Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 5:50 AM
35 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 31 of 121 (373589)
01-01-2007 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 6:09 PM


Re: Timeline #1: Earth > 8,000 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

This post is completely irrelevant to my quote regarding “Billions of years” dating methods as this is not one.

I didn't say it was. It's the first base, a foundation on which to build a solid understanding of the actual age of the earth.

Plus it is completely irrelevant to our topic regarding definitions,

You won't move off the pot on definitions, even when I propose using my definition only for "micro"evolution.

You also won't deal with forams without bringing up the age of the earth, therefore the next step is to deal with the age issue.

... I will not respond further except to say that there are different interpretations of this data.

It seems that your primary response is not dealing with evidence.

Things like the flood being impossible during the dendrochronology time frame -- 8,000 years for the Bristlecone Pine. If the flood could not have occurred in a YEC timeframe then your comments on foram "blooms" is also refuted.

There is fantasy and there is reality. Shall we see which is which?

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 6:09 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 32 of 121 (373590)
01-01-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 5:58 PM


Still stuck on definitions.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

False. Most definitions said nothing about ANY change over time.

Please go back and read the definitions again, you are just plain wrong.

Given in Message 1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution
ev·o·lu·tion
3. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes. Evolution is potentially the source of the vast diversity of life: theoretically all contemporary organisms may be related to each other through common descent as products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554675/Evolution.html
Evolution, in biology, complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next. The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.


(bold and italics in the original)
(color yellow highlight for empHASis)

Given in Message 17

American Heritage Dictionary:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/E0256400.html

quote:
3. Biology. a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:
quote:
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution
quote:
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:
quote:
2 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

WordNet:
quote:
2: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

encarta.msn.com/.../dictionaryhome.aspx
quote:
1. BIOLOGY theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
2. BIOLOGY developmental process: the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material.

http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/?view=uk
quote:
1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
quote:
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
Darwin's theory of evolution

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evolution
quote:
2. (biology) The change in the genetic composition of a species' population over successive generations.

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php
quote:
1. the continuous modification and adaptation of organisms to their environments through selection, hybridization, and the like.

http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/evolution
quote:
3. Biol.change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/
quote:
The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms;

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
quote:
a gradual process of change and development
(SPECIALIZED) Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear.

http://www.onelook.com/
quote:
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s
quote:
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.

http://www.rhymezone.com/?loc=bar
quote:
(biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

http://www.allwords.com/index.php
quote:
3. biol. The cumulative changes in the characteristics of living organisms or populations of organisms from generation to generation, resulting in the development of new types of organism over long periods of time.

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=evolution
quote:
2.[n] the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn
quote:
2. evolution, organic evolution, phylogeny, phylogenesis -- ((biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms)

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/theory_of_evolution
quote:
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/
quote:
In biological terms: a change in the genetic composition of a population over time.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_E.html
quote:
evolution -- Darwin's definition: descent with modification. The term has been variously used and abused since Darwin to include everything from the origin of man to the origin of life.

http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/diction.htm
quote:
changes in the character states of organisms, species, and clades through time.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp
quote:
2. a process of development in which an organ or organism becomes more and more complex by the differentiation of its parts, a continuous and progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces.

http://www.reference-wordsmith.com/archword/dict.html
quote:
A theory of biology about the gradual or rapid change of the form of living organisms throughout time that reflects adaptive change; it is the theory that all forms of life derive from a process of change via natural selection.

http://www.birdcare.com/bin/showdict?evolution
quote:
Development of the living organism through gradual changes in its characteristics by mutation over long periods of time. Thus one species may evolve into two or more different species, any of which and/or the original species, may become extinct. Evolution proceeds by means of natural selection and adaptive radiation.

http://www.dddmag.com/Glossary.aspx
quote:
The process of cumulative change occurring over successive generations.

http://www.gardenweb.com/
quote:
Organic evolution is any genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation.

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/index.php
quote:
In Darwinian terms a gradual change in phenotypic frequencies in a population that results in individuals with improved reproductive success.

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/FLAOH/cbnhtml/glossary-E.html
quote:
A process operating on populations that involves variation among individuals, traits being inheritable, and a level of fitness for individuals that is a function of the possessed traits. Over relatively long periods of time, the distribution of inheritable traits will tend to reflect the fitness that the traits convey to the individual; thus, evolution acts as a filter that selects fitness-yielding traits over other traits.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_E.html
quote:
(a) In Biology the theory that complex and multifarious living things developed from generally simpler and less various organisms.

http://iaspub.epa.gov/trs/search$.startup
quote:
The biological theory or process whereby species of plants and animals change with the passage of time so that their descendants differ from their ancestors, i.e. development from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations.

(bold and italics in the original)
(color yellow highlight for empHASis)

Again the definitions given in message 17 were ALL the ones I could find on the internet. They ALL address the issue of change over time in one way or another.

You are taking my words out of context and missing the point as usual. Where did I say speciation has not occurred? It most certainly has. If you would have bothered to read further, the point of my comments was that evolution “is only occurring today by YOUR definition, not the real one”.

What you said was:

Message 26
There are NO experiments or observations in today’s world that can show evolution has occurred because it supposedly happened in the past.

Speciation IS evolution.

You need to get the point of understanding that if you are arguing against evolutionary biology you WILL USE the definitions of evolutionary biology OR you are arguing against SOMETHING ELSE.

The "real" definition of evolution is the one evolutionary biology uses: simply stated it is change in species over time (or some more complex variation on that theme, like change in frequency of alleles within populations in succeeding generations etc). The list above confirms this.

... the point of my comments was that evolution “is only occurring today by YOUR definition ...

Again, lets use that definition, confine it to "micro"evolution, and see where that leads us as we look at the past - the fossil record of the progress of evolution in time. What are you afraid of? Reality?

If you took a snapshot of life as we know it today, it would look no different than the fossil record and would be arranged by evolutionists as having evolved when the truth is that it was created when we took the snapshot. There is no evidence that one kind of organism evolved into another.

The forams refute this silly concept, for they are not just snapshots they are mpegs.

You cannot get the same arrangements in different ages no matter how you play fantasy games with the results. You just do not find modern species in the past, and when you get back all the way to 3.5 billion years ago ALL you have are cyanobacteria. In between there is progressive development that introduces new organisms into the time frame, along with removal of extinct ones. You cannot take a "picture" today with living tyranosaurs. You cannot take a picture 3 million years ago with Homo sapiens in it.

Gould said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.

Please. Stop with the misrepresentation of the truth. What Gould was arguing FOR was punctuated equilibrium - evolution. This is "quote mining" again, and it is just plain false representation of what was said.

Nor does Gould claim that there is NO change during periods of stasis, just that the rate of change is different, slower, than during the periods of punctuation.

Gould can also be wrong, as was demonstrated in the case of the forams and where he is on record as saying it did not apply. Dawkins thinks that Gould overemphasizes the differences in rates.

That’s a hoot. What is your evidence that it HAS occurred?

We are here.

Either by evolution from abiogenesis developed life, evolution from space seeds, or evolution from created life. IF we are here by evolution from abiogenesis developed life THEN abiogenesis HAS occurred. In that event the probability is now 1.0. That is reality. Math cannot rule out that possibility.

