Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9036 total)
84 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,667 Year: 3,313/14,102 Month: 254/724 Week: 12/91 Day: 12/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 71 of 100 (361690)
11-04-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by anglagard
10-29-2006 10:03 PM


Re: Biogenesis, Lies, and Probability
Point 57:

Creation addresses both how life started and how it continued. Yet evolutionists like to hide from the "how life started" issue because they TOTALLY HAVE NO IDEA, unless they accept God. I know why you don't want to reply to the life starting issue, it's because you can't provide any answer to this, no proof whatsover, no support, only embarrasement. I understand that evolutionists have already made those different subjects so as to avoid the issue of how life started, but really, Creation addresses both in one, why shouldn't evolution?

Oh, and, remember the old "scientists made life" "news" that was spread when all that was made were some amino acids in an unrealistic environment? I think that's coming up in the essay, maybe we'll get to it soon.

That chart doesn't show how nonliving chemicals can turn "living." A sequence and a fancy chart of it proves nothing.

Point 58:

Why is it ridiculous? Because you say it is? Because it shows how ridiculous your theory is relying on such a LOW possibility for a living cell to evolve by chance? I think it is very much not ridiculous, it should be addressed more often so people can get to the REALITY of the situation of random chance "producing" a living, complicated, well functioning cell.

Point 59:

The term does allow for VARIATIONS WITHIN A KIND. As addressed earlier, species changing is not what I consider a change outside of kind. It is a variation inside of a kind. Thus species changing is not macroevolution, thus this still holds: macroevolution hasn't been observed.

Point 60:

Of course the answer to which is simpler would probably vary from person to person. But the animal cell provides for more complicated structure in animals and humans, who eat the plants. Animal cells make up a struture which is much more complicated than a plant. Consider some of the tissues in an animal: bone, muscle, nerve, skin, etc. Plants do not have mobility like many animals do.

Point 61:

I said "fully understand". You said "they seem to have a pretty good idea". "Pretty good idea" and "fully understand" are different.

Point 62:

I am not a woman, but we all have room to learn some more. Not everyone knows everything about all that there is to know about.

"Exactly" would be just that, exactly. Completely and to every bit, every single function, how every single reaction works and is stimulated.

Cell coming from chance topic: The answer is simple, such a cell could NOT have come about by random chance, and it didn't. Random chance cannot speak on such a matter. It is hopeless to provide an answer.

quote:
Haven’t seen an insurmountable difficulty yet that could not be explained by using one’s noggin (or if necessary, exercising one’s dormant critical thinking skills).

One can choose what he sees and how he thinks about it. I see many problems that evolutionists cannot and have not addressed. You may be purposely ignoring them and pretending to not see them. Just the explanation for how random chance could have made a comlicated structure like a cell already poses a problem for evolution. Not to mention cells acting together in tissues, organs, systems, and then bodies...


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by anglagard, posted 10-29-2006 10:03 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 73 of 100 (362757)
11-08-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by anglagard
11-05-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Abiogenesis is not Evolution
I just logged in, and about 30 sec. later you signed off. This isn't the first time I notice this. What's going on Anglagard? Are you hiding from me? Or is it just a coincidence that I sign in right when you need to sign off? :) :) :) I have a feeling...

Anyways, back to where we left off:

Point 63:

Ok, you say it would have minimal free oxygen. So, what does this mean, does this mean oxygen WOULD be present, as you see it? If that is what you are implying, you're still stuck, because oxygen destroys amino acids. How can amino acids survive if there is oxygen present?

As for the meteorite issue, meteorites that came into the earth's atmosphere were contaminated by the particles and substances in the air, dirt, and water. This can be seen by the pollen grains in some meteorites, these became stuck to the meteorite when the meteorite was quickly flying through the earth's atmosphere. Thus, any particles and substances and cells in the meteorites are a result of contamination, not life from outerspace.

As for banded iron formations showing the earth was old, no. The earth is not old, we may get into this a bit later. But the earth's atmosphere WAS different in the beginning, people lived to be like 900 something years! It didn't rain before the Flood, and before the Curse, there was most likely no disease or sickness.

Point 64: I have explained the meteorite contamination above. Thus this argument relies on the above one.

As for ultraviolet rays reaching deep in rock, I don't think point #35 is what you meant to say, that point is about hominids.

Point 65: You say "without significant oxygen." Are you implying, as I have asked a few point above, that there WAS or WASN'T oxygen in the early earth's atmosphere? Either way, there is a rebuttal to both, in the quote of mine that you posted in points 63 and 64. Either way you look at it, amino acids would not survive in the earth's atmosphere as you see it.

Point 66: What do you mean by the atmosphere in space being suffiecient? Are you implying that life came to earth from outerspace?

Which atmosphere fits it all? I don't really know the specifics, but I would say the one God made along with all life. Evolution didn't happen, so I'm not going to propose the atmosphere with which amino acids were to "evolve" in the early atmosphere, that's your job.

You say hydrocarbons would help abiogenesis under some models, but what about the effect they would have on amino acids and their survival?

Point 67: The papers of that time had headlines saying, "Scientists made life!" But the truth is they didn't make any life. Life wasn't created in the labs, and the particles that may be on meteorites are due to contamination as explained above.

Point 68: I was not speaking of abiogenesis in general, I was specifically pointing out that the atmosphere in which they made their amino acids is not one that would really exist in nature. My last sentence that you quoted there is referring to the above, the atmosphere that was created in the lab, not to all abiogenesis everywhere. The rule is, life cannot come from non-life, THAT is referring to all abiogenesis.

Meteorites and left/right handed amino acids: Once again, the meteorites received their particles FROM NATURE, not from outerspace. Your statement seems to imply that life came from outerspace, is that what you believe?

The geologic evidence DOES prove the Flood! This interesting subject is coming up soon, hope you have a reply ready for those petrified trees found upright protruding through several "layers." :)

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by anglagard, posted 11-05-2006 4:03 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AdminNWR, posted 11-08-2006 11:42 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 76 of 100 (364020)
11-15-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
11-14-2006 9:18 PM


Re: The YEC Stand Against All Geoscience
Jumping right in:

Point 69: You may be able to explain how an "older fossil" would come up higher, but you can't explain why the "newer", "more complex" fossils are found in old strata. How would you explain "complex" creatures found in "older" strata? They can't go down, those layers are aready set! But a Flood that layed down most/all of the layers in one period would have no difficulty explaining this.

