I am glad you enjoyed the site. It's not as out of date as you think it is; Dr. Theobald just updated it last summer. I recommend
TalkOrigins in general because it is written not just to explain evolution, but to refute creationism
in particular, so the articles are written with that end in mind. Another good page on that site is a list of
claims commonly made by creationists. It is worth checking out.
quote:
since everything points to the suggestion that archaeopteryx is a bird, that is only what it is.
I'll let the experts enlighten us as to the exact definition of "bird" and whether archaeopterix fits that definition. Here is what is important about archaeopterix: it was known, before Darwin, that birds and reptiles fit rather close together in the Linnaean classification. There are many morphological similarities, more that these groups share with other classes. When evolution was proposed, it was hypothesized that birds evolved from an ancestral reptile. Now, no one is saying that archaeopterix was an ancestor to birds. What people are saying is that, given the hypothesis that birds evolved from a reptile ancestor, there should have been many species that existed, long ago, that would, if found, show a transition from reptile to bird. Some of these intermediary species would give rise to several lineages, but these lineages would retain many of the "in between" characteristics that this intermediary species had, even while it evolved its own unique characteristics. The prediction is: if we are lucky, we should find the remains of species that show intermediary characteristics between reptiles and birds. There is no reason why, according to creationism, such fossils should exist, but it is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Sure enough, archaeopterix was found, and it does have intermediary characteristics. I really want to stress the "in-between" nature of archaeopterix: when the first specimen was found, people thought it was a dinosaur! No one recognized it as a bird. It was only when another specimen was found with preserved traces of feathers, and enough was preserved to see that it had wings, did people realize that it was a "bird". Based on the skeleton alone, people classified it as a dinosaur. This type of mistake is exactly what one would expect from evolution and the discovery of intermediary forms.
quote:
Amino acid sequences are far too complex for them to happen by chance.
I am assuming that you are talking about abiogenesis? You can argue all you want about abiogenesis, but the fact remains that there is ample evidence of evolution of species for the last half billion years, just from the fossil evidence. Just because we do not yet know how life first began, the entire fossil record cannot just be erased. The fossils are there, and they provide a very clear picture of the phylogenic tree that gave rise to today's species. Molecular biology has now pushed back the evolutionary record even further - we now have evidence that the major phyla diverged from a common ancestor about a billion years ago. The molecular biological evidence, which does not depend at all on the fossil evidence, gives the same nested heirarchical pattern to the species that the fossil record does. This evidence simply cannot be ignored even if we do not yet know the actual beginnings of life.
The probability arguement is a fallacy anyway; these arguments are usually based on
false assumptions about the processes involved.
quote:
the diversity in life is far too complicated to come about by chance.
You are probably right about that. However, chance variations with natural selection (which is a more deterministic process) does adequately account for the present diversity of life.
quote:
First of all, how do you suppose that clams fossils were found way up in the mountains?
You are correct. With no other information, a flood is a good way to explain the clams on the mountain tops. However, we now have lots of other information. For instance, where did enough water come from to cover the mountains? People have proposed underground caverns, or vapor canopies, but these would violate known laws of physics without invoking miracles. Meanwhile, it is known that the continents move around - this movement has been measured - and that as continents slowly press together they can cause the crust to buckle - forming mountains. It is very consistent with modern science that the tops of mountains were under ancient seas, and then, as continents collide according to well established and well understood science, the mountains were pushed up.
quote:
Over 95 percent of the fossils in the fossil record are clams.
I suspect that this is false. At any rate what of it? Seeing what the necessary conditions for fossil formation are, I would expect that the majority of fossils would be sea life.
quote:
The Mt. St. Helens eruption formed rock layers, canyons, and fossils in less than 24 hours. Just think how much a world wide flood would effect the world! That would have accounted for nearly ALL the rock layers and fossils found today!
Unfortunately for creationism and flood geology, it is usually not too hard to figure out the processes that formed various strata. Most of the geologic strata show the signs of being formed from gradual processes that take time. There are, of course, strata that were formed catastrophically, very quickly, but these are easy to identify. There is no sign that there was a global flood 6000 years ago.
quote:
Almost all culures throughout the world have a world wide flood story.
This is false. It is true that
many cultures have a flood story - floods are pretty impressive events, and can be quite devastating, and so it would not be surprising that many cultures would have a prominent flood story, sometimes several. But many of these are not about a global flood, and in most, people escaped not by building a boat but by running up mountains or climbing tall trees.
quote:
I STRONGLY suggest DrDino.com, icr.org and I would suggest Dr. Ken Ham's book, "Answers in Genesis."
"Dr Dino" is a joke, a very bad one. Ken Ham is a joke, but he is a funny one. I would not rely on these individuals for information, at least not with checking it first with mainstream science.
The website "AnswersInGenesis" is sometimes interesting, simply because it does, at times, take me more that 5 minutes to refute their arguments. But rarely more than 15 minutes.
I'm glad to see that you are taking an interest in this subject, especially that you are willing to read the evolutionists' arguments. I hope that you can read this information with an open mind. I used to be a creationist, and it was when I looked at the evidence with an open mind that I realized that creationism simply is not credible.
, suggest you browse that site).
™ Version 4.2