There would be little random mixing if the bloomings occurred after the main flood event and there is no reason that they couldn’t have taken much longer than a day to settle.

You're talking a year of sediment every minute. 500,000 years worth. You're also talking about sorting the forams into discrete layers even though there is no difference in density between some in all the different layers and there IS some difference in density for different species IN each layer. Mixed in with the forams some layers are oil producing and some are not. You are also talking about sediment and forams that DO have different rates of settlement being continuously mixed. You need to mix and sort at the same time.

Simulate it. Run an experiment and duplicate it. Do the actual WORK instead of positing fantasies based on your presuppositions. That is how science works.

How hypocritical! I’m NOT supposed to be insulted when you say that I am deluded and gullible and that creationism is nothing but presupposition?

And you post this nonsense about "little random mixing if the bloomings occurred after the main flood event" without having a single piece of evidence that this can even in fact occur and the whole concept is based on the presupposition that the flood occurred.

But if your going to get huffy about it, how about actually presenting something OTHER than ad hoc explanations based on presuppositions. Something like evidence.

The way I and most other people that I know use the phrase “I believe” is equivalent to “I recall” and that’s the way I was using it.

If so my mistake. But my point remains about belief (and recall -- it would be better to search the facts eh?)

What gall and arrogance to suggest that what I believe is irrelevant (based on the work of scientists),

The point is that what you - or I - believe is irrelevant to what is the reality. You can believe that the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it, but that will have zero effect on what really happens in the universe.

What you can do is test your beliefs against reality, and when your beliefs are contradicted by evidence you can either discard or revise the belief based on the evidence or you can discard the reality. Your choice.

... you go on to confirm that my recollection is absolutely correct in that they are indeed index fossils, so I’m not sure what has gotten your goat in that regard.

The absurd claim that forams date the sediments and then the sediments date the forams. Index fossils are used for relative dating of layers where they are found because we know from evidence which are the older species and which are younger from layers where one is over the other - the relative dating is based on the geological column. Where sediments CAN be dated they verify the actual ages of the sediments and guess what? Those ages CONFIRM the relative dating based on the geological column.

It is not circular reasoning, both methods date the fossils by dating the sediments: one from relative position in the geological column and one from radiometric or other suitable dating methods.

There are numerous examples that evolutionists have cited of organisms that have remained the same since they first appeared in the fossil record (or for millions of years). Then there are always the many embarrassing examples like the coelacanth that was thought to have been extinct. Are you suggesting that these examples invalidate the theory?

Sorry to burst your balloon, but those species have evolved over time.

They either evolve or they become too susceptible to disease and parasites and predators that DO evolve and they go extinct. The fossil record shows this again and again. We observe this in our own lives with diseases evolving.

The various species of coelacanth - that are alive today are not any of the species that were alive 65 million years ago (when this family of organisms - including many different species, "coelacanth" is not a species but a group of species - were originally thought to have gone extinct).

If you don't think so then try to find examples where the same scientific species name, like Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis (the two existing species of coelacanths), is used for an archaic fossil and a modern organism..

See http://www.dinofish.com/ for more information on the modern species.

The basis of the debate is your misconceptions regarding the definition of evolution. Definitions do not depend on the evidence, so you are simply avoiding an argument that apparently you cannot defend. Since the evidence seems to be a sore point for you, I suggest we abandon evidence completely. Unless it has some direct relevance (or I just happen to feel like it), I will no longer be responding to any “evidence” until we can agree on the definition of evolution (to which the evidence pertains). To be honest, it seems unlikely at this point, but definitions nevertheless are the topic of this debate.

LOL. Nice try. This is a new one for A Guide to Creationist Tactics I believe.

You have presented NO evidence, just a series of ad hoc arguments, and YOU refuse to accept the definition used by evolutionary biology.

Now you want to abandon evidence altogether ... and rely on what? Fantasy?

You need to make a decision whether you are going to move on to actually discuss evidence or whether you will remain in willful denial or ignorance or just keep dancing around the issue and never address it.

What would invalidate it then?

Fossil evidence of Homo sapiens during the age of dinosaurs or some other equally anachronistic find of a too modern fossil in too old a location. Genetic evidence that shows wholesale horizontal transfer for a feature between species rather than descent from a common ancestor. A hopeful monster sudden appearance of a whole new species with a completely new feature with no evolutionary predecessor. There are many things that would invalidate evolution, but the list is much smaller than it was due to the number of times such things have NOT happened.

This means that the theory is robust, that it has been validated in every test to date, but is still a theory.

The multitudinous, varied and pervasive evidence is fact and shows that evolution has in fact occurred, but not that the theory is fact.

It does not mean that the theory MUST be validated the next time.

Enjoy

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 5:58 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:34 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 33 of 121 (373591)
01-01-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by MurkyWaters
01-01-2007 6:09 PM


Timeline #2: Earth > 10,434 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

It just doesn't stop adding up to an old age. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away either.

Continuing with simple annual dating systems - ones where annual records are made by some process where we can measure them ...

More tree-rings:

European Oaks

My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.

The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes.

http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html (3)

quote:
Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.

Because ring-porous species almost always begin annual growth with this initial flush, missing rings are rare in such species as oak and elm. In fact, the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the Year Without a Summer. A volcanic eruption in the year 1815 caused much cooler temperatures globally, thus causing oak trees to remain dormant. Therefore, no clear annual ring was formed in 1816 for certain locations in Europe.

Occasionally, offsets in oak tree rings can be problematic when trying to crossdate the rings. Dendrochronologists therefore must be careful when working with oak species, as these rays can cause a misdate of one year.


Note that sources of error are identified and accounted for. Crossdating is one method to check for errors. Another is to build two independent chronologies from the same species in two different locations. For an idea of the accuracy of the data and the amount of error involved we have this:

http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf (4)

quote:
The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Göttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998).

Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).

The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 ± 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements.

There was not a large difference in the calculated k values between early and recent measurements in the Belfast lab for the Irish oak samples when the previously applied laboratory error multiplier on the more recent data set is considered; however, the early measurements of German oak were more variable than those of Irish oak. The recent Heidelberg data sets had smaller k values than older measurements. The reason for the early variation is partly due to the fact that these samples were measured to help place a tree in the dendrochronology as it was being built instead of measured consecutively, and also because many of these samples contain only a few tree rings but are being compared to decadal samples.

Uncertainty in single-ring cal ages for dendrochronologically-dated wood is on the order of 1 yr for highly replicated and cross-checked chronologies and is therefore ignored in the analysis.


There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in (then) ~8,000 years, an error of 0.5%. Third, is that when one oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, now the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in ~7600 years, an error of 0.5%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and these initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating and including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract) (2)

The combined oak and pine tree-ring chronologies of Hohenheim University are the backbone of the Holocene radiocarbon calibration for central Europe. Here, we present the revised Holocene oak chronology (HOC) and the Preboreal pine chronology (PPC) with respect to revisions, critical links, and extensions. Since 1998, the HOC has been strengthened by new trees starting at 10,429 BP (8480 BC). Oaks affected by cockchafer have been identified and discarded from the chronology.

These are just three examples of dendrochronologies, the three that happen to be the longest absolute chronologies. There are many species of trees used for dendrochronology, and many different chronologies. Several chronologies are "floating" - do not have a fixed begin date - and many of those are older than the dates discussed here. All the species show the same trends in world climate whenever they overlap. The climatological trends correlate the ages from one species to the others, thus any errors that would invalidate dendrochronology would need to apply to each (and all) species in each (and all) locations at the same time. Here we need only discuss the three long absolute chronologies and how they validate each other.

