If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WMUR) NewsFlash From duck hunting to ducking the issue: Supreme Court dismisses challenge to constitutionality of Pledge of Allegiance in schools on technicality   (thewmurchannel.com) divider line 1101
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

12051 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2004 at 10:46 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1101 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-06-15 05:42:57 PM  
Dimensio

I've read about the vitamin C gene research, that's another good example common descent. Additional props for knowing that and being a comp sci major - personally I'm functionally illiterate when it comes to 'puters.
 
2004-06-15 05:49:03 PM  
Yellow Number Five

This is in response to your assertion that the design theory is flawed because we cannot figure out how and why things were done in a certain way. First of all, is this not the goal of science? To understand? Evolutionists try to shoehorn every discovery into evolution theory and creationists have to find a rebuttal or just wait until more open minded scientists continue to find the answer. To claim that we can know the mind and intentions that everything an all powerful God did at any point in time is just pride and arrogance. Let me give you an example of that scientific arrogance and what happens when REAL science is allowed to take its course instead of being usurped for the religion of evolution or even creationism because BOTH sides have been guilty.

Since the beginning of gentetics, both sides have tried to use every new finding to bolster their side. As far as genetic diversity of humans was concerned the theory by evolutionists stated that we should find a gradual increase in DNA diversity as we diverged further and further from apes. It seemed to be going that way as genetics was in it's infancy and evolution got a big kick and it was announced in all the papers that the debate could be put to rest. The proof had been found. AHA but then midochondrial DNA was found and all of a sudden when we started studing it we found that everything goes back to a single individual. DNA Eve or some such name. The last I heard the theory was humans were taken down to 10000 individuals at some point. I am sure as we learn more it will go down even further. Maybe never to ONE person but getting close. Which is what creationism has predicted all along. So now evolutionists are just covering that up by saying there was a near extinction event that almost wiped everyone out. Creationists go YEA DUH it is called the flood. Evolutionists scoff at that and use meteor or ice age or some other event to explain it but the point is that as we learn more things become clearer. You are giving examples I have heard before and jumping to conclusions to fit your own worldview and that is wrong and unscientific and if I was your boss reading this and I had an open mind I would pull you off of any real science and give you crap jobs to do. If you cannot do science with an open mind you are worse then useless. You are dangerous. So I do not have the answer to these things you gave me but I will study and answer what I can. I will also hope that real scientists use real science and let us see what we find.
 
2004-06-15 06:13:01 PM  
Yellow Number Five

First, I don't think you understood what I meant by transitional. Transitional implies that we see commonality between closely related species, not that the fossil will show a "snap shot" of evolution in progress. There is fossil evidence of transition, granted it has gaps in a few places, but we can't be expected to turn over EVERY rock to fill in those gaps. We see that allosaurus, velociraptor, and tchthyornis (you're forcing me to dig out the text books) for example share many features of birds and reptiles, denoting commonality.

That certain species have not evoled does nothing to refute evolution in general. No one is claiming evolution must occur at ordered intervals. The fact that "living fossils" haven't evolved in eons is merely a testament to how well adapted that species is.

I appologize for the big words, I certainly wasn't trying to "snow" anyone. I'm merely using the scientific terminology, I guess I assumed your knowledge of evolutionary theory was greater and more specific than it is.


I wish you could read that statement from where I sit. I showed this to a former evolutionist paleontologist friend of mine and he laughed. He said he wishes you could know what he knows. He refuses to help me in my arguments because he said I got myself into the mess I can get myself out. With friends like that who needs evolutionists :)

You are still only giving commonality of structure that are fully formed, into the distinct animals you named. Still using straw men or in this case straw velociraptors to make your points. Even if you take the closest two KINDS of animals there are NO animals in between that cannot be classified into at least the family and maybe even the genus. There should be countless forms that cannot be classified. Guess what, I know some people who classify dinosaurs and other fossils from both plant and animal and creationist or not they are having no trouble using the same methods to classify them as they use on animals today. That goes COMPLETELY against logic. There should be a time with almost no distinction between many level of classification. It HAS to be this way for evolution to be correct and it is not so. Distinct animals easily classified into distinct groups same as they do today. In a court of law evolution would be thrown out on that one point alone. So keep trying but your case IS NOT getting stronger like you think it is.
 
