Jump to content


Photo

Is Macroevolution Testable?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:48 PM

I'll give you an example: I have a theory that I can fly to the moon. In attempting to disprove my theory, you counter by saying it's impossible because I could never muster enough power to break through the earth's gravity. Therefore, you argue, my entire proposal is outlandish. I respond by saying I just haven't figured out the mechanism yet, as if it's a given that my original theory's true.


I quite like this. Now if you stated that the only obstacle is power to achieve escape velocity and an engine needed to be invented, you would certainly feel justified in being fobbed off with a claim of impossibility. After all the moon is just X distance away, and ‘theoretically’ a fireworks rocket have proven trust is possible in a vacuum. It’s a matter of scale not an absolute.


You're doing the same thing. You contend that ToE is true ... I point out a fatal flaw, and you counter by stating that that part hasn't been figured out yet, as if it's a given that ToE is true.
Think about it, Chance. You could defend any theory, regardless of how unreasonable it might be, with that logic.


Woops there you go again, stating that abiogenesis is a fatal flaw for the ToE, you argument fails right there.

#42 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 25 October 2005 - 10:57 PM

There are some diseases (as you mention like Elephantitus) for sure.  But what your proposing is that every skull not identified as homo-sapiens is an individual suffering from a bone disease! Including children.  (from memory I think there is somewhere near 120 Neanderthal individuals unearthed ranging over much of Europe over a long period of time).




Yes I am proposing exactly that. Are you proposing it is impossible to find 120 individuals burried in cemetaries today with similar bones diseases?
As for the historical bones (mis-identified as Neandrathal) I would not be surprised to find far more. Within the proposal that biblical creation is our history is the implication that there were tens (?) hundreds (?) of thousands, milllions (?) of people on the planet when God flooded the Earth and only 8 people survived. Post flood live spans began to decrease due to the introduction of solar radiation but would for some time still be extensive compared to now. Methusala was the oldest pre-flood human recorded at near 1000 years. 120 bodies recovered from so many candidates indicates there should be many more available. It is unlikely they will be found though due to the flood and the decay it would have caused.

Not only that but as well as facial feature there are other differences in body proportion e.g Neanderthal have different proportions in leg, body and chest, (basically cold weather adaptation). Other indications like bone density and musculature indicate the individuals were robust and healthy, living active and dangerous lives (broken bones that have healed).

So, what is the body used to decide proper, acceptable proportions for a modern human? I looked around my neighborhood and could not decide whose body was normal. Scandanavians are regarded as genetically adapted to the cold. If we open the graves of people buried within the last year is it impossible that there will be bodies of healthy, robust, people who were active and broke their bones?


True, but that moment may be far away in time to the ancestor it is related too. It’s like taking a road trip across the USA blindfolded (as a passenger) then removing the blindfold every one hundred or so kilometres for a split second. Sometimes little would have changed as you travel through those rectangular states in the middle as farming land goes by, but if you come to a mountain range the topography will change much faster, would even be possible to miss it.

Your analogy ignores my point. The massive number of fossils available from sediment indicates most (90%, a guess) of fossils uncovered in massive deposits of sediment placed by water. Does this have to be "Noah's flood"? No. But such a flood wuld leave such a deposit.

I would like to see some evidence (link) where that claim is made. An organism cut off from oxygen, buried in mud, sand, silt etc can be preserved, mineralisation follows.

Young Earth Evidence
A Google search for rapid fossil formation found 721,000 siites.
Yes it can. And we have the fossil record to prove it. The question is; How long can the dead organism lay on the surface awaiting burial. According to evolution these rotting corpses stayed in tact while thousands of years of sediment coverd them milimeters at a time. For the duration evolution requires the corpse to await burial it is impossible for the corpse to remain intact.

Proven! I think not.

Fossil Record
This site has views from both sides. Even those unwilling to yield to creation seem to agree the fossil record is unsupportive of evolution. Even if we cannot agree that evolutin is not proved invalid can't you see that evolution has too many unknowns to be varified at this point?

Your explanation of drug resistant viruses is a strange one. E.g. the common cold evades our own anti bodies not by becoming simpler in any way but by evolving a different external shape, this prevents our own anti bodies latching on. Do you have a link to the claim you made?