Point 70: The Flood laid down the layers we find and the fossils in them. The Flood formed the mountains and the valleys, it displaced much land. How is it that you evolutionists claim the Colorado River could "carve out" the Grand Canyon, yet deny that a WORLD WIDE FLOOD could carve rock pretty deep? The Flood carried boulders and trees with it, this mass could easily carve out any valley.

About the Boat surviving, keep in mind, the engineer of this Boat was God Himself. You can trust God to make a good Boat design, He won't let Noah and his family die, they're the only ones to continue the human race! Noah only followed directions precisely, but God made the design for that Boat, it's called an Ark.

How did the Flood make the different layers? Kent Hovind always uses this one: Take a jar with sand and water, shake it up, and you'll have layers forming in minutes. Think about it, the heavier sediments will settle lower than the lighter ones, natural settling action. The Flood doesn't "know" how to deposit anything, it just did it's thing, move, and the sediments would settle according to weight and density. The Flood probably was pretty muddy, considering all the mountains it formed and all the soil it displaced.As for the boiling water, I don't know if it was boiling, but a part of the water came from the "fountains of the deep", proposedly underground geysers, these could be hot, and volcanoes may have been seriously distrubed, releasing much HOT magna.

Point 71: I'll quote Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation:

"In an unpublished experiment at Loma Linda University, a dead bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian were placed in an open water tank. Their buoyancy in the days following death depended on their density while living, the build-up and leakage of gases from their decaying bodies, the absorption or loss of water by their bodies, and other factors. That experiment showed that the natural order of settling following death was amphibian, reptile, mammal, and finally bird. This order of relative buoyancy correlates closely with 'the evolutionary order,' but, of course, evolution did not cause it." (underlined emphasis mine)

This experiment supports how the "more advanced" creatures would settle "higher" than "less advanced."

Also, remember, birds can fly, so they could fly untill they died and settle higher. Animals that can run could have ran to higher ground to escape death. Monkeys and bears could have climbed trees in effort to escape the doom coming upon them. The underwater creatures wouldn't be able to do this, they would be stuck lower. Creatures that could cling to tree parts would settle later. This shows how the "more advanced" creatures would be found higher. Take a small frog and a human, the human is bigger and heavier, but he can swim, climb to higher ground, and cling to floating debris. The frog can't do much but jump. Which one settles lower? The lighter frog or the heavier human who has more ability to move and grasp and swim? I mean, picture how the creatures would be fighting for life as the Flood is swirling around them, which ones have a better chance to stay above the surface longer?

Plants don't swim. Have you ever seen a leaf floating on water, or grass, get the picture?

Point 72: Refer to above point for how a human would settle higher than a frog.

Now for the replies to your quote points:

1. An elephant can swim, not all dinosaurs can. A dinosaur is typically heavier than an elephant, and may be slower if running up to higher ground.

2. Algae are usually located where- in the water or near it on rocks. Other plants are usually located where- in meadows and forests. Which would get buried faster, the one in/near a source of water or the one in a meadow at higher elevation?

3. Mollusks in several "layers"? Picture the swirling water and "fountains of the deep" bursting... Besides, those layers do not signify "million year spans" according to Creation, those layers were laid during the Flood in one basic period.

4. Brachiopods range from 5mm. to 8 cm., but if the quote says they were relatively the same size, something to consider is how well certain brachiopods can stick to rocks, which ones would get taken away in the current faster, and where certain brachiopods are generally located, ie. higher on rocks or lower.

5. Certain creatures had different abilities. Some were more fit(wieght and muscle wise) than others (fat and lazier), so where they were buried would vary.
As for pterodons, remember, Noah took animals on the Ark, and birds too. When they were released, the dinosaurs most likely died out due to such a different environment and climate. But during the Flood, the pterodons probably settled lower for they were heavier than other birds, they had no feathers...

6. Coral reefs were already under water, so they could be preserved better since the Flood's water movement would be less severe under deep water. Fossils could be formed wherever, so if the fountains of the great deep blew up under the coral reefs, the creatures there would be covered up, while the coral reefs could have been stronger and maybe farther away and more able to remain intact. Just about anything's possible in a Flood like Noah's Flood.

7. Refer to point 71 about the frog and the human.

8. Everything would be sorted in the Flood, all artifacts and creatures on earth. They would be sorted according to weight and density and floatability, etc.

9. What about that hammer found in Cretaceous rock? Clarification, the world was NOT probably overflowing with ship builders at that time. They didn't even have rain before the Flood. God gave Noah instructions to build that Ark. The deep oceans most likely were a RESULT of the Flood, so I doubt there were many ship builders before the Flood.

10. The trees wouldn't be able to move around, they would get buried pretty quickly, along with all their other parts.

11. The climate during the Flood was changing rapidly. The rain would bring down pollen in the air, other pollen in plants would be buried with them faster, etc. It's just how things would get buried. Also, different pollens from different plants would be located in their own places, whether it's a forest or mountain or meadow, so the different pollens would be buried in their relative places, which may be at different elevations.

Why would I have to deny the trilobites' existence?

Point 73: Sure, some trees with stronger roots may remain in their positions, but that's not the point! The point is that there are trees, and whales, protruding through SEVERAL "LAYERS" which are supposed to signify "millions of years." Do you claim that a tree, or whale, was partially buried, lived a couple million years, got buried a little more, etc.? Or do you deny your own datings of the layers?

Point 74: The one right above ^^. Quickly forming layers in one Great Flood would allow for trees, and whales, to be found upright through several layers, evolution with each layer signifying some "millions of years" can't.

I will continue with the rest of this post and others a bit later, this next part is pretty long.

But just so you don't get too exited, referring to the Age Correlations thing never being refuted, and the tree ring part of it: tree rings do not exactly form rings equally, if there are two wet seasons in a year, the tree will form 2 rings, thus those points about tree rings showing old age are refuted in this short post.

