Jump to content


Photo

How Easy Is Evolution To Debunk?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:32 AM

Debunking evolution is not really about finding evidence against it as it is using their own evidence against them. The reason is because it's not what they tell you, it's what they won't tell you. Basically what is hidden. Here are a few examples:

1) The percentage difference between chimps and humans. 2 percent or less sounds really close, right? But what is not being told is the actual number the percentage comes off of. Which by the way is 3 billion. You won't find that number printed anywhere in any school text book. This is because if people knew when being taught evolution the actual number, they would also figure out that not as close as it seems.

2) Evolution and the immune system. Evolutionists stay away from this subject like it's the plague. Why? The immune system, and how it works, debunks evolution all by itself. And what's even worse is an animal's immune system is much stronger than a human's so changes in animals will be fought harder. Just go and research what's involved in organ transplants, and the immune system, and find out. Even though the change is within the same species, the immune system will fight it unless immune system suppressants are taken for the person's whole remaining life. Which brings up the question: What suppressed the immune system during the changes of evolution?

3) The problems with the fossil record. The fossil record AKA Geological Column, has several problems. None of which evolutionists will address because the fossil record is the holy grail of the proof of evolution. But does it support evolution to the degree claimed? Nope. And here's why:

a) Evolution is about simple life evolving into more complex life, right? So if the fossil record solely supports evolution and nothing else. Then the fossil record should support this idea 100%, correct? But it does not. In the bottom most layer we should have only simple life. No fully formed organs or systems. But the trilobite and the nautilus both have complex organs and systems. So does complexity just poof itself onto the scene, or does it evolve? And since it has to evolve in the evolution process, where is the evidence of this for these lifeforms in the fossil record?

B) Living fossils also pose a problem for the fossil record. This is because the living fossil is found several layers down and alive today. Yet every living fossil has the same problem. There is no evidence of it surviving until today. Example: let's say one living fossil is found 7 layers down and alive today. Yet it is not found in any layer in between. Which means the record of it surviving until today, is missing in 6 layers of so called accurate record keeping of time. This would be fine if this were on one or two living fossils, but it applies to "every" living fossil found. And there are about 25-30 known, so that's 25-30 problems that cannot be explained away.

c) Age dating markers cross contaminate. If a layer dates 1 million years old. And you bury a bone that dates only 100 years old in that 1 million year aged layer. Over a period of time the dating markers will cross contaminate the bone and make it date the same age as the layer. So regardless of how long ago that animal lived, it will date according to what layer it's found in. Which does not prove how long ago it lived. This is because the layer determines this, not time.

4) Evolution has "always" bean about life adapting to it's surroundings. But what about life making it's surroundings adapt to it's needs in order to survive? Plankton have the ability to make clouds when the sun gets to hot for them to survive: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

The problems with explaining this away to support evolution only are numerous:

a) How does such an ability evolve?
B) How does such a lower life-form evolve this ability when it's generally still simple in design?
c) How long does such a process take to evolve?
etc...

5) Then we have some animals abilities that are to complex to be explained by the evolution process. One as an example is the mimic octopus as shown in the video below.



Now in the next video they claim to have mapped how it evolved.



I could not get video to show here, so I left the link to it.

Remember I said earlier about how they won't tell you everything? What's missing here is the complexity of that step to be able to do this. Example:

a) The outer skin and tissue have to evolve to do this.
B) The nervous system has to evolve to support this.
c) The brain has to evolve to control this.

This is not like a person being dark skinned or lite skinned because of adapting to their surroundings. This is way way more complex than that. This is how they make evolution sound like it answers everything because they hide what cannot be answered hoping you won't go looking into it. And most don't. It's like what I pointed out earlier about only the percentage being used to prove we evolved from Chimps. Not giving the whole number of what the percentage came from is making evolution sound easy. Just like they are doing here. Easy so that it will be easy for you to believe it. And once you are convinced, you will defend it which is what keeps it alive and unfalsifiable.

6) It's takes a lot of time for evolution to work. Yet there is evidence that this amount of time never passed. Examples:

a) T-Rex blood and tissue found inside of bone. And there is a reason they won't go looking for more. Now if this supported evolution, every bone found would be examined. But it does not so this won't happen. To drill a small hole into several dinosaur bones and find blood and tissue, would make them have to face the reality that there is evidence for a young earth. But ignoring it and refusing to do more research keeps the current theory safe from any opposing views, and unfalsifiable.

B) Oil takes millions of years to form. Yet there are examples of oil and petroleum products being made in days, or in some cases, just hours.

c) Coal takes millions of years to form. Yet processes exist to make synthetic coal in less than a year.

d) Ica stones have drawings of dinosaurs and humans. The evolutionists think they have this debunked. problem is, the more recent finds of petrified dinosaur skin match the designs on the Ica stones proving they are not all fake as claimed.

Attached File  dino_skin_compare1.jpg   29.42KB   0 downloads

And on and on I could go on young earth evidence.

7) Evolution is a scientific theory. Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory? Let's look at how one website tries to define this: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Here is what is not being put forth on that page. There is really no "exact" criteria that has to be met. According to how this is written, any half descent theory can be this. The reason they won't list it as 1,2,3 criteria etc... Is because it would make evolution have to meet an exact criteria that it cannot meet. If anyone can list it 1,2,3, etc... on what criteria has to be met. You can start another thread and we can test evolution to see if it actually meets that criteria. But let's be honest, no one can actually do this or it would have already be done.

And I could go on and on. but post is long enough.

One more thing, I already know some evolutionists will be tempted to use the Nobel Prize comment here. Which since they gave it to Gore makes it have no meaning to me and many have lost respect for it because of that. So the comment would be pointless.

#2 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 21 July 2011 - 04:37 PM

Hi Ikester,

I’ve addressed everything this time so I would appreciate it if you didn’t delete my post again! I realize that not addressing every point was a poor debate tactic on my part, but so is removing some perfectly good and on-topic arguments simply because they don’t cover everything. Especially when parts of your post would be better suited to the Young Earth vs. Old Earth section, in my opinion. Anyways, I hope you find this response more satisfactory.

The percentage difference between chimps and humans. 2 percent or less sounds really close, right? But what is not being told is the actual number the percentage comes off of. Which by the way is 3 billion. You won't find that number printed anywhere in any school text book. This is because if people knew when being taught evolution the actual number, they would also figure out that not as close as it seems.