View Post


I have to admit to regurgitation on this point for now as I cannot find a site speaking of the mechanics of virus mutation, only that they do. It was explained to me in this manner;
As is true with any life form on earth, there is variation. Viruses (?) of similar disease have individual characteristics. The medicine used to counter the virus cannot be designed to counter all the individual virus but is designed against the most common. Viruses need numbers to overwhelm the immune system. Once the numbers are reduced enough they cannot repel the immune sytems own attack. The immune is usually able to defend from this partcular virus. The problem is too often people decide they are healed before their immune system has taken hold because the administered antibodies are creating a stable system for the immune system to recover and attack from. Quitting the antibodies early causes the immune system to fail its attempt at irradicating the virus entirely. The viruses which remain are not the viruses the administered antibodies are designed to treat. So when it is re-administered it is unable to affect the remaining viruses. To call this a new virus is equal to saying a man with no arms is new. He is simply harder to handcuff. Of course the reverse may occur and a stronger form of the virus may be the second line of this attack. But now we can only equate it to a man with arms being the replacement. In both cases we have no new virus, just different. in most cases it is the lesser version that remains and is and is more reliant on the human and less distinct from the human host.
Sorry about the length. I'll try to find you a site. but I am up too late now, 0400 is my wakeup.

#43 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 26 October 2005 - 06:46 AM

Woops there you go again, stating that abiogenesis is a fatal flaw for the ToE, you argument fails right there.

View Post

Chance, you can't simply state that abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE and therefore is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not you consider abiogenesis as part of ToE dogma, you are still using an unproven theory to justify a highly questionable one. If you're going to prove, for example, any mathematical formula, you have to reduce everything to basic axioms. ToE is nowhere near an axiom of science.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:26 PM

But what your proposing is that every skull not identified as homo-sapiens is an individual suffering from a bone disease! Including children.  (from memory I think there is somewhere near 120 Neanderthal individuals unearthed ranging over much of Europe over a long period of time).

Yes I am proposing exactly that. Are you proposing it is impossible to find 120 individuals burried in cemetaries today with similar bones diseases?


I would put money on it! I.e dig a body up at random and find the first 120 with a bone disease. In fact I’ll go one further, I would bet a pound to a penny that the first 120 bodies you dig up do no all die from the same cause nor over their lifetime be inflicted with an identical disease. But you need not dig up bodies just walk around the city and observe 120 people at random, it the same thing, yes?

As for the historical bones (mis-identified as Neandrathal) I would not be surprised to find far more. Within the proposal that biblical creation is our history is the implication that there were tens (?) hundreds (?) of thousands, milllions (?) of people on the planet when God flooded the Earth and only 8 people survived. Post flood live spans began to decrease due to the introduction of solar radiation but would for some time still be extensive compared to now. Methusala was the oldest pre-flood human recorded at near 1000 years. 120 bodies recovered from so many candidates indicates there should be many more available. It is unlikely they will be found though due to the flood and the decay it would have caused.


There is much difficulty in finding scientific evidence to back up these biblical claims. Science currently has evidence for and claims:

a. old earth/universe,
b. no evidence of a global flood,
c. no evidence that a human can live much beyond 110,
d. no reason to expect solar radiation (what spectrum are you proposing has changed?) has change significantly.

I think we are slipping into an area of belief here, IMO one can choose to believe what one desires, but if you wish to claim that there is scientific evidence for the things you claim, we can discuss that.


So, what is the body used to decide proper, acceptable proportions for a modern human? I looked around my neighborhood and could not decide whose body was normal. Scandanavians are regarded as genetically adapted to the cold. If we open the graves of people buried within the last year is it impossible that there will be bodies of healthy, robust, people who were active and broke their bones?


There is significant anatomic differences. All humans (including Scandinavians) are adapted for the heat not cold, naked body, sweat glands on the skin, high surface area to body proportion. The Eskimo has somewhat adapted to the cold with a stocky body, but is still out of his ideal element. By comparison the Neanderthal is an ultra-eskimo, large face (to accommodate better nasal cavities), I think the teeth are different too but don’t quote me on that, huge chest, much thicker bones, a little shorter, much stronger, shorter legs. In a recent documentary on the Neanderthal they analysed this aspect of cold adaptation in the Neanderthal, and reasoned that he would have a hard time in a warming climate, and deforestation, it was proposed he was not athletic like a homo-sapiens (i.e. long distance running).


chance> It’s like taking a road trip across the USA blindfolded (as a passenger) then removing the blindfold every one hundred or so kilometres for a split second. Sometimes little would have changed as you travel through those rectangular states in the middle as farming land goes by, but if you come to a mountain range the topography will change much faster, would even be possible to miss it.

