realize is just how little change is needed to cause huge changes of body type.
==========ho hum. Not the hox genes again. The hox genes control where body segments are grown. Mutations can shift them around. But this adds no new information to the organism, it only forms the ordinary structures in a different area of the body.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis =========
So mutations can lead to adaptive change. Wham! You are an evolutionist.
=========Do we really have to go through this again mate? Rarely, mutations can create seeming advantages for an organism, like bacteria that are unaffected by drugs, and beetles that cannot be blown into the sea, as they do not have wings. This is not evolution, as no new information is added, but is rather deleted.
Are There Beneficial Mutations? | Answers in Genesis ============
Wait. A bacterial population that couldn't digest nylon has developed the ability to digest nylon and this is not new to the bacteria?
============
A mutation can sometimes give a seeming advantage to an organism. However, again, information is deleted.------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.

Dear John,Here is the rest of my article that didn't get posted.==============
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
==============No evidence against it either.============
First, you really must stop relying on not-science for your information.
============How is it "not science"? Seems more scientific to me then NCSE.===========
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.
=============Since we're so interested about bears at the moment, Missing Link | Answers in Genesis =============
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.
=============Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used. Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis Answers | Answers in Genesis =========
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?
==========quoted from AiG
===================
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.==============
oh, does it really? How long?
=============
Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere | Answers in Genesis Missing Link | Answers in Genesis btw. Only 1/2000 of the expected amount of helium that would be expected to be in the atmosphere if the earth was thousands of years old is found.
===========
Don't be an idiot. This has been explained to you.
===========Oh has it?=============
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.
=============The thing about the burrowing animals is illogical. Just think about it. An animal dies underground. There are bacteria and other organisms that quickly eat it up. It doesn't sit there forever. For a fossil to form, it has to be burried quickly. And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.==========
LOL..... that is funny. How is it that you know? You just like this one? Ok. Now, prove it.
==========No, the first one was the one AiG put out. Word for word. It just shows that you don't have to have millions of years to form coal.==============
You have got to be joking.
==============Dead serious. And what's wrong with Creation magazine? All articles are reviewed by professional scientists for ages before they are published. It's a scientific magazine.=========
So you can't prove what you say then? There isn't any real science to it?
=========What can't I prove. If you like, I can scan the photo in and stick it up for the whole world to see if you want me to.==========
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.
===========The thing this proves is that it does not need millions of years to make opals. Bacteria can even form opals.quote How Old Does the Earth Look? | Answers in Genesis
===============
Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.
===============
===========
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.
==========All right. I will. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis ========
LOL.....
========LOL. Your faith isn't blind? Oh come on!===========
You cannot have looked and remain so ignorant about so many relevant fields.
===========I might not know everything, but the science I have looked at all supports Creation.==========
hell.
===========hell nothing. Evolutionists cannot explain the Cambian explosion. They have several theorys but none explains the mysterious absence of transitional forms leading up to the explosion of life."The complex of historical events encompassing the origin and early evolution of Metazoa is at once the salient feature and the most unresolved bio-historical phenomenon in the history of life. It has been the single most perplexing issue since paleontology emerged as a scientific discipline...Many of paleontology's heroic figures...have offered hypotheses or scenarios to explain or account for events of this critical juncture in the history of life. To date, none of these ideas are widely accepted." J.H. Lipps and P.W. Signor Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa" page 3-23. Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...==============
So you are quite happy selectively using your brain rather than using it all the time?
==============Look. We can see evidence for atoms. We can measure their width. We can tell how many are in a sample of a substance. We can conduct tests that show how atoms react. We can split the atom and destroy a city. Atoms have evidence for their existance. Evolution does not.==========
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.
==========
God didn't write the Bible Himself. He inspired men to write it for him. Man was there to see it written.==============
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.
===============What do scientists do? Easy. Scientists labour to discover truth about our universe.Astronomy is based on evidence. Evidence exists for black holes, and quasers, and galaxies. Evidence does not exist for the Big Bang or evolution.==========
Which is why overwhelming numbers of scientists consider evolution to be the best theory we have? You can't be serious.
==========I am serious. I wouldn't write that if I wasn't serious. If I wasn't, I would indicate it. Many scientists are "willingly ignorant" or the evidence, or refuse to look at any evidence that contridicts their theory.============
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.