Most, if not all, upper-level genetics textbooks provide actual numbers when comparing genome sizes. I have no doubt that there are articles on the internet or lower-level text books which fail to provide these numbers (probably out of simplicity rather than deception, in my opinion), but a simple Google search can fill in that gap for the curious reader. What’s being hidden? If 2% corresponds to a very large number, then the remaining 98% corresponds to an even larger number. Anyone who knows basic math and understands how a percentage is calculated will realize this. It’s always proportional, so I don’t know what you mean by “not as close as it seems”. Perhaps you could clarify?

Evolution and the immune system. Evolutionists stay away from this subject like it's the plague. Why? The immune system, and how it works, debunks evolution all by itself. And what's even worse is an animal's immune system is much stronger than a human's so changes in animals will be fought harder. Just go and research what's involved in organ transplants, and the immune system, and find out. Even though the change is within the same species, the immune system will fight it unless immune system suppressants are taken for the person's whole remaining life. Which brings up the question: What suppressed the immune system during the changes of evolution?

Evolution, whether micro or macro, depends on heritable traits being passed on to future generations. Therefore the initial mutation must occur in the sperm or eggs. In this sense, mutation is really not comparable to an organ transplant, in which a whole mass of foreign tissue is placed in a fully developed human with a fully developed immune system. Here’s an example:

Let’s say there’s a gene which controls hair color in humans, and when mutated the result is white hair. If an adult woman developed this mutation in one of her scalp cells and the cell divides several times, the result would be a small patch of white hair on the woman’s head. But if she went on to have children, none of them would inherit the white hair gene because the mutation only occurred in one of her cells.

Now let’s say the same mutation occurs in one of the woman’s egg cells, and that egg is fertilized and develops into a child. The white hair gene is now present in every single cell in that child’s body (including his or her sperm or eggs), so all of their hair will be completely white. Furthermore, the mutation may be passed on to future offspring.

This example was not to illustrate that a mutation causing white hair is an example of macro evolution, just so there’s no misunderstanding. My point is that evolution does not depend on sudden mutations appearing in the organs of adults, and thus is not analogous to an organ transplant.

Evolution is about simple life evolving into more complex life, right? So if the fossil record solely supports evolution and nothing else. Then the fossil record should support this idea 100%, correct? But it does not. In the bottom most layer we should have only simple life. No fully formed organs or systems. But the trilobite and the nautilus both have complex organs and systems. So does complexity just poof itself onto the scene, or does it evolve? And since it has to evolve in the evolution process, where is the evidence of this for these lifeforms in the fossil record?

The simple organisms which would have preceded the more complex ones would be animals similar to sponges, flatworms, and jellyfish. Sponges have a spiny skeleton and are likely to form fossils, but flatworms and jellyfish do not. Unlike more advanced animals such as molluscs, they lack skeletal elements such as shells. They have very thin tissue, and the chance that they would stick around long enough after death to fossilize is highly unlikely. However, there are sponge fossils in early layers if I’m not mistaken, and sponges are very simple and lack tissues and organs.

Living fossils also pose a problem for the fossil record. This is because the living fossil is found several layers down and alive today. Yet every living fossil has the same problem. There is no evidence of it surviving until today. Example: let's say one living fossil is found 7 layers down and alive today. Yet it is not found in any layer in between. Which means the record of it surviving until today, is missing in 6 layers of so called accurate record keeping of time. This would be fine if this were on one or two living fossils, but it applies to "every" living fossil found. And there are about 25-30 known, so that's 25-30 problems that cannot be explained away.

You make it sound as if fossilization is a sure thing, like any animal that has every existed must also become fossilized in every strata layer in a large enough quantity so that we’re guaranteed to dig up at least one. This is not how fossilization works. I’m sure you’re familiar with the process, and I’m sure you also know that it’s dependent on the tissue of the animal and the conditions it died it. I suspect there are plenty of animals alive today for which fossils simply do not exist. According to creationism, does this mean these animals were not created until after the flood?

Age dating markers cross contaminate. If a layer dates 1 million years old. And you bury a bone that dates only 100 years old in that 1 million year aged layer. Over a period of time the dating markers will cross contaminate the bone and make it date the same age as the layer. So regardless of how long ago that animal lived, it will date according to what layer it's found in. Which does not prove how long ago it lived. This is because the layer determines this, not time.

Could you explain why the layer is not expected to be the same age as the fossil? You mentioned burying a bone, but many of the fossils we find were clearly not thrown into a dug hole and covered with dirt. If that were the case, it would not explain why we consistently find the same type of fossil in the same layer. If something dies and is covered with sediment, a necessary step in fossilization, wouldn’t it make sense that the sediment should be the same age as the fossil? Furthermore, if the Earth is young, there should be no “old” layers to contaminate the “young” fossils.

Evolution has "always" bean about life adapting to it's surroundings. But what about life making it's surroundings adapt to it's needs in order to survive? Plankton have the ability to make clouds when the sun gets to hot for them to survive: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html


Then we have some animals abilities that are to complex to be explained by the evolution process. One as an example is the mimic octopus as shown in the video below.

That’s interesting, but I have never studied these cases and I’m not sure what evolutionary mechanisms have been proposed. But remember, not being able to explain a few things right now does not invalidate an entire theory. No field of science knows all the answers to everything. If it did, it wouldn’t really be science anymore would it? That’s why there’s so much research going on all over the world.

I disagree that these examples are too complex to be explained by evolution though. Just because you can’t think of a possible mechanism, it’s not fair to say that no one can and no one ever will.

T-Rex blood and tissue found inside of bone. And there is a reason they won't go looking for more. Now if this supported evolution, every bone found would be examined. But it does not so this won't happen. To drill a small hole into several dinosaur bones and find blood and tissue, would make them have to face the reality that there is evidence for a young earth. But ignoring it and refusing to do more research keeps the current theory safe from any opposing views, and unfalsifiable.

I know very little about palaeontology and I’m not familiar with this example. Could you provide more information? There’s a reason I stick to the Creation vs. Evolution section rather than the Young Earth vs. Old Earth section...

Oil takes millions of years to form. Yet there are examples of oil and petroleum products being made in days, or in some cases, just hours.