2004-06-15 06:21:44 PM  
I have not read your email yet but those six definitions of evolution are real and are in my child's 7th grade textbook.

If that is the case then your child's 7th grade textbook is giving a very bad impression of evolution in particular and science in general.

Perhaps you could scan in the relevant page and make it available for all to see?

Whether you claim them as your own is your choice but they are real theories and they are all evolution of one sort or another.

Some of them are real theories, others are real hypothesis. I never denied that. However the fundamental origins of the universe is not related to the biological theory of evolution.
 
2004-06-15 06:22:58 PM  
walkingtall

DNA bottle necks, such as the one posed by the mitochondrial eve phenomena, do not refute evolution. All it says, is that our species nearly went extinct, and that much of our DNA diversity was lost as a result of that near death experience. You have a different explanation, but at least I have circustantial empirical evidence to back up my claims. I find it interesting that all you are able to do is refute my claims, you have yet to put any of your theories up for scrutiny - you're hiding, and you know it.

But that's beside the point, because you've reduced debate of facts and the conclusions we can draw from them to personal attacks - typical of Fark. I know it's because you're back peddling and cannot debate me, because you don't understand half of the concepts I'm taliking about - not fully anyway. A LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing, and it makes you look like an asshat to boot.

You don't think I should be doing REAL science, you think my boss should be giving me crap jobs, I'm dangerous? How is that the "world in which good old fashioned open ended debates where neither side can actually win" you love so much? You resort to personal attacks, because you cannot refute the logic and scientific evidence I am throwing at you. I'm sure you can tell by my posts that I know WTF I'm talking about when it comes to genetics and evolutionary theory, quite simply I think my knowledge dwarfs yours and we are not able to engage in rational debate because of it.

I do have an open mind my friend, it is you and others like you who refuse to open your eyes. The minute I find empirical evidence that disproves evolution or that proves creationism, I'll gladly change my mind. You seem to be scared of science and our pursuit of knowledge, because I don't think you like what we're finding. I AM a real scientist, unlike some "Christian scientists" I know of. I do the research, I collect the facts, I analyze the data, and I draw conclusions. In the process I invent things and do research that helps my fellow man. There's no agenda here, I merely hunger for the truth, I'm using the rational mind your God supposedly gave me.
 
2004-06-15 06:31:55 PM  
walkingtall

[You are still only giving commonality of structure that are fully formed, into the distinct animals you named]

I know, that's the point. You don't seem to understand that species themselves can be considered intermediaries. If x evolves into y and y evolves into z, is not y an intermediary between x and z? The rest of your post made no sense, as it was rambling and largely incoherent. Your knowledge of the theory is lacking, and that's the disconnect here.

PS-I highly doubt you have a evolutionist paleontologist friend, at least not one who is taken seriously by his or her peers.
 
2004-06-15 06:50:55 PM  
I'm out, dinner and a movie with the gf tonight. I SEMI-apologize for the rant against walkingtall at 06:22:58, but I really resent your audacity to suggest that I'm not a REAL scientist (you really like to capitalize REAL I've noticed, I'm going to try to mold it into a Fark cliche).

When I get back, I'd love to see some creationists post and defend their theories. Why should evolutionists have to sit here while the creationists throw rocks at us? Why don't you guys tell us what you believe, and we'll tell you why you're wrong for a change.

If you'd like you can reach me at the address in my bio.
 
2004-06-15 08:11:49 PM  
I'd love to see some creationists post and defend their theories.

I'd love to see a creationst state their theory. I've heard them allege the existence of a "theory of creation" but I have never, in ten years of reading Internet discussions, seen this theory put forth in a form that satisfies the definition of "scientific theory".

It's easy to make them run away from the topic. Just ask what hypothetical observation would falsify the "theory of creation". Not one will give you a straight answer. Most will ignore the issue entirely, and I've actually had one person laugh at me because he was utterly incapable of understanding that I was asking him for a potential observation to falsify the "creation theory" rather than asking to actually prove that the "theory" was false.

I will note that I did see one webpage that tried to argue that "intelligent design" (which is basically "creationism" with certain words selectively edited out of the definition to make it appear non-religious in nature) satisfied the requirements of a scientific theory, even stating that ID is falsifiable. Of course, they couldn't be bothered to explain what, exactly, would falsify it.
 
