creation or evolution

tttia · July 9, 2005

Your challenge here makes no sense:

. If you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are good creationist sources that disprove or bad talk origin articles (with an explanation why of course) that I have previously used then I see your in no situation to talk.

Do you mean evolutionary sources? That would make more sense to your overall argument.

On the question of origins, I already said that origins was sepereate from evolution, but often taught along side it. What do you prove by posting a definition as though it were a novel thought? You just sound condescending, when actually you simply restate my own point. The rest of my post goes on to deal with evolution. But since a large amount of the debate within this thread has dealt with origins, and blended it with evolution, my post was completely justifiable. I differentiated between the two. However, you ultimately have to show a materialistic beginning to this life that evolved. So the two theories are not completely seperate.

a. they both suppose a purely materialistic world.

b. they both depend upon long time periods, which of course many creationists dispute anyway.

There fore it makes sense to dispute both if you have a radically different viewpoint on these presuppositions.

I will also note , that I find it frequently happens that evolutionists will NOT chellenge this view of origins until someone actually presents good evidence that even scientists don't really accept it. Then they back away and say "oh, I can see that you are dense because you confuse this with origins." Why didn't you say anything all this time with the other posts? Why was everyone content to think that the production of amino acids was proof of it before? Surely you knew all of this.

The two are linked, and if you can't defend it, just say so.

As for sources, You quoted a few articles from talk origins. I find however that they tend to simply do what every other site, Christian or otherwise, does. They justify their own position, even if they have to do some rather obscure reasoning. This is EXPECTED. Now some might indeed be more scientific in their approach. But what I was referring to was that some consider ANY creationist source to be by default wrong. Incidentally, I referred to your using talk origins, but I was referring to someone else when talking about people rejecting all creationist sources. I don't think you necessarily doI actually prefer to take both sides, assume they are biased ,and see which points are accepted by both as a spot for starting.

Here is one short quote from a talk origins article on mutations. It shows the kind of reasoning I am talking about.

Of those that have significant effect [mutations}, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

So they initially at mid that the most are harfmful. But then they try to turn it around and say, most are good. No actually most are NEUTRAL, some are harmful, and a very small few are good. But they take that and turn it into good ones are really plentiful--which is the only way to show that certain parts of evolution could happen within the time frame (see the rest of my earlier post).

I await your thoughts on the rest of my post. And try to at least give credit where we agree, instead of citing that we don't and then piling on because of it, when in fact we do.

I will give you credit on your strong points, but not if you gloss over anything else. Which is precisely what most articles on both sides do.

Death_By_Pod · July 9, 2005

Your challenge here makes no sense:

. If you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are good creationist sources that disprove or bad talk origin articles (with an explanation why of course) that I have previously used then I see your in no situation to talk.

Do you mean evolutionary sources? That would make more sense to your overall argument.

It should have read:

ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIf you would kindly give me a link to some articles which you think are a good creationist explanation that will disprove evolution (I.e. without resorting to just Bible quoteÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s. Examples such as the giraffe has a long neck or Irreducible complexity which are in fact both easy to explain) OR bad talk-origin.org articles (with an explanation why it is bad source) that I have previously used to explain things. Then I see youÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢re in no situation to talk until we have some ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâfactsÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ that are in conflict with each other.ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

tttia · July 9, 2005

Please post new information in a new post once a reply has been made by someone else. I missed your edit on your post about sources for some time.

So far you addressed none of my specifics other than to agree (while pretending not to) with the first few paragraphs. Rather than say how easy it is to refute it, why not actually do so?

I generally do not read a lot of online material, but fortunately I now found that one of the journals I really enjoy, from a more scholarly bent, is online. The site is ugly, but at least the info is there. They have the back issues from 1975 to the present there (strangely with 1975 first, but just scroll down). It is bi-anual, and is a great little informative source.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm

Each issue generally deals with at least one specific issue, such as reversals of the earth's polarity, or Dedrochronology compared to carbon dating, etc. They also have an editorial and some literature reviews.

For instance, this article is a look at the issue I raised at one point, the fact that there is residual carbon remaining in very old samples. You seem to have covered it in your edit.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

You will find that it does list all of the scientific sources so that you may look them over. Although sometimes it makes references to earlier experiments or articles by the same group. You can always look those up to see their base line sources, since they are also in the index. In all the bibliography includes over 50 sources. The article explains how contamination is not likely to be all that great ,etc. They look at three forms of contaminiation. I suggest you take a look at it.

Another article deals with the functionality of what was once thought to be junk DNA. This would reinforce my discussion of Heldane's Dillemma etc. (not that actually agree that Heldane's formulation is the best, I noted that in my first post, but it does raise the issue).

http://www.grisda.org/origins/53007.pdf

This Editorial sample deals with the argument that science is always proving religion wrong over time...(Gallileo, etc.)

Here is a brief excerpt:

6 ORIGINS 2004

This brings up an important point. One of the reasons ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅscienceÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

Death_By_Pod · July 10, 2005

Evolution vs. Abiogenesis

While I will admit abiogenesis is put next to evolution as a solution for origins and it is a relatively new science and an under funded one but it is still a science. It deals with creating life from non matter. Currently we have nothing on life but we do know that organic matter can arise from elements how much and how it can form we just donÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t know. Abiogenesis is the beginning or how it starts; after it starts you canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t use abiogenesis to describe what happens. The process is then described by evolution. You donÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t hear people say the big bang can predict what made the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâbangÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢; it only describes the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâbangÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢.

However this topic is about evolution so using insufficient evidence in the area of abiogenesis can not be used to disprove evolution since they are two different things. The two are linked by nature but they are separate things. If we were on the moon and I gave you a recipe for a cake and showed you a cake and told you to make it, then how would you know what flour is or what eggs are? Yet I clearly gave you a recipe and a cake it must be possible but we lack the understanding of flour and egg because it does not occur on the moon.

Holes in evolution do not disprove evolution.

The presence of holes (which I of course admit) does not show evolution is wrong, after all the conditions for fossilisation is less then perfect and therefore it misses a lot of species in the process. The thing that does destroy evolution would be a contradiction in the theory and so far none have really been put forward.

Evolution still has a lot of explaining to do much in the same way NewtonÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s theory of gravity could not describe all situations (It was later replaced by EinsteinÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s laws). Evolution will have extensions, deletions and additions but the concept is strong and shows. The nitty gritty detail is yet to be finalised (nothing ever gets finalised it just get refined).

http://www.grisda.org/teachers/faq.htm provided by you, states a lot is actually missing from the creationist theory.

ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅHow do we explain what appear to be nests of dinosaur eggs and babies in sediments we think were probably deposited by the flood? Why don't we find fossils of dinosaurs mixed with fossils of living types of mammals? How could man survive with such powerful animals around?

Why do we not find fossils of giant humans? Why do we not find any human fossils that appear to have been buried by the Flood? What is the explanation for the fossils with mixtures of ape-like and human-like characteristics?

What did the originally created animals and plants look like? Why are humans so similar to other animals, especially the apes?

The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers. Other questions include why radiometric dating systematically gives ages that are much older than suggested by the biblical record; an explanation for traces of activity in the geologic column; and an explanation for the long series of layers in ice cores.

What events took place on Days 1 and 4 of Creation Week? When were the water and minerals of the Earth created?

How could such a catastrophic event produce such an orderly fossil sequence? Why do fossils at the bottom of the geologic column seem so different from anything now living, while fossils higher in the column are more similar to species now living? Why do some fossils appear in a morphological series that correlates, in a general sense, with evolutionary theory? How did the plants and animals reach their present locations after the flood?

How many different kinds of animals were saved on Noah's ark, and what are their descendants? How did terrestrial vertebrates get from the ark to their present distributions?

How do we explain the evidence that some regions of North America and Northern Europe experienced alternating intervals of glaciation and warmer climates, suggesting a longer period of time than most creationists believe was available. How do we explain ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica that are interpreted as representing periods of time of 100,000 years or more. What is the meaning of sequences of laminae interpreted as due to cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit, called Milankovich cycles?

How much have the plates actually moved? When and how rapidly have they moved? What happened to the pre-Flood continents? How could the ocean-floor magma cool in a few thousand years if they moved so fast during the Flood?

How do we find truth when reason and faith seem to clash?ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

Theo_Mcsod · July 10, 2005

Its easy to read the creation stories and realise that most are simply a metaphor for what science is beginning to tell us.

