young earth Creationism .. again

[nietzsche]

Of those church goers here, who has been raped or arrased by a priest?

And those who have, did your belief got stronger after the event?

[Night Strike]

No more than the idea that one, particular people is "chosen" and therefore superior to others. The same justification was used, is still espoused by many to mean that some folks are inherently superior. Similarly, some people still argue variations on the theme that those who are born into poorer conditions or with disabilities somehow "deserve" them and therefore do not "deserve" the same things as everyone else.

Though I am absolutely NOT suggesting you espouse any of the above, you definitely like to talk of your right to keep your own money, that you benefit from your work, etc and dismiss suggestions that people don't start out equal or get equal compensatio for work, etc. I have to feel you see the Bible as justification for those beliefs, just as I feel the Bible says almost the opposite.

The problem is not in evolution or religion, it is how either can be used.

And, regardless of implications. Truth is truth and fiction is fiction.

From a government's perspective, I DO have the right to keep my own money from the job I work. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that I must give my all my earnings to the government so that they can use it "wisely". In fact, it says that it's MY responsibility to use any of my wealth to directly help the poor, and most Christians do this. Christians as a group are the most charitable group of people on this planet because they know the value in directly helping another human. The statist view of government looks for equality of outcomes, which is why they want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The government can ensure people get equal compensation for the same job, but it is NOT their role to instruct people how to use that money.

[Snorri1234]

The speed of light is not a constant ...

I'm in a musical mood, so I'll just sing "Bang, Bang, Maxwell's silver hammer came down on his head. Bang, Bang, Maxwell's silver made sure he was dead."

One of the peculiarities of classical electromagnetism is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical mechanics, but it is compatible with special relativity. According to Maxwell's equations, the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant, dependent only on the electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space. This violates Galilean invariance, a long-standing cornerstone of classical mechanics.

Man, it's pretty absurd to say the speed of light isn't a constant anyway. What this shows is that Lionz is able to read but doesn't know what a constant is.

[john9blue]

Actually I think that c can change... let me look it up.



EDIT: okay here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

[Snorri1234]

Actually I think that c can change... let me look it up.



EDIT: okay here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

Yeah dude, but uhm a.) lol @ quantum physics and b.) constants are for calculations. The fact that the speed of light can change (relatively) is not really all that important with regards to it's status as a constant.


I mean, you wouldn't go around claiming gravity is not a constant cuz on a quantum level it might not work. Constants are more general and basically designed for their practicality, not their fundamentalness.


What I'm saying is that the speed is light is a constant because it is. (I admit that that sounds rather silly)

[jonesthecurl]

Well, there's no suggestion that I know of that it's different in one place to another, and a theoretical suggestion that a change in the constant over time might be a better explanation of certain phenomena thatn the generally accepted dark matter/dark energy theory.
None of which suggests an instant god-inspired "creation" rather than a "big bang".

If two historians disagree over the caliber of John Wilkes Booth's bullets, it doesn't mean Lincoln wasn't shot.

[Symmetry]

From a government's perspective, I DO have the right to keep my own money from the job I work. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that I must give my all my earnings to the government so that they can use it "wisely". In fact, it says that it's MY responsibility to use any of my wealth to directly help the poor, and most Christians do this.

Weirdly wrong from both perspectives. I don't know of any major government that considers you to have the right to all the money you earn.

And the Bible? Well: Matthew 22:21

True, there's nothing about how Caesar should use it, but it makes a clear distinction between the sacred and the profane. Unless, of course, you hold your money to be sacred.

[PLAYER57832]

I wonder if you or anyone else who believes we evolved has taken into consideration a "common creator". If God designed all living creatures wouldn't it be likely that they would be similar is certain ways? Kind of the same way hand writing can be analyzed to prove that X person wrote the suicide note left behind. There is a "fingerprint", if you will, in the design or formation of the letters. Could the same be true of a God that creates many forms of life? Is it possible that a living God could have used the same basic blueprint to design the skeletal systems of all living things, hence giving the lay person reason to believe that evolution has occurred?


Riddle me this...

I love how this was ignored...like 3 pages back!?


Ya'll can stop sayin we related to other animals cause our common creator made us with similar skeletal systems. The debate is over....

I love you ask a question, ignore the answer and then claim "there is no answer."

[PLAYER57832]

That IS the point. How are evolutionists saying this life form is related to that life form? The skeletal system????? Well duh? Did you expect God to make some out of ALUMINUM BONES? Of course they would be similar in DESIGN if they came from the same DESIGNER! Shape,texture, alignment..... same designer.

Since you ignored my first response, I will answer again.

You are operating on a false assumption. What you have been lead to believe evolutionists say, not what they actually say.

To begin, there is no refutation of a designer in evolution. There is a refutation of the time fram and processes young earth creationists claim he used.

Second, no one simply looked and said "hey these bones look alike, evolution is a logical explanation. It was a long complicated process, studying and investigations by thousands of independent scientists in many locations. Going through the whole story would take too much time. However, just because and explanation is easier to understand or, on the surface "more intuitive" does NOT mean it is necessarily true. Science is full of things that seem utterly illogical on the surface, but which happen to prove true. It was perfectly logical, for example, for early people to think that the sun revolved around the earth. After all, from the human perspective, it does seems as if the sun moves and the earth is constant. However, we know this is false, because of evidence.

In the case of fossil descent, there are several points you get wrong. Bones and shells are the most common fossils. However, we also have skin, internal organs, feathers, etc. However, I believe your point was that simply looking at similarities alone is not enough. You are sort of correct. You have to add in the feature of time, of gradual change over time. There are many differences between fossils from one period and the preceding. It is not just a common design, it is a progression of designs. Tracing these lines back is what gives a picture of evolution.