Now we have a problem for YEC people, because not only do these different chronologies cover the same time, they also have the same pattern of climate shown in their tree rings even though they come from opposite sides of the earth and are in very different kinds of trees, one evergreen living at high altitudes and one deciduous living near sea levels, and anything that can cause errors in one system has to have a method that can cause exactly the same error in the other at exactly the same time. Positing false rings does not accomplish this. All three sets also show the "little ice age" and other marker events at the same ages. They all come to the same age for the matching climate data. We can be minimalist here, and say that the minimum age covered by the European Oak chronology is 10,429 years BP - 0.5% = 10,377 years BP. "BP" means "Before Present" and is defined as years before 1950(1), so this is really 10,434 years ago (in 2007).

Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.

This is now older than most if not all YEC models for the age of the earth.

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,434 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

And this is still just the start: three different dendrochronologies that correlate age with climate and that match - wiggle for wiggle - within 0.5%.

Enjoy.



References

  1. Anonymous "Before Present" Wikipedia. Updated 28 Dec 2006. accessed 17 Jan, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
  2. Friedrich, Michael et al, "The 12,460-Year Hohenheim Oak and Pine Tree-Ring Chronology from Central Europe—a Unique Annual Record for Radiocarbon Calibration and Paleoenvironment Reconstructions" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1111-1122(12) accessed 17 Jan 2007 from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2004/00000046/00000003/art00008 (abstract)
  3. Martinez, Lori, "Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating" Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. Updated Oct 2001. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/lorim/good.html
  4. Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages v-1334 (March 2004), pp. 1029-1058(30). accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://courses.washington.edu/twsteach/ESS/302/ESS%20Readings/Reimer2004.pdf

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated information


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-01-2007 6:09 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:38 AM RAZD has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 34 of 121 (373703)
01-02-2007 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
01-01-2007 11:55 PM


Re: Dealing with the evidence
I didn't say it was. It's the first base, a foundation on which to build a solid understanding of the actual age of the earth.

How does evidence that the earth is young support the contention that it is billions of years old?

You also won't deal with forams without bringing up the age of the earth, therefore the next step is to deal with the age issue.

No, my response to the forams was abbreviated as to not get distracted down that road. It was only meant to show that there are other reasonable explanations possible. Dealing with the age issue first is irrelevant and detrimental to our topic.

You won't move off the pot on definitions, even when I propose using my definition only for "micro"evolution.

Yes, and you won’t move off the pot on evidence because you don’t seem to have a response to my questions regarding the definitions. What exactly does “using my definition only for ‘micro’ evolution” mean? I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is? Then, I’ll understand that you mean “adaptation” when you use the term “micro-evolution” (even though the term is misleading by including evolution in the context) and that you mean “molecules to man evolution” when using the term “evolution”. Then we can proceed on what evidence supports or invalidates evolution (“molecules to man” evolution) including examples of adaptation if you think it does.

It seems that your primary response is not dealing with evidence. There is fantasy and there is reality. Shall we see which is which?

I get the impression that you want to move on to something where you think it’s going to be a slam dunk and don’t have to think anymore, perhaps in areas where you have material already prepared. Well I have news for you…the “evidence” isn’t going to be any easier than the definitions.

I’m not shying away from the evidence. I’d just like to do it in an organized and fair fashion AFTER we’ve defined what we are providing evidence FOR via the definitions. For example, you can provide all the evidence you want which supports adaptation (like the forams, horses, moths, finches) because this is wonderful evidence in support of the creation model. However, it says NOTHING about molecules to man evolution. There are, of course, side issues in these discussion like the age of the earth that we can deal with as well. For example, evidence that the earth is young would invalidate the theory of evolution since the process would have taken billions of years to accomplish (something which is not lost upon evolutionary proponents of an old age).

My suggestion (and perhaps this has been done already) to deal with the evidence AFTER we’ve finished the debate on definitions is to create a comprehensive list of evidences that each of us feels invalidates the other’s theory and supports our own. While I’m sure each of us could put together a straw man list to start things off (straw man not being used in a negative sense as it normally seems to be), I’m thinking it would be more interesting and complete for each of us (at their discretion) to invite others to participate in a separate string to gather and organize this list. I realize there are a few on the net, but they don’t seem to be very specific. Then we could alternate discussion of topics which seem most interesting to us, probably with ones we think are the most heavy hitters. I think this is a fair approach which avoids one person endlessly taking pot shots at the other and avoids us getting sidetracked on issues that are irrelevant regarding support of our main contentions.

You need to deal with the reality of evidence that REFUTES a YEC world and a WWF before you can proceed with any claim that you have evidence FOR those concepts. (from prior post 27)

Not true. What all scientists do (in areas such as origins studies, especially evolution, as opposed to operational science) is begin with their presuppositions, with the actual hypothesis being part of these. Then they gather evidence in support of the hypothesis (and also, whether overtly or subconsciously in support of the other presuppositions). Once they feel comfortable that their hypothesis is well founded, they deal with evidence which may invalidate it later. Many times, when the presuppositions have gained solid support or if there are no other viable alternatives, evidence which may invalidate the theory are simply ignored or pushed under the table until some new discovery is found to help. Looking at data which invalidates the theory is definitely NOT the first step. Otherwise, the theory may not have gotten proposed in the first place.

There is a plethora of evidence out there. Evolutionary scientists consider evidence in SUPPORT of the theory and evidence which is currently UNANSWERED (there is NO evidence which invalidates the theory as far as they are concerned). Evidence which invalidates the theory is usually ignored at first until some plausible explanation (with little or no actual evidence) is provided (like “ALL fossils are transitional”). Then they spend billions of tax dollars on these dead ends, like SETI (a related but non-evolutionary example).

I don’t know why you’d expect me to behave any differently. Not all of this is necessarily bad. Immediate explanations for every bit of evidence out there is not always available, although current contrary research, identification of presuppositions, inconsistencies and errors are much easier to identify. Because a complete alternative explanation is not immediately evident or heavily supported doesn’t mean the theory is invalidated. Theories regarding origins cannot be proved because no one was there to see the actual events occur. Evidence is interpreted based largely on un-provable presuppositions. The preponderance of the evidence in support of multiple conclusions is more appropriate for origins studies. I think either one of us could come up with some interesting stories of conclusions that were reached based on the “evidence” that turned out be 180 degrees from reality (including hoaxes) when the actual truth was discovered. While fictional, I do have a favorite and entertaining story here if your interested - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp

Sincerely…mw

Edited by MurkyWaters, : No reason given.

Edited by MurkyWaters, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2007 11:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 10:33 PM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 11:32 PM MurkyWaters has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 35 of 121 (373847)
01-02-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MurkyWaters
01-02-2007 1:08 PM


Dealing with the issues

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

How does evidence that the earth is young support the contention that it is billions of years old?

We start first by reviewing evidence that invalidates a young earth, then see where the evidence leads us once we have rid ourselves of YEC preconceptions.