Coal takes millions of years to form. Yet processes exist to make synthetic coal in less than a year.

In those examples, does it require a significant amount of raw materials and energy to make the oil or coal? I imagine it must, otherwise every oil company in the world would have switched to manufacturing synthetic oil by now rather than drilling for it. So how do you propose oil was formed, according to the Young Earth theory?

Ica stones have drawings of dinosaurs and humans. The evolutionists think they have this debunked. problem is, the more recent finds of petrified dinosaur skin match the designs on the Ica stones proving they are not all fake as claimed.

That picture doesn’t really strike me as an incredibly close likeness. The drawing shows a cross-hatch pattern. The skin looks like bumps.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Or so they claim. No one can answer the question: What exactly was it that took evolution over the top to become a scientific theory? Let's look at how one website tries to define this: http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

This seems like more of a semantics issue, which is rather trivial to me. I really don’t care whether creationists want to call evolution a theory or not, although most creationists I talk to are fine with that word. As long as it’s not being labelled as a fact or law, everyone’s usually happy. So I don’t have much to say about this. Although I would like to ask, based on those criteria, do you think creationism is a theory?

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 July 2011 - 11:33 PM

You may never comprehend this, but it was not what you did, but how you did it. When I enter a debate that I mostly don't know anything about (I usually avoid them). I first do not say: Sorry, but I am in a hurry and won't have time to address all to cover up what I don't know to push myself off as someone who does know but simply is not willing to invest the time. I simply state that this part is the only part I can address because I don't know enough about the rest. And I do this up front, not when someone calls me out on it. I consider that rude to the thread starter who took the time to post all he or she did just to have someone blow off more than 50% as if their efforts were not worth responding to. Understand?

Anyone who starts a thread and puts a lot of effort into what they have posted, and this is done it's not good forum debating. How would you like to have listed 15 things and I come in and only address 5 and claim I don't have time to address the rest? What would you think? Or would you like me to debate you that way?

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 July 2011 - 12:09 AM

1. You make it sound as if fossilization is a sure thing, like any animal that has every existed must also become fossilized in every strata layer in a large enough quantity so that we’re guaranteed to dig up at least one. This is not how fossilization works. I’m sure you’re familiar with the process, and I’m sure you also know that it’s dependent on the tissue of the animal and the conditions it died it.

2. In those examples, does it require a significant amount of raw materials and energy to make the oil or coal? I imagine it must, otherwise every oil company in the world would have switched to manufacturing synthetic oil by now rather than drilling for it. So how do you propose oil was formed, according to the Young Earth theory?

1. Oh yes, fossils occur when organisms are rapidly buried and generally water is needed as well... hmmmm

2. Lots and lots of dead plant and animal matter would have been buried if a worldwide flood changed the shape of the earth... no?

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 July 2011 - 03:45 AM

Hi Ikester,

I’ve addressed everything this time so I would appreciate it if you didn’t delete my post again! I realize that not addressing every point was a poor debate tactic on my part, but so is removing some perfectly good and on-topic arguments simply because they don’t cover everything. Especially when parts of your post would be better suited to the Young Earth vs. Old Earth section, in my opinion. Anyways, I hope you find this response more satisfactory.


I already addressed this.

Most, if not all, upper-level genetics textbooks provide actual numbers when comparing genome sizes. I have no doubt that there are articles on the internet or lower-level text books which fail to provide these numbers (probably out of simplicity rather than deception, in my opinion), but a simple Google search can fill in that gap for the curious reader. What’s being hidden? If 2% corresponds to a very large number, then the remaining 98% corresponds to an even larger number. Anyone who knows basic math and understands how a percentage is calculated will realize this. It’s always proportional, so I don’t know what you mean by “not as close as it seems”. Perhaps you could clarify?



You can go around and around trying to make an excuse for not listing simple math. So I will get to the point with a few questions.

Is or is not percentages simple math? Yes or no. And if so why only have upper level textbooks list this, unless the lower level textbooks are more into indoctrination? What is wrong with the truth?

What grade are percentages taught in? So after that grade does not the student have enough comprehension to understand this? Or are they considered stupid unless they go to college? Because every post you imply this indirectly whether you realize it or not.

So what you are trying to say with that last remark is that 2% of 100 is the same as 2% of 3,000,000,000 and that lower grade school students are to stupid to understand so you think only the higher level textbooks should list this?

Evolution, whether micro or macro, depends on heritable traits being passed on to future generations. Therefore the initial mutation must occur in the sperm or eggs. In this sense, mutation is really not comparable to an organ transplant, in which a whole mass of foreign tissue is placed in a fully developed human with a fully developed immune system.



1) No one has observed macro yet.
2) Did you know that the female species immune system can reject the baby if it determines that it's foreign tissue?
3) If the forming of the baby allows as much leeway for the immune system as you are trying to imply. Then chimps can have humans, and whales can give birth to cows.

Here’s an example:

Let’s say there’s a gene which controls hair color in humans, and when mutated the result is white hair. If an adult woman developed this mutation in one of her scalp cells and the cell divides several times, the result would be a small patch of white hair on the woman’s head. But if she went on to have children, none of them would inherit the white hair gene because the mutation only occurred in one of her cells.


Right, and the change would be small enough the immune system would not reject it. But that change is so small compared to 2%, it's like comparing a ant hill to a mountain. Since you say you know a lot about this stuff, do you know how close 2 people have to be in order for a organ transplant to work?

Now let’s say the same mutation occurs in one of the woman’s egg cells, and that egg is fertilized and develops into a child. The white hair gene is now present in every single cell in that child’s body (including his or her sperm or eggs), so all of their hair will be completely white. Furthermore, the mutation may be passed on to future offspring.


Just so we are clear on the definitions of micro and macro evolution.

Macro: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html
Micro: Also known as adaptation; evolution within a species. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html

This example was not to illustrate that a mutation causing white hair is an example of macro evolution, just so there’s no misunderstanding. My point is that evolution does not depend on sudden mutations appearing in the organs of adults, and thus is not analogous to an organ transplant.


I know the difference between micro and macro, do you?