To be continued.

Peace.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the underline code from dBCode (which doesn't exist) to HTML.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 11-14-2006 9:18 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 11-17-2006 4:20 AM Someone who cares has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 80 of 100 (366190)
11-26-2006 11:32 PM


Note:
I just want to say I'm a bit busy right now, so it may take another week or two before I can find the time to reply, possibly earlier if something. You can keep on posting, but don't expect my replies to come soon. I will try to get on when this busy week is over, so hang in there. Just thought I'd let you know, since it has already been a while since I last replied. :)

Peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 81 of 100 (367208)
11-30-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
11-14-2006 9:18 PM


Re: The YEC Stand Against All Geoscience
Continuing reply to point 74 and beyond.

Guess this reply is going to be a bit of the subject of my essay. It's more like my reply to all your supposed "evidence" for an old earth... Might as well...

*Takes deep breath*

Radiometric dating: These methods often rely on presuppositions and guesses as to the previous state of the earth, the environment, the atmosphere, etc. These presuppositions cannot be proven to be so, in fact, a universal flood would significantly alter the results of many of these datings. Leaching is one problem to the validity of radiometric dating. Also, the scientists cannot always prove that no daughter products mixed with the parent products, but this would change the datings greatly. There are numerous other problems with getting "proper" results. I will quote on some conditions that are needed for K-AR to be correct, "For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.

2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.

3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.

4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known." http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate

Another quote from the same site concerning the correlations you mentioned,"Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe's article on the subject, but only when I have reason to believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other." www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html...

Overall, this site, The Radiometric Dating Game, is something you should look at. It explains many of the things I cannot, and is written by someone who probably knows more than me about the subject.

Paleomagnetism: Ah, I have just read about this in a book I was reading, I think it is in Science vs. Evolution by Malcolm Bowden, so this is like a paraphrasing. Basically, the point is that the poles have wandered away and have not always kept consistent. In fact, if I remember correctly, they have even switched places! This would severly undermine the whole idea of relying on this method for dating. I found this site, not Creationist, but some interesting observations about the wandering poles: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/313/5792/1369b

Water in aquifers: I do not know much about this subject, but tell me, is it possible that the water could leak out of the aquifers and maybe diluted water could come in? Or, could the surrounding rocks have any effect on it?

Question: How do you date water??? That's a first for me.

Varves: I'll quote AIG on this, but basically, the point is that in a flood or other catostrophic event, many layers would (and do) form quickly. Specifically about the Green River thing, those layers could not have formed anually because there were "well-preserved fish and birds found all through the sediments."

Here's the quote with more details, "A common argument against the Bible involves varves — rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says.9 But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!10 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).11

When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.12 Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.13 A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.14

Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.

It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.15 Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers! [Ed. note: some sceptics have claimed that alkali merely ‘cuts grease’, evidently ignorant of the elementary chemistry involved, i.e. base-catalyzed hydrolysis of polymers, which would do the opposite of preserving the fish.] Another problem for the varve explanation is that the number of bands is not consistent across the formation as it should be if they were annual deposits.16"

Sorry, have to go. To be recontinued later.

Peace.

Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL to fix page width


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 11-14-2006 9:18 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 82 of 100 (367384)
12-01-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
11-14-2006 9:18 PM


Re: The YEC Stand Against All Geoscience
Recontinuing:

Still on point 74:

Angular unconformities: I'll quote once more,"The angular unconformity could result form the sediment being laid down at an angle and simply sloped at this point, or it could have been pushed up after being laid down and eroded by changing currents or tidal changes. This could have occurred during the Flood, but before the overlaying sediment was laid down." http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon_was_carved_by_retreating_Flood_waters

Sedimentation rates: Excuse me, but I think you are attacking a strawman here. We Creationists believe the Flood laid down most/all of the layers of sediments in one general period, thus we do not believe that the different layers represent different ages, thus we do not believe in certain layers being older than others by millions of years. According to your theory it may be confusion to find "precambrian" rocks on the surface and a whole "progression" of sediments in another place, but to Creationists, this is normal since we believe the layers were laid down in one period, and they do not represent millions of ages. I wouldn't even call the layers what you call them and make a distinction between them, to me it is just a bunch of layers that the Flood laid down in one period.

Volcanism: Just because a volcano erupts, doesn't mean someone has to write history books about it and make them public and pass them on from generation to generation. Who knows, maybe someone did write down a record, maybe it's still to be uncovered. Maybe no one did write down anything, maybe they were dying to quickly to have time to write down a record. Either way, this is hardly any good proof for an old age, because it's relying on people to always write down all the events that happened, which may or may not be this way.

Ore deposit formations: The end of your quoted piece itself said that
ore formations can be brief as opposed to the "old view" that it takes many millions of years to do it.

Banded iron formations: An explanation may be an ice age after the Flood which would reduce the amount of oxygen reaching the ground, as can be seen here,(this site claims millions of years, something I do not, but the info about the ice sheet is interesting, esp. since many Creationists believe there was an ice age after the Flood)"Until fairly recently, it was assumed that the rare later banded iron deposits represent unusual conditions where oxygen was depleted locally and iron-rich waters could form then come into contact with oxygenated water. An alternate explanation of these later rare deposits is undergoing much research as part of the Snowball Earth hypothesis — wherein it is believed that an early equatorial supercontinent (Rodinia) was totally covered in an ice age (implying the whole planet was frozen at the surface to a depth of several kilometers) which corresponds to evidence that the earth's free oxygen may have been nearly or totally depleted during a severe ice age circa 750 to 580 million years ago (mya) (See Cryogenian period, from 800 million years ago (mya, boundary defined chronometrically) to approximately 635 mya) prior to the Ediacaran wherein the earliest multicellular lifeforms appear. Alternatively, some geochemists suggest that BIFs could form by direct oxydation of iron by autotrophic (non-photosynthetic) microbes." http://www.answers.com/topic/banded-iron-formation

Tree ring data: As I have mentioned before, tree ring data can be misleading if there were two wet periods in a year and other factors, ie. the rings do not form exactly as scientists say they do. As for trees indicating a Flood, the petrified trees found upright in sediments are a good indicator, as are the thick coal beds which formed from forests of trees being ripped out and buried together.