We start with no presuppositions. We observe tree rings are annual in trees in the modern world, and from that deduce that they are annual in the past when they appear the same as ones we know are annual. We observe some instance of false rings, partial rings or missing rings, and note which species are more susceptible to these errors and which are not, and we develop means to test for and eliminate the errors due to false rings, partial rings and missing rings. We also note the % difference this makes in the total results and use that to develop the possible range of error in the data. We observe that tree rings also show climate variations by the relative widths of the rings, and we use that to match trees that overlap in time to form an extended chronology longer than the life of any one tree. We verify this with known extreme climate instances like the "little ice age" and note that this shows up in the tree chronology just where it occurred in historical documents.

So far this evidence shows that the earth is at least 10,000 years old by these counts with NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 10,000 years. This invalidates any YEC model that is (a) younger than 10,000 years or (b) has a WWF during the last 10,000 years.

Having evidence that refutes a concept means that this needs to be explained before you can continue to claim such elements in your argument.

And as I said this is but the tip of the iceberg. There's more, a lot more.

No, my response to the forams was abbreviated as to not get distracted down that road. It was only meant to show that there are other reasonable explanations possible. Dealing with the age issue first is irrelevant and detrimental to our topic.

Your other "reasonable explanation" involked a WWF which has been invalidated, and thus is NOT reasonable.

Your other "reasonable explanation" also involved impossible sorting of forams and sediment - impossible due to the time constraints, and thus is NOT reasonable.

Dealing with the time issue is crucial for you to remove the invalidation of the flood, before you move on to the issue of dealing with the sorting issue problems.

Yes, and you won’t move off the pot on evidence because you don’t seem to have a response to my questions regarding the definitions.

What evidence.

The definitions that you presented in Message 8 were discussed and dealt with in Message 9 -- including your false representation of the berkely definition and the later (Message 10) selective omission from the lexicon.biology definition -- and further refuted in Message 17, neither of which you have addressed with any further "evidence" to the contrary.

All the definitions show evolution is change in species over time, including the ones you presented.

Your contention that evolution is about the change from molecule to life is not supported by the definitions of evolution: this has been refuted, and thus repeating it is NOT providing evidence but repeating a mistake.

Some discussions of evolution (not definitions) include the evolution of life over the last 3.5 billion years, but they are not about definitions of evolution or theories of evolution, but the science of evolution - the compiled sum total of what we know and what we theorize based on all the evidence and all the theories. They also are NOT about the development of life from non-life.

The only one that supports your position is by ONE biologist, and sorry to say, he is not the field or the science of evolution. As noted previously, Kerkut's 'general' theory, is not the theory of evolution.

I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is?

That is NOT evolution. The SCIENCE of evolution doesn't even cover that spread, and the science necessarily covers more than the theories that are in the science.

The development of molecules to life is abiogenesis.

The development of life from life is evolution. Specifically change in species over time, but it STARTS with species.

What exactly does “using my definition only for ‘micro’ evolution” mean?

You complain that my definition of evolution as change in species over time is too simplified for the general theory of evolution.

You agree that speciation occurs and has been observed.

So what I am proposing is an interim solution: rather than bicker over whose grand vision of evolution is correct, lets start with what we know: we have speciation, we have an accepted process by which it occurs that many people, creationist and evolutionist alike, call "micro"evolution, and let's see where that definition and strict usage leads us in a review of the evidence.

Then, I’ll understand that you mean “adaptation” when you use the term “micro-evolution” (even though the term is misleading by including evolution in the context) and that you mean “molecules to man evolution” when using the term “evolution”.

Sorry, but you do NOT get to redefine scientific terms to suit your beliefs. As noted several times already, you either use the terms as defined and used in the science of evolutionary biology or you are not discussing evolutionary biology but some personal fantasy about evolutionary biology. We are supposedly discussing evolutionary biology and not some fantasy version, therefore we will use the scientific definitions.

It is commonly accepted by evolutionary biologists and creationists that "micro"evolution refers to speciation. It IS change in species over time. It is not just adaptation, but mutation and selection of all variations that improve reproduction and survival as well as neutral variations that don't seriously impair survival and reproduction.

Change in species over time can be more than that, but for now we can agree to use this for "Micro"evolution and see where this leads us.

As noted in Message 17

Tell you what Murk, let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution.
We can start by stipulating that:

    "Micro"evolution
  • refers to speciation and
  • nothing beyond the causes up to and including speciation,
  • has been observed to occur and is
  • thus a fact.
    That it involves
  • change in species over time,
  • mutation as an observed fact,
  • natural selection as an observed fact, and
  • some other minor mechanisms such as genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer by viruses and the like.
    That it does NOT involve
  • sudden large scale change or
  • sudden appearance of whole new features or abilities.

Then we can discuss the evidence for "micro"evolution in genetics and in the fossil record.
The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT.

When we are done with "Micro"Evolution (MiE) then we can move on to "Macro"Evolution (MaE).

It's called common ground. A compromise position. A way to move forward.

I get the impression that you want to move on to something where you think it’s going to be a slam dunk and don’t have to think anymore, perhaps in areas where you have material already prepared. Well I have news for you…the “evidence” isn’t going to be any easier than the definitions.

I want to move on.

The question is not the evidence, but whether you will accept or deny evidence that exists. I do expect any denial to put you in increasingly untenable positions, but that will depend on what is denied eh?

For example, evidence that the earth is young would invalidate the theory of evolution since the process would have taken billions of years to accomplish (something which is not lost upon evolutionary proponents of an old age).

As noted evidence FOR a concept is not enough to validate that concept. There is evidence FOR a flat earth and evidence FOR a geocentric earth, but neither of these are valid due to the evidence that REFUTES those concepts.

It is likewise easy for find evidence of young PORTIONS of the earth, due to the tectonic and geological processes, but none of it invalidates an old earth.

There IS evidence that {refutes\invalidates\disproves} a young earth, and thus any referral to that concept MUST deal with that evidence before it can proceed on a rational basis. Denial of that evidence will not accomplish that.

It also appears that we need to address this before you can discuss the issue of MiE without introducing YEC concepts that are invalidated by this information, therefore in the interest of moving the debate forward from bickering over MaE issues, and in order to rationally discuss MiE issues, it appears we need to deal with the age of the earth issue FIRST.

While fictional, I do have a favorite and entertaining story here if your interested - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1247.asp

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that dating methods are actually developed and used, so this ridiculous straw man argument is more of a ill-conceived comic parody of reality than anything else.

That you think it is significant enough to post shows either (a) vast ignorance on how dating methods are developed and used, (b) willful gullibility in accepting such a silly story as being anything like reality without investigating it further, or (c) both. It's a joke - on you - and a poor one at that.

I've omitted portions where all you have done is repeated your position and where the issue is irrelevant until we can move beyond the age of the earth and MiE. This is similar to other arguments you have made that I have not answered for the same reason.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:20 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 45 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-05-2007 10:22 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 36 of 121 (373862)
01-02-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MurkyWaters
01-02-2007 1:08 PM


Timeline #3: Earth > 12,405 years old

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

It just doesn't stop adding up to an old age. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away either.

Continuing with simple annual dating systems - ones where annual records are made by some process where we can measure them ...

More tree-rings:

Adding German Pines to the mix

Tree rings (and other systems of independent measurements of actual age of items) are used to calibrate the Carbon 14 dating method to make it more accurate than it is uncalibrated. The scientists doing this are very concerned with the accuracy of the data.