===========Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution. Assertions don't make a thing true. You can assert for all eternity that evolution occured, and that will not make evolution occur.============
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.
============Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?============
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?
============It's simple. The cold ice sheets created a colder climate in summer, thereby creating an overall cool climate with lots of H2O===========
This doesn't even address the point I made.
===========No? Well, here's another one. Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research==========
Make your own arguments.
==========lol. And when I do you accuse me of thinking that up myself. Come on. Be consistent.===========
ummmm... it has.
===========Not in the last biology textbook I looked through============
Yup, and when you date something that is 250 million years old it hardly matters.
============Oh? And it isn't just thousands of years off either.a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked. This is embarrasing, as the youngest coal is dated at "millions of years". The half life of C-14 is only 5,730 years. That means that in 11,460 years, all C-14 should be gone. Well, how is C-14 found in "millions of years old" coal?b. Wood from the Tertiary basalt was buried in a lava flow that clearly covered it, as the wood was charred. The wood was dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old and the basalt was, well, 45,000,000 years old. Um, something's wrong here.c. Lava flows at the top of the Grand Canyon are dated to be older then lava flows imbedded in the bottom layers. What? Did the canyon form upside down?Just some of the errors with modern dating methods.==========
In what universe?
==========Say some light material were laid down by flood waters and then a submarine landslide of denser material covered it.============
Yes, in the right time frame!!!! Why didn't they notice the flood?
============
The Sumerians sprang up right after the flood.===============
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.
===============What have I been doing? AiG has hard evidence. The reason evolutionists don't like them is because they can't refute their evidence.============
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.
============Listen to Safarti's arguement that I posted above about kinds.===============
Why? The emergence of a new species does not mean the parent species dies out. You can have branching.
===============What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve? You would expect that an isolated group of organisms, if evolution occured, would soon breed out the traits of the parent stock and become overwelmingly different. Also, supposed descendants of earlier members of the horse series have been found below their supposed ancestors in the strata. Hmm. If strata is layed down over millions of years, what evolved from what?======
What?
=====Mash. The guy who "constructed" the horse series. He recognized wild mustangs in the southwest with three toes living then.==========
And seventy years ago it didn't exist. It was a virus called SIV.
==========
SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-22-2003]

==========
Until you have supporting evidence, a claim is in a limbo of meaninglessness along with anything I or anyone else can make up.
==========
Including Evolution. And, when God created life, it is logical that he would create them in a perfect state, which means great genetic variety.=========
Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.
=========Involved in what? Evolution? There's no science in that.==========
It is a bad idea to describe evolution then follow up by saying it ain't so.
==========How many times do I have to repeat myself? Evolution is the bringing out of new information. What I wrote was just basic genetics.Ex.Suppose one parent has the genes AA and the other has the genes Bb. This is simple, but describes what I'm getting at.Genetics predicts this:50% of the offspring will have the genes for AB50% will have genes for Ab.See, a change was made. But this is not evolution! Just genetics. If we magnify this into many genes, changes can be made in one generation.===========
Wait. So it isn't genetics but genes are involved? Come on, buddy, think this stuff through.
===========What I said was:"Evolve is not the correct wording. New characteristics can rise quickly. If a species is isolated from the parent stock, then changes can occur more quickly. This is not evolution. This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used."I said that this "WAS" genetics. Please don't misquote me.=========
Maybe you should reformulate this statement.
=========oops. Sorry. Bad sentance construction. ============
Bacteria don't eat bone. In fact, very little does. The damage to bone is a side effect of being eaten by large predators. Now, being underground an animal practically is buried already, thus it is somewhat protected from large predators. Why is this not logical?
============Because most of the animals we find in the fossil record are fish, marine organisms, and plants. Organisms which do not live underground. Erosion would also lift off the layers of soil, exposing the bones and enabling them to be scatted by animals."In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)
btw. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-petrified-tree.jpg . Good photo of a polystratic fossil. How did this tree remain standing while millions of years passed?
==========
Yes. The problem is that AiG doesn't bother with the truth that I am aware of. AiG is a propaganda machine. What they call science is ridiculous. Copy a few articles and take them to a university. Have a professor in a relevant field take a look. Have two professors. Take it to a hundred. Eventually, I hope you'll realize the truth.