If all animals were created at the same time, even just the same "types" at the same limited time, the evidence would show that. Instead, it shows a very different picture.

[PLAYER57832]

No more than the idea that one, particular people is "chosen" and therefore superior to others. The same justification was used, is still espoused by many to mean that some folks are inherently superior. Similarly, some people still argue variations on the theme that those who are born into poorer conditions or with disabilities somehow "deserve" them and therefore do not "deserve" the same things as everyone else.

Though I am absolutely NOT suggesting you espouse any of the above, you definitely like to talk of your right to keep your own money, that you benefit from your work, etc and dismiss suggestions that people don't start out equal or get equal compensatio for work, etc. I have to feel you see the Bible as justification for those beliefs, just as I feel the Bible says almost the opposite.

The problem is not in evolution or religion, it is how either can be used.

And, regardless of implications. Truth is truth and fiction is fiction.

From a government's perspective, I DO have the right to keep my own money from the job I work. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that I must give my all my earnings to the government so that they can use it "wisely". In fact, it says that it's MY responsibility to use any of my wealth to directly help the poor, and most Christians do this. Christians as a group are the most charitable group of people on this planet because they know the value in directly helping another human. The statist view of government looks for equality of outcomes, which is why they want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The government can ensure people get equal compensation for the same job, but it is NOT their role to instruct people how to use that money.

I am not arguing your fiscal beliefs here. (we can elsewhere, if you wish). I am saying that people can claim a lot of things, but evolution is not what created racism.

[PLAYER57832]

- I'm not claiming all fossils came from a flood. You're claiming all were formed over very, very long periods of time?

The fossil record was formed over a very, very long period of time. Individual fossils form in different ways. These are things I learned about probably 20 years ago and you are trying to act as if my inability to explain each and every detail of what I learned means it must be garbage. I learned calculus, too, but I would have to study up a bit before I could do derivations again. That doesn't mean the technique is false.

This website describes several methods by which fossils are formed http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/ ... ormed.html. I may be using inexact terms or even incorrect terms. That website refers to basically all types of preservation as "fossils". I was taught that fossil meant specifically living matter replaced by minerals. My understanding is that that final "endpoint" took time. However, it now turns out that even a lot of what was thought to be fully replaced living matter might still contain traces of living matter. So, even if I remembered correctly what I was taught, ideas about fossils are changing even now. However, and this is a theme I am repeating over and over and over, these changes are clarifications, furthering of understanding about fossils. Nothing in any way supports the young earth theory over evolution.

Well has there not be a fossilized bowler's hat found in New Zealand and a fossilized human leg found in a coyboy boot from inside of a dry creek bed in Texas? Is there not petrified wood that's been chopped before being petrified? Has a petrified dog not been found in a tree? Are there not fossils of fish that suggest fish have been rapidly buried while eating and even giving birth?

I tried to find something on the bowler hat (a type of hat, not a hat from a bowler), but all I got was creationist links, so I don't know the real story behind this. However, I can say that just because something can be calcified quickly is NOT proof, as is claimed that fossils are young.

I remember reading about the ax and don't think this was a case of fraud, but I cannot remember the explanation. I can think of 3 possibilities off hand One is that it is a human-caused ax hit the partially petrified wood, another is that the tree and ax hit both date from a time when humans were here. Note that if this is something from the Americas, old ideas about "clovis first" are being disputed by many archeologists. There is a very good chance that science will confirm the Americas were populated 12,000, 14,000 etc years ago (maybe older, I cannot remember the dates mentioned, just that they precede clovis). So, it might provide evidence disputing the age people appeared here on this continent. (and further evidence against a very young earth). A third explanation, which I actually think was the case here (though again, I cannot find any mention), was that this is not really an ax hit. That is, it is not fraud, not something someone created to prove their point, but is a case of misinterpretation of data.

The fish eating, I have seen and frankly, that it keeps getting trotted out as "proof" is a prime example of what I call false and misdirected "science". They fell to the bottom and were preserved just like any other fish that gets preserved. It is remarkable and fascinating, but not proof against evolution or accepted ideas of fossil formation.

One critical misstep each of these examples make is implying that if fossils can be created quickly, that would somehow disprove what geologists believe about the ages of fossils. This is just not true. The age of fossils is not based on the length of time it takes to make them, it is based on the rock layers where they lie and the age of those rocks.

To get back to an earlier question about the geologic column, when the age of the rocks are verified and confirmed, then paleontologists/geologists look for distinct fossil types or grouping. If these same groupings are found in another area, they can be tentatively used to date that unknown rock. Fossils groupings can also be used to establish a relative time frame. That is, x fossil comes before y. To get a full and complete picture, to put it all together takes many scientists a great deal of time and study. Like many things, some parts are pretty clear. Others are almost complete mysteries.

However, there is plenty of evidence to show an old earth. Understanding each process that happened on every section of earth throughout time is not required to show that the earth is very old or to dispute the "instant" creation idea.

- There's more geologic evidence for the flood than you realize maybe. How about we discuss it in here? Is it not relevant to young earth creationism?

The flood is one of those things that young earth creationists like to trot out, like they like to trot out all sorts of "evidence for God" as if that would somehow disprove evolution. They are independent questions. People who do not believe the Bible believe there was a flood and a creator, both.

-
- Do you mean to claim that Genesis specifically says that Adam and her were not immortal

. Adam and even were not immortal. This is what the Bible says.