NOTE: we are NOT discussing carbon 14 dating yet, just the evidence from tree-ring chronologies and the accuracy of the data.

From INTCAL04 TERRESTRIAL RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0–26 CAL KYR BP

Tree-Ring Data Sets (0–12.4 cal kyr BP)

For inclusion in the calibration data set, dendrochronological dating and cross-checking of tree rings is required. A few exceptions were made for post-AD 1320 Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii), which have robust ring production in the Pacific Northwest environment. Calendar ages for these trees, which had well-known felling dates, were determined by ring counting after inspection of the well-developed rings by H C Fritts (Stuiver 1982). X-ray densitometry was later used to confirm the ring counts.

The Holocene part of the 14C calibration is based on several millennia-long tree-ring chronologies, providing an annual, absolute time frame within the possible error of the dendrochronology, which was rigorously tested by internal replication of many overlapping sections. Whenever possible, they were cross-checked with independently established chronologies of adjacent regions. The German and Irish oak chronologies were cross-dated until back into the 3rd millennium BC (Pilcher et al. 1984), and the German oak chronologies from the Main River, built independently in the Göttingen and Hohenheim tree-ring laboratories, cross-date back to 9147 cal BP (Spurk et al. 1998). The North American trees that form part of the 14C calibration curve prior to AD 1320 were cross-dated with either the Sequoiadendron master chronology or with a Pacific Northwest Douglas fir chronology (Stuiver 1982).

Due to periodic narrow rings caused by cockchafer beetles, some German oak samples were excluded from IntCal98. Analysis of these tree rings, with an understanding of the response of trees to the cockchafer damage, allowed some of these measurements to be re-instated in the chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue).

The 2 parts of the German Preboreal pine chronology (PPC), which were formerly floating, have been linked and cross-matched dendrochronologically to the absolutely-dated Holocene oak chronology. Including additional new finds, the south German part of the PPC is prolonged into the Younger Dryas and now starts at 11,993 cal BP. New pine chronologies from Switzerland and eastern Germany extend the PPC to 12,410 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue).

Note that "floating" chronologies are ones where the beginning are not known. There are many other floating dendrochronologies that extend further into the past, but they are not discussed here as they can't be tied by climate correlations to the existing absolute dendrochronologies.

Note further that the absolute European (German & Irish) Oak chronology was independently validated to almost 3,000 BC, or almost 5,000 years ago.

As evidence of the level of accuracy they are looking for there is this reference to the Bristlecone Pine data:

The Arizona Data Set

The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically-dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 ± 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04.

What they are essentially doing with all these dendrochronologies is building an overall dendrochronology independant of genus or species. The method for matching elements of some species dendrochronologies is the same as it is for matching sample elements within species dendrochronologies: they match up the patterns of climate with annual rings. So we have the German Oak running to10,429 BP and the German Pine running from 9891 BP to 12,410 BP and it overlaps the German Oak for 538 years. We can again be {minimalist\parsimonious\generous} and say that the error in this date is 0.5% (to include the Bristlecone Pine) and the minimum age then is 12,410 BP - 0.5% + (2007-1950) = 12,405 years.

Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.

This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated.

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 12,410 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

And this is still but the tip of the iceberg.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated age information.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-02-2007 1:08 PM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:23 PM RAZD has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 37 of 121 (373872)
01-03-2007 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
01-01-2007 11:56 PM


Re: Still stuck on definitions.
Still stuck on definitions.

Definitions are the topic of this debate, not the evidence. You have continually refused to respond to my questions regarding the definitions. Would you like to concede that you don’t have an answer? We can agree to disagree, however that’s somewhat empty when you have refused to respond. Nevertheless, I will agree to do that if you feel it’s at that point. If that’s the case, we can both provide a summary of our positions and end it (or continue with a few rebuttals). If we can’t change the posted definitions on this forum, this may at least result in dual creationist/evolutionist definitions.

Please go back and read the definitions again, you are just plain wrong.

Please read my response regarding these definitions. You are just plain wrong. They clearly differentiate between the kind of change necessary as demonstrated in my prior post here:
Message 21.
It was unnecessary to repost all of the definitions again. I’ve clearly refuted this silly concept of ANY observed change as being evolution both through sources and logic.

In addition, many biologists have reached the same conclusion. While it is a number of years ago now, in November 1980 a conference of some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, billed as ‘historic’, was held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of ‘macroevolution’. Reporting on the conference in the journal Science, Roger Lewin wrote: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Again the definitions given in message 17 were ALL the ones I could find on the internet. They ALL address the issue of change over time in one way or another.

Yes, one way or ANOTHER, “Another” being the specific type of change necessary for evolution to occur.

Speciation IS evolution.

Speciation is NOT evolution. Species are a taxonomic differentiation provided for classification reasons. There are various birds, for example, that are considered different species for which the only difference is a variation in song or minor color hue (ie “yellowish” versus “brownish”). These may be classified as different species, but they are still birds, not even just any bird, but the same kind of bird. A change to a different KIND of animal would be regarded as evidence for evolution.

You need to get the point of understanding that if you are arguing against evolutionary biology you WILL USE the definitions of evolutionary biology OR you are arguing against SOMETHING ELSE. The "real" definition of evolution is the one evolutionary biology uses: simply stated it is change in species over time (or some more complex variation on that theme, like change in frequency of alleles within populations in succeeding generations etc). The list above confirms this.

The list above confirms that the definition of the theory of evolution is that all living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form. It is the definition that evolutionary biology uses. You are mistaken.

Again, lets use that definition, confine it to "micro"evolution, and see where that leads us as we look at the past - the fossil record of the progress of evolution in time. What are you afraid of? Reality?

Reality supports the creation model. What are YOU afraid of that you need to provide a bogus definition of evolution to support your case? Why should I agree to use a definition that is false?

Please. Stop with the misrepresentation of the truth. What Gould was arguing FOR was punctuated equilibrium - evolution. This is "quote mining" again, and it is just plain false representation of what was said.

I’m attempting to ignore the majority of your rantings on the evidence, but I must interject here. This is neither a misrepresentation of the truth, or quote mining. He said what he said. It is irrelevant what he was arguing FOR. I am not using the quote to represent him as a creationist or even to suggest whether he believes the fossil record supports evolution or not. This is an observation he has made, pure and simple – that transitional forms are extremely rare in the fossil record - like it or not. He is not the only one. A significant number if not all prominent evolutionists (I have quoted others including Mayr very clearly in previous posts) have said that transitional forms are almost non-existent in the fossil record. How insulting to say these scientists are wrong! Not just to me but to every scientist in the field who have spent their careers on this work!

Gould can also be wrong

If Gould can be wrong, so can you. Data/evidence are facts. How they are interpreted is fallible.


That’s a hoot. What is your evidence that it HAS occurred?
We are here. Either by evolution from abiogenesis developed life, evolution from space seeds, or evolution from created life. IF we are here by evolution from abiogenesis developed life THEN abiogenesis HAS occurred. In that event the probability is now 1.0. That is reality. Math cannot rule out that possibility.