==========AiG is a propaganda machine in that they don't buy evolution and show scientific evidence against it? And about the statement that AiG doesn't bother with truth, please show me some evidences of this.===========
Bud, there were several versions of the same story and none of them were backed up by anything substantial. No supporting evidence, the claim is crap. If you are ok with this, fine, we'll move on but you will be admitting that the claim is unfounded. Otherwise, prove it.
===========Prove your statement.
http://www.creationevidence.org/...ic_evid/coal/se_coal.html This link isn't about what I posted about Aragone, but is interesting. Shows how coal was formed rapidly. Oh, and Aragone labs is not a Creationist place. They are evolutionary. They didn't fake any evidence.=========
Sorry. It isn't. Who are the professional scientists who review the information? The editors? Sorry, that doesn't count as peer review.
=========I don't know who reviews the articles (I sent one in just the other day for publishing) but I can assure you that they are reputable scientists. Safarti, for instance, has a PhD from Wellington, as does Battern, Walker, etc.==========
Yes, now you are getting it. The evidence for atoms is inferential. We can't see them but we can infer their existence. It is the same process biologists use whether you like to believe so or not.
==========So you say that the "evidence" for evolution is also inferential? Well, please give me just one indirect "evidence" for evolution. There aren't even any indirect evidence.=========
Which is why AiG is not a scientific organization.
=========AiG is composed of scientists likea. Don Batten. A Ph.D. plant physiologist and expert tropical fruit researcher, who has made very important contributions to Australia’s agricultural industry. He has also published work on hybridization in secular relevant to the boundaries of the created kinds.b. Jonathan Sarfati
A Ph.D. physical chemist (and former New Zealand national chess champion), whose scientific credentials even the Skeptics have had to acknowledge.c. Pierre Jerlstrm
A Ph.D molecular biologist, whose high credentials were unreasonably doubted in the Skeptic, although he has many published papers in secular journals.d. Tas Walker
A Ph.D. engineer who recently gained a 1st Class Honours degree in geology, specialising in radiometric dating.c. David Catchpoole
A Ph.D. agricultural scientist with wide experience, and first hand knowledge of the amazing design in the botanical world.==========
Common, but incorrect statement. Many argue about particular bits but not about the whole though the ToE has had some radical alterations since it was first proposed.
=========="We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling "Darwin is God and I, So-and-so, am his prophet"--the recent researchs of workers like Dean and Henshelwood already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of Neo-Darwinian Jericho." (E White)(evolutionist)"I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a prculiar "Darwinian" vocabulary... thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events. They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we shall be able to make real progress in our understanding of evolution. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." (S. Lovtrup. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth)========
I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?
========This just proves that canyons and layers do not have to take millions of years to form. Be it sandstone or pyroclastic flows. If a tiny explosion like MSH could do this, what could a global, world wide flood with large volcanic activity do?========
False. It has been detected in some coal though.
========Evidence?=========
Dated by what means? C-14 is wildly inaccurate past 50,000 years or so.
=========C-14 does not work past 11000 years. In 11000 years, all C-14 in a sample will have turned into another substance, leaving none behind. So if a sample has C-14 in it, it is proof that it is less then 11000 years old.===========
No it doesn't. You misunderstand half-life. Half should disappear ins one half-life, another half of the remaining material should disappear in the second half life, and so on... C-14 becomes inaccurate around 50k years and older.
===========No. Any sample is undergoing change at the same time. As soon as an organism with C-14 in it dies, that clock starts counting. In one half life, half of the sample x will have disappeared. In another half life, the other half will have disappeared in the next half life. Add the two half lives, and you get 11,460 yearsActs and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research=========
Yes, because C14 does not work at 45m years old. It becomes wildly inaccurate... wow... right about the age it gave. You apply the wrong test and you get a bad answer. Go figure.
=========Like I said. If there is carbon in a sample, it is proof that the sample is less then 11000 years old. The wood was dated at 45,000 years old, which is illogical, as no carbon would have been in the wood if it was that old.
btw. They didn't date the rock to be 45 mil. years old with C-14. You can't date rocks with the C-14 dating methods.==========
I don't know what you are talking about. Got more info?