Your analogy ignores my point. The massive number of fossils available from sediment indicates most (90%, a guess) of fossils uncovered in massive deposits of sediment placed by water. Does this have to be "Noah's flood"? No. But such a flood wuld leave such a deposit.


I was attempting to demonstrate that there are not a massive number of fossils, when compared to the amount of biota that has existed, not to mention the amount discovered, it is a pitifully small percentage. The fossils we do have are, as you say, linked (in most cases) to water. Land animals are fossilised usual due to dieing near a river (seasonal flood), or some sediment collecting area under the ocean.

The Noachian flood would give a radically different strata (and fossils contained) that what is currently found.


Young Earth Evidence
A Google search for rapid fossil formation found 721,000 siites.
Yes it can. And we have the fossil record to prove it. The question is; How long can the dead organism lay on the surface awaiting burial. According to evolution these rotting corpses stayed in tact while thousands of years of sediment coverd them milimeters at a time. For the duration evolution requires the corpse to await burial it is impossible for the corpse to remain intact.


Thanks for the two links I’ll get round to them later. A quick perusal however sees some very dubious claims.

An animal that is fossilised requires burial before it decays away, nowhere have I seen a scientific explanation of an animal lying on the surface for thousands of years, that is not evolutionary theory (strictly speaking the fossilisation process).


This site has views from both sides. Even those unwilling to yield to creation seem to agree the fossil record is unsupportive of evolution. Even if we cannot agree that evolutin is not proved invalid can't you see that evolution has too many unknowns to be varified at this point?


The standard response to the question of unknowns is: The fact that evolution occurred is undisputable, the current disputes are centred on the exact mechanisms that drive evolution. Of course there are going to be unknowns that’s what science is all about solving. But as I have stated many times on these forums when one starts digging into the specifics of these YEC claims, they are unfounded, sometimes worse.



I have to admit to regurgitation on this point for now as I cannot find a site speaking of the mechanics of virus mutation, only that they do. It was explained to me in this manner;

As is true with any life form on earth, there is variation. Viruses (?) of similar disease have individual characteristics. The medicine used to counter the virus cannot be designed to counter all the individual virus but is designed against the most common. Viruses need numbers to overwhelm the immune system. Once the numbers are reduced enough they cannot repel the immune sytems own attack. The immune is usually able to defend from this partcular virus. The problem is too often people decide they are healed before their immune system has taken hold because the administered antibodies are creating a stable system for the immune system to recover and attack from. Quitting the antibodies early causes the immune system to fail its attempt at irradicating the virus entirely. The viruses which remain are not the viruses the administered antibodies are designed to treat. So when it is re-administered it is unable to affect the remaining viruses. To call this a new virus is equal to saying a man with no arms is new. He is simply harder to handcuff. Of course the reverse may occur and a stronger form of the virus may be the second line of this attack. But now we can only equate it to a man with arms being the replacement. In both cases we have no new virus, just different. in most cases it is the lesser version that remains and is and is more reliant on the human and less distinct from the human host.
Sorry about the length. I'll try to find you a site. but I am up too late now, 0400 is my wakeup.


I agree with much of that explanation. However there are some points that need expanding, viruses and bacteria do survive by shear weight of numbers, in addition to a fast life cycle (more opportunity to evolve).

Viruses are dealt with our immune system (generalising) not drugs, (bacteria are dealt with by drugs, and the white cells in our blood) you seem to be including the treatment of bacteria and viruses as if they were the same. But the principle is ultimately the same, bacteria and viruses that survive the initial onslaught go on to producing drug (immune system) resistant strains. Basic Darwinian survival of the fittest (bacteria and viruses are individuals just like us, all individuals are different in some small way, that small way may just be enough to survive a medicine.

#45 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 02:28 PM

Chance, you can't simply state that abiogenesis has nothing to do with ToE and therefore is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not you consider abiogenesis as part of ToE dogma, you are still using an unproven theory to justify a highly questionable one. If you're going to prove, for example, any mathematical formula, you have to reduce everything to basic axioms. ToE is nowhere near an axiom of science.


