Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 305 (79717)
01-21-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by johnfolton
01-20-2004 11:26 PM


, if the sediments were deposited millions of years ago, the rocks in the upper 3 to 4 feet would of surfaced to the surface, however, each year the farmer has to pick the rocks that surface, this is why you will see rock fences alongside some of the farmers fields, its called the farmers curse
I don't know where you live, but here in Minnesota, I don't think the soil is any older than the end of the last ice age - it was deposited here after being dragged up from Kansas and the like by retreating glaciers. So that's maybe 10,000 years ago or so.
I would guess that in soil that's truly millions of years old, there's no farmer's curse - also, there's probably no farmers, because that soil would probably be barren.
the fact they are still being pressed up is your proof, and supporting the Creationists Theory that these sediments were laid down in the biblical world flood, etc...
Yes, it's proof that some soils are not millions of years old. We already knew that. Only a simplistic model, such as creationism, would not take into account the fact that things change over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2004 11:26 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 8:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 227 of 305 (79728)
01-21-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by johnfolton
01-20-2004 11:26 PM


Re:
Whatever,
Why does every paragrapgh you write end with "etc..."? Can't you be bothered to finish them off?
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2004 11:26 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 228 of 305 (79742)
01-21-2004 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by johnfolton
01-20-2004 11:26 PM


The farmers curse (frost pressing rocks up out of the earth)pressing up the rocks from only the upper 3 or 4 feet (the frost line) of the sediments ... sediments were laid down quite recently
Farmers don't farm sediments, they farm soils, which are very different things. Sediments become sedimentary rock over time, soils become paleosols over time.
Yes, the soils that farmers farm were formed recently. This has nothing to do with the mainstream view of the age of the Earth and the rocks and life. It does, however, have a lot to do with the impossibility of your claims about the flood and the age of the Earth and life.
Soil takes time to form. There is lots of fossil soil (paleosols) in the world. How did all that fossil soil form?
[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2004 11:26 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 229 of 305 (79744)
01-21-2004 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by crashfrog
01-21-2004 2:13 AM


would guess that in soil that's truly millions of years old, there's no farmer's curse - also, there's probably no farmers, because that soil would probably be barren.
Yup. Joe Meert has some nice pictures of paleosols at the beginning and end of Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism. There's some links, a brief description of paleosols and a highly technical bibliography at A Paleosol Bibliography.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2004 2:13 AM crashfrog has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 305 (79757)
01-21-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
01-21-2004 2:07 AM


Lies, believing or telling
Crashfrog,
Sometimes telling lies enhances your reproductive success at the expense of the reproductive success of those who are taken in by your lie. Which proves my point, that believing lies costs reproductive success.
See Rohwer's research on putting false status symbols on Harris' Sparrows, and bleaching real ones away.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2004 2:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-21-2004 11:09 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 305 (79761)
01-21-2004 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Loudmouth
01-20-2004 5:13 PM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Loudmouth,
You ask,
Explain how post-fertilization activities affect allele distribution.
What you mean, I guess, is allele frequency. So, parents who don't divorce, who love each other increasingly over the course of their marriage, especially post-fertilization, enhance the psychological well-being of their offspring, who respond by having more grand-children. Evolution would look for genes that enhance such behavior. Creation would look for evidence that the Creator was pleased, and would then artificially select, and genetically engineer changes in response to a couple's choosing this life-style. In the present context, such genes are probably already present, but suppressed by demons, and all the Creator has to do in response to the parental choice and prayer for protection, is "deliver them from the evil one."
How do you explain infertility among creationists? Sorry, not buying this one.
Case by case, we normally have to ask Jehovah. But, clearly, there is more to getting the blessing of fertility from God than just believing in creation. There's the prayer aspect, as well. Do a Google on prayer and fertility. But, believing in creation is a part, and it ought to be statistically correlated with some blessing. Other variables create an error term, statistically.
What about the idea makes you not want to buy it?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Loudmouth, posted 01-20-2004 5:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 11:01 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 232 of 305 (79782)
01-21-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 10:10 AM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Do a Google on prayer and fertility.
I've been doing that trying to find the replications of that 2 year old study. Where are they?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 10:10 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 11:11 AM NosyNed has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 305 (79786)
01-21-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 9:55 AM


Re: Lies, believing or telling
quote:
Sometimes telling lies enhances your reproductive success at the expense of the reproductive success of those who are taken in by your lie. Which proves my point, that believing lies costs reproductive success.
Out of curiosity, if a girl lies to a guy by saying, "go ahead, I'm on the pill," and he believes her, would his reproductive success go up or down?