2004-06-15 08:36:13 PM  
Any lawyer can win on the facts, it takes a great lawyer to win on a tecnicality.

/way way late
 
2004-06-15 09:39:59 PM  
Dimensio, Yellow Number Five, sfphincter, impaler, Pontechango, thank you. That was fascinating reading. Remind me to put a couple of recent evolutionary texts on my reading list next time I'm at the library.
 
2004-06-15 10:34:59 PM  
2004-06-15 02:48:21 PM walkingtall

Um, I'm waiting, slobbering at the fringes?? You just stated several examples of why religion should be considered a disease. " Kind of like the Palestinians wanting "peace". Peace has been stated many times by all Muslim controlled nations not as coexisting with Isreal but the total and utter removal of Isreal and the death of all Jews. Your position, like theirs, can at best be tolerated but watched warily." You're a farking idiot. "We have seen what happens when atheists rule such as Stalin and Hussein etc. We also see what a nation founded under theism, ie United States can do, so I am taking my chances with theism and hoping people like you remain on the fringes slobbering at the mouth." Yeah, so unlike the current strife in the middle east, the crusades.... good thing that those things had nothing to do with religion. And why in the name of all that is un-holy has this thread degenerated into a evolutionism primer??? Shove your nose back in your bible Walkingtall, I managed to somewhat reasonably argue Coldfusion's points and you respond with that bit of drivel?? What, no better argument for why I should continue to believe that religion is a disease??? Whatever.
 
2004-06-15 11:37:23 PM  
it's stupid that "under god" was put in the pledge in the first place. It's even worse that we've actually taken this idiotic debate to the supreme court.
 
2004-06-16 11:05:08 AM  
I had to leave this discussion last night and I knew I was going to be bashed mercilessly and made fun of but that is what happens when you walk into the den of your adversary and start debating.

Yellow Number Five

I know, that's the point. You don't seem to understand that species themselves can be considered intermediaries. If x evolves into y and y evolves into z, is not y an intermediary between x and z? The rest of your post made no sense, as it was rambling and largely incoherent. Your knowledge of the theory is lacking

Do you not see the insanity of that statement? That is like saying here is a whale and here is an elephant. Since the theory is that the whale once was a large land animal and the elephant is a large land animal here is the proof of evolution. With NO links or intermediate forms between the two except they are both large animals. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You CANNOT take two entirely different animals with all their complex differences and link them without many, many intermediate steps. Nature does not work that way. Intelligence could work that way because you could learn the mistakes quickly and make a better animal the next time but you are proposing RANDOM processes to go from one form to another. There should be MILLIONS of failed steps in between any two distinct forms There is not ONE step in between any two forms. That by itself negates your theory and you can come back with insane arguments all you want but that is the real world. Not the bastardized, incestuous world you live in. That is why I said you do not practice real science. You see what you want to see no matter what the evidence says.
 
2004-06-16 11:14:56 AM  
Is this truly how far evolution has stooped in the few years since I was deeply embroiled in it? Is the new argument that the fact there are fish, that there are amphimbians and then mammals means the evolutionist is claiming that proves the theory because the amphibian is the link between fish and mammal. Is this insanity truly what I am debating? That is the argument Yellow Number Five is making. I am appalled that someone who knows anything about real science could make this claim. Do you even know how different these animals are?. One breathes AIR for God's sake. To ignore all the changes that would need to happen before an animal could even breathe BOTH air and water boggles the mind. There are TOO many differences between ANY three animals in an evolutionary chain to be even remotely steeped in reality. This is fantasy and if you are truly a scientist you should know better.
 
2004-06-16 11:24:07 AM  
boscoman

Um, I'm waiting, slobbering at the fringes?? You just stated several examples of why religion should be considered a disease. " Kind of like the Palestinians wanting "peace". Peace has been stated many times by all Muslim controlled nations not as coexisting with Isreal but the total and utter removal of Isreal and the death of all Jews. Your position, like theirs, can at best be tolerated but watched warily." You're a farking idiot. "We have seen what happens when atheists rule such as Stalin and Hussein etc. We also see what a nation founded under theism, ie United States can do, so I am taking my chances with theism and hoping people like you remain on the fringes slobbering at the mouth." Yeah, so unlike the current strife in the middle east, the crusades.... good thing that those things had nothing to do with religion. And why in the name of all that is un-holy has this thread degenerated into a evolutionism primer??? Shove your nose back in your bible Walkingtall, I managed to somewhat reasonably argue Coldfusion's points and you respond with that bit of drivel?? What, no better argument for why I should continue to believe that religion is a disease??? Whatever.

