New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

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. 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. MutationWanna 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. This is the part you did not address.

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: 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.

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?

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

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]

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
How can you disprove them?

---

Please note that the operative phrase is 'not proven' rather than 'disproven.' There is a difference. 'Not proven' is where you have not enough evidence to prove something true. Something that is 'not proven' may eventually be proven true or false. 'Disproven' is where some bit of evidence directly contradicts an assertion.

quote:

---

The captivity in Egypt has been proven, (Searching for Moses)

---

Sorry bud, more AIG fantasy.

quote:

---

evidence for the Flood abounds (despite what has been claimed)

---

Funny that only those who start out believing in the flood ever see the evidence for it.

quote:

---

and the cruxifiction story was well documented by Josephus

---

Josephus is not convincing. The language is vague except for the part that was inserted 400 years after the fact. How do I know this? Part of the passage concerning Jesus does not appear in the oldest copies of the relevant works.

quote:

---

Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, Mark, and Luke

---

None of whom ever knew Christ. They all wrote long after the fact.

quote:

---

and even Roman records.

---

Oh? Which ones?

quote:

---

Seems like the claim that evidence for Creation does not exist has become an infinate loop.

---

Ah, the creationist staple-- denial.

quote:

---

Buddism began long after the beginnings of the Bible

---

But more than 600 years before the advent of christianity... You are a christian right?

quote:

---

and the Hindu religion arose around about the same time as the Bible.

---

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.

quote:

---

But you missed the point.

---

Actually, I didn't.

quote:

---

What has Hinduism and Buddism done for the world?

---

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.

quote:

---

The Bible has made America the greatest nation on earth.

---

Seems like the exploitation of a continent did that.

quote:

---

Where ever the Bible goes, it reforms and elevates mankind.

---

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.

quote:

---

What made the difference? The Bible.

---

Money.

quote:

---

Many scholars have trouble dating the Vedas.

---

Dating the Bible is no easy trick either, but most things that old are like that.

quote:

---

The Bible began to be written with Moses, who was contempary to the ancient Hindus.

---

Wow. You don't know you Bible history do you?

quote:

---

And as to shaping history, in what direction has the Vedas shaped history?

---

Try reading Lost Discoveries by Dick Teresi.

quote:

---

It might have molded India and southeast Asia, but the Bible has influenced the whole world from Europe to Australia.

---

And we are the worse for it as well.

quote:

---

Darwin recognized the prob. of transitional fossils in his day.

---

LOL... yes, 150 years ago. Guess that is current for a creationist though.

quote:

---

Today, evolutionists are still blaming the incompleteness of the fossil record.

---

How many bones do you find as you walk around outside? Why is this? Could it be that most bones don't survive to be found? Gee....

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

But, evolution needs, not one or two series of fossils, but hundreds of them! No complete series has been found yet.

---

creationist staple!!!! What we've got ain't never good enough. LOL....Sorry but we only have what we have.

quote:

---

Mutations are not the driving force of evolution. It's basic biology.

---

LOL......

quote:

---

Mustations delete and scramble information and often render the organism less effective then before. Most mutations are not beneficial to the organism.

---

Actually, most mutations are pretty much neutral as concerns an organisms chances of survival.

quote:

---

No "information increasing" mutation has been observed yet.

---

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.

quote:

---

Where did all the genetic information come from to turn, say a reptile into a bird, or a fish into an amphibian?

---

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. University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science

quote:

---

The mutation could have allowed the bacteria to digest nylon, but it resulted in a loss of information in the species as a whole.

---

So what? There is no great chain of being. Evolution is change. It isn't a plodding increase in complexity.

quote:

---

These may help the organism, but they all reduce information content.

---

So mutations can lead to adaptive change. Wham! You are an evolutionist.

quote:

---

The mutation didn't increase information. It gave the bacteria an advantage in that it can now digest nylon

---

Wait. A bacterial population that couldn't digest nylon has developed the ability to digest nylon and this is not new to the bacteria?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by thousands_not_billions:
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

---

I hope you will eventually learn to cite sources.Besides, AIG is wrong agian. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

OK. I am officially protesting the removal of the 'reply quote' button.Back to business........

quote:

---

=================
There is no evidence of this mythical large genetic pool
==============

​

No evidence against it either.

---

It doesn't matter. Arguing from lack of evidence is a logical fallacy. There are countless things for which "there is no evidence against"-- invisible monkeys, flying goats, vampires, ghosts, Valhalla, etc... None of these things have evidence against them, but none have any supporting evidence either. Until you have supporting evidence, a claim is in a limbo of meaninglessness along with anything I or anyone else can make up.

quote:

---

How is it "not science"? Seems more scientific to me then NCSE.