The simple organisms which would have preceded the more complex ones would be animals similar to sponges, flatworms, and jellyfish. Sponges have a spiny skeleton and are likely to form fossils, but flatworms and jellyfish do not. Unlike more advanced animals such as molluscs, they lack skeletal elements such as shells. They have very thin tissue, and the chance that they would stick around long enough after death to fossilize is highly unlikely. However, there are sponge fossils in early layers if I’m not mistaken, and sponges are very simple and lack tissues and organs.


I see that you are avoiding the issue now. Did I not say that the trilobite was found in the lowest layer yet it has fully formed organs and systems? Ignoring the issue won;t make it go away. I will keep bringing it up until you address it.

You make it sound as if fossilization is a sure thing, like any animal that has every existed must also become fossilized in every strata layer in a large enough quantity so that we’re guaranteed to dig up at least one. This is not how fossilization works. I’m sure you’re familiar with the process, and I’m sure you also know that it’s dependent on the tissue of the animal and the conditions it died it. I suspect there are plenty of animals alive today for which fossils simply do not exist. According to creationism, does this mean these animals were not created until after the flood?


Here again you avoid the subject. There is a reason living fossils are only found in one layer and alive today. And the so called record did not record it. You won't address that because it would make you face real reality. And it's one of the reasons I deleted your post before.

You are building strawman arguments in the attempt to do what you did before.

Could you explain why the layer is not expected to be the same age as the fossil? You mentioned burying a bone, but many of the fossils we find were clearly not thrown into a dug hole and covered with dirt. If that were the case, it would not explain why we consistently find the same type of fossil in the same layer. If something dies and is covered with sediment, a necessary step in fossilization, wouldn’t it make sense that the sediment should be the same age as the fossil? Furthermore, if the Earth is young, there should be no “old” layers to contaminate the “young” fossils.


Let's use your logic about the layer being old proving the time past and contaminating the bone. If all matter came from the same source, which is supposed to be the big bang, why does not all matter date the same? Why does not all matter date back to it's dot that expanded?

1) Did not all matter come from the same place (big bang)?
2) Did not all matter get thrown across the universe at the same time?
3) Why do all the planets date differently when they all came from the same source?

If you answer that matter has to cool before dating markers can be left, then you expose the problem with dating. Dating does not tell how long the matter was molten before it cooled down. So no matter dates correctly.

How does this work for creation? Age and position of everything is the only way it would work.
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=456

For 6 days of creation there was no death. Because sin causes death. You could say that sin was the catalyst for the laws of thermal dynamics. But before sin, those laws did not apply. Now how would that change how God created?

1) Because nothing would ever age or decay, everything had to be created with age already added.
a) A planet (earth) that dates 4.5 billion years old would be cool enough to support life.
B) The sun being the right age to be a G-Type sequence star makes it the right size and stable enough to support life.
c) The earth being the right age to have a molten core enables it to produce a magnetic field strong enough to deflect solar wind. A good example of what happens when it's to weak is mars. The solar wind is stripping away mars upper atmosphere.

2) God created Adam and Eve already aged (live matter), why not create the ages needed for dead matter as well? etc....

The layers date old because they were created that way.

That’s interesting, but I have never studied these cases and I’m not sure what evolutionary mechanisms have been proposed. But remember, not being able to explain a few things right now does not invalidate an entire theory. No field of science knows all the answers to everything. If it did, it wouldn’t really be science anymore would it? That’s why there’s so much research going on all over the world.

I disagree that these examples are too complex to be explained by evolution though. Just because you can’t think of a possible mechanism, it’s not fair to say that no one can and no one ever will.


Being fair has nothing to do with it. Having the attitude that nothing can and never will put evolution into question makes evolution unfalsifiable and therefore no longer a theory. That is the problem that exist now, and you just demonstrated it.

I know very little about palaeontology and I’m not familiar with this example. Could you provide more information? There’s a reason I stick to the Creation vs. Evolution section rather than the Young Earth vs. Old Earth section...


Instead of bringing all the information over here, here's a page I did on it: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225

In those examples, does it require a significant amount of raw materials and energy to make the oil or coal? I imagine it must, otherwise every oil company in the world would have switched to manufacturing synthetic oil by now rather than drilling for it. So how do you propose oil was formed, according to the Young Earth theory?


What's interesting is that they are only duplicating the conditions oil is found in underground. Pressure, water, temperature.

Oil was formed during the flood. Around 15 miles of water would create more than enough pressure. And the fountains of the deep (black smokers) being broken up on an extremely large scale, would create enough heat to change the biomass into oil.

Is there enough water to flood the whole earth? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294

That picture doesn’t really strike me as an incredibly close likeness. The drawing shows a cross-hatch pattern. The skin looks like bumps.


Sorry that the Incas did not have picture quality printers to make designs exact on the stones. With due respect, you are nick picking here.

This seems like more of a semantics issue, which is rather trivial to me. I really don’t care whether creationists want to call evolution a theory or not, although most creationists I talk to are fine with that word. As long as it’s not being labelled as a fact or law, everyone’s usually happy. So I don’t have much to say about this. Although I would like to ask, based on those criteria, do you think creationism is a theory?


No criteria = that it was voted to this level by mere opinion and not fact. If the facts supported this promotion then the criteria would have required those facts, But there is a reason they don;t exist.


In case you dont know what a strawman argument is:

Strawman: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

#6 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 22 July 2011 - 04:46 AM

I already addressed this.



You can go around and around trying to make an excuse for not listing simple math. So I will get to the point with a few questions.

Is or is not percentages simple math? Yes or no. And if so why only have upper level textbooks list this, unless the lower level textbooks are more into indoctrination? What is wrong with the truth?

What grade are percentages taught in? So after that grade does not the student have enough comprehension to understand this? Or are they considered stupid unless they go to college? Because every post you imply this indirectly whether you realize it or not.

So what you are trying to say with that last remark is that 2% of 100 is the same as 2% of 3,000,000,000 and that lower grade school students are to stupid to understand so you think only the higher level textbooks should list this?

I can attest that my daughter, who has math LDs, understands this difference now as she is entering the 4th grade. Generally in any math program percentages are taught in great detail in 5th and 6th grades. This is in the United States. We are behind many countries in introducing and understanding concepts. Yes I have taught math and used math programs. I also have access to a great community of math teachers.

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 July 2011 - 08:07 PM

I can attest that my daughter, who has math LDs, understands this difference now as she is entering the 4th grade. Generally in any math program percentages are taught in great detail in 5th and 6th grades. This is in the United States. We are behind many countries in introducing and understanding concepts. Yes I have taught math and used math programs. I also have access to a great community of math teachers.