Ice core data: Ice caps before the Flood?-Doubt it, there was no rain before the Flood and the high elevation peaks and low elevation valleys formed DURING the Flood. The ice caps most likely formed AFTER the Flood, possibly in an ice age or ages as many believe. Besides, how can you prove that the ice caps aren't pretty young? Ice dating???

Ocean cores: Why can't sediments be organized in layers according to density and size of the contents? The Flood organized the sediments we see on land, why not in the ocean? As for thicknesses, might I remind you that we believe the Flood FORMED the deep oceans, thus varying thicknesses are inevitable, considering "fountains of the deep" exploding, geysers, volcanoes, whirlpools, huge boulders, etc.

Inconsistent worldwide geologic formations: Once again, to you the varying layers of different "ages" may be a problem, but to me, I don't consider them millions of ages apart, so I can accept the formations of the Flood without a problem. Who is to decide how the Flood is to lay and not lay down the sediments?

World wide iridium: The iridium layer could have been formed by meteorites or volcanoes. I would think the Flood would stimulate a lot of volcano eruptions, and the lava with iridium could have been laid down during the Flood. Besides, I don't know how strong or dense iridium is, but it could have remained relatively undistirbed during the Flood after it was laid down, just like the rest of the organized sediments and formations.

Fossil record sorting: See reply to response point 72.

Formations of mountains and valleys: The earthquakes and tectonic plate movements could have occured during the Flood, in one period. The Flood and related eruptions would most certainly carve out valleys and build mountains.

Batholith formations: The assumptions that it would take 90 million years to cool are based on radiometric dating and evolutionist presuppositions. I do not believe anything would have taken more than a few thousand years to happen.

Detailed layering: After the violent Flood starting events, I would expect everything to settle neatly and organized. It may have been very calm after the "fountains of the deep" exploded and the Flood covered the earth. I mean, look at a lake, pretty peaceful, right? When the violent events passed, the water was still going down for a while, it was most likely calm during that time, after the deep oceans were filled.

Fossil forests: This is most likely what we would find with a Flood, the Flood would tear out forests of trees and lay them down in one general location- where the forests were. As for the difference between the local and global, what difference does it make? The effects would be the same of both, I wouldn't expect much of a difference, I mean, they're still floods!

Heat of formation: Once again, an ice age or ages would quickly cool it off.

Chalk formations: I'll quote AIG, but the point is that this chalk could form quite quickly and not as much material as claimed is required, "Coccolithophores on the other hand reproduce faster than foraminifera and are amongst the fastest growing planktonic algæ,13 sometimes multiplying at the rate of 2.25 divisions per day. Roth suggests that if we assume an average coccolith has a volume of 22 x 10–12 cubic centimetres, an average weight of 60 x 10-12 grams per coccolith,14 20 coccoliths produced per coccolithophore, 13 x 106 coccolithophores per litre of ocean water,15 a dividing rate of two times per day and a density of 2 grams per cubic centimetre for the sediments produced, one gets a potential production rate of 54cm (over 21 inches) of calcium carbonate per year from the top 100 metres (305 feet) of the ocean. At this rate it is possible to produce an average 100 metre (305 feet) thickness of coccoliths as calcareous ooze on the ocean floor in less than 200 years. Again, other factors could be brought into the calculations to either lengthen or shorten the time, including dissolving of the carbonate, light reduction due to the heavy concentration of these microorganisms, and reproducing coccoliths below the top 100 metres of ocean surface, but the net result again is to essentially affirm the rate just calculated.

Woodmorappe16 approached the matter in a different way. Assuming that all limestones in the Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary divisions of the geological column are all chalks, he found that these accounted for 17.5 million cubic kilometres of rock. (Of course, not all these limestones are chalks, but he used this figure to make the ‘problem’ more difficult, so as to get the most conservative calculation results.) Then using Roth’s calculation of a 100 metre thickness of coccoliths produced every 200 years, Woodmorappe found that one would only need 21.1 million square kilometres or 4.1% of the earth ’s surface to be coccolith-producing seas to supply the 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths in 1,600-1,700 years, that is, in the pre-Flood era. He also made further calculations by starting again from the basic parameters required, and found that he could reduce that figure to only 12.5 million square kilometres of ocean area or 2.5% of the earth’s surface to produce the necessary exaggerated estimate of 17.5 million cubic kilometres of coccoliths." http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp

Evaporite formation: This did not have to form in a dry climate, it could have formed when hot and cold seawater came together during volcano eruptions, see this site under "Evaporites" for more details: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/geology.asp

Deformed structures: Prove it, prove that it would take more than a few thousand years to do that stretching.

Mineralization: Fossils mineralize greater in floods than regular conditions, as you can read about here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/343x7431kh1405v8/

As for the differences, why is this a problem? The Flood was world wide, there were many different regions and conditions all over the place, the volcano activities were taking place in some places while not in others, the different waters were mixing, the temperatures may have been different from place to place, etc. I mean, it's not like everything was one temperature, one condition, one proportion of various substances in the water, etc. The conditions could have varied greatly from place to place.

To be continued...


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 11-14-2006 9:18 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 85 of 100 (369682)
12-14-2006 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
11-14-2006 9:18 PM


Re: The YEC Stand Against All Geoscience
Still back on point 74:

Coral reef clocks: The rate of coral reef growth varies very much and there are many other factors which can affect it. The point is that the coral reefs aren't that old, more detail here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Compression: Oh, and the birds would be standing on the turtles, and the dolphins would be standing on the kangaroos? I highly doubt it. You have to consider the wide range of land variations and the many different habitats, such as trees, underground, underwater, caves, etc. The surface area and different habitats were plenty enough for animals to NOT be standing on each other.

Too much organic material: Ah, now this is where you have to understand the pre-Flood conditions to get it. Before the Flood, most things were A LOT bigger than they are now. The trees would have been much larger too, and there's your solution. You might ask why, I'll tell you: Before the Flood, there was possibly a canopy of water over the earth, which would have prevented UV rays and what-not. Also, there was no rain, there were no seasons; it was all one basic season, most likely spring, all year long, thus everything could grow all year long. Even humans were bigger back then, they have found that some humans had a stride of 6ft!

