Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yep, the biggest problem with the Noachian flood (other than the fact that it did not occur) is the sorting of the fossils. Actually that is in error, the biggest problem (again, ditto) is where did the water come from and go, but that is a different debate."
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses. Just had to comment on that one, you didn't really think you would just 'get away with' that assertion did you?

​

---

even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out

"even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out"
--Must I repeat myself ludvan, plate tectonics, plate tectonics. You have not told me how this is not possible.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out"
--Must I repeat myself ludvan, plate tectonics, plate tectonics. You have not told me how this is not possible.

​

---

No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)

"No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)"
--Its in post #28 and #29 in 'Evolution in the Anarctic' there sir.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)"
--Its in post #28 and #29 in 'Evolution in the Anarctic' there sir.

​

---

no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR.

"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

​

---

I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did...

"I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did..."
--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption. So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.
--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today. There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity. There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way. Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it. Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection. The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc. Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.
--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?------------------

TC, very imaginative. Borrowing from some sound scientific evidences and fitting them into a unique interpretation of earth's history. However, your scenario seems to have a couple of problems.Firstly, given that you are trying to compress all of this tectonic activity into about 10,000 years (or is it only 4,500 years?) why are the plates now moving at a much slower pace than required by your scenario to move from Pangea to their present positions? You did mean that sea-floor spreading and subduction occurred many [orders of] magnitude FASTER than today, didn't you?Secondly, assuming that life continues unabated whilst the plates are speeding around, how do they survive the copious heat output from igneous material pouring out to create the oceanic floors?Thirdly, how do you completely alter the laws of physics to give billion year old readings for radiometric dating of rocks which can be at most 10,000 years old.Fourthly, how can the oceans now have so much salt in them if vast quantities have been removed as the molten rocks are quenched?And which radioisotopes were responsible for providing the thermal energy to drive your scenario? Should we be able to find evidence of this in the current ratios of isotopes?You're not going to use Humphreys' story to support your large scale magnetic variation are you? I think we've demonstrated that Humphreys' material on this is not reliable.

For the THIRD time, what would you accept as a transitional?
---nothing
Since you mention retro-evolution, how many RANDOM mutations do you think are required for noticeable morphological difference in species? What are the odds of a complete reversal in EXACTLY the same loci of those mutations, combined with the chance of those mutations being fixed in the respective populations in roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs? When you give me the answer, I claim spontaneous generation of DNA to be positively LIKELY!
---like you said anythings possible, as long as that creature was fossilized youll have no idea.Radiometric dating DOES PROVIDE A TIME SCALE. In this case 64.4 to 65.1 mya for the K-T tektites. I’m giving you corroborating evidence that IT DOES provide this time scale!!
---it gives an an approximate time not an exact one. its numbers are based on things existing now, not things as they existed when they first existed.
So, how do you REASONABLY explain this high level of corroboration? If you can’t, I may as well state that DNA arose spontaneously, because that involves unreasonable odds as well.
--science does state that dna arose spontaneously but like ive said science isnt nothing more than gift from God.
How does the fact that radiometric dating is science detract from the sheer odds of it being wrong by chance, in this case by over 74,000,000 :1? Please address the odds.
---its still not 1:0. it still could be dead wrong and all the methods are more than likely horribly wrong but all science is meant to be that way.
That you consider abiogenesis or the big bang to be laughable is irrelevant to the question in hand. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ODDS OF FOUR DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS HITTING THE SAME AGE RANGE BY CHANCE ALONE? Let me state it again : 74,805,201:1 .
---yes it is relevant and how likely something is doesnt affect anything. itll still happen and our methods will give different numbers later on when they become more improved. They also dont measure time they just measure everything but it. its assumptions and appearances. sure the universe appears to be billions of years ago but it could have just been created now like it is now and you wouldnt have any idea.I have provided the maths that four methods achieving the same age range by chance alone is 74,805,201:1 . Do you have a SINGLE evidence that the earth is in the order of 6,000 years old? If not you are NOT doing science (as you have claimed elsewhere), & are merely subscribing to an UNSUPPORTED belief. This belief is in the same order of support as yellow fairies made the earth 15,000 years ago.
---see now youve lost credibility, dont say stuff like that. Having faith is having faith. its not like science where you can be lazy and go off of things you can observe.You mean sheer mathematical unlikelihood of your timescale is exactly matched by your lack of ANY positive evidence of a young earth? Pur-lease! Present YOUR positive evidence of a 6,000 year old earth & we’ll see which theory has the greatest corroboration. The odds you are arguing against are 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 for four methods to be so close by chance, I laughed at them too, when I saw them, but, I suspect, for an altogether different reason.
---like ive said the earth can appear to be however old it wants to be. it still has no effect on when it was created. God did create us an old earth to live on, with stars in the sky for us to admire.
Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance! Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt, the even larger numbers simply make your position even more untenable.
---okay einsteins wrong your right.
Can you show that time can be easily altered by 1,000,000% , which is the percentile margin you are required to defeat to make YEC time be true. If not, you still need to address the sheer odds AGAINST a 6,000 year old earth provided by this (from a YEC POV) unlikely corroboration. Let me repeat : 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1
----YEC time doesnt need any science to be true. you cannot compare evo and YEC.
Let me be clearer.
-cool
If 1% of 6,000 is 60 years,
Then, 65,100,000 years = 1,085,000%
So, if you are prepared to accept that radiometric dating is, say 900,000% inaccurate, then you are accepting an earth of at LEAST 11,100,000 years old.
Radiometric dating in my cite MUST be 1,084,900% Inaccurate for a YEC creation date to be true. What rationale do you offer to continue believing in a YEC position? If you DON’T concede that the dating methods described are at least 1,084,000% (60,000 year old earth, for example), then you are not questioning the methods, which are different, but the underlying physics. This means you are questioning half life rates. One of the most constant of physical phenomena. Half lives have to be out by the order of 1 million percent to accommodate a YEC date, can you show this?
---i cant show this because i wasnt there when God created the earth but im sure half-life is well within his domain of control.
If not, how do you accommodate such figures in your world view scientifically? Remember, this is an evidence based discussion, & Godidit means nothing. Creation science is extant to show evidence of biblical literalism, to be science we need evidence, claims of Godidit are not evidence.
---God never shows himself and im not for Creation Science, since Christianity shouldnt mix with science that way. Science says it isnt proof either.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption.[/QUOTE]JM: Bzzt, thanks for playing. This is a false accusation.