The real question you lot should be asking is where the heck did everything come from in the first place?

Kielmccaul75 · July 10, 2005

Off-topic slightly.. Please keep this clean. If you haven't got anything productive to say, don't say anything.

Also, keep in mind, this is evolution versus creation, not christians verses everyone else. Keep the misc. religious/antireligious dribble out of it.

Thank you very much for saying that ;) I could see this becoming a religion vs. non religion flamewar.

I personally are under the belief that life was not created by a "supreme being" and that Natural Selection made us the way we are today. The "steady state" theory is stupid IMO.

tttia · July 10, 2005

Death by Pod said,

Evolution vs. Abiogenesis

While I will admit abiogenesis is put next to evolution as a solution for origins and it is a relatively new science and an under funded one but it is still a science. It deals with creating life from non matter. Currently we have nothing on life but we do know that organic matter can arise from elements how much and how it can form we just don't know. Abiogenesis is the beginning or how it starts; after it starts you can't use abiogenesis to describe what happens. The process is then described by evolution. You don't hear people say the big bang can predict what made the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹Ãâbang'; it only describes the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹Ãâbang'.

However this topic is about evolution so using insufficient evidence in the area of abiogenesis can not be used to disprove evolution since they are two different things. The two are linked by nature but they are separate things. If we were on the moon and I gave you a recipe for a cake and showed you a cake and told you to make it, then how would you know what flour is or what eggs are? Yet I clearly gave you a recipe and a cake it must be possible but we lack the understanding of flour and egg because it does not occur on the moon.

Didn't we already cover this? This is the second time you have COMPLETELY FAILED to read what I said. I already said that abiogenesis is a question about ORIGINS not evolution. What is your point? I am not disproving evolution by disproving abiogenesis. I am disproving ABIOGENESIS. People were discussing BOTH origins and evolution here. Why not talk about both in my post? But at least we cleared this much upÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâthat you have no answers on origins, and apparently are a bit sensitive on the point.

However, you are dodging the real question. People always say that creationists are unscientific because they posit that God is involved, which is an unscientific position. However, creation itself is a question of ORIGINS, just as abiogenesis is. Let me put it this way

abiogenesis vs. Creation

short time/polyphyletic origin of species vs long time/monophyletic origin of species

In other words, the actual creation is just the same as abiogenesis in its goalÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâto explain how life started. But the real question is how old is the earth? Did all life start from one organism and adapt from there? Or from many and simply adapt less? The real question is did life happen in multiple instances with varying characteristics, or did it evolve.

Those are the very questions in contention. And that is the SCIENTIFIC part of the creationist argument. And in fact, it has a lot going for it.

Holes in evolution do not disprove evolution.

The presence of holes (which I of course admit) does not show evolution is wrong, after all the conditions for fossilisation is less then perfect and therefore it misses a lot of species in the process. The thing that does destroy evolution would be a contradiction in the theory and so far none have really been put forward.

Evolution still has a lot of explaining to do much in the same way Newton's theory of gravity could not describe all situations (It was later replaced by Einstein's laws). Evolution will have extensions, deletions and additions but the concept is strong and shows. The nitty gritty detail is yet to be finalised (nothing ever gets finalised it just get refined).

Holes in evolution do not disprove evolution? Actually what you have just said is that evolution is by default correct. Holes in any scientific law, which is pretty much how it is regarded, should be of concern, because they tend to cast doubt. That is the nature of science, it does not make absolute claims.

The real point of what you are saying however is highly illogical. I would summarize it like this: "As long as evolution is logically consistent it must be what really happened." When you say that the only way to disprove it is to find a contradiction in the theory, you are saying that NO EVIDENCE can actually disprove it, only a poor formulation.

Logical consistency is not the hallmark of truth. FACTS are the hallmark of truth. And if evolution and short earth theories both have holes in the facts then both have some explaining to do.

I could say that short earth theories are also logically consistent. Therefore they are true. Are you buying that? No I don't think so.

In fact what you have done is to say that :

a. Creation has holes...it must be wrong

b. Evolution has holes....it can't be wrong, because they will be explained soon.

And you accuse creationist sites of lying and bias? Give me a break.

You asked for a SCIENTIFIC source. I gave you one. So you quoted the questions they don't have answered yet. Let me ask you, why didn't you list the questions that your side has not answered yet? You say they are there, but don't list them. The site I posted lists tons of scientific, reputable sources, and they have the INTEGRITY to say that they don't have all the answers, and even to list the questions they want answers to. That is what you asked for, a TRUTH TELLING site. Then when you get it you complain.

In fact, you completely distorted the source by taking pieces from each section? Why didn't you note that all of those were at the end of sections which answered many of the difficult questions? It was a faq meant to tell what is known, and then conceded what we don't know. Where does your side do this? Then you have the gall to say that they

May I also add that there could be potential bias in that source since their goal is "integrating science and faith.

So let's get this straight. You want a scientific source, I give you one. One that does not presume all knowledge or even claim that they have all the answers...one that follows the scientific method, and does their own research based on that method, as well as looking at other's work. Then you say they MUST be biased because of their goal. What is the goal of talk origins? I think you will find they quite clearly are apologetics for evolution. So they must too be biased?

So let's review your argument:

You find no examples of bias but imply that they might be biased because they are creationists, after they have been very careful to be scientific. You rip things from the context, citing parts of a faq as thought they were a whole section of a document, you vaguely mention the questions evolution hasn't answered, you do not list them. Finally you make a double standard that the holes of evolution mean nothing, but the holes of creationism are fatal. I think my friend you are prepared to start your own creationist site any day now. You are distorting big time.

Both the short earth folks and the evolutionists are taking EVIDENCE and applying it to their logically consistent theories. If you look at one as automatically flawed, while not listing your own faults, you are the one being biased.

Now let's turn to your brief carbon dating explanation:

Death by Pod said,

Also an important question they answer is the one of carbon 14 dating:

"They don't. Carbon-14 dating cannot measure ages beyond about 70,000 years. Dates of millions of years are based on other inorganic methods, such as potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating. ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃÂ¦ These dates are the result of radiometric dating techniques that are applied to the rocks. The most popular of these methods is probably the potassium-argon method, although there are several others, such as uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, etc."

There you a source you provided did answer the carbon question quite simply.

Actually it doesn't answer anything. When I made my initial post I used the term RADIOACTIVE dating for a reason. I even made references in my examples to methods other than carbon dating. The quote above that you just posted is the VERY BASIS of the question I posed earlier. Since carbon's half-life is shorter than most, it is only used for short time periods. Therefore, if something is over 1 million years (and often over 100k) there should be NO CARBON LEFT. Yet we don't find this at all. Go read the article I linked to again. I think you will find it informative on the subject. The strong suggestion is that either the radioactive dating model is wrong, or those items are not millions of years old. Now of course, they are careful to make it a scientific argument, and note that it does not stand on its own. Does talk origins do that? Not usually.

I have read the rest but am out of time. I will address them later in the day.

Death_By_Pod · July 11, 2005

Radioactive Decay

Calculations of Radioactive decay are statistical. For something to be statistically relevant you must have a large sample size. Surveys with 10 people are not going to be as accurate as surveys with a trillion people. The formula used for decay requires a trillion people for its predicting power to be accurate. This is why when we get to a small number of radioactive atoms they donÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t tend to decay in line with the function.

Wikipedia seems to agree:

ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThis function represents exponential decay. It is only an approximate solution, for two reasons. Firstly, the exponential function is continuous, but the physical quantity N can only take positive integer values. Secondly, because it describes a random process, it is only statistically true. However, in most common cases, N is a very large number and the function is a good approximation.ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

tttia · July 12, 2005

Sorry, my work schedule has been hectic, so I never finished my previous reply. I will start with the new one then back track.

Radioactive decay.

Decay rates may be statistical, but that very fact shows again that evolutionists are not without bias. In most college text books you would think that there is no variation whatsoever in decay, that nothing effects halflife, that there is rarely any real problem with contamination etc.

Moreover, once again your point completely fails to address the real issue. Statistical variance is not the problem. When you have things that are supposed to be 22 million years old, they should have NO carbon. Or else it is not just statistical variance, but a completely botched theory. Now there may be contamination, but if you read that article they addressed that, and frankly, that would not be to that level.