- I'm not sure how recent this is, but it's useful for considering how subjective it would be to line up over 5,000 years worth of time using bristlecone pines for dendrochronology perhaps. How many rings do you see here?

A. I already told you I am not a tree ring expert.
B. I know enough to say that simply looking at a picture is not going to tell much of anything.

You are trying to claim that because the oldest living tree we know in existance is under 5000 years old, this is evidence that there was a flood 5000 years ago?

No, I am saying that is one thing young earth creationists try to claim.

I'm not claiming that. Who knows exactly when the flood was? But if that's true, then that's at least evidence that there was a global flood less than 5,000 years perhaps.

Or evidence that some trees survived (just to play "devil's advocate" ..that is, arguing something I don't actually believe).

How about consider trees and then compare with the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef?

Consider what about the desert and reef?

- Do you have a theory on what tanniynim means? Maybe it would make sense for you to be interested in learning about Hebrew words if you want to know what the Tanakh says.

Whatever relevance you think this has to the debate, I don't know Hebrew and am not about to debate Hebrew meanings, other than to cite the many, many references regarding "yom".

[tzor]

I am not arguing your fiscal beliefs here. (we can elsewhere, if you wish). I am saying that people can claim a lot of things, but evolution is not what created racism.

Evolution did not “create” racism, but evolution (especially Darwinism) was stolen, used and abused by racists who wanted to promote eugenic principles and their own vision of a pure superior race. The key, for them, was to look at “evolution” as a “proof” (or a means to a proof) that the various “races” of mankind were in fact different species; their species was obviously superior and the others were clearly designed to be eliminated because they were not the “fittest.”

This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Note these people also stole, used and abused all sorts of things, including classical music. There is, however, an important lesson to be learned. The road to hell is often filled with moderates who remain silent among the extreme wackos. Whether it is evolution or climate science, when people start abusing science to support extreme positions that are more doctrines of some demented faith than a logical result of the observation of the universe, they are the ones who bring shame to all scientists.

[PLAYER57832]

I am not arguing your fiscal beliefs here. (we can elsewhere, if you wish). I am saying that people can claim a lot of things, but evolution is not what created racism.

Evolution did not “create” racism, but evolution (especially Darwinism) was stolen, used and abused by racists who wanted to promote eugenic principles and their own vision of a pure superior race. The key, for them, was to look at “evolution” as a “proof” (or a means to a proof) that the various “races” of mankind were in fact different species; their species was obviously superior and the others were clearly designed to be eliminated because they were not the “fittest.”

Which is biologically, evolutionarily incorrect.
And the origins of racism predate evolutionary theory by a LONG way. Darwin actually held off from publishing his "Descent of Man" treatise because he feared how it would be used. None-the-less, in the end science does move forward, regardless of how some people try to misuse it.

[
This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Uh.. no. First, the Roman Catholic Church is not "ambivalent" about evolution. Some in the church have tried, recently, to back off from the full acceptance the theory held, but specifically to do with humans. The Roman Catholic Church, like most Christian churches that accept evolution does differentiate between the infusion of spirit or creation of spiritual aspects of humans and the biology. Whether they are tied or not is a point of debate or ambiguity or difference (which term is appropriate varies with the group).

As for the racism=evolution in Roman Catholicism. Again, racism in the Roman Catholic Church well predates evolution. The "missionary efforts" of the church from roughly 1600 up until even the early 1900's is notoriously (though not universally) terrible. That some chose to pull their understanding of evolution into the mix is not surprising, but hardly the blame of evolutionary theory.

Note these people also stole, used and abused all sorts of things, including classical music. There is, however, an important lesson to be learned. The road to hell is often filled with moderates who remain silent among the extreme wackos. Whether it is evolution or climate science, when people start abusing science to support extreme positions that are more doctrines of some demented faith than a logical result of the observation of the universe, they are the ones who bring shame to all scientists.

This last paragraph is why I am not letting up on this issue, and why I feel that both mainline churches AND all scientists of ANY BELIEF need to speak up and clarify their positions. Yes, we are a nation of tolerance, but tolerance ends when we are asked to tolerate lies in our schools along side truth, simply because a few people don't happen to like or, more often have never taken the time to truly understand what is known.

It is also why the scientific community needs to, universally, "get off its high horse" and stop seeing teaching elementary and high school kids, as well as non-scientific adults, as somehow "beneath" them.

[tzor]

This is why, for example, that while the Catholic Church is ambivalent about the theory of evolution, it is highly insistent that there is but one “origin” for mankind.

Uh.. no. First, the Roman Catholic Church is not "ambivalent" about evolution.

I probably should have written that differently, but I meant "ambivalent" in the terms of that is a question of science and not a quesiton of faith and morals; it's the later they deal with and the former they let scientists handle.

You also raise up an important issue, even though it is a side issue. The Church is made of of people, and all people are prone to sin; they are all prone to faults and failures. The church has a lot of bad people in its history, but it also has a lot of good people as well.

[pimpdave]

[PLAYER57832]

Tzor,

Would creating Adam with pubic hair be lying?

And these represent bones falsely claimed as being vestigial perhaps... bones used in mating that have muscles connected to them in nature perhaps.

This is not a question of evolution, it is a question of scientific practices and credibility.

One problem with many young earth creationist arguments and one reason they tend to persist is that they don't really and truly prove anything. Instead, the goal is to simply throw mud on the theories that are generally accepted by the scientific community.

This bit about vestigial parts is a classic. I have heard more than a few young earth creationist "scientists" claim, flat out, that it is just ridiculous that God would create something not needed, why would these things still be there (simply "not logical", according to them)... etc. They then launch into all these ideas about what those parts could possibly be instead of vestigial parts.