I can and do, but please, can we take this to the ‘abiogenesis thread.

#46 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 26 October 2005 - 03:34 PM

The fact that evolution occurred is undisputable, the current disputes are centred on the exact mechanisms that drive evolution.

Chance, when you make statements like this you only reveal your personal insecurity and emotional attachment to evolution. Furthermore, it obliterates any credibility you might have as an objective scientist.

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:08 PM

chance> The fact that evolution occurred is undisputable, the current disputes are centred on the exact mechanisms that drive evolution.

Chance, when you make statements like this you only reveal your personal insecurity and emotional attachment to evolution.


You are quite wrong, my statement is paraphrased from many articles reporting on science re evolution. As a quick reference see the National Geographic issue “Was Darwin Wrong” on the cover page. You are deluding yourself if you think the scientific establishment thinks otherwise.


Furthermore, it obliterates any credibility you might have as an objective scientist.


I’m not a scientist, however I do consider myself to be objective, i.e. can you, present some evidence that my statement is inaccurate?

#48 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 October 2005 - 07:17 PM

lwj2op2,Oct 26 2005, 03:57 PM
From the link Young Earth Evidences:

Geologic Phenomena are Rapid!
"To some thoughtful stratigraphers this amazing discovery [Great Age] presented a dilemma, for if the known stratified rocks have been accumulating throughout this vast span of time the average rate of deposition must have been extremely slow, yet there is very good evidence that individual beds accumulated rapidly." (Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128)


This is a distortion, the organism must be covered up in reasonable time, that’s true, but there is no ‘average’ rate of deposition, local flood, typhoon, landslides etc will be good preserves methods of covering up the organism, the process of fossilisation after that event can then take it’s own sweet time.





Rapid Formation of Layers & Coal

Dunbar & Rogers continued… "Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates. In the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)


Again not a problem, because no one says fast deposition cannot occur. In fact in the USA there is a famous site where fossils are thought to have been concentrated in a river bend, as the river looses speed it dumps the contents into the bend of the river.

Articulated fossils
Dunbar & Rogers continued… "In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most." (Dunbar & Rogers, Principles Of Stratigraphy, p 128, Standard geology textbook used in universities)


Again, no problem. The author continualy seems to confuse the ‘method of coverage’ with ‘the method of fossilisation’.


Pearlized Sea Shells: Ammonite
Rapidly Perishing Detail Preserved


Same argument again

Rapid Petrifaction
The cowboy leg inside this boot is fossilized. This dramatic example demonstrates that it does not take millions, thousands or even hundreds of years to form fossils.


Is this an example of preservation or fossilsiation? Not sure what to make of the this one?


Speleotherms: stalagmites and stalactites

Some geology textbooks tell us that stalagmites and stalactites form at a rate of thousands of years per cubic inch. Here is a speleotherm over 10 feet high formed in less than 40 years!


Then those geology book are wrong, there is no average rate, it is determined by the saturation of the dripping water and the rate of evaporation from the surface.



The second link Fossil Record contains way to much material to comment upon, I recommend you pick a topical one and we can discuss the merits of it.

#49 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 26 October 2005 - 09:54 PM

[quote name='chance' date='Oct 26 2005, 08:17 PM']
lwj2op2,Oct 26 2005, 03:57 PM
From the link Young Earth Evidences:
This is a distortion, the organism must be covered up in reasonable time, that’s true, but there is no ‘average’ rate of deposition, local flood, typhoon, landslides etc will be good preserves methods of covering up the organism, the process of fossilisation after that event can then take it’s own sweet time.[QUOTE]

Then you agree the sediment layers must be rapid formed to allow fossilization?



[QUOTE]Again, no problem. The author continualy seems to confuse the ‘method of coverage’ with ‘the method of fossilisation’.
Same argument again[/QUOTE]

The is no confusion. The author is stating the obvious. In the instance of the tree fossilized in while rooted and growing (a common finding) the tree coould not have spanned the thousands of yearsd evolution claims for sedimentation and fossilisation.

[QUOTE]Is this an example of preservation or fossilsiation? Not sure what to make of the this one?[/QUOTE]

Quite simple. It is the foot and boot of a cowboy. How many thousands of years ago did cowboys begin dying and become available o the fossil record.