The absence of carbon in a sample over 1 million years old should be a CERTAINTY based on the whole premise of radioactive dating. If you can't even get samples that show that ...ever....then how can you trust the ones that you have no reliable baseline for? What you are saying basically is that the system is so flawed it can't be trusted at all. If that is the case....why use it?

Scientific theories. Thanks for the review....yet again...of the concept of a scientific theory. May I remind you this is YOUR hang up, not mine. It is you who becomes touchy, by your own admission when someone says it is a theory. I have been careful to avoid such usage just because you seem to be hyper sensititve, so please, spare the lecture. I recognize evolution as a SCIENTIFIC theory.

My argument is that they dismiss the competing answer, which is by the way, not creation.

I have said before, but you ignored it, that evolution is not competing with creation. Let me say it again , so you don't miss it this time. Evolution is not competing with creation. Evolution, like abiogenesis is a model for the START of life.

Evolution is instead competing with the concept that life came into being rapidly not over millions of years. Or put more simply, evolution is competing with short earth theory.

Now that we have that out of the way we will once again disregard your hang up with abiogenesis. However, I will once again state that while the theory of evolution is not dependent on an origin of life, the facts are scientists who support evolution want a MATERIALISTIC start to life. And so far abiogenesis is their best hope, thought not much hope so far. Now, the point is we have both conceded that abiogenesis offers no real answers yet, so let's move on from there and discuss the real issue, evolution vs. short earth theory.

Now I will list the problems with evolution, and some strong points for short earth theory.

First off, this little article shows 11 evidences for a short earth, though it is hardly exhaustive, or even an exhaustive treatment of each.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

Those six are:

-Comets disintegrate too quickly

-Not enough mud on the sea floor

-Not enough sodium in the sea.

-Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast

-Many strata are too tightly bent.

-Unsolidified sandstone raises questions of dating

-Fossil Radiohalos show shorter time span

-Insufficient helium to account for radioactive decay over time

-Not enough Stone Age undecayed skeletons

-Agriculture too recent

-historical records seem too recent.

To this list I would add:

-The cambrian explosion...though dismissed before raises real questions as to why many organisms, some with different dna trees suddenly appeared at once.

- the problem of insufficient time for primate evolution...see my first post, and the clarification about the non validity of "junk DNA"

-The aforementioned presence of carbon in all samples

- The now well accepted idea of catostrophism which creationists have been on board with for a long time...given their concept of the geologic column being deposited by the flood. Punctuated Equilibrium may be an adaptation of evolution, but the fact that change is often rapid is hard to argue.

These are certainly not exhaustive. In fact, nearly every one of those origins magazines points out another one, complete with scientific references, etc.

But I think this, along with your list, is sufficient to demonstrate that both have some explaining to do. And both are trying to show scientifically that the earth is either young or old.

As to motives. Do you think there are not professional apologists for evolution? Even talk origins is simply a defense of evolution. I think the motives exist on both sides. As to why evolutionists would defend it...because it sucks to admit you are wrong. The very fact that competing theories, even competing science, is not allowed to be presented side by side evolution in schools shows that there are people in the debate who are not simply worried about the science aspect of it.

And as for "helping" you not be biased. Sorry, I can't do that. You are biased because you choose to be. You asked for a scientific source. You can't find anything wrong with it so you say they MUST be biased because of their goals. Ok, so show me the bias. So far all they have done is admit what they know and what they don't know. And you...being totally unbiased...only listed what they didn't know. Who is the biased one? Moreover you could find not one problem with evolution? That alone shows you are not looking too hard.

There is another important note here. It surely doesn't apply to all, though maybe to more subconsciously than realize it. If evolutionists are eventually forced to recognize evidence for a short earth, they might have to give up on a purely physical, materialistic view of the world. This could reverse two centuries of new found freedom to scoff at God, and His eventual judgement. It is simple, and perhaps even sounds arrogant of me to mention it, but more than one have admitted it... many people comfort themselves that they will not have to face God because evolution explained Him away, along with the moral absolutes he provides under the Christian model.

Now, back to your former post...I had responded up to the point of my understanding of mutations, so I will start there.

Death by Pod said,

I think you have a misunderstanding of the way mutation and natural selection works. Mutations occur all the time (and in large amounts), most result from the replication of DNA. This is one of the major causes of cancer, old age. It is natural and unavoidable but is accelerated by things such as radiation. Mutations only provide very small and almost negligible changes; they can carry through to children without any problems. It is after when these small differences amount to something in the macro scale we see natural selection takes control.

Perhaps you could start by granting that the people you talk to might have some rudimentary understanding of basic topics. I already posted, and even listed a talkorigins article that mentions (somewhat deceptively, but mentions anyway) the many mutations,.....most of which are neutral as to function, a lot of which are deleterious (bad), and a very few are good. And even all of those are not passed on, due to death before hand etc. So why exactly do you once again need to review material already in play?

Death by Pod said

Mutations don't need to affect the creature and become dominant. They just need to exist long enough until they receive a mutation which will produce a noticeable difference. Most creatures will contain the mutations but one will receive the final mutation that does something good for them. The animal reproduces and it carries down the line and it will slowly affect the rest of society in future generations, simple.

Simple except that most mutations are bad..ie they don't help...don't get passed on..and my point was not that mutations don't happen, but that mutations are mostly bad, and you don't have enough good ones to complete the changes necessary for primate evolution during the time table. In fact, most of the mutations we see happen within a range, up and down, given the conditions...just as the deer weight illustration I mentioned before shows.

But even the idea of darwin's finches, in open niches, is fine with me. In fact, you will notice I mention similar things in my thoughts about the post-flood world. The problem all along is that fixity of the species is not an inherent theological tenant. It was simply assumed by the Catholic church. So admitting to variation is not a big issue to me. A long earth of millions of years is. And I think there is sufficient evidence to bring it into question.

Death by Pod said

I will use your bat example here to help describe this. We are different heights and have different length arms. Now imagine you had slightly longer arms. No big deal it doesn't matter much you will live with it. Follow down many successive lengthening of the arm and you now have these really long things and the skin is stretched in between them yet you still can't fly. This may be a disadvantage but it might not have been enough to completely kill off the limping, non flying bats. Now lets say a bat can finally fly this could be so advantageous that it killed off the entire non flying bat's hence they became the dominant species over gradual lengthening of the arms. This supports evolution as you never see bats with arms and wings; wings were created from arms that had a new and beneficial purpose. It shows things don't spontaneously exist but are a slight change from the previous design.

One slight problem here. There have been many generations of humans in my family, and there is NO trend that just because I have long arms my son will. My dad was 5'11 for crying out loud. You assume our arms will get longer and longer. I think if this were true we would have some funny looking people. The truth is people just vary within some fluctuating standards.

Now you go against natural selection and say that a clear disadvantage will not kill off the non flying clumsy bats. Ok, but then you admit that it is not a POSITIVE mutation at all. It is not progress at all until right at the end. Which is precisely the whole point of irreducible complexity. It is not just that the positive doesn't take effect until the tipping point..as you stated above..merely waiting around until something good happens. It is that in the meantime in the case of the bat, and perhaps some others, it is not only neutral, but positively BAD, giving a disadvantage. Now you could speculate that this happens in appropriate niches. Maybe so. But speculation is not proof. And I thought you only dealt with proof and left the speculation to us?

Ok, then you posit that the flying bats killed off the non flying ones, even though the non flying ones could not kill off the normal...mice? And survived just fine. Okie dokie. At least you apply selection consistently.

And actually it doesn't show that they develop from slight changes. It shows that we have fossils of rats, and fossils of bats, and some really good imagination which seems to argue against what you really believe. You don't really believe this is evidence do you? This is rationalization.

Death by Pod said

Natural selection deals with an animal's ability to reproduce. If mutations exist that disadvantage the animal from reproducing then the animal is less likely to have offspring and therefore carry the bad mutation along.

Is this for my benefit or yours? You just argued against this very thing with the clumsy bats.

Death by Pod said

You use the example of deep sea fish losing its sight; this is a very good example of natural selection at work. Since the fish lives in the deep sea (which is pure darkness) it has no use for eyes, it can't tell if it is blind or not because there is just no light. Therefore the fish's ability to see has no outcome on its ability to reproduce hence blind fish is commonly found in the deep sea. Another thing to note is that the fish still have eyes; it is just that the ability to see has been cut off. You can say they got a disease but one that had no effect on their ability to live and reproduce.