Here is the REAL deal. The real deal is that these were determined to be vestigial parts by not just one or two people, but by many scientists who all have studied the specific types of species in question. An expert in whales looks at whales an expert in ants, looks at ants not necessarily vice-verse Or someone might be familiar with a group of fossils from the Pleistecene, but not the Jurrasic, etc, though some people are absolutely experts in more than one group. (and, yes, in some cases there absolutely are errors! -- again, details can be wrong, its the overall picture that is not disputed by the evidence to date).

A lot of this does not seem "logical" at first. In fact, in some cases the people who first proposed these ideas were pretty much ignored or chastised by the scientific community. BUT, they (or their predecessors) persisted until enough evidence mounted to convince a good many scientists in the field that these things were vestigial parts.

Now, this is where young earth creationists are "schooled" to scoff at "experts". (never mind that those they listen to are, in fact, claiming to be experts as well.. just experts that disagree with what the overhwelming majority of those in any field believe).

I said before that science has long since reached the point where any one person can possibly understand it all. Kids' don't learn "all science" in school. Instead, they learn generalities and basics. The goal is to give kids enough of a foundation, enough of a vocabular and enough of an understanding of critical processes that they can then go and learn and understand what specifics they want later.

For example, take Chemistry. In grade school you learn about dissolving, evaporation, the idea of atoms and molecules, elements versus compounds, etc. I high school, (perhaps before) they take a look at the Periodic Table (memorizing it is usually not required any more, but understanding it should be), understand how various chemical bonds work, learn various definitions for certain chemical combinations like "Acid", "Base", "alchohol", etc... When I was young, the idea of orbitals and the idea of electrons acting both as wave and particle were rather new. That is, long known in the scientific world, but just trickling down to basic textbooks.

HOWEVER, even though I had much more chemistry than your average person, learned more chemistry in college than even most college students, I am not a chemist. Nightstrike, I understand is one (or is studying to be one?). I know the rough outline that chemicals combine in specific ways, that reactions occur, etc. I know, as a biologist, enough to be very cautious when it comes to emitting new chemicals into the world around us. HOWEVER, I don't have the tools to study those impacts or to create chemicals or even to know how to go about creating many more complex chemicals.

For each branch of science, there are particular groups, particular professional organizations, particular journals that tend to "lead the way" regarding what is and is not accepted. These tend to have very, very high standards for proof. Sometimes you have more than one group that sort of shares and often winds up "competing" over who has "charge" over what. For example, in US fisheries, the American Fisheries' society is the "expert group" in certain aspects of Fisheries, such as fish names. However, you also have the US Fish and Wildlife service (which deals with endangered species designations particularly), the National Marine Fisheries Service (which gives out data regarding marine fish stocks, other base research, etc). (and note the cross between essentially private groups like AFS and wholly governmental ones like NMFS and USFW&S)

When you say, when these folks who put themselves forward as "creation scientists" make claims like "gee.. isn't the whole idea of vestigial parts just silly", its like the gas station attendant scoffing at the idea that there might be some chemical similarity between the gas he pumps and the smell of a flower. Yet... well, even non-chemist I am know they are all aeromatics. .. etc. They all share many of the same elements and combinations.

Is that "logical"? No, not really. Is it proven true? YES!


See, if creation scientists wanted to say "hey, we don't believe this evolution stuff and we are going to go out and get evidence to show them wrong". That would be fine. It is, in fact, what they claim to be doing. The problem is, they are not really doing what they claim.

Like I said, I have looked over many young earth creationist websites, many of the various institute's articles and ALL, not just a few, but ALL fall into several categories.

1. assertions that the Bible "must mean" something many people, many long-standing Bible scholars, etc, just plain don't agree it says.
(example: yom has to mean strictly 24 hours, instead of the more varied meanings, exactly like the english term "day" into which "Yom" was translated OR the idea that Adam and Eve, all life, was somehow immortal before the fall)

2. Claims that small anomalies mean entire realms of research, whole sections of science are just wrong. (example -- a "fossilized" hat found in a mine means there is no proof that fossils are really old)

3. Distortions. Claims that distort or simply ignore the truth. These range from claims that the theory of evolution MEANS "no god; (usually phrased as, evolutionists say the processes that created life were wholly random -- ignoring that "random" in that context is not strict mathematical randomness, but is really shorthand for "we just don't know why or how"). To claims that a fossil of a fish means fossilization must be "instant" or somehow quicker than scientists claim.

4. Complete irrelevancies. One classic example is to poke holes in the Big Bang theory and then say that somehow proves that evolution cannot explain how life originated on Earth. OR, to make references to errors Darwin made and then maintain that this proves the theory is wrong.


I began looking into young earth creationism thinking I would find a few strong-believing, rather narrow-thinking and generally uneducated people (NOT "stupid", but uneducated) who just truly believed what their clergy said and simply refused to consider anything else.

What I found instead was a whole group of sometimes highly educated people, people very adept at persuasion, but not adept at real science, who have a primary goal of simply attacking traditional, accepted science.

Some might have begun with honest intentions of proving the earth was young. A few still do believe this. However, the science conducted is similar to "science" that "proves Newton was wrong" or that "proves the Earth is flat". It just does not hold up to scrutiny.

[PLAYER57832]

You also raise up an important issue, even though it is a side issue. The Church is made of of people, and all people are prone to sin; they are all prone to faults and failures. The church has a lot of bad people in its history, but it also has a lot of good people as well.