[QUOTE]Then those geology book are wrong, there is no average rate, it is determined by the saturation of the dripping water and the rate of evaporation from the surface.[/QUOTE]

The reason those books are wrong is they rely on an invalid basis of dating. They use innacurate measuring tools and assumme the Earth to be (what is the current requirement of evolutionists? several trillion years yet?) a certain age. With this data they must (incorrectly) assume the age of everything else fits the data. Without knowing (Ihope) they present false information.

[QUOTE]The second link Fossil Record contains way to much material to comment upon, I recommend you pick a topical one and we can discuss the merits of it.

View Post

[/quote]

I agree but it is useful for study, if you dare.

#50 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 27 October 2005 - 12:40 PM

When I say that macroevolution only requires a change in the genetic material, I simply mean that DNA sequence of an organism must only change.  I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but there is no "addition" of genes into the sequence.  Evolution does not state that nature somehow splices in sequences of DNA to turn a rhino into a turnip.  All that evolution relies on is the changing of a DNA sequence.  By this I mean mutation.  That's all a mutation is, a change in the DNA sequence.  This can be a result from radiation, chemical mutagens or simple errors in DNA replication.  For instance, by simply deleting one nucleotide from a DNA chain, you change the reading frame of that gene, changing the protein encoded within it.

View Post


This of course is the same ole equivocation on what evolution is. See my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

If the naturalistic origin of life is so convincing to you, why do you need to resort to such an illusionary argument, that really offers nothing tangible in the question of origins?

Fred

#51 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 27 October 2005 - 01:30 PM

Ratrat

When I say that macroevolution only requires a change in the genetic material, I simply mean that DNA sequence of an organism must only change.  I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but there is no "addition" of genes into the sequence.  Evolution does not state that nature somehow splices in sequences of DNA to turn a rhino into a turnip.  All that evolution relies on is the changing of a DNA sequence.  By this I mean mutation.  That's all a mutation is, a change in the DNA sequence.  This can be a result from radiation, chemical mutagens or simple errors in DNA replication.  For instance, by simply deleting one nucleotide from a DNA chain, you change the reading frame of that gene, changing the protein encoded within it.

View Post


Within the short time I have been participating two evolutionist points of view have caught my attention.
1. Abiogenisis must have happened even though evolutionists agree it is impossible within the laws os Science.
2. Evolution does not increase complexity of organisms, only re-arranges what is already there.
From this I must conclude;
1. However life started on Earth it was begun from beyond this universe. God could do that.
2. Any advancement in any specie, must involve a manipulation other than by evolution because there are organisms on Earth more complex than the simple organisms which according to evolution were the first. God could do that.

I don't believe God used evolution but how do you explain these impossible (according to you and other ev's I have read here) events?

#52 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 October 2005 - 02:31 PM

Then you agree the sediment layers must be rapid formed to allow fossilization?


That’s not quite what I said. The animal must be covered up before the bones decays away, obviously, that could be up to a year I suppose, perhaps a bit longer. The fossilisation will take longer and is dependant upon the sediment it is in. e.g. the fossil remains of homo-floresiensis is said to have the consistence of ‘mashed potato’! perhaps that’s as good as it will get, other fossils are actually mineralised and are rock in every way.

The is no confusion. The author is stating the obvious. In the instance of the tree fossilized in while rooted and growing (a common finding) the tree coould not have spanned the thousands of yearsd evolution claims for sedimentation and fossilisation.


Of course a tree could not span thousands of years of sediment, thus there must be a alternate explanation.

questions I will need to know:

Where is it, and is there a link describing the find.
Is it the roots or the tree that penetrates the strata?
Could the tree have been previously fossilised, uncovered then reburied?

Is this an example of preservation or fossilsiation? Not sure what to make of the this one?

Quite simple. It is the foot and boot of a cowboy. How many thousands of years ago did cowboys begin dying and become available o the fossil record.


Why do yo make the assumption of a thousand years?

More information is need:
e.g. is the foot/boot, preserved or fossilised.
extent of fossilisation/preservation.

Then those geology book are wrong, there is no average rate, it is determined by the saturation of the dripping water and the rate of evaporation from the surface.

The reason those books are wrong is they rely on an invalid basis of dating. They use innacurate measuring tools and assumme the Earth to be (what is the current requirement of evolutionists? several trillion years yet?) a certain age. With this data they must (incorrectly) assume the age of everything else fits the data. Without knowing (Ihope) they present false information.