Devolution as you call it is allowed to occur in animals but the moment it negatively affects their chances of having children then the less likely it will continue to exist in nature. Good mutations are rewarded with more children and bad ones with less.

Sure, it is a good example, which is why I used it. It is devolution in action. Since I think this happens, and think that adaptation happens on a limited scale...what is your point?

it is unclear why you keep reiterating that good mutations help have more children while negative ones don't. Because all the many examples of irreducible complexity argue that you would have to go through many many generations of purely pointless modifications for something good to actually happen. Just as with the bat. In the meantime not all mutations are passed on, most are not good in the first place, and basically all of them would require countless generations of coincidental mutations to eventually produce anything decent. All at a rate which cannot account for primate evolution, etc.

Death by Pod said

Have you noticed lately that there are more and more unfit children; this is a by-product of removing the survival of the fittest we are allowing traits once deemed bad to flourish because there is nothing to stop them. They still have the ability to reproduce, maybe they have less chance of that happening but it is not going to stop it. Maybe a new culture of unfit people will begin to exist; maybe it could go so far as to branch off into a new species.

Now I would really like to take this one and run. Why don't we create a super race? Kill off the cripples? Oh wait, we didn't like it when others tried that. But then again, that implies some moral standard. Why would natural selection bring about morals? Why would humans TRANSCEND survival of the fittest? Why wouldn't scientists propose survival of the fittest now? Have they been lulled into unscientific, soft notions that we are more than just little blobs of carbon?

I think there is a simpler reason. First of all, there are more unfit children in DEVELOPED nations. And it might have something to do with people EATING SO MUCH. I think you can find this under the category of people who eat more calories than they burn get fat.

Of course, there are disorders and such. But most diseases these days are directly translated into lifestyle choices, not simply genetics. But I even support the idea of sickly children, sickly adults...sickly everything, even super viruses etc. Why? Because I believe in devolution, that the world is getting worse..that the world is dying under the weight of sin.

As to irreducible complexity in general, I read through the link. Here is how they generally show it to be flawed.

1. They claim it is unscientific because it is not proveable through experimentation. Sure, but neither is macro evolution.

2. They claim that it is unscientific because he does not specifically prhrase a hypothesis. Ok, fine, he didn't play by their rules. They seem to understand the point enough to try to go to great lengths to debunk it.

3. Things can form gradually in a haphazzard way that creates beneficial, but not related results. An example of this is the bombadier beatle. I have heard some eleaborate possible explanations for its development. Here is the problem.

A. They don't seem to have one for every example.

B. They often simplify, like Darwin's little eye chart where we have...simple sensor...little better sensor etc. They don't actually show the steps, and they certainly don't show actual existing evidence that it ever happened.

The latter is the real problem. Again it is all possible conjecture, with no facts. I thought you liked facts? See, any wild theory that evolutionists can come up with to possibly say something happened is then christened as how it must have happened.

Now I recognize that IRREDUCIBLE means it can't possibly be. And part of the problem with the whole term is that it confuses the issue, because there are some that could possibly be. So his specific idea is not true in all cases. Fair enough. But that hardly means that it did in fact happen how evolutionists claim. I thought you all dealt with evidence, not wild theories that could maybe have happened. And I am not sure they have sufficiently addressed all examples. The real challenge is for evolutionists to not just sit around endlessly coming up with highly contrived ways things could have happened assuming endless time (which is the whole problem, you don't have endless time), but is to show that things DID happen a certain way. The way they do this is often a circular argument. "Well, it must have happened some way. After all we have BOTH bats and mice!" Hm, perhaps there were just both mice and bats to start with. They assume their own theory, explain how it MIGHT have happened then declare it so. A few cases of this MIGHT be true. But when it is done again and again, it is looking a bit doubtful.

In fact, most examples of the evolution of the eye only go so far,....to a fairly primitive model, and then stop. But most eyes, even of ancient species are fairly complex. They fail to go all the way, assuming all the steps are eventually possible.

On experiment that your article linked to showed that a very primitive structure could arise in about 360 k generations, or half a million years. That is certainly a short enough time to fit into the timetable of evolution. But one must consider that they were a "continuous series of transitions." Real mutations do not go in endless progress, straight through. In fact, most never make it anywhere. Most are bad. Many die off, killing whatever mutations the organism might have had. If evolution is really the haphazard process that they explain it would take far many more years for it to happen in actual fact. And that is just the very basic eye... even the 150 million year old trilobite eye had a double len's and was fairly complex. Plus it is all based on theoretical developments among unrelated species....one has a light sensor...one has a bit of an eye...etc.

Show me an article that shows even a far fetched (as many of these are) possible explanation of each of the separate processes needed for sight in the human eyeÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâand then show me how they fit it to the evolutionary time-table:

When photons hit the cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal" that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this molecule changes shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called "rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form that enables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin."

Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to another molecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducin releases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP. That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsin and transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducin-rhodopsin."

But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducin-rhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein resident in the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesterase protein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Since this process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMP concentration is suddenly decreased.

How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chain reaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ion channels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed of proteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Under normal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance. When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodium ions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, which stimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we refer to as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and "seeing" happens there.

Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 18-21

Death by Pod said

I don't think many people would suggest one source of life. There may have been many competing micro organisms that branched into different animals, for example a micro organism that thrived in water so it eventually turned in fish like animals or a micro organism that had favourable conditions under ground so it turned into earthworms, who knows. One thing's for sure the common ancestor of apes and men are going to be far different then the common ancestor of the sugar glider (Australia) and the flying squirrel (America etc).

The point was not that things didn't diverge into different lines. I think everyone who believes in evolution would agree with that, and a degree, I would even agree with that.

The point is that the Cambrian explosion shows that MULTIPLE STARTS to life come about with no previous chain to connect to. There is a sudden influx of already complex forms with no chain. IE. ...organisms come on the scene with no explanation, no predecessor. Some could say that they were by multiple instances of abiogenesis. This could make sense of it to some degree. But evolutionists are not willing to say this because they realize how difficult even one instance is. See the editorial I linked to earlier for a fuller explanation on this.

Death by Pod said

Finally Talk Origin's is generally a good site because it is an archive of all the collected arguments. It is not a place whose goal is produce propaganda; it is there to store all the responses to people who argue against evolution. That is why I link there a lot, because it is convenient. Sure there may be some dodgy arguments but the sheer majority of them are well researched and referenced otherwise they would not be considered responses to arguments.

Ok, so you admit that it is a place to store responses to those who argue against evolution. You don't think any of those people might....actually want to promote evolution do you? I mean...what are their motives? Of course, they are the same as the creationist sites. They want to push for their view. If anything they have LESS of a bar for evidence. You say they must be good because they are referenced...and they wouldn't be responses otherwise. My source listed 50 sources for each article. How were they not good arguments? You are obviously biased simply because you choose to be. The sooner you admit it, the sooner we can get to the real argumentÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâthe specifics of the short earth vs. long earth battle.

My goal here is not making you change your religion, far from it. It is to inform you the correct way the natural world exists. Many Christians have come to accept evolution and it doesn't affect their lives so I can't see what's wrong with the bible having metaphoric messages and moral fiction instead of being a textbook for nature.

Gee, at least you have some humility. You only want to explain how the world works. Good to know that. Wouldn't that also be an admission that you are a proponent of ONE view, and therefore are biased? I think so.

It is time for you to acknowledge what most people come to intuitively--everyone is biased. It is simply the way life works. But that doesn't mean that there is not evidence to look at. And that is why we SUSPEND bias long enough to try to weight the evidence. Some succeed at this better than others. But to say that one is biased in their actual treatment of facts strictly because they are on one side or the other is illogical. Is their PROCESS biased? That is the question.

Incidentally, my goal is to get you to see that you apply a double standard across the board, and are afraid of any source that comes from a "creationist" or short -earth proponent, regardless of whether they use scientific methods. As soon as you can see that there are two competing theories, both applying evidence to support their internally consistent views of the age of the earth, the sooner we can start weighing the evidence on both sides.

Death_By_Pod · July 12, 2005

Why can you not see my scepticism of creationist websites/ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åresearch centres?ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

tttia · July 13, 2005

Since everyone else seems to have ceased posting, this is a response to Death by Pod, and quotes are by him unless otherwise noted.