Absolutely. The most difficult part is that its not just "bad people", but more often "very good people with misguided ideas" who do the most harm.

[Lionz]

Snorri,

You've made one or more valid point concerning linguistics maybe, but has light not been slowed down before?

Snorri, Jones, and Tzor,

How about check this out and give me some feedback? See a right arrow type thing below slides? How about run through a handful of slides and get back to me? Do you claim that light can't be slowed down or sped up? And claim that there's not evidence suggesting speed of light has decayed?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0961.htm

Niet,

What does so called Catholicism really have to do with the Father at this point in time? What if the devil has even used it to try to push people away from Him and to try to mix in pagan beliefs with true worship through history? Noticed an obelisk in Vatican City before?

PLAYER,

- You claimed I asked you a certain question 5-6 times already and I have not by any means perhaps. A question stemming from discussion having to do with whether or not there are aliens with their own deities maybe.

- How about prove that He did not create various original kinds of fish that have brought forth variety since if you can prove that?

- Did you just mean to claim that not much science dates before the 1800's? Maybe much is relative and science can be defined more than one way, but that would be a bold claim regardless perhaps.

- How about explain polystrate fossils if you claim strata necessarily represents thousands of years of geologic time?

- If you handed a geologist a slab of limestone and asked them to tell you if it was 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone or 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone, they would ask you if an index fossil was found with it maybe. Are you under the impression that this shows a specific order that's found across the earth?



If limestone and shale and sandstone are found at various layers and depths in the earth, then what else could the geologist do? The geologic column is a fantasy that does not actually exist anywhere on earth and it's a prime example of something that's based on circular reasoning perhaps. See a circular reasoning section here?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar4.html



- I said UCD and meant universal common descent perhaps.

How about answer these? Should there not be literally billions of fossils of creatures in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if universal common descent is true? Is there any reason to assume that Panderichthys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic and what has actually been found of Tulerpeton? Skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb? It's simply a variety of alligator or crocodile maybe. And were remains of it not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia? It's ironically evidence for a preflood earth with above freezing temperatures across the planet perhaps.

Note: I am re-asking questions there and am for one or more very valid reason perhaps. If you don't want to discuss whether or not there are transitional fossils backing up theories concerning fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods, then how about you simply ignore this and we move on?

-Do you assume that Jay is trying to claim that ALL animals were created at the same time?

-You referred to a page concerning how fossils form that gives some information on permineralization perhaps, but what has quickly buried living organisms in wet sediment across the earth if something has? Are you claiming that these show fish that simply sank to the bottom of a body of water and that were not quicky buried by sediment? Did fish have heart attacks while eating then sink to the bottoms of bodies of water and somehow manage to avoid getting eaten by scavengers and avoid decomposing after sinking?







- There is plenty of evidence to show an old earth? How about provide some and then reply to moon stuff?

- You cut off one or more question in quoting me maybe. Does Genesis says that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

- I repeated a certain question asked by you and you thought it was me asking you something in error maybe. : )

- What I'm asking you to consider about the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef comes down to definition maybe, but did they not both start growing less than 5,000 years ago?

- If you want to discuss whether or not Genesis 1:21 refer to dinosaurs or not, then how about we discuss Hebrew? If you're not down to do that, then how about we move on?

- Do you mean to suggest that Darwin held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination? Do you know what the Origin of Species is actually entitled? This can help you figure it out perhaps...











- And I'm not sure if you're a woman or not perhaps, but can you flip forward to see 4 slides here and respond in a way that suggests you did? Hint? You will find actual words from Descent of Man perhaps. You can use arrow things below slides to move back and forth perhaps.

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0132.htm

- Maybe you should check these out and ask yourself if you have unfounded fears regarding what kids are taught and not taught in school.









Want to see a chart concerning teen suicides or teenage girls having premarital sex or divorces or SAT scores? Maybe you will at least check out an SAT score one here... http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

- Do you claim this represents bone (or fake fossil model bone?) that's evolved from legs?



You're welcome to religiously believe that shows whatever you want perhaps, but what in terms of fossil evidence suggests that's the case? Would you like to discuss Ambulocetus? And I might be no whale anatomy expert, but do you want me to provide sources having to do with bones claimed to be vestigial attaching to muscles used in reproducing?

Note: This includes images with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and obviously so maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

- You claimed I asked you a certain question 5-6 times already and I have not by any means perhaps. A question stemming from discussion having to do with whether or not there are aliens with their own deities maybe.

You have asked me questions that either assume I don't accept God as a creator or that ask that. Pretend otherwise, add in whatever context you wish, but you have.

- How about prove that He did not create various original kinds of fish that have brought forth variety since if you can prove that?

He did. He just created other things first that lead to those fish.
And again, regarding details.. you are asking me to give, in detail things I learned about and was convinced of years ago. That I cannot reiterate it all means nothing. I CAN say that the evidence is there for you or anyone else to see. I can point you places where you can find it, with the warning that it is not a "2 minute study", or even a "2 hour study" (necessarily). Problem is, while young earth creationists are happy to claim evolutionists "lack data" and "cannot prove what they claim", they do this by refusing to even really and truly look at the evidence that is presented... in fact, most often lack even the skills necessary to truly understand the explanations.

(as evidenced by many of the questions found in this thread)

- Did you just mean to claim that not much science dates before the 1800's? Maybe much is relative and science can be defined more than one way, but that would be a bold claim regardless perhaps.

Some very significant discoveries were made prior to 1800. Some very fundamental concepts were found. However, compared to the information discovered in the last 2 centuries, it is "not much". However, such statements are more opinion than fact, so not worth a lot.