You are creating a false dilemma, i.e. because someone has stated an erroneous method of calculating the age of Stalactites and Stalagmites, that does not equate to other methods of dating the earth in general. Nor does it suggests all other scientists have overlook something as obvious.



The second link Fossil Record contains way to much material to comment upon, I recommend you pick a topical one and we can discuss the merits of it.

I agree but it is useful for study, if you dare.


Seen them all before. When one examines them in detail the claims turn out to be groundless. Do you intend to choose a topic from the list or were you inferring that I don’t have the courage to take a look, (fearing my world view will collapse around me)?

#53 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 27 October 2005 - 09:58 PM

Ratrat
Within the short time I have been participating two evolutionist points of view have caught my attention.
1. Abiogenisis must have happened even though evolutionists agree it is impossible within the laws os Science.
2. Evolution does not increase complexity of organisms, only re-arranges what is already there.
From this I must conclude;
1. However life started on Earth it was begun from beyond this universe. God could do that.
2. Any advancement in any specie, must involve a manipulation other than by evolution because there are organisms on Earth more complex than the simple organisms which according to evolution were the first. God could do that.

I don't believe God used evolution but how do you explain these impossible (according to you and other ev's I have read here) events?

View Post


Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis to happen. As you said, life could have been started by God. Even if you wish to say that God's hand led evolution down the path that it has taken, this does not cause a problem for evolutionists. It causes a problem for atheists. In fact, I attended a lecture at my university from a proffesor with degrees in both Religious Theism (I can't remember what the exact name of the degree he had is, but it is basically religious studies) and Evolutionary Biology. I think that this man would be FAR more qualified to argue on this subject than any of us. In his lecture, he stated that the majority of people today (I live in Canada remember, we have slightly different views than you guys, as does everyone from everyone else) are what is known as Theistic Evolutionists. This simply states that God created the first life, and through evolution, formed it into what is seen today. Even the late Pope agreed to this (I hear the new one is quite a bit more conservative and probably doesn't hold this belief).

You are right, evolution does not increase complexity of species. In fact, most of the insect orders are believed to have evolved about the time the dinosaurs went extinct. I think you'll agree that a dinosaur is far more complex than an insect and yet it is believed that the insect evolved several hundred years later than the dinosaur.

#54 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 27 October 2005 - 10:15 PM

Theistic Evolutionists.  This simply states that God created the first life, and through evolution, formed it into what is seen today.  Even the late Pope agreed to this (I hear the new one is quite a bit more conservative and probably doesn't hold this belief).

You are right, evolution does not increase complexity of species.  In fact, most of the insect orders are believed to have evolved about the time the dinosaurs went extinct.  I think you'll agree that a dinosaur is far more complex than an insect and yet it is believed that the insect evolved several hundred years later than the dinosaur.

View Post


The most prominent difficulty of theistic evolution is that God is clear in the Bible on His method. Not with a scientific explanation but there is no doubt, from a literal interpretation, as to what happened. This is where I had to finaly decide whether I would beleive the Bible or not. It can only be accepted if it accepted in whole. If taken in parts it is useless.

#55 ratrat

ratrat

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:04 PM

The most prominent difficulty of theistic evolution is that God is clear in the Bible on His method.  Not with a scientific explanation but there is no doubt, from a literal interpretation, as to what happened. This is where I had to finaly decide whether I would beleive the Bible or not. It can only be accepted if it accepted in whole. If taken in parts it is useless.

View Post


Yes, a Theistic Evolutionist wouldn't take the bible literally. I actually have some questions about this but they aren't appropriate to this thread, could an admin direct me to one that is, if one exists on this forum?

#56 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2005 - 06:50 PM

Yes, a Theistic Evolutionist wouldn't take the bible literally.  I actually have some questions about this but they aren't appropriate to this thread, could an admin direct me to one that is, if one exists on this forum?


You could open a topic in the Miscelaneous section if you want to start one.

I'm interested in it, but there aren't any theistic evolutionis roaming this Forum lately, and the one time I asked how they tried to square it with the Bible, I got no answer.

Terry

#57 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 28 October 2005 - 10:20 PM

[quote name='chance' date='Oct 27 2005, 03:31 PM']

questions I will need to know:

Where is it, and is there a link describing the find.
Is it the roots or the tree that penetrates the strata?
Could the tree have been previously fossilised, uncovered then reburied?