Why can you not see my scepticism of creationist websites/"research centres?" They continually fail to get the basics right. How can you think these guys are being ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹Ãâscientific' when they continually post false facts about the world. Evolution is not a fact but a theory and NO Carbon 14, you learn this kind of stuff in high school you don't even need to refer to a text book, do a google search and you will quickly see that your answers are wrong yet they post them as truths.

You have not yet presented evidence that the presence of carbon 14 in 1 million + year old samples is logical. If it is so easy, post the evidence. The facts are that if half lifes don't work, the whole theory should be thrown out. And the carbon presence is clear evidence that it doesn't workÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâor they are simply not that old. Either way you have shown no evidence. Talking about high school shows nothing. If a high schooler can do it, why haven't you?

Where do you think these Creationist researchers work? They generally work at Christian funded research centres yet these evolutionists work pretty much everywhere, Private/Public labs, Universities and Government grants. You can't possibly tell me that Creationist references are based on the same kind of research as Evolutionist ones. What kind of research do Creationists do? Open up a bible and compare it to physics/archaeology/biology/chemistry textbooks? They play a game of spot the error or flaw yet with further reading the answer to the flaw become clear? Any kind of lackey could do that.

You have yet to counter any of their research or methods, and the only thing you have questioned so far is that they admit what they DON'T know, or in the one case mentioned mistakes made by other creationists. Are some sloppy? Sure, but you already said some evolutionists are too. Why not go to the GeoResearch page and find what exactly you find wrong about their information? You still have not done that, but continue to call them biased. Until you find some problem, they are not biased, you are.

And who do you think sponsor such sites as talkorigins? The whole point of the site, in your own words, is to provide responses to creationists. That doesn't sound like bias to you? As to research...go read the two articles I posted already. The one on Junk DNA was based on the man's doctoral research. It is truly research, not just collected items from others such as you would find at talkorigins most of the time. They in fact do research in the field all the time because they work in the teaching field at universities, and part of that is often doing research. They are not just staff theologians, which you would see if you looked at their credentials. Those at Geresearch are a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, there are teachers and scientists within that body that accept evolution and a long earth, just as there are those who accept creation, and short earth.

So until you can show inconsistencies in their actual research, I am not entertaining any more notions of bias. As I mentioned before, everyone has bias. If you doubt it, keep looking, you will find theirs.

Just out of interest what level of education do you have, have you done high school chemistry, biology, maths or physics so I can see what I do and don't have to explain (if you are somewhat annoyed). I generally see people who rave about Creationism are generally deficient in these areas or are young people who have been preached over and over again until it become a truth, look at how religion is picked up by siblings it is ridiculously high. Most probably by how large parental influence is when you're young. (I lack any formal biology but I'm currently doing University level physics and maths with a semester of chemistry to get me up to a basic University level)

Ok, so you just assume that any creationist is stupid, under-educated, or has been preached at endlessly by their parentsÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâbut you are not biased?

Yes I have had high school chemistry, I have a college degree, with biology ,etc. I am working on master's level intensive classes while working in my field, I even took philosophy classes, and a class specifically about the origins and evolution questions at the university level. I had a grade point average of 3.98, neither of my parents had any interest in religion. I came to my religious conclusions by studying the Bible myself, and I came to my scientific ones much the same way.

What does education have to do with it? Even if someone had an 8th grade education, if you couldn't answer their actual logic then all that would prove is an under educated person got the better of you. People should not have to post their credentials just for your sake.

Carbon-14; I thought the mere fact that it is statistical (I.e. actually process is apparently random) would be reason for you to understand that it doesn't work as simply as stated. I'm pretty sure the smaller mass of Carbon-14 atoms the less likely they are to decay due to quantum mechanical effects. Most likely in connection with the uncertainty principle as the electron is less likely to decay as there is less influence from other decaying atoms since the surrounding atoms are already in a stable state. Neither I nor most people would know the exact solution, you best bet is to ask a proficient university lecturer or someone researching in that field. Nevertheless the equation is a line of best fit, you could add more to it to be more accurate but you lose simplicity at the same time.

You might want to rephrase that. If the whole thing is random then radioactive dating is pointless. I assume you mean a statistical average. In fact your whole argument to this point has been " contamination, random elements, etc." Why not simply say it doesn't work? Your choices are simple. Either it doesn't work, or they are not that old. Or there is some element you have not come up with yet that effects it. In which case, feel free. But if it such that it is effected by how much is less, then how can it be reliable at all? And why use it at all? Again, here is a case where we KNOW that if the theory is true we should see a specific result. We simply don't see it. So how can we then have confidence in a sample where there is no expectation? We can't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... ondust.asp

An admission from a creationist source pretty much invalidates most of the 11 evidences from http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html. Specifically this point:

"2. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age."

Most of the assumptions for the 11 evidences expect uniform event's (same amount of mud dumping, same amount of helium etc.)

This is in fact fascinating evidence. Evidence once again that either you can't read, or you twist everything far more than creationists.

The confession you state is true enough. But it is the second point out of three, and refers to the ONE CASE of lunar dust. The example of lunar dust does not even appear in the list of 11 in the other article. Let's look at the whole quote:

They have shown that:

1. The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

2. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

3. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

As a professor used to say, when you see the word THEREFORE, you ought to see what it is there for. The unifmitarian assumptions referred to are the rate of deposition of lunar dust.

By the way, who was it that debunked this lunar dust theory? Two CREATIONISTS. Oh no, they are so unscientific ,they even point out other creationist's mistakes! Give me a break. Unless you can disprove the 11 arguments on their own merits they are still quite valid. The problem with the other argument was that the rate was simply not correct. Was it bad science? Sure, but no worse that those evolutionists who faked fossils, and the text books that in some schools still list them as evidence. I think you should be proud that the creationists pointed out the error of their less careful brothers. But no, it is all about bias to you.

As for agriculture and historical records...actually I agree with you there. I don't mind giving credit where it is do. You can't prove anything from non-existence. So the arguments are not particularly valid. I do think it unlikely that 100k years would pass without them, but that is not proof. But I liked the other arguments so quoted the whole article. As for the complexities of agriculture...it can be as simple and as complex as we make it. Modern techniques are in fact intricate. But even the plant killer that I am can grow a garden with absolutely no chemicals or anything. Sure the rabbits get their share, but it still works.

Can you at least begin to see why I'm sceptical of these sites? http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html had a bunch of irreverent stuff up there yet they don't edit the article down, leaving the already disproved lies to continue around the rumour mill.

They have not been disproven by what you have shown so far. So why should they take them down? You took a specific statement about the rate of lunar dust deposition and applied it to every argument out there. Sorry, doesn't work. Post specific refuting evidence. It may be there, and if so, then you have a valid argument. But so far, sorry you don't. They didn't even list the lunar dust one.

To your questions, I think the simultaneous emergence of all kinds of life had to do with the Earth's condition for life. The Earth wasn't once always a nice place to life as you're aware. The moment conditions for life were ideal all sort of life appeared. Wouldn't you want to live somewhere nice?

Sure I would. So should I put you down as one of the few who think abiogenesis worked not only once but multiple times? (Never mind that by that time the atmosphere was not even right for it. That bad place you mentioned was the only possible way to get even some of the amino acids necessary..that is if it ever existed, which is quite in question).

I don't really see why people see mutations as either bad or good. Good and bad are both arbitrary values (the previous posts I've called them good or bad but that's in context, the mutations themselves are neutral) and don't really hold up to irreducible complexity and mutation. Those clumsy bat's wouldn't experience much discomfort much in the same way really short and tall people just don't die out because their bones are more stretched/shrunk then normal. Sure we may think these new arms found in clumsy bats are negative but they still live life as much as possible, where as being able to fly gives such an advantage over your land counterparts (such as fighting catching prey easier and getting to hard to reach places easier) they are forced to be the recessive species.

Bad? Good? Oh, but I was quoting your favorite source!ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬Ãâtalk origins. Surely they are not wrong? I would say from the bat's perspective a mutation which made them clumsy would be bad. For that matter, they reference "bad" mutations that result in death. Now of course, it is all a value judgment, but if I were the animal, I would call that "bad" too. For that matter, if flying bats were so cool, why didn't they wipe out the...normal mice? Your whole argument is nice, but I see no facts. Just a fantasy about how it might have happened, including contradictions of your own theory of selection.