The fact that you would even mention the ridiculous idea of panspermia illustrates how difficult a problem the origin of life has become for evolutionists. I think we can rule that one out because it’s simply pushing the problem to another planet. No, math cannot rule out any possibility. It can only tell us the probability of an outcome. It is not enough to say you ASSUME it is true because “we are here” without any evidence, for goodness sake. If you believe in abiogenesis, then you can also believe in the tooth fairy since both have the same probability of being true.

Simulate it. Run an experiment and duplicate it. Do the actual WORK instead of positing fantasies based on your presuppositions. That is how science works.

Great! Let’s see your duplication of abiogenesis. Let’s see your duplication of an amoeba changing into a dinosaur. That’s how science works, huh? Where are they? Let’s see the actual work instead of posting fantasies about your presuppositions.

And you post this nonsense…

Nonsense is apparently in the eye of the beholder.

the whole concept is based on the presupposition that the flood occurred.

The whole concept of evolution is based on the presupposition that it occurred through only naturalistic means over billions of years.

The point is that what you - or I - believe is irrelevant to what is the reality. You can believe that the earth is flat and that the universe revolves around it, but that will have zero effect on what really happens in the universe. What you can do is test your beliefs against reality, and when your beliefs are contradicted by evidence you can either discard or revise the belief based on the evidence or you can discard the reality. Your choice.

I agree. However, evidence regarding origins is interpreted according to your presuppositions since no one was there to actually observe the events. It takes a lot of evidence to change those presuppositions when the alternative is something that a person cannot accept (like the 70% atheist scientists who cannot believe in God). In addition, NO ONE, not even dedicated scientists can do ALL of the research themselves. In the end, they must accept or “believe” the results of others (who are fallible) instead of God’s word. When an attempt is made to actually duplicate experiments by others, many are found to be faulty and beliefs are adjusted.

The absurd claim that forams date the sediments and then the sediments date the forams…

The claim that index fossils date the sediments and sediments date the index fossils is valid. The complete geological column is found nowhere on earth. Because some prior dating was done, it is almost never questioned for subsequent discoveries. When they do, they often find dramatic differences in the ages. The absolute age is not relied upon for operational science as it is really not important. It matters only to satisfy fantasies regarding evolution. Perhaps we can discuss this further when/if we explore the evidence.

Sorry to burst your balloon, but those species have evolved over time.

They have not evolved, but they have adapted. This is not my observation, but the observation of evolutionists. They use words like “have remained essentially the same” or “almost identical” etc. Insects caught in amber also come to mind as a good example. I didn’t mean to imply that there couldn’t have been slight changes. However, in either case, “almost identical” does not confirm that evolution took place.

They either evolve or they become too susceptible to disease and parasites and predators that DO evolve and they go extinct. The fossil record shows this again and again. We observe this in our own lives with diseases evolving.

Yes, this is another confirmation that mutations, disease etc demonstrate how the population is running down, becoming less able to adapt from the originally created robust kinds, not upward, more complex, directional evolution.

LOL. Nice try. This is a new one for Thread A Guide to Creationist Tactics I believe.

Mmmm. Is there a guide for evolutionist tactics? If not, I’ll have to start one. I have plenty of material to use from this debate.

You have presented NO evidence, just a series of ad hoc arguments, and YOU refuse to accept the definition used by evolutionary biology. Now you want to abandon evidence altogether ... and rely on what? Fantasy? You need to make a decision whether you are going to move on to actually discuss evidence or whether you will remain in willful denial or ignorance or just keep dancing around the issue and never address it.

You are the one who refuses to accept the definition used by evolutionary biology. You are the one who is dancing around the issue. You are the one who has presented NO evidence. I have repeatedly asked questions regarding the definition of evolution that you refuse to answer, assumedly because your definition cannot be defended logically. It is blatantly obvious that we cannot discuss evidence if we do not know what the evidence is for or against. That will only take us back to the beginning of this discussion when finches were raised as an example of evolution (which they are not) by who’s definition?


What would invalidate it then?
Fossil evidence of Homo sapiens during the age of dinosaurs or some other equally anachronistic find of a too modern fossil in too old a location.

OK. We have those and they have been roundly ignored by evolutionists who simply cherry pick the ones that fall neatly into the model. Actually, it makes perfect sense that we would not find many fossilized remains of people with dinosaurs. People would be much more mobile, climbing or escaping to higher elevations before they were trapped by the waters. Those that didn’t make it probably wouldn’t be around the dinosaurs. In addition, there were not as many people around at that time and many remains are probably in areas that are more politically and geographically inaccessible.

To be honest, I don’t’ think we’ll ever find a silver bullet for either side. This is a testimony to the wisdom of God. He wants us to trust his word. He told us exactly what happened, but we refuse to believe him and instead trust in our own wisdom, which He says, is foolishness to God. By the way, trusting in our own wisdom is very different then sound scientific research to discover the wonders of God’s creation.

Genetic evidence that shows wholesale horizontal transfer for a feature between species rather than descent from a common ancestor.

I’m not sure what you mean, but we do have many examples of supposed parallel or multiple evolution and also evidence of transfer of features between bacteria rather than descent. Neither of these features has been used to invalidate evolution.

A hopeful monster sudden appearance of a whole new species with a completely new feature with no evolutionary predecessor.

The fossil record is rift with those. In fact, that IS the fossil record. Wouldn’t Abiogenesis qualify as well? An “amoeba” (or whatever) has completely new features compared to the rock it evolved from. Nevertheless, this does not invalidate evolution. This concept has been proposed as a potential mechanism of evolution to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Another example of how “plastic” the concept of evolution is which can conform to any evidence that is found (because the evolutionary concept is not based on the evidence). If you were talking about the appearance of a living specimen, it would be hailed as confirmation of this evolutionary feature. On the other hand, since we know this is essentially impossible, this is just a red herring example with no relevance to actually invalidating evolution.

There are many things that would invalidate evolution, but the list is much smaller than it was due to the number of times such things have NOT happened.

No, it’s rather due to the ability of evolutionists to rationalize. Yes, there probably are many, but you have not listed any that could actually be used. A valid example would be a tree positioned through sediment layers. These have been found and invalidate the concept that those layers were laid down over millions of years. Instead, the flood model makes much more sense of the evidence. I would be happy to provide additional examples when/if we get to the evidence. But I’m not going there until we finish the definitions even if it’s to agree to disagree.

Bottom line, these examples probably would not even invalidate my definition, and certainly they say nothing about yours. It is a FACT that species change over time. If that is evolution, what else is left to prove?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2007 11:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:52 AM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 38 of 121 (373875)
01-03-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-01-2007 11:57 PM


Re: Timeline #2: Earth > 10,000 years old
Gee, can you slow down! I'm probably going to have to take another short break soon and I may not be able to keep up so it will get confusing. Thankfully, this post is another on the evidence which is irrelevant to our topic of definitions. I've suggested a way that we might proceed with the evidence in another post. ...mw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2007 11:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:53 AM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2007 2:34 PM MurkyWaters has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 39 of 121 (373909)
01-03-2007 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by MurkyWaters
01-03-2007 12:34 AM


No Progress here.
Definitions are the topic of this debate, not the evidence. You have continually refused to respond to my questions regarding the definitions. Would you like to concede that you don’t have an answer? We can agree to disagree, however that’s somewhat empty when you have refused to respond. Nevertheless, I will agree to do that if you feel it’s at that point. If that’s the case, we can both provide a summary of our positions and end it (or continue with a few rebuttals). If we can’t change the posted definitions on this forum, this may at least result in dual creationist/evolutionist definitions.