That's the point, when she gets a book on evolution. There won't be any complete math on evolution, that's because math proves it wrong. That is why they hide that number then claim that someone like you daughter is to stupid to understand.

A friend of mine is a mathematician, he says that because he can work out equations showing evolution is impossible, evolutionists won't even speak to him. He has basically been banished from any scientific circles because he went after their beloved theory.

#8 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 25 July 2011 - 12:14 PM

I already addressed this.



You can go around and around trying to make an excuse for not listing simple math. So I will get to the point with a few questions.

Is or is not percentages simple math? Yes or no. And if so why only have upper level textbooks list this, unless the lower level textbooks are more into indoctrination? What is wrong with the truth?

What grade are percentages taught in? So after that grade does not the student have enough comprehension to understand this? Or are they considered stupid unless they go to college? Because every post you imply this indirectly whether you realize it or not.

So what you are trying to say with that last remark is that 2% of 100 is the same as 2% of 3,000,000,000 and that lower grade school students are to stupid to understand so you think only the higher level textbooks should list this?



1) No one has observed macro yet.
2) Did you know that the female species immune system can reject the baby if it determines that it's foreign tissue?
3) If the forming of the baby allows as much leeway for the immune system as you are trying to imply. Then chimps can have humans, and whales can give birth to cows.



Right, and the change would be small enough the immune system would not reject it. But that change is so small compared to 2%, it's like comparing a ant hill to a mountain. Since you say you know a lot about this stuff, do you know how close 2 people have to be in order for a organ transplant to work?



Just so we are clear on the definitions of micro and macro evolution.

Macro: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html
Micro: Also known as adaptation; evolution within a species. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html



I know the difference between micro and macro, do you?



I see that you are avoiding the issue now. Did I not say that the trilobite was found in the lowest layer yet it has fully formed organs and systems? Ignoring the issue won;t make it go away. I will keep bringing it up until you address it.



Here again you avoid the subject. There is a reason living fossils are only found in one layer and alive today. And the so called record did not record it. You won't address that because it would make you face real reality. And it's one of the reasons I deleted your post before.

You are building strawman arguments in the attempt to do what you did before.



Let's use your logic about the layer being old proving the time past and contaminating the bone. If all matter came from the same source, which is supposed to be the big bang, why does not all matter date the same? Why does not all matter date back to it's dot that expanded?

1) Did not all matter come from the same place (big bang)?
2) Did not all matter get thrown across the universe at the same time?
3) Why do all the planets date differently when they all came from the same source?

If you answer that matter has to cool before dating markers can be left, then you expose the problem with dating. Dating does not tell how long the matter was molten before it cooled down. So no matter dates correctly.

How does this work for creation? Age and position of everything is the only way it would work.
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=456

For 6 days of creation there was no death. Because sin causes death. You could say that sin was the catalyst for the laws of thermal dynamics. But before sin, those laws did not apply. Now how would that change how God created?

1) Because nothing would ever age or decay, everything had to be created with age already added.
a) A planet (earth) that dates 4.5 billion years old would be cool enough to support life.
B) The sun being the right age to be a G-Type sequence star makes it the right size and stable enough to support life.
c) The earth being the right age to have a molten core enables it to produce a magnetic field strong enough to deflect solar wind. A good example of what happens when it's to weak is mars. The solar wind is stripping away mars upper atmosphere.

2) God created Adam and Eve already aged (live matter), why not create the ages needed for dead matter as well? etc....

The layers date old because they were created that way.



Being fair has nothing to do with it. Having the attitude that nothing can and never will put evolution into question makes evolution unfalsifiable and therefore no longer a theory. That is the problem that exist now, and you just demonstrated it.



Instead of bringing all the information over here, here's a page I did on it: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225



What's interesting is that they are only duplicating the conditions oil is found in underground. Pressure, water, temperature.

Oil was formed during the flood. Around 15 miles of water would create more than enough pressure. And the fountains of the deep (black smokers) being broken up on an extremely large scale, would create enough heat to change the biomass into oil.

Is there enough water to flood the whole earth? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294



Sorry that the Incas did not have picture quality printers to make designs exact on the stones. With due respect, you are nick picking here.



No criteria = that it was voted to this level by mere opinion and not fact. If the facts supported this promotion then the criteria would have required those facts, But there is a reason they don;t exist.


In case you dont know what a strawman argument is:

Strawman: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


What I like best is to point out that researchers use the only part of the genome that may display similarities to other primates, MtDNA. In fact Wiki Chimpanzee genome project cites as much as a 30% difference and that does not include the 10% difference in size and the different surface structure between ape and human.

Some creature will bbe closer than others and that appears to be a chimp in some regions, but we are closer to other primates like an orang in parts.

I think creationists, if appropriarely funded, would be able to invent similar algorithms as evolutionists do with insertion values and assumptions that give them the results they require, likewise.

Human DNA contamination is huge. What happens if a cat or dog like creature licked the fossil bones or urinated on them some time prior to testing and left behind their DNA? Would this show direct ancestry to a dog or cat?

I agree that TOE rests on shakey ground.

#9 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:50 PM

1. Oh yes, fossils occur when organisms are rapidly buried and generally water is needed as well... hmmmm


If floods are so conducive to fossil formation and there was indeed a worldwide flood, wouldn’t there be only one layer with nearly every animal on Earth represented within it? Although I really don’t see why a flood would particularly favour fossil formation in the first place. Dead animals generally float initially, and there would be plenty of opportunities for decomposition before sinking to the bottom and being buried with sediment.

2. Lots and lots of dead plant and animal matter would have been buried if a worldwide flood changed the shape of the earth... no?


Yes,buried with water, but if that’s the case then why is oil buried deep under layers of rock? I’ll address the same point in response to Ikester’s post, so see below.

#10 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 July 2011 - 06:02 PM

You can go around and around trying to make an excuse for not listing simple math. So I will get to the point with a few questions.

Is or is not percentages simple math? Yes or no. And if so why only have upper level textbooks list this, unless the lower level textbooks are more into indoctrination? What is wrong with the truth?