Are our eye's complex? How about an Eagle's eye, do Eagles think we have primitive eyes or our eyes more complex then a simple light detector? What about peppered moth's was the peppered colour a good or bad mutation, because of the timing it was considered good but if it occurred at any other time it would have been a bad mutation. Mutations don't produce bad or good things they just produce change.

Of course good and bad are all determined by their environment. If you can't handle good and bad, then look at it as advantageous or disadvantageous in selection in the specific niche. But it is certainly easier to say...bad. The whole argument is silly. You have no proof of how the bat evolved anyway, and trying to get out of it by saying that no mutation is good or bad is dodging the issue.

As you state we undergo Devolution so why can't we delete and add part's to eye's to get the desired outcome. Biological systems can change function an eye can serve other purposes then just an eye, people are colour blind yet they can still see do you think their eye is any less of a complex system and lastly as stated above why is there such a large variety of eyes especially since different eye systems require different part's I thought the eye could have one design because it was so complex. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html (talk origins of course, roll's eyes) has a whole list of published articles which describe biochemical evolution.

first of all, the fact that devolution might lead to loss of material in no way effects the complexity of those who don't have that mutation. If someone loses sight, or even color perception, that does not effect the complexity of the those who did not lose it. Again, this is a nearly illogical smoke screen. Talk origins discusses their view of how biochemical reactions could have come about. But can you find what I asked for? A list of the specific steps in the (all theoretical of course) evolution of the human eye to the last detail? And can they show all of the steps to show that it actually happened, in every step? If not ,then all they can do is throw a possible step by step summary that shows nothing...a sensor in some animal....a little better in another...not that the two were even related.... And above all, they must show that it happened within the time table they have assigned to primate evolution. And it has to be realistic...not 360 k straight generations where absolutely everything went right, with one good mutation every generation...which doesn't even make sense given the mechanism suggested for evolution. Afterall, the eye is supposed to be stumbled on to purely by accident. It would not have had time tables or progression at a steady rate. Until you show me that article that accounts for all those variables, then I am sorry, you are still not proving anything. You are simply rationalizing.

Bad things can produce good effects such as "The CKR5 gene produces a protein which determines what is able to enter a cell. An allele produced by a single nucleotide deletion in the CKR5 gene confers resistance to HIV" and "A point mutation in the LPR5 gene causes high bone density, which could be adaptive in environments where one is likely to be injured." These are only the things we study, how about all those other devolutions out there that could produce good effects. Or how about the article how junk DNA has other uses http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=104752 (I may be able to get the whole article if my library has an online subscription to them, I can try and copy it here if you request).

This is just more on how mutations are not bad or good. Actually they are. The ones you listed were good, or advantageous in that niche and under those circumstances. But the whole thing is a diversion. Either they are more apt to be selected or they are not. It is good or bad. And I already linked to an extensive article on "junk dna" by a ...creationist scientist. No need to find me the other. But it does show that you don't read what I put.

Oh about the arm length's. I never said you had to get longer arms from your parents but if your family gets progressively get larger arm lengths then you have a greater range of arm lengths to pass to your children as a result. You would have a larger arm length then what is possible in one generation from small arm length father to child if these arm extensions were stacked on top of each other. If these long arms were advantageous then you would want to partner with someone with long arms hence having as large of range possible to pass the long arms down to your children.

Hm, so now you actually have people choosing long armed people on purpose? This isn't your classic understanding of selection is it? The point is that it is a range. You are not going to have people with arms three times the lenght of their body. The facts are that my arms are longer than my dads for a simple reason. I am a foot and one inch taller! It is not like I have these hugely abnormal arms hanging past my ankles! His own dad was taller than him. What is your point? It is variety within a range.

I don't understand how you truly believe that a non-natural and non-materialistic theory could govern a natural and materialistic universe, it makes no logical sense. When you move into that universe of non-natural and non-materialistic ideas you can practically state anything and get away with it, how about all those stories of aliens, area 51, government mind control and conspiracies. They are all non-natural and non-material and yet we dismiss them, no matter how many books are written or how many people believe. Why does Creationism stick out from all of the rest of these crazy ides (some of which make sense, why wouldn't the government want to control its citizens for example, less hassle with a more productive and happy society).

When did I ever ask you to accept a non-natural theory? I asked you to consider the short earth model. That is as material as it gets. Either the evidence points to a short earth or a long one. Simple as that.

Is it so hard for you to see this point? The issue is ....short age vs. long age.

It is pure science. And no matter what organization people come from, if you can't refute the evidence, then bias really doesn't matter does it? So lets focus on evidence, not philosophy, bias, etc. Everyone is biased. Even me. Even you.

twrife15 · July 13, 2005

Ok heres my opinion:

1. Evolution is not frogs to cows, it is just adaptation over a very LOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGGGG period of time.

2. It is not a question of whether or not we evolved (changed) since we first inhabited this earth since we have changed and are changing still.

3. The question is not did we evolve, but hundreds of millions of years ago, where did that initial spark of life come from. The so called "Breath of God." Scientists have been able to come up with all the materials for life from elements (DNA, Protein, etc.) however, they have not been able to make something "grow."

4. This is an example: Dogs. 2000 years ago there was only one type, the wolf. Now look at all the different kinds, from chiauaus (sp) to golden retrievers, there are a lot of different breeds out there.

those are my opinions, and by the way i do believe in god.

tttia · July 13, 2005

Some articles showing further evidence of a short chronology.

This article "THE MIOCENE/PLEISTOCENE CONTACT IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN: TIME IMPLICATIONS" shows an original research project that once again calls into question long periods in the strata. You will note they are quite careful to spell out all of their methodology.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/53039.pdf

Here is another treatment of the gaps in the strata, and the lack of deposition or erosion during long eras:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/15075.htm

This article notes the incomplete eco-systems present in strata if interpreted as long periods.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21051.htm

This one demonstrates not only residual carbon but residual dna and amino acids call into question long time periods:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/18089.htm

This article looks at the formation of clastic pipes, and the low likelyhood of that happening in the traditional long earth model.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/19044.htm

An article with 7 other questions about the long earth time table, , a couple of them repeats:

1. Rate of Erosion of the Continents

2. Sediments Carried to the Ocean

3. Rate of Sediment Accumulation

4. Rates of Uplift of Mountains

5. Emission of Volcanic Ejecta

6. Human Population Growth Rates

7. Time Required for Biological Evolution

Here is a summary of the data, but reading the whole article is quite helpful:

1. Present rate of erosion of continents -Continents would be eroded 170-340 times over in 3500 Ma.

2. Sediments carried into the ocean-Present rate would produce sediments now found in oceans in 50 Ma and would fill the oceans 19 times over in 3500 Ma.

3. Rate of sediment accumulation on continents- In 3500 Ma, there should be 14-23 times as much sediment as found, excluding some limited recycling.

4. Rates of uplift of mountains-Mountains are rising at a rate of 100 cm/1000 years, which would result in mountains 100 km high in 100 Ma.

5. Rate of production of volcanic ejecta -In 3500 Ma 20-80 times as much volcanic ejecta as we now find would have been produced.

6. Growth of human population-Present population size could be reached in 3200 years, while man is assumed to have been here for over 100 times longer.

7. Time for evolutionary development -Many orders of magnitude more than 5000 Ma are needed for the improbable events postulated.

tttia · July 13, 2005

Ok heres my opinion:

1. Evolution is not frogs to cows, it is just adaptation over a very LOOOOOOOONNNNGGGGGGG period of time.

2. It is not a question of whether or not we evolved (changed) since we first inhabited this earth since we have changed and are changing still.

3. The question is not did we evolve, but hundreds of millions of years ago, where did that initial spark of life come from. The so called "Breath of God." Scientists have been able to come up with all the materials for life from elements (DNA, Protein, etc.) however, they have not been able to make something "grow."

4. This is an example: Dogs. 2000 years ago there was only one type, the wolf. Now look at all the different kinds, from chiauaus (sp) to golden retrievers, there are a lot of different breeds out there.

On point number 3, they have not actualy come up with all of the base amnio acids. Moreover their is a limited environment that could even support the senthesis of the others. The remaining ones that were not present were believed to be brought by meteors or even aliens. You are quite right though that even if they assume all of them, they have not been able to actually make something grow, give it life.