Types of fossils inconsistent: Don't tell me you don't know of any fossil sites that are away from the sea... I mean, they find fossils while digging for roads!

Relative erosions: The Flood waters could erode rock however they wanted to, the pressure could be different in various places, the water could carry rocks and there would be different erosions in different places, it's all possible. Also there was most likely an ice age/ages after the Flood, and when it was all melting, huge boulders could easily erode however they pleased, depending on their size, downhill slope, etc.

Surface features buried throughout:

I think this is a question for you to answer, not me. How would YOU explain rain drops in sedimentation if it all formed slowly over "millions" of years of erosion, weathering, bacteria infestations, etc.? With a Flood, it's very possible, the layers were forming during the year, so if it rained heavily in the beggining (first rain the world saw!) during the flood on some ground, and then a huge wave came and covered the spot with sediments, this would be possible. Same with the water ripples and other formations, the Flood can easily explain them all in a like manner as above. In soil trees- this is very possible if a tree had strong roots or if it wasn't exposed to the severest waters of the Flood (maybe sheltered by some hill), but YOU would have difficulty explaining this - did the tree get partially buried, then "millions of years" later a bit more and so on???!!! As with dino bones and water ripples above- doesn't this only prove they were buried during the Flood?

"As can be seen virtually the entire content and essentially all evidence from the geosciences directly refute a global flood."

Actually, as can NOW be seen, the Flood explains just about everything without difficulty, you just need to put on a pair of Flood glasses and use a little imagination outside the box, think hard about what a Flood could really do... But let us stay focused on my essay for the better part, otherwise, this debate would be more like me debating all the old earth "proof".

Dating methods correlation: I wouldn't doubt it if they rely on many assumptions, and the evolutionists are the ones making them... Also, what is the proportion of correlations versus "false, abnormal, improperly obtained" reports -as so called by evolutionists.

Point 75: In that list you mentioned "flash floods." Is it possible for you to accept then a "world wide flash type flood" to do it? I mean, most the items in your list were catastrophes, the Flood was a GREAT catastrophy! See the link? The only difference is due to our preconcieved ideas, mine from the All Accurate Word Of God, yours from - I don't know...(Help me out on this one :) )
The Bible is scientifically accurate, historically accurate, geographically accurate, prophetically accurate, etc. So we can rely on It for guidance on the events that we did not witness- ie. the Creation and the Flood. But of course, this would be a whole other debate topic, and I'm not even caught up with this one! For this reply, you can at least help me out with that one place above where I needed your input.

Point 76: No, that idea is not contradictory, because I was considering your side of the argument that a Flood didn't happen, so how else would animals die together like that? We kind of touch this subject in the above point.

See? If the Flood happened (which it did), the animals would most likely die in a "glop", but, if you reject the Flood, then you cannot explain this phenomena by regular nature conditions when animals usually die alone. Of course, this doesn't apply to all animals, the immobile animals can't do this, and in a catastrophy we would get this phenomena, and the FLOOD was ONE GREAT Catastrophy! See the connection? You say that a catastrophy like a volcano eruption would do it, true, but I say a catastrophy like the FLOOD (volcano eruptions most likely included) would do most of it- the pile burials.

Point 77: Flintstones? Boy, I haven't seen those since I was like six, no, I'm not coming from them with my evidence; however, the portrayal of the cavemen and cavewomen who could talk normally and do regular things and walk upright is very accurate, unlike your stories of monkey-humans slouching over, burning their hair off and learning to go from grunts to speech - a kid's cartoon did better (more accurate) on this subject than a whole community of 'scientists' desperate to hold up their theory... And I don't think dinosaurs fit the description of "domesticated" in my dictionary, esp. when you read the descriptions of dinosaurs in the Bible.

Point 78: The number 2 method, replacement, seems close to what I would say: The fossils leave their imprint...hole, later filled in...

I am not rejecting the other methods, on the other hand, they too prove a Flood, because in order to bury so many creatures as are currently discovered in the sediments, you would have to have a Great Catastrophy, that's where the Flood comes in... Buffalo in the Great Plains didn't get fossilized...

Point 79: Wait a minute, how can premineralization occur if all the skin and organs and tissues of a creature would be decayed and eaten - without a Flood? This is the point I am trying to make.

The bones wouldn't all have to be eaten, they could be crushed, weathered away, etc. But I found this article about bone eating worms, don't know if these are in the sediments, but they exist. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5549064/

The Flood explains petroleum and coal quite easily- the forests of trees being buried during the Flood...

As for the betting, I think people don't have all the facts, they are fed up with evolution lies and they don't know of any other look at it, that's probably the main reason, wrong education.

Point 80: Might I remind you that the oceans formed during the Flood.
As for the lack of watermarks, this isn't a problem, the problem is for you, the abundance of watermarks on many fossils, many, many fossils. If there wasn't a Flood, how could all those creatures have watermarks on them?

Point 81: Of course, the tree bark in mud would have to be under pressure to make coal, but its main ingredients are just that-bark. I read in there that pressure is needed, the Flood had plenty of this! Coal did form during the Flood, all those steps you listed could be performed by the Flood.

To be continued, may take a while untill next reply.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 11-14-2006 9:18 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 86 of 100 (372361)
12-26-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
11-14-2006 9:18 PM


Re: The YEC Stand Against All Geoscience
I can see that during the holidays the debates are kind of forgotten, and I understand completely, but let me get back to where I left off, I'm still behind in replying to your posts.

Point 82: Here's 8 of them for you on Creation Wiki: http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column_is_sometimes_out_of_order

Point 83: What the mitochondrial DNA told them was that humans originated from one place, less than 200,000 years ago - this is in perfect harmony with the Noah's Ark story. How they say humans started out by evolution is just guesses, but those two facts can be used to support the Noah's Ark story, that the human population came from 8 people in ONE place, less than 200,000 years ago, and that they replaced all existing humans, repopulated the earth.