My basic suggestion was that there are many, many tools and concepts that were not even concieved in 1800 that are basically known by every grade schooler today. Examples include facts about the planets, our ocean depths, nutrition.. etc, etc, etc. Geology is full of things not known or not well known prior to 1800.

- How about explain polystrate fossils if you claim strata necessarily represents thousands of years of geologic time?

I did not make such a claim. I said they represent specific time periods. Some strata represent very, very short time frames (katrina Flood deposits, for example). Some represent very, very long time periods.

I had to look up the term "polystrate fossils", but here is what wikki says:
Takapuna Reef's exceptional fossil forest was exhumed by coastal erosion when the sea level rose to its current height following the last glacial period.In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull-apart basin,[5] and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments. Contrary to the claims of creationists, these sedimentary basins are considerably smaller than the state of Texas. The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[6][7]

- If you handed a geologist a slab of limestone and asked them to tell you if it was 100 million-year-old Jurassic limestone or 600 million-year-old Cambrian limestone, they would ask you if an index fossil was found with it maybe. Are you under the impression that this shows a specific order that's found across the earth?

It is far from so simple -- there is a lot more to why this is true, but yes if fossils known to be specific to the Jurassic are found in one section and fossils known to be in the Cambrian are in another, then that would be a ready way to tell the period from which the fossil arose. However, there can be complications. Since I am not a geologist, I won't get into them. Likely I will misstate something.

Like I said, I trust the science and the scientists (as a group, not all individually) that create this information.

If limestone and shale and sandstone are found at various layers and depths in the earth, then what else could the geologist do? The geologic column is a fantasy that does not actually exist anywhere on earth and it's a prime example of something that's based on circular reasoning perhaps. See a circular reasoning section here?

Nice try, but no. Shale and sandstone and shale and sandstone are not really just one type of rock, so sandstone from one area is not the same as sandstone from somewhere else. This is true for other rock types. Also, there is a lot more than simply shale and limestone involved here.

One very helpful feature is almost any volcanic deposit. These can spread over a wide area and often are easy to date, at least relatively (know that x is older than y, but younger than a, without knowing the actual age).

[/quote]
More later, perhaps.

[Lionz]

Do you want me to go ahead and reply to just that?

[PLAYER57832]

Do you want me to go ahead and reply to just that?

yes

[PLAYER57832]

How about answer these? Should there not be literally billions of fossils of creatures in a transition between fish and land dwelling tetrapods if universal common descent is true?

You want to say "there should be more" is a valid argument?
In a lot of ways, its remarkable that we have ANY fossils. More than one person has opined that God must have wanted us to find these, now that we are ready to understand the information. However, such argument really has no place in science.

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils. Young Earthers try to claim that anything labeled a "transition fossil" is basically "misdiagnosed" or actually fraudulant. In some cases, this did happen. However, there are many, many many transition fossils and living species that represent the various lines of descent (Ceolocanth, for example, is a "living fossil" fish).

Here is a brief excerpt that outlines this:

In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish — like Eusthenopteron — exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
•Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
•Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land;
•Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as;
•Acanthostega, which had feet with eight digits,
•Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.[edit] Devonian tetrapods
Research by Jennifer A. Clack and her colleagues showed that the earliest tetrapods, such as Acanthostega, were wholly aquatic and quite unsuited to life on land. This overturned the earlier view that fish had first invaded the land — either in search of prey (like modern mudskippers) or to find water when the pond they lived in dried out — and later evolved legs, lungs, etc.

[edit] Earliest tetrapods
The first tetrapods are thought to have evolved in coastal and brackish marine environments, and in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.[1]p86–87 Formerly, the timing was thought to be towards the end of the Devonian. This belief is now challenged by the recent discovery of the oldest known tetrapod tracks, preserved in marine tidal flat sediments in Zachełmie, south-central Poland. They were made during the Eifelian stage of the Middle Devonian. The tracks are dated to about 395 million years ago, 18 million years earlier than the oldest known tetrapod body fossils.[2] Some tracks show digits, indicating that the animal had the ability to walk on land. Additionally, the tracks show that the animal was capable of thrusting its arms and legs forward. This type of motion would have been impossible in tetrapodomorphs such as Tiktaalik. The animal that produced the tracks is estimated to have been up to 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) long with footpads up to 26 centimetres (10 in) wide, although most tracks are only 15 centimetres (5.9 in) wide.[3]

By the late Devonian, land plants had stabilized freshwater habitats, allowing the first wetland ecosystems to develop, with increasingly complex food webs that afforded new opportunities. [1] Freshwater habitats were not the only places to find water filled with organic matter and choked with plants with dense vegetation near the water's edge. Swampy habitats like shallow wetlands, coastal lagoons and large brackish river deltas also existed at this time, and there is much to suggest that this is the kind of environment in which the tetrapods evolved. Early fossil tetrapods have been found in marine sediments, and because fossils of primitive tetrapods in general are found scattered all around the world, they must have spread by following the coastal lines — they could not have lived in freshwater only.

Is there any reason to assume that Panderichthys or Tiktaalik were anything other than aquatic and what has actually been found of Tulerpeton? Skull fragments, small belly scutes, an incomplete pectoral girdle, an incomplete forelimb and an incomplete hindlimb? It's simply a variety of alligator or crocodile maybe.

The answer is no. A most definite "NO!". However, explaining why this is true would mean going back, studying up on the details, then translating them into a form you can understand. I don't have the time. And, to be honest, if you really wanted the answer, were willing to truly consider that there IS an answer, you could do that investigation yourself. THEN, and only then, might you have the knowledge necessary to challenge this idea.