Definitions are ONE of the topics. I have dealt with your questions as far as I need to, not because I don't have an answer but because most of it is irrelevant and just do not apply to the issue.

There is no such thing as a "creationist definition" of evolution. All this amounts to is a straw man fallacy that is irrelevant to the real issue of what evolution is in the SCIENCE of evolution. THAT is the "real" evolution.

There is ONLY a scientific definition used by evolutionary biology scientists. Any thing else does not address evolution BY DEFINITION.

It was unnecessary to repost all of the definitions again. I’ve clearly refuted this silly concept of ANY observed change as being evolution both through sources and logic.

Where? by bald assertion and repetition of same old position with no new information? That's not a refutation. By using false misleading and quote mined statements by evolutionist taken out of context?

I highlighted the places where each one dealt with change over time.

You seem especially hung-up whenever you see the word "billions" and other references to long periods of time. To deal with that you need to deal with the age of the earth before proceeding.

Roger Lewin wrote: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

Then let's discuss how far microevolution can get us and see where we are when that is done.

Refusing to make any move forward is not helping this debate. All you have done is stone-wall on the first topic and refuse to move forward on either path I have suggested that can help resolve the issue from a different angle:

Microevolution, and

Age of the Earth.

From you response to microevolution it appears that we need to discuss the age of the earth first before proceeding with that as well.

Then we can come back to microevolution and THEN proceed with the discussion of macroevolution.

You need to decide to move the debate forward.

So do we discuss the age of the earth or do you keep stone-walling?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:34 AM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-04-2007 11:43 PM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 40 of 121 (373910)
01-03-2007 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by MurkyWaters
01-03-2007 12:38 AM


Re: Timeline #2: Earth > 10,000 years old
I've suggested a way that we might proceed with the evidence in another post.

No, all you have done is to continue stone-walling. The only way to advance is to start with MiE and then proceed with MaE later.

Thankfully, this post is another on the evidence which is irrelevant to our topic of definitions.

The original post had several topics, one of which was definitions, which have run into a dead end due to your persistent stone-walling on using your pet definition instead of the scientific defintion for evolution.

Another was the age of the earth. It seems your position on evolution (both MaE and MiE) cannot be dealt with properly until we get the issue of the age of the earth out of the way, as it influences your response.

If definitions of evolution include billions of years it is because that is what the evidence shows. If you object to that then you need to deal with the age of the earth before continuing.

Gee, can you slow down! I'm probably going to have to take another short break soon and I may not be able to keep up so it will get confusing.

Go ahead and take a break, when you come back be prepared to deal with the age of the earth issue.

If you want to move forward.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-03-2007 12:38 AM MurkyWaters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by MurkyWaters, posted 01-05-2007 12:00 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 41 of 121 (374600)
01-04-2007 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-02-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Dealing with the issues

Yes, and you won’t move off the pot on evidence because you don’t seem to have a response to my questions regarding the definitions.
What evidence. The definitions…were dealt with.

The stream of evidence (like tree rings and others) that you apparently want to discuss INSTEAD of definitions! Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t definitions the topic of this debate? Once we are done with definitions, we can close this out and start a new discussion.

All the definitions show evolution is change in species over time, including the ones you presented.

This is soundly refuted in Message 21. Thus repeating this is NOT providing evidence but repeating a mistake.


I’m fine with that IF you tell me what your definition of “molecules to man” evolution is?
That is NOT evolution. The development of molecules to life is abiogenesis.

Just like micro-evolution is NOT evolution. You are again misrepresenting my argument. I have already stated more than multiple times that I’m willing to ignore abiogenesis in any definition we use. That is a separate issue (of whether it should be included) that we haven’t discussed and I’m willing to put off for now. If you prefer, I’ll use “goo to you” evolution. This covers change from the first prototype into the diversity we see today. I’m only trying to provide a temporary term to distinguish (in a meaningful way) your definition of evolution from mine without having to restate it every time.

lets start with what we know: we have speciation, we have an accepted process by which it occurs that many people, creationist and evolutionist alike, call "micro"evolution…It is commonly accepted by evolutionary biologists and creationists that "micro"evolution refers to speciation.

No informed creationist refers to adaptation or its processes as micro-evolution. Micro evolution is NOT “evolution on a small scale” which can simply be extrapolated backwards. Its processes have provided results in direct OPPOSITION to what is required for goo-to-you evolution. In addition, micro evolution does NOT refer to speciation and is NOT implied by your definition of change in species over time (unless this is something new you are springing on me). A species can change but that change does not have to result in a new species. In fact, the vast majority of recent examples that evolutionists have proposed as proof of evolution did not result in new species such as bacteria, moths and finches. Speciation is less common but it is certainly an important component of creation theory. In NO case have new “kinds” or baramins ever been produced or observed.

let's start by discussing "Micro"evolution. It's called common ground. A compromise position. A way to move forward. When we are done with "Micro"Evolution (MiE) then we can move on to "Macro"Evolution (MaE).

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Everyone agrees that Adaptation (MiE) occurs. Why in the world would we want to waste our time looking at evidence for it first? It is a fact. I have already compromised by temporarily removing abiogenesis. Why is temporarily defining evolution as MiE, something that I don’t agree with, common ground? If that’s common ground, it makes infinitely more sense to begin by temporarily defining evolution as Macro-evolution and looking at the evidence for it. We both already agree that MaE is evolution but not MiE, so let's start there. We can then move on to MiE and better understand why it is NOT evolution.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that dating methods are actually developed and used, so this ridiculous straw man argument is more of a ill-conceived comic parody of reality than anything else. It's a joke - on you - and a poor one at that.

The joke is on you because the story is not a joke, poor or otherwise. It’s called a parable. Ever heard of that before? It has nothing to do with the way dating methods are developed. The point is that evidence can be very different from the truth when considering historical events. That is why God left us with a written account of what actually happened so we wouldn’t be deceived into believing a lie. You recently accused me of not reading original sources. Have you ever bothered reading the Bible? This is indeed a significant piece of evidence.

OK, I agree that this is getting frustrating. You continue to simply insist that your definition is THE definition over and over again without addressing the logic of my arguments. If the theory of evolution simply states that species change over time as you contend, then this is impossible to refute (and creationists wouldn’t want to since this also defines creation theory - I’ll remind you that in this same context, the two theories would be identical except creationists start with the created kinds (baramins) instead a single common ancestor). We have numerous examples of species changing over time (within their kinds), mostly in living organisms we find today (FACT) and even some in the fossil record (although only conjecture supported by the preponderance of evidence). Why then, do you suppose, is there any debate over whether evolution is true? It has been proved. I am not asking this question rhetorically. I would like an answer.

What is all the evidence you’ve presented regarding the age of the earth supposedly refuting? NOT Creation theory. Creation theory states that species change over time (again, using your same limited context with no further details). You are attempting to dispute things that are NOT part of this definition, so they are irrelevant. And sorry, but you do NOT get to redefine scientific terms to suit your beliefs. You either use the terms as defined and used in creation science or you are not discussing creation science but some personal fantasy about creation science.