Point 84: Humans did not work 24/7, 7 days a week, OK? In their free time, Noah and his children would tell the story to their kids and grandkids, who would in turn tell their kids, and so on so forth. When the confusion of languages occured and the people spread out, they would continue to tell the story to their kids, and not long after, many tribes and races would have a story of a Flood. Of course the details would different from tribe to tribe, I mean, have you ever heard how a rumor spreads?- One persons says something to his friend, that person changes a few words and tells his friend, and before long, the message is so skewed that you can't even recognize it when the last person tells you.

The polytheism thing is not the same here. Here we are discussing the occurance or non-occurance of a Worldwide Flood, and the fact that many tribes and races have the story of a Flood is VERY good proof for it, because it either happened and people passed down the story, or it didn't happen and they wouldn't have reason to pass down the story. So we come to one conclusion- it did happen. Otherwise, you tell me why many different tribes and races of people would hold in their memories and records a story of a Flood?


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 11-14-2006 9:18 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 87 of 100 (372366)
12-26-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by anglagard
11-18-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Vestigial Structures
Point 85: First off, most of the vestigial organs are not actually vestigial, second of all, even if we lose the functionability of an organ or bone over time due to change in diet and so on, it is not proof that we were created defectively, and third of all, vestigial organs would be the opposite of evolution, as will be discussed a few replies down, the 'reasoning behind vestigial organs' part.

Now for your 10:

1. Human appendix, to be replied to in point 86

2. Male breasts - tell me, if they are a leftover from our embryonic stages before sexual differentiation, how is that evolution? That's not evolution, it is just how God made the embryo develop and differentiate later.

3. Fake sex in whiptail lizards - again, how is this proof of evolution? What if it is proof of variations within a kind and a defect after the Curse?

4. Sexual organs in dandelions - yet again, how is this proof of evolution? What if it is proof of variations within a kind and a defect after the Curse?

5. Wisdom teeth - (love that part about the dentists staying employed, I might go even further to say that they put floride into our toothpaste and water, to get rid of this waste, and so that we would have more cavities so they could have more business, but that's just speculation. :) ) The fact that we don't eat as many hard foods and lost much use of our wisdom teeth is not proof for evolution, it's proof that man lost the need for them since his prefabricated, blended, pre-shelled, whipped up foods in the latest centuries.

6. Blind fish - This does not have to be proof for evolution. For the group of fish could have gotten stuck in a cave and a mutation could have made them lose their eyes, which would actually be an advantage in their environment. See AIG for more details on this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp

7. Human tailbone- to be replied to in point 86.

8. Erector pilli and body hair- no, it is not useless, when your hair stands up, it traps more heat to keep you warmer, so in the winter, when you shiver and you get the goosebumps, your body just made it possible for you to stay warmer, see this site for more details, the link to the original statement is broken though: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/939840449.An.r.html

9. Whale legs- Don't tell me your talking about the pelvic bones that are used as an anchor for muscles that help in whale reproduction...

Have to go, to be continued...


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 11-18-2006 4:24 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 88 of 100 (376108)
01-11-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by anglagard
11-18-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Vestigial Structures
Sorry for the long wait, and apologies for the next long wait in the future. Classes have started, I've become busier, time is limited, you get the idea...

Continuing point 85:

# 10 of the "vestigial" organs: Wings on flightless birds: Did you know that the penguin uses its wings to swim? Maybe the bones are hollow to allow it to swim faster through the water, up to 15 mph. As for land flightless birds with wings, can't they use the wings to protect their young and keep them warm? I'm sure there are other possible uses for their wings...

Just because a human can live without a certain organ, doesn't mean it is vestigial. You can live without both your arms and legs and eyes and ears, yet you do not call them vestigial.

As for that list of human organs and muscles: How is the author sooooo sure that those parts were leftovers from our "ancestors." Couldn't God have made us have feet to grip things so that it would be easier to live? Of course this sounds cavemanish, but hey, four limbs are better than two! I've always thought of other uses for my feet, I mean, I sometimes even put my socks in my sock drawer (like four feet off the ground) with my feet! I like the gripping power between my toes! Just because not every one uses these things in modern society doesn't mean it is vestigial!

Have to go, may be a while until next reply. Peace. May God bless you!

Edited by Someone who cares, : Clarity.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 11-18-2006 4:24 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 89 of 100 (379647)
01-24-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by anglagard
11-18-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Vestigial Structures
Ok, I've finally found the time and mood to come back here. I noticed you haven't been posting for a while either, is it to let me catch up, or because you're busy too, or because the topics have ended? Jumping right in:

Point 86: I have a site right here that explains the coccyx in GREAT detail, and it says it DOES help in the excretion of wastes, and it supports our inner organs, and that it even helps expand the passage way in women when giving birth. If you can give me a more SCIENTIFIC explanation than this concerning how the coccyx is NOT used for the excretion of wastes, I will gladly examine it, but scientifically, this site wins over that small post by a mile. Please read it, because it also contains the information you need about the "tail" in the embryo: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html

Point 87: Using the same logic, I will answer your question when you answer mine: If a human can live without both his arms and legs and ears and eyes, why does he still have them? Or do you offer to be the first to purposely have those parts removed to make a point??? Just because we can function without something, doesn't mean it is vestigial, it just shows that the body is not as dependant on some organs as others like the heart or brain. This is called a difference in dependency, not vestigial organs from the past. Sure, maybe the people could survive without their appendix, but have there been any studies done concerning how the peoples' immunity was affected? I believe such a study should occur with patients that had their appendix removed, it would be more accurate than just stating "people lived fine without it."

Point 88: You must be misunderstanding. The parts of the embryo that mold into the body or form into other structures with time are not vestigial. You said it yourself, the "gill slits" turn into the inner ear, thus it is not vestigial, it is an UNDERDEVELOPED organ that resembled a "gill slit." This is my point. The parts of the embryo that were claimed to be vestigies from our past are actually underdeveloped parts of our bodies.

Point 89: You missed the point again. Let us reason: If we indeed have vestigial organs now, what does it say? It says that some time long ago they weren't vestigial, correct? You do not claim that the monkey's tail or the fish's gill slits are vestigial. So, that means we, the humans, are degrading, we are losing the functionability of our organs that "used" to be working. This means we are not evolving to become better and better, but are actually degrading, becoming worse and worse as the laws of entropy state. Thus, the OPPOSITE of evolution is happening. (This is if and only if they truly are vestigial, but I have shown above why the tail and gill slits and appendix are not, so that's a double argument you have to get past.)