The trouble is you won't take the time. Worse, the people making these blanket assertions (as opposed to some real scientists who might make some very specific challenges), have not studied the fossil record, either. We know this because of the way their "challenges" are worded, the "explanations" they give for why the information is wrong, etc.

Contrast this -- the opinion of a few so-called scientists who have not taken the time to really study the record they are criticising, with the many scientists who, building upon their own data and data collected by others, together and sometimes independently, come up with the currently excepted ideas. Contrast this idea that someone just said "this is what is true" and then all scientists just somehow believe it, with the reality that each and every STEP in this proces was challenged repeatedly and is continually challenged.

NOTE, I don't say that all the evidence laid out is necessarily understood with 100% accuracy. I say that those people who wish to claim there are enough errors to invalidate the idea of evolution are not really looking at the data and, with very, very few exceptions are using extremely poor science AND poor debating techniques.

On the off chance you might actually be willing to look into this yourself, instead of just bombarding us with a bunch of questions, Here is a website. If your answer is not there, click on the links and then follow them until you get an answer. Note, it will take you a good deal of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod

And were remains of it not recovered from the Tula Region of Russia? It's ironically evidence for a preflood earth with above freezing temperatures across the planet perhaps.

Not even going to get into this one, because if you cannot even provide a link for where you get this information, it is impossible for me to verify anything. However, I will say that if something is found -- no it is not evidence counter to evolution, and that is the question up for debate in this thread.

Your attempts to tie this to "pre-flood" versus "post flood" are again, things drawn from the "young earth play book" and not references to anything I have said. Also, as I said before, whether the flood happened, whether there is evidence for a universal flood are completely separate and apart from evidence for evolution. I will say that the fossil record shows several periods of massive die-offs of species, so any distinct breaks in species are in no way evidence against evolution.

Note: I am re-asking questions there and am for one or more very valid reason perhaps. If you don't want to discuss whether or not there are transitional fossils backing up theories concerning fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods, then how about you simply ignore this and we move on?

I realize you are asking for a reason. It is because you have been taught that if you keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer.

Except, what that shows is that no one person can understand all of science or even all that is involved in a theory as complex as Evolution. I HAVE referred you to sites where you can get that information. Of course, you won't even bother...

-Do you assume that Jay is trying to claim that ALL animals were created at the same time?

when it comes to Jay, I go on what he has said before, some of it in other threads. Other than that, I will discuss Jay's beliefs with Jay and let him explain for himself.

-You referred to a page concerning how fossils form that gives some information on permineralization perhaps, but what has quickly buried living organisms in wet sediment across the earth if something has? Are you claiming that these show fish that simply sank to the bottom of a body of water and that were not quicky buried by sediment? Did fish have heart attacks while eating then sink to the bottoms of bodies of water and somehow manage to avoid getting eaten by scavengers and avoid decomposing after sinking?

Again, a whole string of false assumptions on your part. Nothing so complicated is necessary. Take the recent "Katrina" flood event as an example. During that event, massive amounts of silt and mud were moved. Some areas were scoured out, others had deposits. MANY, many animals -- marine species, freshwater species, etc. were killed. Many would have been caught up in turbulant sediments and buried, perhaps, in time becoming fossils. Similar events happen in streams every season. What you see are wholly natural processes. The criticisms lie from people who won't bother to even look into the real processes.

And, before you try .. no, all these fossils are not from one, universal flood. The time frames are varied, among other issues. Also, the types of sediment are not consistant, etc. (which is not to say a flood didn't happen, just that these are not explanations against evolution).

Again... more evidence of why these young earth arguments are not given any real credibility.

- There is plenty of evidence to show an old earth? How about provide some and then reply to moon stuff?

What "moon stuff"

Oh, only the links, not the pictures show up when editing. My computer is slow right now, so if you cannot spell out your arguments, I won't be answering.

- You cut off one or more question in quoting me maybe. Does Genesis says that Adam and her were mortal before partaking?

As I said before, yes, Adam and Eve were mortal from their creation.

- What I'm asking you to consider about the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef comes down to definition maybe, but did they not both start growing less than 5,000 years ago?

Again, I am not even going to answer. Instead, I will say that this is not proof against evolution. Why would it be?

- If you want to discuss whether or not Genesis 1:21 refer to dinosaurs or not, then how about we discuss Hebrew? If you're not down to do that, then how about we move on?

I believe I already answer Genesis 1:21. As to Hebrew, I already told you I am not an expert in Hebrew. Are you claiming you are?

- Do you mean to suggest that Darwin held off publishing a Descent of Man treatise because he was concerned it would be used as ammunition for race discrimination?

More than just "race discrimination", but yes. That is, in fact, what happened. He said this himself, it is a matter of record.

- And I'm not sure if you're a woman or not perhaps, but can you flip forward to see 4 slides here and respond in a way that suggests you did? Hint? You will find actual words from Descent of Man perhaps. You can use arrow things below slides to move back and forth perhaps.

What is your point here and exactly how do you feel this disproves the theory of evolution?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0132.htm

- Maybe you should check these out and ask yourself if you have unfounded fears regarding what kids are taught and not taught in school.

Your chart on evolution teaching ends at roughly 1980 something. This young earth creationist movement did not really get going until the mid -1980's to early 1990's. The first battles in Ca were in the very late 70's to early 80's. (I can remember the cases, but not the exact date).

As for your charts on teen pregnancies, are you trying to claim that is tied to teaching of evolution?