==========Sure. The basalt forming the bottom layers of the canyon was dated with Rb-SR dating gave a date of 1.07 billion years. When they dated a lava flow at the top of the canyon on the rim, which was supposed to be only 1 mil years old with RB-SR dating, the rocks were dated at 1.34 billion years. So either you say that dating methods are flawed, or you say that the canyon formed upside down.=========
You don't have time during a one year flood for this sort of dynamic. Too much is happening too fast.
=========Plenty of time. Also, as the flood waters ran away from the land, they would have shaped the land drastically, laying down many layers.=========
So Noah gets off the ark with his seven passengers and a couple of days later sumer pops up with a population of a few million? How can I take this seriously?
=========By "right after" I mean right after the Tower of Babel, which was soon after the Flood. As populations sprung up and were dispersed from Babel, those who stayed formed the Sumarians.=========
If you mean that isolated population will tend to change relative to other populations, then yeah. This happens. You choice of words make me think you feel there is some intelligent force molding species.
=========If the parent population did not change, only parts of it, then inbreeding between the "superior" species and the "more primitive" species would drag down the evolutionary progression, as it would breed out any selective advantages that evolution would have given.=========
Then we've got the order wrong. It happens. This isn't a negation of the concept though.
=========Wow. The evolutionary concept is flexible. If we find the fossils out of order, we can easily change our views. But we also run into problems there.In regards to our ongoing debate, I feel that it is best if we discontinue it. Neither of us are going to change our minds about what we believe in, no matter what happens. I have given much evidence from the world around us that the earth is young and that evolution could not have occurred. I hope that you will reconsider the position in which you stand and one day change your mind. Both of us have access to the same facts. The only difference is how we interpret those facts. You will look at say, Grand Canyon and say "Wow! See the millions of years that it took to form it". I will look at the same canyon and say "Wow! See all the evidence for a world wide Flood". You will not see the evidence supporting Creation, because you do not want to give up evolution, and I will not believe in unseen, hypothetical fossils, unproven assumptions, and wild speculations to believe in evolution. In view of this, I think that both of us are wasting our time. I thank you for making this debate possible, but again, it is getting nowhere. I believe in a Supreme Creator who is the Author of all life on earth and who has a claim on my life. I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, and the Biblical Creation model to be the correct view of history. Because of this, I have hope for the future as I know that Christ died for me and has a special work for me to do. I know that you will probably scoff at this and believe that you have won this debate. That's not true. I did not discontinue this debate because I have run out of arguments, but because I cannot see the sense of continuing further. In closing, I must ask you a question. Since you believe that mankind came from an ape, which came from a reptile, which came from an amphibian, which came from a fish, which came from simple cellular life, do you have any reason for existence? Since you believe that you are just a highly formed animal, do you have any more hope and future then the animal life has? I leave you with these thoughts.Sincerely yours,Robert Dold

Dear John.First, I want everybody to realize that I'm not "running for cover". I just can't see any sense continuing this thread. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Neither of us seem convinced. About the half life. John, you guys were right. I did some research on the 'net and looked up a geology textbook, and both said the same thing. Sorry about my lack of information in this point. It came from something I read years ago about radioactive dating. I think that they had it wrong and I was copying them. Thanks guys for showing me this. I am still learning, and I am trying to study all I can into science. Science is a great field, and I throughly enjoy it. But everybody makes scientific mistakes. You've made a couple yourself in the posts, but what does it matter? But I still can't see how carbon dating can prove millions of years. For a start, like you said, after 50,000 years, no C-14 should be present. Also, the ratio of C, C-14 have not always been the same. Some times they were higher and lower in the atmosphere, thereby throwing dates off.I believe that this will be my last post, as again, I have tried to provide solid science to back up what I say (except for the C-14) . Nobody seems convinced one way or the other, but I know where I stand. I don't have all the answers, but I would like to ask the evolutionists. How can you deal with the past with science? Nobody can be absolutely sure of anything unless he himself saw it or there is evidence for it. There is evidence for Creation in the Bible and in nature, so we can be sure of that. But there is no hard, concrete evidence for evolution. We exist in the present, and the facts exist in the present. Fossils exist in the present, and it is only our assumptions that make up history except when it was recorded.Cheers guys tnb------------------
Now Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen.[This message has been edited by thousands_not_billions, 01-26-2003]