You are making my argument for me. I appreciate that. Fortunately the majority does not believe spirituality is a disease where the carriers of the disease must be purged before normal, free minds can prevail. That is your position is it not? Well those words came from Stalin himself. Communism is both an economic theory but also an atheistic theory in which all religion was a disease to be eradicated. I do not want to go back to that so YES I am glad you are on the fringes slobbering madly.
 
2004-06-16 11:33:38 AM  
Dimensio

I'd love to see a creationst state their theory. I've heard them allege the existence of a "theory of creation" but I have never, in ten years of reading Internet discussions, seen this theory put forth in a form that satisfies the definition of "scientific theory".

It's easy to make them run away from the topic. Just ask what hypothetical observation would falsify the "theory of creation". Not one will give you a straight answer. Most will ignore the issue entirely, and I've actually had one person laugh at me because he was utterly incapable of understanding that I was asking him for a potential observation to falsify the "creation theory" rather than asking to actually prove that the "theory" was false.

I will note that I did see one webpage that tried to argue that "intelligent design" (which is basically "creationism" with certain words selectively edited out of the definition to make it appear non-religious in nature) satisfied the requirements of a scientific theory, even stating that ID is falsifiable. Of course, they couldn't be bothered to explain what, exactly, would falsify it.


Evolution would falsify the theory of creationism. Given ALL the evidence in every branch of science there are only two theories that fit the facts. There may be others like aliens planted us but those are really off the wall, so proving one falsifies the other. In science given two theories to explain the facts, proving one falsifies the other. I know people who try to sit on the fence and believe both but that does not fit the facts at all. So it is either one or the other. I do not have to state my theory because you already know it. It is not as complicated as yours but one facet of science is that the majority of time the simplest explanation is the correct one. No scientists mention that little tidbit but that is reality. So we can keep debating but my theory fits the facts as well as yours does. Better in fact, because the holes in evolution are big enough to drive 50 trucks through. I do not have all the answers, I guess I will wait and see what REAL science finds but all I do know is the theory of evolution in all but the last form I stated is neither provable nor is there any evidence for it.
 
2004-06-16 12:01:48 PM  
The reality is that people who desperately wanted to disprove the existence of God, have tried to use every shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence to disprove the evidence of God. All of the people who originally proposed the theories we are working off today were either devout atheists or former church people so disallusioned by religiosity they wanted revenge. Check out the history of the people who came up with the theories you so vigorously defend evolutionists. These were not dispassionate observers who carefully weighed the evidence and came to a conclusion. That is a falsehood. Atheism, as much as you farkers would like to believe, is not evidence of a rational mind. It is evidence of strong bias, and anger and bitterness. So like it or not all you evolutionists who claim the theories came from simple scientific method have not studied the REAL history of how it came to be. Try to study with a true open mind and you might be amazed at what you find. Scared maybe but amazed.
 
2004-06-16 12:05:06 PM  
walkingtall

Go here, read it all:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#intro

You do not understand what is meant by transitional fossil evidence, this will explain it and give you examples. A transitional fossil is one that that looks intermediate between two species or higher lineages. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between ancestor and descendant lineages. Thousands of such fossils exist, such as transitions from land animal to whale and from early ape to human.

You have also not given me and adequate explaination for this, so I will repost it:
Endogenous retroviruses are a great example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like AIDS, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I was actually involved in some of the sequencing of chimp DNA that found these insertions back in college.

The felines provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.

Explain that please. Better yet, get your mysterious paleontologist friend to. How did the same insertion occure at the same genetic position in multiple species?