Point 90: Ok, you say that evolution is just what we see "happened". Now tell me, what do you say you see in evolution? Do you see a constant progression from a single cell to a human? Or do you see a human becoming a monkey, becoming a fish, and so on? Evolution, as you say it, is how we PROGRESSED and are still PROGRESSING! Evolution is what you say explains how we "got from" a single cell; in other words, according to the comparison of the complexity and mobility and functionability, etc. of the two, we "progressed!" BUT, the logic behind vestigial organs claims the opposite as stated above!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anglagard, posted 11-18-2006 4:24 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 90 of 100 (379654)
01-25-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by anglagard
11-24-2006 11:04 PM


Re: Radiometric Dating
Point 91: Let me rephrase one of your sentences to make it more accurate, "It was obvious to those who did not want to accept their Creator's account of events, that they had to propose a different theory and force it upon the people, so they studied geology and made false claims that the Earth was older than 6000 years old and that there was no evidence for a global flood (either this was before they dug out the vertical petrified trees and whales, or they were removing the facts that supported the TRUTH from their reports) before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859."

I am serious about that ^^, I mean, how do they look at the petrified vertically standing trees and whales and claim they don't see any evidence for a Flood???!!?

The dates are NOT always just like they propose, that's why they have to put a filter on them and only publish those dates which would further the popularity of their theory; I mean, Lyell was a lawyer! His expertise was doing this kind of dirty business! Choosing the proper words and stating the proper "facts", he easily fooled many people! They didn't have to "falsify the data", all they had to do was "leave out some pieces."

Point 92: Great, meanwhile, I am ordering many interlibrary loan books(one at a time!) to load myself up with rebutals to evolutionist claims I may face in the future. I like this one from Science vs. Evolution by Bowden, Malcolm, summarizing: The speed of light is decreasing, thus the "...light years away" values for stars are wrong, thus this can't be used as an argument to support evolution. (If you want more detail, we can discuss this later.) I remember some evolutionist used the claim that the stars are millions of light years away from the earth to support the old age theory against Hovind, and if Hovind had that fact above, he could have laid down a proper rebutal. So I'm going to load myself up with as much as I can, while I can. Isn't it great though to have such a system as the interlibrary loans? I mean, almost all the books I want about evolution I have to order from another university, so having that system helps me out a bunch. You can't really get many books against evolution in the public library or your college library, but with interloan, it's great! I was so excited when I figured out the amount of books I could order that I wanted. Of course, for you, this probably isn't good news. :) At least it's fair, we both have such a resource available. :)

Point 93: So, how can we rest assured that all the other C-14 datings aren't skewed? Hmmm... What if all those strata had also been in water that had "old" carbon during the Flood or something to the sort? Well... It's possible, correct? Or is your C-14 always correct when it gives the age you want? (That would start to sound like filtering the dates to get the ones you want for your theory.) Either way, it's true, C-14 relies on many unprovable assumptions, thus it can't be trusted.

Point 94: Again, much of the above and also, if the procedure has to be fulfilled extra carefully and with cross checks, how can we trust it? What if scientists didn't use extreme caution and cross checks, but got the results they wanted? Would they reexamine them? What if they were actually flawed???

As for the amount of C-14 in limestone, no, it doesn't mean anything to me, because I know the c-14 dating methods rely on many unprovable assumptions and thus are flawed. Plus, many other factors affect the amount of C-14, such as cosmic radiation, so we cannot be sure of much. (You asked that question as if I accepted C-14 as a valid method of dating the strata!)

Point 95: Same as above posts. We cannot be sure if there are such obvious "mistakes."

Point 96: I am not an expert on all the radiometric datings and their differences, but to me, many of those elements in your chart look very similar except for a few numbers or words, maybe that's why? Those methods could be very closely related, maybe even not worth separating them into separate categories??? Again, I am no expert, but it looked like you stated the same method twice several times.

Aside from that, yes, there may be some similarities in results, but there are also differences, probability playes a role here, this is what you would expect from flawed methods! I mean, if the dating methods were not flawed, I would expect to see consistency in ALL methods on ALL specimens! Not just a handful where the difference is "ONLY" a few million years! The earth isn't even that old to begin with according to the TRUTH! Please, this cannot be what you would put your faith on...Unprovable assumptions, many factors to alter the result, the devastating effects of the Flood on such dates, done by FALLIBLE men, etc... Why not just rest in the TRUTH of GOD'S PERFECT WORD?

Point 97: I have refuted much of those claims in the list previously, don't know for sure which number that was though.

Here's another website pointing out the many problems with C-14 and other radiometric datings, just so you have more detail than what I say: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Point 98: Sure, maybe the timescale was established before Darwin by others who didn't like the idea of God watching over them and expecting them to follow His rules, but that's just escaping the point, the circular reasoning remains, whether before or after Darwin!

THIS IS A MUST, concerning radioisotope dating, you MUST read this article, at least the top part: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391888dc0a3b.htm
Pay special attention to what the article says about what Podosek and his friends said, and what happened at the Lucas Heights Scientific Society in 1989! MUST READ IT!

As for paleomagnetic dating, this should keep you busy: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch26.htm


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by anglagard, posted 11-24-2006 11:04 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 92 of 100 (385293)
02-14-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by anglagard
01-25-2007 12:18 AM


Re: Catching Up & Etc.
Thanks for letting me know, I started to wonder where you went...