What grade are percentages taught in? So after that grade does not the student have enough comprehension to understand this? Or are they considered stupid unless they go to college? Because every post you imply this indirectly whether you realize it or not.

So what you are trying to say with that last remark is that 2% of 100 is the same as 2% of 3,000,000,000 and that lower grade school students are to stupid to understand so you think only the higher level textbooks should list this?

Percentages are simple math in my opinion, and they are taught quite early in school. I never said I think only higher level textbooks should list the actual values; both should, and I expect that in most cases both do. However, anyone who understands how a percentage works knows that while 2% of 3 billion is a larger number than 2% of 100, the corresponding 98% will also be larger. Any child who understands how percentages work will understand this simple relationship. So again, I do not understand what you mean by “not as close as it seems”.

No one has observed macro yet.
Just so we are clear on the definitions of micro and macro evolution.

Macro: The development of new species and the extinction of old ones. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html
Micro: Also known as adaptation; evolution within a species. http://www.daviddarl...oevolution.html
I know the difference between micro and macro, do you?


I specifically said macro vs. micro evolution was not the point my example was trying to illustrate. I was trying to explain the difference between somatic vs. germline mutations, and how only one can be passed on to future generations.


Did you know that the female species immune system can reject the baby if it determines that it's foreign tissue?

Yes, and the developing blastula secretes a hormone which suppresses the mothers immune system so that this is avoided.

If the forming of the baby allows as much leeway for the immune system as you are trying to imply. Then chimps can have humans, and whales can give birth to cows.

Again, I think you’re missing my point. A mutation in an embryo would not cause the mother’s immune system to reject it, unless the mutation occurred in a gene which was involved in the immune suppression process mentioned above (or unless it was a very major mutation which messed with the entire development process... hence why a human could not give birth to a whale). The mother’s blood does not come into contact with embryonic blood. If that were the case, a mother could never give birth to a child with a different blood type from herself and we know that this can happen. If the mother’s immune system were that sensitive to mutations in the embryo, only babies that are genetically identical to their parent could survive.

Right, and the change would be small enough the immune system would not reject it. But that change is so small compared to 2%, it's like comparing a ant hill to a mountain. Since you say you know a lot about this stuff, do you know how close 2 people have to be in order for a organ transplant to work?

Why are we talking about 2% here? I never claimed that a single mutation would change the genetic code by 2%. It’s true that for an organ transplant to work the two individuals must have a certain amount of immune similarity. It’s also true that a woman can give birth to a child who is not a match for donating an organ to them. Maybe you can elaborate on your organ donation analogy, because I really don’t see a lot of similarity between that and evolution.

I see that you are avoiding the issue now. Did I not say that the trilobite was found in the lowest layer yet it has fully formed organs and systems? Ignoring the issue won;t make it go away. I will keep bringing it up until you address it.

So there are no sediment layers below trilobites, even ones with sponge fossils or no fossils at all? Could I see a source for that please?

Here again you avoid the subject. There is a reason living fossils are only found in one layer and alive today. And the so called record did not record it. You won't address that because it would make you face real reality. And it's one of the reasons I deleted your post before.

You are building strawman arguments in the attempt to do what you did before.

You didn’t answer my question. If every animal is expected to form a fossil, does that mean the animals without fossils were not created until after the flood? I’m not avoiding the subject or building a strawman argument. My answer was that certain fossils are not found in every layer because fossilization is not guaranteed to happen.

Let's use your logic about the layer being old proving the time past and contaminating the bone. If all matter came from the same source, which is supposed to be the big bang, why does not all matter date the same? Why does not all matter date back to it's dot that expanded?

1) Did not all matter come from the same place (big bang)?
2) Did not all matter get thrown across the universe at the same time?
3) Why do all the planets date differently when they all came from the same source?

If you answer that matter has to cool before dating markers can be left, then you expose the problem with dating. Dating does not tell how long the matter was molten before it cooled down. So no matter dates correctly.

I’m no expert on dating methods, but I do know that the starting point is not the beginning of matter. It’s the point at which the mineral was formed. For example, potassium-argon dating measures the decay of potassium starting at the point where a rock is heated to its melting point and subsequently cooled, trapping potassium inside of it (ie. during a volcanic eruption, long after the big bang).

Because nothing would ever age or decay, everything had to be created with age already added.
a) A planet (earth) that dates 4.5 billion years old would be cool enough to support life.
B) The sun being the right age to be a G-Type sequence star makes it the right size and stable enough to support life.
c) The earth being the right age to have a molten core enables it to produce a magnetic field strong enough to deflect solar wind. A good example of what happens when it's to weak is mars. The solar wind is stripping away mars upper atmosphere.

2) God created Adam and Eve already aged (live matter), why not create the ages needed for dead matter as well? etc....

The layers date old because they were created that way.

That doesn’t make much sense. An omnipotent creator would not need to assign artificial ages to things in order to ensure that they function correctly. He could just make them function correctly in the first place, with the right amount of molten in the Earth’s core and the right type of star. Giving them artificial ages seems like a rather misleading thing for a creator to do, especially if he wants us to be aware of his creation.

Being fair has nothing to do with it. Having the attitude that nothing can and never will put evolution into question makes evolution unfalsifiable and therefore no longer a theory. That is the problem that exist now, and you just demonstrated it.

The examples you brought up do not falsify evolution. They are not inconsistent with evolution in any way.


What's interesting is that they are only duplicating the conditions oil is found in underground. Pressure, water, temperature.

Oil was formed during the flood. Around 15 miles of water would create more than enough pressure. And the fountains of the deep (black smokers) being broken up on an extremely large scale, would create enough heat to change the biomass into oil.


So just to be clear, you’re saying that the floodwaters buried all organic matter under 15 miles of water. This produced enough heat and pressure to turn the organic matter into oil. The floodwaters then receded, exposing dry land once again. But today we have to drill for oil through thousands of feet of rock. Why would that be the case?

Sorry that the Incas did not have picture quality printers to make designs exact on the stones. With due respect, you are nick picking here.

Your argument is that Incas must have known what dinosaur skin looked like in order to draw their pictures. My argument is that the two don’t really look that similar at all, which is not nitpicking considering that was the whole point of the picture you posted. A crosshatch pattern could just as easily represent scales, like those observed on a snake or lizard.