You also said that
[I do not have to state my theory because you already know it. ]

Actually, no I don't know it, because there are literally dozens of different creationists theories. I use theories in the loosest definition of the word, because the creationist theories are NOT scientific in nature. Some creationists claim that the diversity of species is proof of design, others say it is the simialrities that are proof - so which is it? You don't make any specific claims, because it is impossible for us to refute you if we don't even know what your arguments are - that's cowardly on your part. So I say again, tell us what your damn theory is and stop hiding.

If you want to contiue this debate, contact me at the address in my bio. Keep in mind that I will only respond if what you say has any merit at all. You seem fixated on refuted the fossil evidence I've laid out, yet you don't fully comprehend the theory it supports. You ignore the more difficult genetic evidence I've given. You have also yet to produce a shred of empirical evidence to support the claims you have not even clearly stated. Play by the rules and I'll debate you, if you can't there is obviously nothing we have to learn from each other.
 
2004-06-16 12:11:21 PM  
walkingtall

[The reality is that people who desperately wanted to disprove the existence of God, have tried to use every shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence to disprove the evidence of God. All of the people who originally proposed the theories we are working off today were either devout atheists....]

Why do you assume evolution and God are mutually exclusive? Perhaps it is your perception of God that is flawed. You don't need to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution, it's just that the theory doesn't jive with your personal ideas about the man upstairs. I know plenty of scientists and engineers that happen to be religious, and they don't mix thier science and religion, because they know they are two totally different animals. I believe in evolution, I happen to be an atheist as well - I'm not one because of the other.
 
2004-06-16 01:51:23 PM  
Yellow Number Five

I have just read a very good article about evolution vs creationism. It touches on everything in this thread so far. The interesting part of it is the debate morphological phylogeny is having with molecular phylogeny. The real interesting thing is that neither side can get a consistent phlogeny going from either direction. Here is the link http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/camp_all.pdf

Very good reading. If I am going to get into debates like this I need to spend more time reading these things. I know that simpletons that are in a debate like this see this as only minor details and scientists quibbling over the exact method but these are fundamental questions that give strong evidence against the entire theory itself. That is why the assertion that macro evolution is a fact causes me to get up in arms and fight in forums like this where I am outnumbered and I get made fun of. So keep stating evolution as fact beyond question and I hope someone like me keeps calling you on it.
 
2004-06-16 01:53:40 PM  
The point walkingtall is that you approach evolution as a question of faith, when it is in fact a question of science. When I show you scientific evidence of evolution, you need to show me scientific evidence that refutes mine, or give me scientific reasons why my interpretation of that evidence is flawed. We are not debating the existance or non-existance of a supreme being here, we are debating the theory of evolution.
 
2004-06-16 02:00:56 PM  
Evolution would falsify the theory of creationism.

Falsification criteria is an event, not another theory. Events can be proven to occur, theories can never be proven. You may see evolution as mutually incompatable with creationism, but since evolution can never be proven (just like gravitational theory) there is no way to use it to falsify evolution.

What observation -- what event -- would hypothetically falsify creationism. I can name two for evolution, and I'll address them in just a moment.


Given ALL the evidence in every branch of science there are only two theories that fit the facts.

Okay. I know that one is evolution. Evolution theory is based on the fact that over time, alelle frequencies change. It is observed that when individuals reproduce, they do so imperfectly, causing mutations. Mutations are carried by the offspring and then passed on to their own children (along with possible other mutations). Some mutations affect the creature adversely. These mutations tend not to propigate because they are less likely to survive to reproduce. Other mutations are neutral. These mutations tend to occur amongst the population with about the frequency that the mutation occurs, it might eventually become ubiquitous, or it might just stay within a small subset. Some mutations provide a survival advantage, and these mututations tend to dominate because the offspring from the population will be heavily seeded from the predecessors who had the beneficial mutation and thus had a better chance to reproduce. As such, over time a population's genetic makeup can change provided that the mutation is beneficial for a given environment. When a subset of a population is split off from the main population it is possible for a previously neutral or even detrimental mutation to become beneficial, if the environment is sufficiently different. When this happens, you end up with a population of descendents that are markedly different from the descendents of the original population. Over time, given enough mutation, you have the diversity of species that we see on earth today (that's kind of a quick wrap-up, I'm in a bit of a hurry).