Per your claim of "unfounded fears" -- I HAVE a child in school, so my fears are hardly "unfounded". When my child is taught that frogs are vertebrates, which means they don't have backbones and the teachers considers this, unimportant, and said teacher also "just happens" to belong to a church that believes the earth is young... it is not an "unfounded fear". In 1980, the date your chart ends, the battles to have "creation science" considered "alongside" evolution was just barely beginning in most states.

Want to see a chart concerning teen suicides or teenage girls having premarital sex or divorces or SAT scores? Maybe you will at least check out an SAT score one here... http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

What does this have to do with the validity of evolution as a theory?

- Do you claim this represents bone (or fake fossil model bone?) that's evolved from legs?

I make no claim. Look up the source of that picture, its citation and go from there.
I will say that a lot of museum models are not the actual fossils, but are representations, simply becuase the fossils are too valuable to be given to many museums. I mean, we had a real human skeleton in my high school biology class, but we only had plastic representations of the internal organs. Did that mean we could only learn about bone structure and that we are clueless about the organs? No. A lot of internet pictures are definitely "fakes" in that sense.. and no claim is made otherwise. The studies and findings, however, are made of the "real deal", not the fakes.

You're welcome to religiously believe that shows whatever you want perhaps, but what in terms of fossil evidence suggests that's the case?

I gave you several links that you have obviously ignored, so why ask for "more proof". You make it clear you could care less about proof, your intent is merely to attempt to show that I am not an expert in evolution. Problem is, I never claimed to be one. The BIG problem is that the young earth scientists who claim to find fault with evolution are ALSO not experts in evolution. So, they are criticising theories they have never really studied.

Would you like to discuss Ambulocetus?

Why?

And I might be no whale anatomy expert, but do you want me to provide sources having to do with bones claimed to be vestigial attaching to muscles used in reproducing?

No, I know such claims exist. What you need to do is look up the proof for those claims versus the proof for counter claims..and the credentials of the scientists making each claim.

when you have done BOTH, then we can, perhaps, talk about what you have learned. Simply reciting what you find on young earth creationist websites is not going to get you any answers.

[Frigidus]

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils.

I forget exactly where I first heard this, but it's quite accurate. Whenever we find a transition fossil, creationists will say that now there are two gaps we have to fill. They will never accept a transition fossil because they go against their religious beliefs. It is almost impossible to go against those.

[PLAYER57832]

Beyond that, to disprove an old earth, to prove an "instant" creation as opposed to the very gradual one evolutionists believe happened, you would have to show NO transition fossils.

I forget exactly where I first heard this, but it's quite accurate. Whenever we find a transition fossil, creationists will say that now there are two gaps we have to fill. They will never accept a transition fossil because they go against their religious beliefs. It is almost impossible to go against those.

"Almost" is pretty key here.

However, this is a good time to reiterate one point. The issue here is not whether some people have a right to believe all science is wrong. Nor is it even whether they have a right to try and prove their beliefs correct. IF young earth creationists were simply doing that .. simply starting new lines of investigations, questioning what is presented as valid science, that would be perfectly OK.

The problems are they go well beyond that.

One problem is when people who have not taken the time to understand a theory -- any theory want to say "this doesn't make superficial sense to me" or "I cannot understand this in the few minutes I wish to devote".. and then claim that is enough to give them evidence against theories with reams of data. I realize that a lot of people posting officially on young earth/creationist websites claim they have done just that. However, their arguments make it clear this is not true. A classic is this idea that fossils are dated using Carbon-14. OR, that finding a fish swallowing another fish is evidence that modern scientists have the fossilization process wrong.

Another problem is when they try to say evidence that very much does exist is simply "not there". Nice way to avoid any explanation! This puts many young earth "scientists" very much in the realm of "bearing false testimony". If your arguments are valid, then you don't need to deny evidence that exists.

A third problem is when there are claims of proof that is either simply not proof of anything or is just plain false. Claims of modern human footprints alongside early dinosaurs have all been proven false, for example. Claims that the similarities between species are "proof" of a designer (I agree there was one, but that is not proof of it), as opposed to evolution.

A fourth problem is this idea that because the entire Evolution theory is not 100% fact, that means that other theories should be considered "equally", particularly young earth creationism. This is, by-the-way, where the "spagghetti monstor" theory discussion legitimately comes in. Because, if you are able to bring in young earth creationism, without supporting evidence, simply becuase it agrees with some people's religious beliefs, then someone believing in a spagghetti monstor creator should also be able to ask for its inclusion in scientific text books. Evolution may not be 100% proven fact, but part of the theory actually are fact. And, no other theory has anything close to the supporting evidence for evolution. Young earth "creationism" neither provides any real evidence against evolution NOR presents valid evidence showing the earth could be young.

The only way the earth could be young is if virtually ALL of science is just plain wrong (which is what young earthe scientists assert, while claiming otherwise ) OR if God made the earth to appear as if it were very old, even if it is not.

Worse, though, are claims that very short-term "investigations" and "studies" are all that are necessary to "prove" no genetic link between various species. These purported "scientific studies" are simply poor science. They can get boxed in with all the nice pictures and claims of the "hard work", the "extensive" work done, but most real science takes many years. Studying any one species in the wild takes many, many years. There are many occasions where animals seemed to follow certain behavior patterns consistantly for a time, even years, but when followed further, it was found not to be true.

[Skittles!]

I think this quote, one of my favourites, fits in here.
"There is no such thing as an 'Idiot's Guide to Creationism', but perhaps one isn't needed" - Andrei Codrescu