About your religion, I skimmed through your post there, and many of the concepts that I read about I have heard from others on a different forum, but I don't believe I've heard that particular name of your religion before. I have debated earlier, on a different forum, some of those concepts and their validity, esp. concerning free will. But I'm not so sure that's what you want to debate on that thread, I believe you want to debate whether or not that was a good definition of your religion and if it was athiesm in disguise, that I am not qualified to debate for this is the first time I hear of it. But if you would like to debate some of the concepts, more like Christianity vs. Spinoza Pantheism, I may be interested, after we finish this debate. But of course, that would be outside of science and more towards religion, and I am not a theologian; but I have debated the validity of some of those concepts before.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by anglagard, posted 01-25-2007 12:18 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 93 of 100 (385302)
02-15-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by anglagard
12-02-2006 6:52 PM


Re: Supposed Loss of Genetic Information
Point 99: The point here is that this "natural selection" does not help evolution, thus it shouldn't be used as evidence to support evolution. Why? Because natural selection with mutations and isolation combined cannot progress a creature to a more complex one, they cannot help in making macroevolution possible. No mechanism is known to increase the genetic code or its complexity for the better good of an organism.

Point 100: The moths do not show the loss of genetic code, that was a general statement about mutations with an example of the wingless beetles. The moth part was that it wasn't really macroevolution, it was merely a variation of a kind. The moth stayed a moth, it didn't evolve into a different insect! Thus this example does not support macroevolution.

Point 101: Ok, I was talking about mutations, and you say mutations can add NEW genetic code to a creature? Show this to me, in nature, because I highly doubt you will succeed. Mutations only alter previously existing genetic information, and usually for the worse. Mutations have NEVER added new genetic code to an organism about tissues or organs or structures that were not previously in the organism. Prove me wrong. Because for macroevolution, mutations are one of the mechanisms claimed to help it, yet mutations almost always have a negative effect, and are ALWAYS detrimetal to the genetic code; they damage the code, they remove information, they switch the order, they mess it all up. Never has a mutation been observed to create order or higher complexity. Would a tornado make your house better designed? I think not. Mutations are harmful, they ruin the genetic code; and for macroevolution, the genetic code would have to increase in complexity to make a more complex organism, even if it's over millions of years, the overall result has to be positive or it would be against the basic concept of evolution - cell to man.

Loss of information? I would say that this would be when an organism loses the proper code needed for some part of it, like if a mutation reorganized the genetic code for a body part, and made that body part malfunction, the organsim has "lost" the proper genetic code for that part, since mutations cannot go back and fix problems, they only destroy and disorganize. The proper genetic code was lost in the past, and now the organism must live without or die.

As for your quote, let's take it apart:

Bullet one: Increased genetic variety in a population is allowable under variations within the kind, this I have no conflict with. Thus it is beside the point, since no new genetic code was added, all that happened was a variation within a kind, this is NOT macroevolution, and this is NOT an increase in new genetic code for the slow development of other body parts.

Bullet two: I presume this is not NEW genetic information either. What we are looking for is NEW genetic information which would actually have something to do with macroevolution. Because using previously existing genetic information has nothing to do with macroevolution, it does not make it anymore plausible.

Bullet three: Once again, keyword - NEW, not previously existing in the organism, and this has not been shown to be.

Bullet four: Same as above, we have not seen new genetic information increases, thus the whole quote failed in helping macroevolution.

As for computer simulations, they mean nothing. I know you evolutionists love to use them because nature doesn't provide the proof you need, but a simulation of how it MIGHT have happened is not legitimate proof that it has or is or even will happen.

Usefulness? Oh, I believe the above points are EXTREMELY useful. I don't think you should just get away with the wave of a hand. We are talking about the two most important mechanisms by which evolution is supposed to happen, and they have been shown to be impossible in helping macroevolution. I would expect a much better reply, because otherwise, you are left with no valid mechanism by which evolution can occur, thus evolution is impossible. A lot is at stake here, and I am willing to debate MUCH more about natural selection and mutations, I believe these points are VERY important, they destroy the very foundations of evolution.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by anglagard, posted 12-02-2006 6:52 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 4649 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 94 of 100 (385308)
02-15-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by anglagard
12-06-2006 2:28 AM


Re: YEC Ecology of Unnecessary Death and Disease
Point 102: I belive that if it weren't for the mass intervention of humans, many species would still be alive... But the point is, I was talking about the cycles in nature, not the survival of creatures. The cycles show a perfect harmony, and they have to be fine tuned to work; with just a bit of changing it would destroy much of nature and life as we know it.

Point 103: Yes, I like to be cautious about what I say, and that tid bit about water coming from and to space is exactly why I used the wording I did.
What's amazing about it? Could a big bang create the earth that would have this amazing recycling program? I mean, consider all the temperature changes required, could a random process guide this? Could it make the four seasons? - Which are required to grow crops. Could it make the wind? - Which is required to fertilize and reproduce many plants. Could it make anything for that matter? - Which makes like on earth and only earth possible.

Point 104: The food chain evolved? Please, if it used millions of years of guess and check and random chance, how could that make something as sophisticated as the food chain?

I don't argue that two things can happen at once, but random chance does not satisfy the answer to how such complexities could arrive in life, Creation does.

Point 105: Yes, the term is subjective, but I do not believe the earth is "overflowing" with humans when I see the vast empty lands on this earth. Sure, the population has increased, but that doesn't means humans are "falling off the earth" because of pushing and shoving.

As for killing, I am not for killing, in fact, I would think non-Christians would have such thoughts.

Killing in the hospitals? Psst... Here's a secret, if you're old in the hospital, they do not cure you but only destroy you and bring you closer to death. I will not give out any more information about this or where I got it.

Point 106: I don't think those dates and numbers of original people fit the evolution model... But it would work for Creation, just the conclusions drawn, not the reasons or methods. Since Creation says man came from two humans less than 200,000 years ago.

Point 107: Mutations are random though, and mutations fit the category of supposed evolution mechanisms.

Plus, I believe mutations and sickness only came after God cursed the earth and all that was on it. When God originally Created everything, it was good. After the curse, mutations started doing their thing, sicknesses started, suffering began. But, I still see the remnants of the pre-Curse conditions in nature today, from the beauty of a rose, to the functionability of my hand, to the comprehension of my brain, to the beautiful design in the insects, etc... Don't you? Or do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and think you are some advanced monkey form that came about by chance and random processes? Please, be honest with yourself, and you don't have to reply to this last question...

WHEW! I caught up! Now the ball is in your court.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 12-06-2006 2:28 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by anglagard, posted 03-23-2007 5:59 PM Someone who cares has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021