You can falsify common descent theory by finding a rabbit fossil undisputably from the precambrian era (as, per the theory, no rabbits lived then, nor did anything remotely similar to rabbits). You could also falsify it by finding a genetic anomoly amongst the "middle" of three supposedly directly linked species. For example, if you found a transposon that was present in whales and cows, but NOT present in hippos, that would provide a real problem to evolution. Similarly, if you found a transposon in gorillas and humans, but not one in chimps, you've just thrown common descent on its head.

There, see, I provided not only a description of the theory of evolution, but also TWO events (technically three) that would falsify it. I expect that you will do the same for creationism. State the theory and what it predicts, and state at least one event that would prove the theory false.


There may be others like aliens planted us but those are really off the wall, so proving one falsifies the other. In science given two theories to explain the facts, proving one falsifies the other.

Ignorance of science alert: theories are never proven.



I know people who try to sit on the fence and believe both but that does not fit the facts at all. So it is either one or the other.

I can't know this until you actually state the theory.


I do not have to state my theory because you already know it.

Ducking the issue noted.
I am pretty sure that I know what you believe. The problem is that theories are pretty specific, they have to satisfy certain criteria. Unless what you believe satisfies that criteria, it's not a theory. Thus far I've not heard enough about what you believe to classify it as "theory". You'll have to explain it in detail to justify calling it a "theory". Of course, that means that you will also have to know the criteria for a theory. If you need me to spell it out, don't hesitate to ask.


It is not as complicated as yours but one facet of science is that the majority of time the simplest explanation is the correct one.

We've not even established that what you believe is a theory, and yet you're telling me this?! I can come up with lots of non-theory explanations that are "simple", but because they do not meet the criteria of theory, they are fundamentally useless. I could speculate that a cat named Queen Maeve created the entire universe, with the appearance of age, last Thursday. It's a very simple explanation, because you can dismiss every event in the past and any evidence of age as "that's how it was created Last Thursday", but it's fundamentally useless because it does not qualify, in any way, as "theory".


No scientists mention that little tidbit but that is reality.

Sure they mention it. The problem is that you don't seem to understand what qualifies as "theory".


So we can keep debating but my theory fits the facts as well as yours does.

WHAT IS YOUR THEORY!? STATE YOUR THEORY AND EXPLAIN HOW IT FITS THE FACTS, STOP ASSERTING THIS AND ACTUALLY JUSTIFY YOUR STATEMENTS! YOU KEEP DUCKING THE ISSUE AND IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A COWARD!


?Better in fact, because the holes in evolution are big enough to drive 50 trucks through.

Given the utterly stunning ignorance that you have displayed regarding the theory of evolution, you might not want to say this.


I do not have all the answers,

Clearly you do not, since you seem to think that evolution theory covers the Big Bang.

Actually, you do seem to have a lot of answers. Unfortunately, most of them are wrong.


I guess I will wait and see what REAL science finds,

So that you can ignore it, like you've been ignoring science for years?


but all I do know is the theory of evolution in all but the last form

So you say. So creationists have been saying since the first publication of Origin of the Species.

Your claim that evolution is about to be disproven doesn't really concern me given that the same thing has been said for over one-hundred years and yet we still have it, and it's still a solid theory.


I stated is neither provable

No theory is provable, ever. Theories are never proven. Your assertion that theories are proven only further displays your utter ignorance of science.


nor is there any evidence for it.

Right, except for the fossil record, extensive DNA evidence and observed instances of speciation.
 
2004-06-16 02:01:13 PM  
Yellow Number Five

Myself and many many other theists I know would drop their faith completely if evolution is true. If I must lose my faith if overwhelming evidence comes along I will do so. However just based on this thread the illogical, straw man, totally ludicrous arguments to anyone with even a shred of an open mind I am confident it is not going to happen. I debate within Christian circles also about evolution and Genesis and I can tell you that trying to meld the two is a cop out. It is not based on science or faith. It is based on fear. Fear that if you use science that invalidates the Bible which invalidates your faith. They try to play both sides so they can be OK no matter how the debate comes out. It is not based on thoughtful reflection of the facts, either of science or Christianity. Being a pansy who tries to have it both ways does not make you a rational intellectual. It makes you a pansy and even God speaks against pansies. I do not fear evolution being the truth. If it happens it happens. My God is big enough and left enough clues that the truth will win in the end. If the truth is evolution then I will deal with it. However, you are FAR FAR away from anything even remotely resembling proof.
 