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 9:55 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 305 (79788)
01-21-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 11:01 AM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
Nosyned,
I've been doing that trying to find the replications of that 2 year old study. Where are they?
E-mail that comment to NIH!
But do check out Koenig at Duke.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 11:01 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 1:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 235 of 305 (79791)
01-21-2004 11:20 AM


crashfrog, It was the recent biblical flood that caused the glaciers to form suddenly, and agree it happened quite recently, etc...
mark24, I like to leave statements open, so you being the listener can infer whatever you think I'm implying, makes you a part of the posts, etc...
JonF, We seem to agree, that this phenomenom happened quite recently, though, given what we know about liquification, all the sediment layerings could of happened quite recently, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 11:48 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 269 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2004 5:22 PM johnfolton has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 236 of 305 (79798)
01-21-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 11:20 AM


There were several glaciations, separated by significant time. Which one do you think was caused by a flood? How does a flood cause a glaciation?
Given what we know about liquefaction and rock formation the sedimentary rocks could not have formed recently. Millions and billions of years are required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 11:20 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 12:23 PM JonF has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 237 of 305 (79811)
01-21-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by JonF
01-21-2004 11:48 AM


Walt Brown has a ph D in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, was tenured professor, taught college physics, math, and computer science,etc...He explains how the world biblical flood model could of laid down all the sediments layerings quite recently, by the the scientific processes known as liquification, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Walt has his own google search engine for this website, Type: Liquefaction During the Flood
How about the glaciers that caused the pleistocene extinction, and the fossils that were found quick frozen, it all happened suddenly, etc... Atlantisquest.com
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 11:48 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 1:27 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2004 2:01 PM johnfolton has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 238 of 305 (79827)
01-21-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 11:11 AM


Re: Your epistemological strategy, please?
It's your evidence. Are you saying that there isnt' any replication yet?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 11:11 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 2:02 PM NosyNed has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 239 of 305 (79829)
01-21-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 12:23 PM


We know all about Waltie, there's no need to post links or point out that he has a search engine. I have a BSME and MSME from MIT, and I have read Walt Brown's stuff, and it's rubbish no matter how many degrees he has and no matter how sophisticated his site is.
The Pleistocene extinctions (note the plural) occurred over a period of about 20,000 to 40,000 years. That's not sudden. They happened too long ago, occurred over too long a time, were too localized, and didn't involve enough animals to have any connection with your flood. From Quaternary Faunas:
Note that there was no noticeable extinction in the Middle East or Europe or most of Asia.
There was no Atlantis as described by that site you posted, and whatever event gave rise to the Atlantis legend (probably Thera) has no connection to the Pleistocene extinction. You really will fall for any crackpot who comes down the pike, won't you?
The sudden freezing described on that site is a lie. The Berezkova mammoth was significantly putrefied and was not quick-frozen. You've ignored this before, but here it is again. From Mammoths: Were They QuickFrozen?:
"Take the frozen Berezovka mammoth, for instance. ... "The excavators found the stench of the partially rotted Berezovka mammoth unbearable; even the earth in which it was buried stank." (Weber, 1980, p.15). Ancient predators had a chance to get at the carcass, which proved there was no instantaneous freezing. The unfortunate animal seems to have fallen from a river bluff, possibly by getting too close to the edge and causing a slump, and broke many bones. In the muck of the floodplain below his carcass was soon frozen in (Strahler, 1987, p.381).
William R. Farrand, writing in 1961, pointed out that only 39 mammoths had been found with some of their flesh preserved. Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. ...
All of this evidence points to a routine scenario of life and death."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 12:23 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 5:47 PM JonF has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 305 (79835)
01-21-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by johnfolton
01-21-2004 12:23 PM


Whatever, those are interesting qualifications that ol' Walt has, but why do you think those qualifications has anything to do with the ice ages? I notice that "geology" is absent from the list of qualifications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 12:23 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by johnfolton, posted 01-21-2004 5:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024