[/quote]

Here is a link I found by searching [COLOR=purple]trees in sediment[COLOR=blue]

[QUOTE]Why do yo make the assumption of a thousand years?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I have a snide side that threw you off. I don't belive the boot and foot are 1000 years old. Petrification is an accepted method of proof of great age. The cowboy who's foot and boot this were obviously (being a cowboy) were from our own recent history. One proof of great age that is useless and relied upon.

More information is need:
e.g. is the foot/boot, preserved or fossilised.
extent of fossilisation/preservation.

[/quote]

You are creating a false dilemma, i.e. because someone has stated an erroneous method of calculating the age of Stalactites and Stalagmites, that does not equate to other methods of dating the earth in general. Nor does it suggests all other scientists have overlook something as obvious.
[/quote]

Not false but, as yet, incomplete. We now know we cannot use stalagtites/mites or petrification for dating. If evolution could happen it would take many more years than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows. What method of dating do you rely on?


[QUOTE]
Seen them all before. When one examines them in detail the claims turn out to be groundless. Do you intend to choose a topic from the list or were you inferring that I don’t have the courage to take a look, (fearing my world view will collapse around me)?

View Post

[/quote]

If you have examined all of the evidence you could not have found it all groundless. Obviously you have not examined it all. As I have found with the evidence for evolution you will find creation evidence a mix science, belief, and mistakes or lies. The trick is to find the reliable and ignore the remainder. I did not challenge because I think you have not the courage. I challenged you to look because; I guessed you would assume the info could not be correct without looking and If you want to discuss any of the topics it is best you choose so I cannot steer the debate.

#58 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 October 2005 - 01:57 PM

chance> questions I will need to know:

Where is it, and is there a link describing the find.
Is it the roots or the tree that penetrates the strata?
Could the tree have been previously fossilised, uncovered then reburied?

Here is a link I found by searching ‘trees in sediment’


Thanks I can’t find the specific one from the first link, however please take a look at this explanation LINK

Why do yo make the assumption of a thousand years?

Sorry, I have a snide side that threw you off. I don't belive the boot and foot are 1000 years old. Petrification is an accepted method of proof of great age. The cowboy who's foot and boot this were obviously (being a cowboy) were from our own recent history. One proof of great age that is useless and relied upon.


Petrification is a process, somewhat variable in the length of time it takes. Petrification is not directly the age indicator, like C14 or any of the other radiometric dating methods. E.g. say the boot in question fell in a sediment containing the best possible conditions and that was 100 years, then it would not disprove any form of age determination that I’m aware of. All that you would have prove is a version of rapid petrification.

Do you have a link for this cowboy boot find?


You are creating a false dilemma, i.e. because someone has stated an erroneous method of calculating the age of Stalactites and Stalagmites, that does not equate to other methods of dating the earth in general. Nor does it suggests all other scientists have overlook something as obvious.

Not false but, as yet, incomplete. We now know we cannot use stalagtites/mites or petrification for dating. If evolution could happen it would take many more years than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows. What method of dating do you rely on?


Again a false dilemma, because the only thing the rate of stalactites/mites formation would determine is themselves. Is there some correlation between these cave formations and an age of the earth calculation that you are objecting too?


Seen them all before. When one examines them in detail the claims turn out to be groundless. Do you intend to choose a topic from the list or were you inferring that I don’t have the courage to take a look, (fearing my world view will collapse around me)?

If you have examined all of the evidence you could not have found it all groundless. Obviously you have not examined it all. As I have found with the evidence for evolution you will find creation evidence a mix science, belief, and mistakes or lies. The trick is to find the reliable and ignore the remainder.


There is no trick, all evidence must be analysed, and an explanation found. If there is one overarching theme it is the YEC (AiG) do not use science, in fact their “statement of faith” requires that any evidence that contradicts the Bible is false, erroneous or a lie be disregarded/reinterpreted, no if’s, but’s, or maybe’s. No way is that conducive to objective scientific investigation, and IMO why it can’t be called science.

I did not challenge because I think you have not the courage. I challenged you to look because; I guessed you would assume the info could not be correct without looking and If you want to discuss any of the topics it is best you choose so I cannot steer the debate.


OK. My favourite topic is the fossil record, currently open.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users