quote:

---

So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.
--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today.

---

JM: Why must it be slower?

quote:

---

There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration

---

JM: Can you explain to me the physics of fitting LIL's into the core?

quote:

---

and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity.

---

JM: Umm, the magnetosphere is an EXTERNAL field. Why is there nowhere for this energy to be released? What you post here is nonsensical mumbo-jumbo.

quote:

---

There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way.

---

JM: Excuse me, what the HELL are you talking about?

quote:

---

Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it.

---

JM: what is diversion?

quote:

---

Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection.

---

JM: Lower viscosity does not automatically mean more rapid mantle convection, sorry.

quote:

---

The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc.

---

JM: This entire paragraph makes absolutely NO SENSE. You are picking terms and linking them, randomly, in the hopes of creating a coherent sentence. Try again, this one did not work.

quote:

---

Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.

---

JM: So, modern geology knows this, it does not help you in any way based on your previous 'stream of terminology' post.

quote:

---

--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?

---

Sorry, but I've not heard such a load of mumbo-jumbo even from a schizophrenic. All you have done above is throw out a random selection of terminology in the hopes that something may fall into place and fool somebody who knows nothing of geology. Unfortunately, there are people on here who know a bit more about the subject than you do and will not be fooled by this type of random technobabble obfuscation. NONE of what you said above makes sense!CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:

No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)

​

---

show me a single celled organis evolving into a multiple celled organism with two sexes.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption.

---

Nonsense, why should Lud do something that you have never done. TC, are you aware of what was being taught about uniformitarianism thirty years ago? It was taught that catastrophism is part and parcel to uniformitarianism. Your version of uniformiatarianism is a creationist strawman and no more.

quote:

---

So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.

---

Just as a uniformitarianist would.

quote:

---

--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today. There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity. There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way. Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it. Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection. The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc. Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.

---

Umm, TC, you just poached Noah.

quote:

---

--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?

---

Yes, could you pass the arc soup?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

​

---

right on TC------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
show me a single celled organis evolving into a multiple celled organism with two sexes.

---

Ah yes, the unlikely request. Perhaps you'd like a video of the whole process? That is all that it would take to convince you, right? Perhpas you could also show us that the earth and all it's life were created in 6 days. Want to keep this up?

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 03-21-2002]