#11 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 25 July 2011 - 07:50 PM

So just to be clear, you’re saying that the floodwaters buried all organic matter under 15 miles of water. This produced enough heat and pressure to turn the organic matter into oil. The floodwaters then receded, exposing dry land once again. But today we have to drill for oil through thousands of feet of rock. Why would that be the case?

During the flood, there would have been massive erosion and sediments being carried around by the water. This is what buried most of the organic matter and later hardened into rock.

#12 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:17 PM

Isabella, your questions could all be answered by reading 2 or 3 books on flood theory. It is very simple how there came to be more than one layer of rock. As for why not all animals are found as fossils... I am still wanting an answer to that. I have a book in mind for that one, but unfortunately libraries do not often buy books that relate to creationism, so I need to get the funds to purchase the book myself.

During the flood, there would have been massive erosion and sediments being carried around by the water. This is what buried most of the organic matter and later hardened into rock.

I guess the question then would be: What type of rock do we find oil buried in?

We can also keep in mind that there are also theories that do not include organic matter turning into coal and oil.

#13 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 25 July 2011 - 09:45 PM

It is very simple how there came to be more than one layer of rock.

I agree. If you get a bottle full of sand, gravel, rocks, mud, clay, etc. and shake it up, it will settle into different layers in a short period of time. There may also be other ways layers can form that I'm not aware of. I believe my avatar indicates that the layers cannot be millions of years old. It shows a tree, standing up, running through multiple layers. I know trees decay in less than a million years, so how could it stand there exposed to the sun and the elements for several million, while the layers accumulated around it, without it decaying? They had to form around it quickly, before the tree had time to rot.

I guess the question then would be: What type of rock do we find oil buried in?

I don't know lol. This is why I want to go to school to study geology, preferably flood geology.

#14 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 25 July 2011 - 10:07 PM

There may also be other ways layers can form that I'm not aware of.

Well, for one thing, the flood lasted for around a year, the layers weren't all formed in one day. Michael Oard's Flood By Design is good for acknowledging this.

I don't know lol. This is why I want to go to school to study geology, preferably flood geology.

Cedarville University in Cedarville OH offers a Bachelor's Degree in Geology that teaches from both naturalistic and Young Earth paradigms. Very exciting!

http://creation.com/...of-creation-232


64 Cedarville University announces new geology degree

Click on the pdf link to the right to read the letter to the editor.

#15 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 26 July 2011 - 05:48 AM

If floods are so conducive to fossil formation and there was indeed a worldwide flood, wouldn’t there be only one layer with nearly every animal on Earth represented within it? Although I really don’t see why a flood would particularly favour fossil formation in the first place. Dead animals generally float initially, and there would be plenty of opportunities for decomposition before sinking to the bottom and being buried with sediment.


I've always found it quite amazing how it is anathema for some to conceptualize a global flood when the fact is that 3/4's of the globe is still flooded. :o

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:45 AM

Percentages are simple math in my opinion, and they are taught quite early in school. I never said I think only higher level textbooks should list the actual values; both should, and I expect that in most cases both do. However, anyone who understands how a percentage works knows that while 2% of 3 billion is a larger number than 2% of 100, the corresponding 98% will also be larger. Any child who understands how percentages work will understand this simple relationship. So again, I do not understand what you mean by “not as close as it seems”.



Study the changes the immune system will allow before it attacks. a perfect example of this is a immune system disease that many people are familiar with. And that is arthritis. It's where the immune system attacks the cartilage in your joints. making them swell, inflame and damage. Is not the cartilage the same DNA as the rest of the Body? How much different would the cartilage have to be for the immune system to even notice? So the point is not the 98% of the DNA that the same, but the amount it takes in difference that the immune system will react to, that in the case of arthritis, cripples and damages.

If our immune system was not as sensitive as it is, we would all be sickly and our life expectancy would be half of what it is. Example: Our bodies fight and kill cancer cells everyday. Cancer is not that much different from noncancerous cells. So if the immune system is even slightly off to fight such a small change, we die. Understand? What this calculates to is not 5 or 10 steps between chimps and humans, but millions. Millions of missing links and a million times more time required to allow it to happen.

This is why you won't see sites on how evolution worked around the immune system. If you type in immune system and evolution, all you will find are sites trying to explain how the immune system evolved, not how evolution evolved working with the immune system.

I specifically said macro vs. micro evolution was not the point my example was trying to illustrate. I was trying to explain the difference between somatic vs. germline mutations, and how only one can be passed on to future generations.
Yes, and the developing blastula secretes a hormone which suppresses the mothers immune system so that this is avoided.
Again, I think you’re missing my point. A mutation in an embryo would not cause the mother’s immune system to reject it, unless the mutation occurred in a gene which was involved in the immune suppression process mentioned above (or unless it was a very major mutation which messed with the entire development process... hence why a human could not give birth to a whale). The mother’s blood does not come into contact with embryonic blood. If that were the case, a mother could never give birth to a child with a different blood type from herself and we know that this can happen. If the mother’s immune system were that sensitive to mutations in the embryo, only babies that are genetically identical to their parent could survive.


1) How would such a ability evolve? If the the hormone was not there to secrete when the first evolving species appeared on the sin with their first pregnancy, the offspring dies species becomes extinct.
2) And about the different blood type. Same thing. If the protection between mother and child were not in place for the child to have a different blood type, they both can die. Species goes extinct.
3) Why even evolve the ability to have different blood types in the first place? What was it required to evolve this in order to survive? This is not even explainable by the evolution process because it does not fit "any" of the evolution mechanisms required for such a change to be warranted.

Why are we talking about 2% here? I never claimed that a single mutation would change the genetic code by 2%. It’s true that for an organ transplant to work the two individuals must have a certain amount of immune similarity. It’s also true that a woman can give birth to a child who is not a match for donating an organ to them. Maybe you can elaborate on your organ donation analogy, because I really don’t see a lot of similarity between that and evolution.


Difference is a measurement of change, right? So since you don't seem to get it I will ask a question that more points to what I'm looking for. How much can change can there be before the immune system will react? All the change you desire, or is there a point to how much change can happen all at once?

So there are no sediment layers below trilobites, even ones with sponge fossils or no fossils at all? Could I see a source for that please?