---

Not to be harsh but how would you know? You are clueless about 90% of the science involved.

quote:

---

Since we're so interested about bears at the moment,

​

Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

---

ummmm.... I used bears because they were in this article. Did you have a point?

quote:

---

This is not evolution.

---

It is a bad idea to describe evolution then follow up by saying it ain't so.

quote:

---

This is just genetics. The large gene pool after the flood gave the organisms lots of variety which could be used.

---

Wait. So it isn't genetics but genes are involved? Come on, buddy, think this stuff through.

quote:

---

quoted from AiG

---

Friendly advise. Massive quotes like this and frequent responses via url-pasting will quickly get on everyone's nerves. Please try to make your own arguments. So, for the record, I am skipping the bits where you respond only via quote of url. Cite sources but make your own arguments.

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe you should reformulate this statement.

quote:

---

Oh has it?

---

Yes indeed. The nature of fossil preservation is no big secret. Complaining that it doesn't work like we want it to is just silly.

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

And why not AiG? Truth is truth no matter who says it.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sorry. It isn't. Who are the professional scientists who review the information? The editors? Sorry, that doesn't count as peer review.

quote:

---

The thing this proves is that it does not need millions of years to make opals. Bacteria can even form opals.

---

None of this is terribly groundbreaking nor earth-shattering. Why the focus on opal anyway? Reading about the stuff, I find that it is something of a sedimentary rock that forms in spaces between other rocks something like the way stalagmites form-- kinda sorta. I also find that some scientists think it only takes thousand years to form not millions, so it is not really a disproof of an old earth as you want it to be.skipping more url redirection....

quote:

---

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.

---

You can take this up here, for the sake of consolidating threads. EvC Forum: IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

God didn't write the Bible Himself. He inspired men to write it for him. Man was there to see it written.

---

So... a guy saw another guy write a book and this is proof that God wrote it? Absurd.

quote:

---

What do scientists do? Easy. Scientists labour to discover truth about our universe.

---

Which is why AiG is not a scientific organization.

quote:

---

Many scientists are "willingly ignorant" or the evidence, or refuse to look at any evidence that contridicts their theory.

---

Fabulous cop out, but you require a global conspiracy of scientists spanning hundreds of years to make this hold water. Finding real live actual evidence that overturns a prevalent theory is every scientist's wet dream.

quote:

---

Look at some of the quotes by evolutionists themselves. Many are doubting evolution.

---

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.

quote:

---

Have you been there? Have you seen the area? Where's the evidence for that statement?

---

I have not been to MSH. I have read outside of AiG though. Pyroclastic flows are not sandstone. Why is that contraversial?

quote:

---

It's simple. The cold ice sheets created a colder climate in summer, thereby creating an overall cool climate with lots of H2O

---

Now I know you are making stuff up. The key factor in tree ring formation is seasonal variation not mean colder temperatures. Ice ages were colder all the time not just in the summer.

quote:

---

a. C-14 is present in every sample of coal that has ever been checked.

---

False. It has been detected in some coal though.

quote:

---

This is embarrasing, as the youngest coal is dated at "millions of years".

---

Dated by what means? C-14 is wildly inaccurate past 50,000 years or so.

quote:

---

The half life of C-14 is only 5,730 years. That means that in 11,460 years, all C-14 should be gone.

---

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.

quote:

---

Well, how is C-14 found in "millions of years old" coal?

---

Radioactive decay in the uranium-thorium isotope series. Fossil fuels that show c-14 correlate decently with radiation in the material. Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't know what you are talking about. Got more info?

quote:

---

Say some light material were laid down by flood waters and then a submarine landslide of denser material covered it.

---

You don't have time during a one year flood for this sort of dynamic. Too much is happening too fast.

quote:

---

The Sumerians sprang up right after the flood.

---

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?

quote:

---

What have I been doing? AiG has hard evidence. The reason evolutionists don't like them is because they can't refute their evidence.

---

I don't like them because they have been refuted countless times but keep spreading the same garbage to new minds.

quote:

---

What determines which stay as a simplier species and which evolve?

---

Simple and more complex is misleading. Both species evolve but in different ways. Some ways work. Others don't.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Also, supposed descendants of earlier members of the horse series have been found below their supposed ancestors in the strata.

---

Then we've got the order wrong. It happens. This isn't a negation of the concept though.

quote:

---

SIV might have mutated to form HIV. No new information was added and no evolution is proved.

---

So whatever evidence you are presented you will dismiss it then?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Including Evolution. And, when God created life, it is logical that he would create them in a perfect state, which means great genetic variety.