On point number 4, it is true that many dog breeds occur. It is interesting to note though that they are all still dogs :)

Death_By_Pod · July 13, 2005

I wanted an idea of what to and not post since you obviously got annoyed at me explaining variation and selection. I can make these assumptions because it is mostly true for these boards. Most people here are teens and hence would not have a complete education on the topic or itÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s more basic concepts (I for one have little education in biology and geology for example but still retain a good idea about the basics). You could have easily of said IÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢m not a teen and I would have just took it at face value without an assumption for your level of education. Just take a look at all the people who just post links to other websites without ANY explanation. If you wanted to know I had parents who were non-religious and not too crash hot on evolution so IÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢m in the same situation.

I have yet to counter on any specifics due to the fact IÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢m already spending ample time lately on the subject (probably 6 hours a day for the past few days) as you can see from my lack of editing. ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅBiasÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

tttia · July 14, 2005

I wanted an idea of what to and not post since you obviously got annoyed at me explaining variation and selection. I can make these assumptions because it is mostly true for these boards. Most people here are teens and hence would not have a complete education on the topic or it's more basic concepts (I for one have little education in biology and geology for example but still retain a good idea about the basics). You could have easily of said I'm not a teen and I would have just took it at face value without an assumption for your level of education. Just take a look at all the people who just post links to other websites without ANY explanation. If you wanted to know I had parents who were non-religious and not too crash hot on evolution so I'm in the same situation.

Fair enough. But you would be surprised at the number of adults around here.

I have yet to counter on any specifics due to the fact I'm already spending ample time lately on the subject (probably 6 hours a day for the past few days) as you can see from my lack of editing. "Bias" as I define it is probably the last thing on my list under things such as factual information. That and this debate is normally more of an passive thing for me since it is not controversial where I live so I normally don't have to think as hard about it at what a ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹Ãâdebate' level would require.

Honestly I am pulling 12 hour days for a while now, and still have nearly three more weeks of doing it, without a day off. So I can understand that. I don't know how much I will be able to respond either at this point. It is getting hard to process this much after a day's work :) I might not post again much after this. Honestly the only thing I want to get across is that the basic issues, despite all the various views and camps etc. are still scientific issues. I think I have accomplished that, and at least given some examples of researched studies. However, it is hard to let the posts go! Haha. But I might try it.

Radioactivity

What, you expect things to be uniform and predictable in physics?

"Classical physics is physics based on principles developed before the rise of quantum theory. It includes the special theory of relativity as well. There are no restrictions on the application of classical principles, but, practically, the scale of classical physics is the level of isolated atoms and molecules on upwards, including the macroscopic and astronomical realm. Inside the atom and among atoms in a molecule, the laws of classical physics break down and generally do not provide a correct description. Moreover, the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation is somewhat limited in its ability to provide correct descriptions, since light is inherently a quantum phenomenon. Unlike quantum physics, classical physics is generally characterized by the principle of complete determinism."

Well we better scrap 3/4 of our physics framework (Weak, Strong and Electromagnetic force) because it involves stuff smaller then an atom and thus can not be predicted with perfect accuracy. But along came Quantum physics and the following principle.

"In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, sometimes called the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle (a title prefered by Niels Bohr), expresses a limitation on accuracy of (nearly) simultaneous measurement of observables such as the position and the momentum of a particle. It furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the dispersions of the measurements."

Hence we get to the following on radiation:

"As discussed above, the decay of an unstable nucleus (radionuclide) is entirely random and it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. However, it is equally likely to decay at any time. Therefore, given a sample of a particular radioisotope, the number of decay events expected to occur in a small interval of time dt is proportional to the number of atoms present. If N is the number of atoms, the following first-order differential equation can be written:"

So if we have less and less atoms we have less and less chance for an decay event to occur, eventually it gets so small the time it takes for the likelihood of a decay becomes very long. But this falls outside the requirement that the measurement is made within a short interval of time (otherwise you will get bad data due to decay's unpredictability). I assume my explanation is missing quite a few minimal effects that can affect the outcome of something so small but this is the basic concept of decay.

I've now come to realise that coal is a specific example of an object that exceeds the Carbon-14 expected for objects of a similar time. So for your convenience I have included a link to an article that explains it along with correspondence to a field expert. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html (Where else can you find an article to backup a mundane point to argue). Even if we admit that Carbon-14 dating can only date up to 40000 years it is still 30000 years longer then young earth creationism allows.

As to 40 k years, it all depends on how you interpret the biblical data. There is obvious telescoping of biblical geneologies, but the extent of them is not known. There is also the "existing matter" theory which basically takes all of the radiological dates a acceptable, and stipulates that in fact mars and the earth were created at the same time, but that the creation of other elements on earth took place later (based on the text "the earth was without form and void", which implies existing matter which could have an ancient age. I am not sure that it is necessary to accept such an argument, but it could make some sense of why the ancient ones show little sign of erosion etc., the time clocks seem off, and yet the dating still seems to work in other cases. I doubt the telescoping would actually be 30 k years! That would be certainly absurd. But that, combined with some reliability issues already raised (different methods yielding different results, selective readings, carbon residue where it should not be expected, factors in the original ratio or half life, which you seem to think is even more flexible than I do) Pretty much means that I don't stress over that figure.

In the article you posted I might mention that the reference to the radioactivity of coal being related to the rocks around it might suggest that coal is not in fact the typical example of this phenomenon. Also note the article I posted originally on this which addresses some of the natural occurrance arguments. They even mention that fossil fuels have problems that other substances don't. Since coal is not the one usually used in the argument, you might want to find an article on a more generally used substance.

There is also a highly interesting part there about various native radioactive components causing MORE carbon. This seems to indicate that ratios of c14 might not be as consistent as thought. In fact, if anything the whole study casts doubt on the rate of decay ,the amount originally, and contaminating factors.

They do seem to reference a full government study on the question of old materials showing carbon that is reporting before long. Should be interesting to see what they say. But since some of their comments were already anticipated in the article I posted before, and since it is in reference to what they even admit is an unusual substance, and especially since they don't seem overly sure themselves, I would say that doesn't exactly settle the issue. But perhaps new evidence soon will.

Truth be told the question is pertinent only because it raises issues of the overall reliability of the process. There is still the fact that carbon dating HAS successfully dated a fair number of items. So the real question is why it seems to work sometimes, not others, and how reliable it actually is.

And to answer an earlier post by you, the real reason carbon is at the center of the debate, even though it is really the others, argon, uranium etc. that are particularly problematic is simply because it is the one most easily tested because it posits dates within a range that we can test against known figures. . And since the concept in radiometric dating is similar throughout , if the one can be found to have problems, then all are in question to some degree (depends on if it is a problem specific to the nature of carbon).

How about other dating methods such as Isocron Dating, Dendrochronology and Ice core's which all show ages greater then 10000 years? I only mention earth based readings as well.

Actually dendrochronology has its own issues with radio carbon dating, with some suggestion that known samples don't add up. Moreover, dendrochronology depends on subjective matching of rings in various specimens, depending about conditions during the years. Of course the usual sample is the Bristlecone pine. And some of these have some outstanding ages. And some of the matches seem legitimate, given the sheer number of similar rings in similar sequence. Others are not so certain however. And I don't recall those reaching 40 k years anyway, though perhaps you meant the isocron dating. As to that, I have no knowledge of isocron dating, but will look it up. Should be interesting. I don't have time for this post ,but perhaps in a future one will address it. As to the rest of my answer ,see above on whether 10 k years is an exact necessity. Of course, if you use usher's chronology then 6k and a bit more is necessary. I don't adhere to that though at all. One thing that can be said for sure is that the various phenomena listed in my post before show that there are some strong suggestions that there were not millions of years in play here. On to some of your critiques of a few of those...

Even if you don't want to date things how could you explain processes for carving canyon's and mountains from colliding tectonic plate's in a 10000 year lifespan. Just these two processes alone would provide more difficulty to creationists then the arguments you posted previously.

Actually if you read the article I posted about the erosion experiment we find that in fact it does not take all that long. And if you throw in catastrophism, even less. Since you want it to tie to an arbitrary date of 10 k years, assumedly based on the biblical data (which I had previously not referenced because you seemed averse to it) I would simply see that we see reference to two such events in the scriptures. One was the flood. One reference shortly later referred to peleg "in who's time the earth was divided." Actually I have seen a flood model, strangely enough formulated by the CIA (no, I don't have the foggiest idea why the CIA would develop flood models), that took the biblical data and showed how the techtonic plate shifs were part of the flood event.