Posted Image

You didn’t answer my question. If every animal is expected to form a fossil, does that mean the animals without fossils were not created until after the flood? I’m not avoiding the subject or building a strawman argument. My answer was that certain fossils are not found in every layer because fossilization is not guaranteed to happen.


If science is going to refer to the fossil record as a "record", then it has to be somewhat accurate. If not then the holy grail of evolution is mere speculation. You cannot on one hand claim a record, and while on the other hand when the record does not support what you want it to, make excuses.

Example: The coelacanth fish is found about 8 layers down that fossil record. That means for 7 whole layers, it's existence is missing.

Attached File  living_fossil_record.jpg   92.18KB   0 downloads

I’m no expert on dating methods, but I do know that the starting point is not the beginning of matter. It’s the point at which the mineral was formed. For example, potassium-argon dating measures the decay of potassium starting at the point where a rock is heated to its melting point and subsequently cooled, trapping potassium inside of it (ie. during a volcanic eruption, long after the big bang).


Right. Is not matter... matter whether in it's liquid form or not? How do you classify molten rock, non-matter? What is the makeup of the sun considered, non-matter?

That doesn’t make much sense. An omnipotent creator would not need to assign artificial ages to things in order to ensure that they function correctly. He could just make them function correctly in the first place, with the right amount of molten in the Earth’s core and the right type of star. Giving them artificial ages seems like a rather misleading thing for a creator to do, especially if he wants us to be aware of his creation.


God is a lawmaker, He is not a lawbreaker. So in order to make a 6,000 year old creation work under the current laws of physics, He would have to create with age. Example: If you had the ability to create a small universe inside a room. And while you could do anything, you could not break the laws that you made your creation work under. How would you have to create?

The reason you use the word misleading is that you are more into discrediting instead of trying to understand. When a person is searching for actual truth, they will first try to prove it right because they are to consider all possibilities. Not being able to prove it right makes it wrong by default. But just claiming it's deception shows the unwillingness to even try.

The examples you brought up do not falsify evolution. They are not inconsistent with evolution in any way.



And there you go. You just proved my point. Nothing can or will ever be inconsistent with evolution, right? Evolution is perfection, it has no flaws, and never will. In fact it's so perfect that it's never been wrong even from it's beginning. Right?

So just to be clear, you’re saying that the floodwaters buried all organic matter under 15 miles of water. This produced enough heat and pressure to turn the organic matter into oil. The floodwaters then receded, exposing dry land once again. But today we have to drill for oil through thousands of feet of rock. Why would that be the case?


How much sediment would be brought up during a world wide flood? Water itself would also get buried with the biomass. The sediments also created the layers.

Question: If time created the layers alone, why is all animal life buried like there was a flood? The Bible says the flood started when the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means marine life gets buried first. And because all the water came up, the sediments were burying things right where the lived. Which means bottom water dwellers first, which is what we see. Then middle water dwellers second, then top dwellers and land animals. Which goes right along with a flood. Can you explain that?

Your argument is that Incas must have known what dinosaur skin looked like in order to draw their pictures. My argument is that the two don’t really look that similar at all, which is not nitpicking considering that was the whole point of the picture you posted. A crosshatch pattern could just as easily represent scales, like those observed on a snake or lizard.


Let's see you carve a rock and make it look exact since you imply to be the local rock carving expert. And by the way, you have to use the Inca carving tools, not modern tools. Let's see how close you can get. Let's see if you can do better. Or would that make you face the reality of your claim?

You see you did not even take into consideration the primitive tools they used to do this. you just figured they had dremel tools, pre-cut patterns to follow etc... Why else would you claim it could be done better then it has?

Also, how would they know how they looked as well?

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:57 AM

I agree. If you get a bottle full of sand, gravel, rocks, mud, clay, etc. and shake it up, it will settle into different layers in a short period of time. There may also be other ways layers can form that I'm not aware of. I believe my avatar indicates that the layers cannot be millions of years old. It shows a tree, standing up, running through multiple layers. I know trees decay in less than a million years, so how could it stand there exposed to the sun and the elements for several million, while the layers accumulated around it, without it decaying? They had to form around it quickly, before the tree had time to rot.


I don't know lol. This is why I want to go to school to study geology, preferably flood geology.


That is not good enough for people already convinced evolution is a true proven fact that can "never" be falsified. Why is it not falsifiable?

1) They won't allow it.
2) Creation evidence is taboo because it's points to the supernatural which is also taboo. Naturalistic science will always only find naturalistic answers.

What that translates to is there is only one answer to find when you only will go down one road to find it. Evolution will "never" come to a crossroads as long as the only path ever taken always points to it. The only path a naturalist will ever take.

#18 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 July 2011 - 07:08 AM

Scientists say the polystrate trees are found only in lower elevations near coasts and lakes. I have an explanation. The tree line can only go so high up in elevation before the habitat cannot substain trees. It is highly possible that the land we sit on was at a much higher elevation pre-flood. Another thing, scientist DO NOT doubt that these trees were covered by flood waters. They say they were minor local floods. So at the same time they doubt different rock layers could be formed in a worldwide flood they don't deny the rock layers found around these trees were caused by a flood, interesting.

#19 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 July 2011 - 01:51 PM

After further research I have found these trees are found at higher elevations as well. Never trust your first source on google.

#20 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 27 July 2011 - 02:30 PM

Well, for one thing, the flood lasted for around a year, the layers weren't all formed in one day. Michael Oard's Flood By Design is good for acknowledging this. Cedarville University in Cedarville OH offers a Bachelor's Degree in Geology that teaches from both naturalistic and Young Earth paradigms. Very exciting!

http://creation.com/...of-creation-232

Awesome, thank you for the link.

Another thing, scientist DO NOT doubt that these trees were covered by flood waters. They say they were minor local floods. So at the same time they doubt different rock layers could be formed in a worldwide flood they don't deny the rock layers found around these trees were caused by a flood, interesting.

From what I've heard, the polystrate fossils are found all over the world and sometimes the trees are found upside down, proving that they didn't grow in place, but were transported. Does anyone know if this is true and where they are found upside down? If the trees weren't buried in the sediment where they are found as proof of a rapid burial, wouldn't the evolutionist conclude that the layers formed over long periods of time? If so, the question would be, whats the difference between the layers with polystrate fossils and the layers with no polystrate fossils that leads them to conclude that they formed differently, one slowly and one quickly?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)