---

Lets see. You made the statement that there is no evidence against a mythical large gene pool as if this lack of evidence is some kind of meaningful proof. I pointed out that it isn't. You respond with a childish "well you are too."If god created life in a perfect state, what happened? Why is there no evidence? Why does all the evidence point away from this idea? Why do you think a large gene pool equates to 'perfect' anyway?

quote:

---

Involved in what? Evolution? There's no science in that.

---

Another childish jab.... You appear to know next to nothing about geology, physics, biology .....

quote:

---

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Evolution is the bringing out of new information. What I wrote was just basic genetics.

---

You don't get to define evolution. If you do, then attack your own definition you are attacking a straw man. That is, you aren't attacking the ToE at all, but your misrepresentation of it instead.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then you ought to be able to take a wolf and breed it into a collie in a few years.

quote:

---

Because most of the animals we find in the fossil record are fish, marine organisms, and plants.

---

Bud, the burrowing animal idea was meant as one possible way to get a 'polystratic' fossil. It wasn't meant to explain the whole fossil record.

quote:

---

"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)

---

You won't find much argument that burial of some kind is a very good thing for a future fossil.

quote:

---

How did this tree remain standing while millions of years passed?

---

Why does that picture look edited? It also does not look like it is standing up. Something is wrong here.

quote:

---

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.

---

I've been pointing out deceptions since we started this discussion. You'll never see the evidence unless you open your eyes.

quote:

---

http://www.creationevidence.org/...ic_evid/coal/se_coal.html This link isn't about what I posted about Aragone, but is interesting.

---

It isn't interesting. It is a string of deceptions like so much else you post as evidence.

quote:

---

Shows how coal was formed rapidly.

---

It doesn't show anything, just asserts. This is getting silly.

quote:

---

Oh, and Aragone labs is not a Creationist place. They are evolutionary. They didn't fake any evidence.

---

But where are the publications they released on the coal forming process? That is the question. I can't find anything, but I can find creationists claiming that Argonne did this and that.

quote:

---

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.

---

Bacteria have hemoglobin. But who am I kidding, you have already been given a great deal of evidence and simply ignore it.

quote:

---

AiG is composed of scientists like

---

For every one of them you can find a thousand scientist who disagree. That is why it isn't scientific. The vaste majority of learned opinions are thrown out. Only the creationist ones get to stay.

quote:

---

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?

---

Imagine a sandbox full of flour and another full of cured concrete. Run a waterhose onto the flour and see how long it takes to cut a canyon. Now, turn around and argue that the same would happen if you ran the waterhose over the concrete. It is ridiculous.

quote:

---

========
False. It has been detected in some coal though.
========

​

Evidence?

---

Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

C-14 does not work past 11000 years.

---

See what I mean about you not knowing anything about the relevant science?

quote:

---

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'm surprised you knew that.

quote:

---

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.

---

Or you say, "I still don't have enough info." Who took the samples and what were the methods used?

quote:

---

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.

---

And? A time frame would be helpful. Referencing one mythical event with another doesn't help much. At most you have a few hundred years for the population to hit many millions. That isn't enough time.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL.... Evolutionary progression? Did you really say that? Wow....

quote:

---

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.

---

Sorry. Where is the problem with changing one's mind to match the evidence?... deleting preaching....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-26-2003]

Nice post, Ipetrch. I'm bumping your post. Maybe tnb won't run for cover as he appears to threatening to do.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

First, I want everybody to realize that I'm not "running for cover".

---

Oh come on now.... just trying to provoke you.

quote:

---

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.

---

Think about the half-life issue, about which you have nobly admitted to being in error. Any argument built on this error must be discarded. You'll find that creationist arguments are all based on similar errors, but you must continue this discussion or you will continue to believe things which simply are not true. You don't want that eh? If you could be wrong about the c-14, what else do you misunderstand? Did not you cite an ICR article as evidence of the c-14 half-life? On what else have you been misled?

quote:

---

You've made a couple yourself in the posts, but what does it matter?

---

Oh? What errors? It matters.

quote:

---

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.

---

Carbon dating can't date to millions of years. Other dating methods can. Some half-lives:Potassium 40 1.25 billion yrsRubidium 87 48.8 billion yrsThorium 232 14 billion yearsUranium 235 704 million yearsUranium 238 4.47 billion yearsCarbon 14 5730 years

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, and scientists are aware of this fact and can account for it. For the most part, it seems to have been fairly stable though until the atom bomb experiments in the '50s. No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1997/c14note.html

quote:

---

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.

---

Hang on. Your second sentence violates the first one.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com