The Bible references floods of the deep that caused water to come out of the earth in a mist before rain. This is apparently a description of a layer of water under the surface, which once vacated (the Bible makes reference to them bursting forth), by a fissure in the surface of the earth would cause two things: one a large upburst of water which could then freeze bringing on glaciation (I just saw another article on a post flood glacial age, will find that soon too for you), as well as slipping of the plates along the deposits of water. This could show why the tectonic plate shifts seem to be slowing down, would explain mountains etc. they were the rapid (at first) result of a dramatic plate shift which divided up the then known world into the various continents, then pressed them together, causing a slowing process, which we are now seeing.

It has been a while since I saw that particular presentation, not on the internet, so I will see if I can hunt down the details.

In any case, the biblical data, (which i use because you reference its timetable) does provide for some answers for that.

What do comets have to do with the Earth's evolution? Is this something like evidence for a young solar system? Wouldn't it be entirely plausible that not all of the solar system's matter got sucked up by the sun leaving some of it to hang in limbo? After all the planets wouldn't exist if all matter formed a star.

Actually it is not my idea, it is that of those who study abiogenesis. You can read about it in this wikipedia article on the Urey-Miller Experiment. The experiment only produced 13 of 21 amino acids necessary for life, but some comets are known to contain others. So they postulated that comets could have hit the earth providing the materials. Some simply state that alien life forms themselves seeded the planet, and get around the problem that way. Either way it is an attempt to explain the lack of all the amino acids.

Not enough mud and sodium implies that the earth has a consistent rate of change which is generally not the case nor was the earth ever in the same pretty form that we live in (e.g. the Earth's atmosphere was radically different).

A. If you look at my first post about abiogenesis, way back when we started this, I actually showed an article that indicated that the earth's atmosphere is not universally believed to be the way that some content, and that absolutely no pockets have been found of this primordial ooze, as some would surely be. But even apart from that, this condition did not last a particularly long time, or perhaps more accurately, a lot of time passed since then. While a constant rate is true, there are certainly some reasonable rates, and it is no where near close.

Moreover, the fairly recent, general wide spread acceptance ideas of episodism, punctuated equilibrium, catastrophism etc. as opposed to gradualism is a win for short earth supporters. If you can't posit any rates of deposition, then why must we assume it took millions of years for these deposits? Especially when there is often almost NO erosion, etc. Evolutionists adapted their theory, which is fair enough. But they lost one of the key supports, along with radio carbon dating, that supports their theory. And at the same time it does not at all eliminate the questions asked. Because while you can't assume a CONSTANT rate, you can assume a far greater rate than what we see. This is why radiometric dating is at the center of the controversy, as it, though it suffers from some problems, is more reliable than the strata in indicating age of the earth.

The posts I made yesterday of erosion, clastic pipes, insufficient eco systems, etc. all indicate problems with the strata as an indicator of age. Now maybe one or two things could be explained by exceptional circumstances...but there are many, many of these arguments, where things just don't seem to have been ancient at all. Now of course, there is also the point that current conditions were not always the condition...partially addressed above, but it is impossible to conceive of an erosion free environment. Moreover, the atmosphere was not the same for all those years that we assume in radioactive dating either. But we use CURRENT ratios and rates as a model. Seems to be the same problem, but just the camps are reversed. But I think the fact that creationists are on the defensive over radiometric dating , and the fact that evolutionists are on the defensive about various examples of strata not showing the effects of time indicate that both have their points to make on the evidence.

Would it also be safe to assume that soil erosion and sodium outputs have increased enormously after agriculture and settlement. Deforestation causes a lot of soil erosion which would not have existed a few hundred years ago hence inflated date. I would like to mention that the 12 million years is also far too long for a short earth's timetable. Of course you could claim it can be done through the flood (as valid as ghosts, dragons, vampires and UFO's dumping the soil in the ocean over the past 10000 years) but my original point still remains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestat ... orestation

It certainly would have some effect. But a simple trip to virgin woodlands would show that there is still a TON of erosion, which is far different from the layers preserved in the strata. The facts are that this IS more consistent with rapid deposition. Moreover, there are so many accounts from ancient history of massive or world-wide floods that it is near universal. Seems a little bit odd hm? Given that we accept many things from history on a couple of sources we know little about. There is no way around it. In millions of years, the gaps between the strata, if you don't have erosion on a fairly large scale...deforestation or not, you have a real problem with your understanding of the strata. If you have not yet read the experiment they did in Washington from my recent post. It shows that there was some fairly recent RAPID erosion from water. It didn't take long to make a big impact on the land around it. But in the same area, where the recent erosion was not present they could study strata that showed almost NO erosion, and what erosion was present was limited to certain patches, and was sheet erosion..even erosion. This is just not consistent with millions of years of elements effecting a layer. Incidentally, one layer was composed of volcanic materials...another source of rapid deposition.

The 12 million year date you cite, if I understand the reference, since I am not sure of the exact origin of that figure, was the figure of the evolutionists, used by the creationists as a comparison. The point is that if there were 12 million years involved, and no erosion, etc. then it is pretty far fetched.

As to sodium pollution it could effect some of it. However, it would have to be demonstrated that pollution in the form of sodium has had an effect. I will admit though that ere deforestation could have a slightly larger role as you mention, because of the fact that run off in deforested areas effect waters even in virgin areas. However, the sheer size of he discrepancy (see the summary of the figures in my post) (it is such a huge amount), still points out that pollution is an insufficient explanation to account for all of the difference in the levels. It would be interesting to find some actual evidence of sodium pollution.

I don't have a problem with inconsistencies in a subject but I don't have a problem with websites that claim something as proof only to show

I take it something was lost there. The facts are there are so many of these instances, and evolutionists are required to come up with so many instances of special circumstances, abstract, complicated theories etc. that one begins to wonder if they are trying to explain it away instead of looking at what it seems to say...similar to what they feel creationists do with radio metric dating. And the similarities are instructive, because these are two of the weak points of both camps, so both tend to get defensive.

Ok even if you want to say that the Earth is really 10000 years bar all the evidence for a slow evolution of the Earth's surface and measuring techniques then how would a 10000 year old Earth fit inside a 4.5 billion year old solar system.

I assume you are again referencing the biblical record? There are a couple of possibilities here. One, I don't see the universe being created at the same time a the earth. In fact it is not even completely clear that the stars were created at the same time. The sun is mentioned as being on the third day, so that would be an accurate assumption. However, if scientists thought that it took ages to form features on earth, and then changed their mind, moving to relatively rapid events (glaciation,and other examples of catastrophism) who is to say they are right on mars where we know very little at all about the very basics? I don't really find that compelling. If you have a problem with using current earth norms to measure the earth's past, how can you even begin to make suppositions about mars with any certainty? And if anything one would expect to find some correlation...ie...not uniform long processes, but rapid change.

I will not focus on evolution as such any more as you concede variation occurs and we will never get anywhere with the macro/micro-evolution debate. This area is less solid then geological observation which disproves claims of a young Earth. However there have been observations of speciation over such a short observation period.

I agree that variation occurs. But if you find the geological observations as solid, then you must really not think much of the evolutionary evidence. And on a last note, you might want to look at the argument on the proposed timetable for evolution as it too brings up some troubling questions on this aspect.

Hm...as noted above, and as you seem to imply, these responses are getting a bit tough to keep up. If you want to add to your comments, I might respond at a point down the road, but for now I am pretty busy. I am also neglecting my art! So I don't know for sure that I will respond the next night as I have been, For now I am satisfied that anyone who reads this will indeed see that the argument is in fact a debate on facts in contention between both groups. But then again, if you say something that just begs for a comment..I may give in! Or if I find particularly interesting articles that lend to the conversation.

On a final note, I hope that this has not been too much of an adversarial contest. The question naturally lends to a debate type format, given our different viewpoints. I think at times you are quick to dismiss creationists, but I do think you are at least thoughtfully considering the questions involved. It has been a good discussion for getting me to read again a bit on these subjects, which was good :) Although it did seem to kill off the discussion for everyone else.

creation or evolution

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information