Tree ring dating is not reliable and is easily refuted, which I will not attempt to do now since it is irrelevant to the discussion. However I can provide dozens of examples of biological features that are irreducibly complex, some having a hundred components or more that must be working in perfect unison and harmony to operate properly. Since they could not have evolved independently or in small steps, they MUST have been created that way by an intelligent designer. Even a single example of an irreducibly complex feature invalidates evolution. When we finish with definitions, how about starting there? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There’s more, much more!

What I would like to suggest is the following for an attempt to move on - I would like you to THINK about whether your definition makes sense LOGICALLY (no field “evidence” required), REGARDLESS of who uses it. This is appropriate since I have convincingly shown that “Change in species over time”, is NOT universally used by all scientists, is NOT supported by the majority of sources and in fact is contested by prominent evolutionists. I’ll start by re-asking some of the questions you have refused to answer that are designed to facilitate THOUGHTFUL contemplation. Here is the middle ground. Let’s see where this leads us.
1) Restated from above – If evolution theory is “change is species over time”, which everyone agrees has been proven to be true, then why do you suppose there is any debate about whether evolution is true?
2) What would honestly invalidate the theory that “species change over time” when this has already been proven to be true?
3) Do you disagree that changes relevant to evolution observed in species must be directional and support the movement from simple to more complex organisms? If so, how do you justify defining evolution as simply any change when that change does not create new features and support the notion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?
4) Can you provide any examples (beside propagandist evolutionary internet sites with no official affiliations), where evolutionary scientists have protested against sources which characterized evolution as “all life on earth evolving from a common ancestor over millions of year”, as misrepresenting what evolution is?
5) I have contended that change in species over time is simply an observation. How can you defend this as a “mechanism”? Mechanisms are involved in bringing about the observation but are not the observation itself. What is the theory that you are attempting to substantiate through this observation of change in species over time? The observation itself? In other words, the observation of change in species over time proves change in species over time? Please respond.

I’ve already made 2 reasonable and fair suggestions on how to continue - 1) Starting with defining evolution as macro-evolution and seeing where that leads us or 2) Reviewing the definitions from a LOGICAL standpoint starting with my questions. If these are unacceptable, the last and perhaps only alternative is to post a summary of our positions (and perhaps a rebuttal) and then end it.
Sincerely …mw

Edited by MurkyWaters, : Clarify why MaE is a better place to start


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 12:28 PM MurkyWaters has responded
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2007 8:41 AM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 42 of 121 (374602)
01-04-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-02-2007 11:32 PM


Re: Timeline #3: Earth > 12,332 years old
I'll be happy to refute this evidence when we've finished our prior discussion on definitions. ...mw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 11:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2007 10:07 PM MurkyWaters has responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 43 of 121 (374606)
01-04-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
01-03-2007 3:52 AM


Re: No Progress here.

It was unnecessary to repost all of the definitions again. I’ve clearly refuted this silly concept of ANY observed change as being evolution both through sources and logic.
Where? by bald assertion and repetition of same old position with no new information? That's not a refutation. By using false misleading and quote mined statements by evolutionist taken out of context? Refusing to make any move forward is not helping this debate. All you have done is stone-wall on the first topic and refuse to move forward on either path I have suggested that can help resolve the issue from a different angle:

If you didn’t address my arguments the first time, why should I present something new? Talk about repetition! All you have done is arrogantly insist over and over again that you are right, so we should move on! It is a matter of opinion as to who is stonewalling. This is a marvelous example of how evidence can be interpreted two different ways. I feel I have convincingly and equivocally proved my case without a shadow of a doubt based on all of the evidence and you see it the opposite way. However while I have argued from the evidence and logic you are simply appealing to the imaginary authority of “science”. I have quoted biologists, scientists and scientific journals that agree with me, so you are mistaken that this is the universal definition used by science. I can recap again in the summary post that I have recommended. I have suggested 3 different paths we can take that I feel are fairer in my prior post. Take your pick. …mw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:52 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 44 of 121 (374608)
01-05-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
01-03-2007 3:53 AM


Re: Who is stone walling?
No, all you have done is to continue stone-walling. The only way to advance is to start with MiE and then proceed with MaE later.

The only way? That is always your solution. Your way or the highway, despite the evidence. I am not the one stone-walling. You want to move on because you have logically lost the case.

If definitions of evolution include billions of years it is because that is what the evidence shows. If you object to that then you need to deal with the age of the earth before continuing.

I do not object to it, you do. I support the definitions that contain billions of years because that is a critical and essential component of evolutionary theory. If “billions of years” is disproved, so is evolution, so it must be part of the definition.

OK, it looks like we are caught up. Let me know what you think of the 3 options I have suggested.

I just wanted to briefly clarify the options so that you wouldn’t have to look back. There are actually 4 I've mentioned.

1) Let’s discuss the definitions from a Logical standpoint rather than simply fall back on what you might happen to “believe” is the definitions used by others. I’ve already clearly demonstrated the inconsistency in what others believe and in fact the opposition to the CISOT definition by many scientists, biologists included. Technical and non-technical sources also disagree.

2) Assume temporarily that evolution is defined as Macro-evolution and start with evidence for it first and see where that leads us. Then move on to Micro-evolution.

3) End the definitions and move on. However, if this option is chosen, I would like to take the time and summarize our positions on the definitions. If nothing else, this will clearly document our discussions and the valid evidence we have presented for each side. I want to do this so I can more clearly point to this when I have discussions with others. We put a lot of work into our arguments and it would be a shame if it just got lost in the thousands of posts that no one ever reads again.

4) Rather than simply move on to evidence, I think it would be very interesting if we could compile a list of the evidence that supposedly “invalidates” each other’s theories. Then we can take turns selecting the ones we think are most “damaging” and see where that goes. I provided a little more detail for this option in a prior post.

Sincerly...mw

Edited by MurkyWaters, : Added list of options.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2007 3:53 AM RAZD has not yet responded

MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 4122 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 45 of 121 (374672)
01-05-2007 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-02-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Dealing with the issues
I see all this talk from evolutionists on this site about how creation theory has been “invalidated”. When are you guys going to get it through your heads that it is impossible to invalidate a theory based on an “INTERPRETATION” of historical data? We all have the same evidence. The difference is how we interpret the evidence. The silly notion that you do not have presuppositions is almost humorous. Let’s take your tree rings for instance. You start out by saying “with NO presuppositions”. However, you have presuppositions and you don’t even realize it. Your presupposition is uniformitarianism. You are assuming that everything has always been the same for thousands of years. However, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that this is not the case and that there was a WWF. When you make that assumption instead (a valid one, not only from other evidence, but because we have eyewitnesses to the event), the rings (and carbon 14 dating), can be explained much more accurately.

That’s why you start with evidence that supports your theory, not invalidates it. Then scientists propose explanations for why certain data does NOT invalidate their theory and look for other explanations. This is certainly the way it has gone with evolution and creation theory would be handled no differently. For example, we all know today that natural selection itself is insufficient to explain how evolution might have occurred. When that realization was first made, do you think evolutionist threw up their hands and said “oh well, I guess that just invalidates our theory, we’ll have to propose a whole new one”! Of course not, they looked for OTHER mechanisms that could be use in conjunction with natural selection (mutations). Now mutations are also being questioned by scientists as being sufficient (since they never provide beneficial changes that provide an increase in information). What will be proposed next?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2007 10:59 AM MurkyWaters has responded

Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019