2004-06-16 02:06:38 PM  
Myself and many many other theists I know would drop their faith completely if evolution is true.

Sounds to me like your faith is pretty damned weak. No wonder you attack evolution so viscously.
 
2004-06-16 02:21:21 PM  
Dimensio

You do not understand faith because you have none. Faith is not some mindless belief. Faith is a choice. God wants you to CHOOSE to believe. I have true faith because I am willing to put it to the test. I am willing to listen to other religions, other points of view. I listen to evolutionists and atheists. I use logic and reason to decide what makes the most sense given everything I know. That is faith and that is why you would not understand.
 
2004-06-16 02:27:33 PM  
walkingtall

Unfortunately I don't have time to read all 93 pages of your link today, however I did read section 21, where the author attempts to refute the Endogenous retroviruses example I gave earlier. Essentially he claims that God may have put those insertions there for some unknown reason, that, as far as I'm concerned, is a cop out. He also claims that those insertions may have some purpose in the organism, but evolutionary theory doesn't deny that they might have function. He goes on to claim that the retrovirus seems to favor insertion at certain locations on the host's DNA as evidence of design, if he understood how retroviruses work, he'd understand why they favor certain strings of DNA for insertion. There may be better examples in the rest of the paper, but so far I'm not convinced. I do applaud the effort to at least attempt to back up your claims (which are still undefined).

As far as evolution turning your faith on its head, have you ever considered that there may indeed by a god, and he/she/it is working through evolution? Maybe you are taking the Bible to damn literally. The evidence we have certainly blows literal 6 day creation out of the water, but there are other ways of interpretation. If you are a young earth creationist, well I'm sorry to say you are simply in denial.

Even though it goes against my better judgement, I'll give you the ONLY three theories that are compatable with the evidence at hand:

1)Evolution alone (with no God, or with a non-interfering God)

Evolution of all vertebrates by descent from a common ancestor, with change occurring both through punctuated equilibrium and gradual evolution, and with both modes of species formation (anagenesis and cladogenesis). These mechanisms and modes are consistent with (and in fact are predicted by) what is presently known about mutation, developmental biology, and population genetics According to this model, the remaining gaps in the fossil record are primarily due to the chance events of fossilization (particularly significant if evolution occurs locally or rapidly), in combination with immigration (the spreading of a new species from the site where it evolved out into different areas).

2)Evolution with a "Starting-gate God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God having set everything in motion in the beginning -- for instance, at the initial creation of the universe, or at the initial occurrence of life on earth -- and not having affected anything since.

3)Evolution with a "Tinkering God"

Evolution by common descent, as above, with God occasionally altering the direction of evolution (e.g., causing sudden extinctions of certain groups, causing certain mutations to arise). The extent of the "tinkering" could vary from almost none to constant adjustments. However, a "constant tinkering" theory may run into the problem that vertebrate history on the whole does not show any obvious direction. For instance, mammal evolution does not seem to have led inescapably toward humans, and does not show any consistent discernable trend (except possibly toward increased body size). Many lineages do show some sort of trend over time, but those trends were usually linked to available ecological niches, not to an inherent "evolutionary path", and the "trends" often reversed themselves when the environment or the competition changed.

How/where/if you think god fits into the picture is a matter of faith, but the preponderance of evidence says that evolution does indeed happen.
 
2004-06-16 02:41:22 PM  
Yellow Number Five

DNA is the most complicated thing in the universe. If you refute that statement I challenge you to give me something more complex. To use this example as proof of a theory that needs many, many more things to be valid is simply tunnel vision. It is making something much larger then it is in the big picture. If we were talking about something simpler I would give it more weight. We do not know enough about DNA to make absolute statements based on what we know so far. It is like reading the first line of a book and trying to extrapolate the plot and ending. We can barely even claim to know the first letter much less first word of the book of DNA. It is just like a creationist saying a beautiful sunset is proof of God. It is not proof of anything. It is simply one link in what would need to be a very long chain for that statement to be correct or proof of anything. I will watch were this research goes with much interest now that I know it exists.
 
2004-06-16 02:42:50 PM  
and to continue.....here are some creationist theories and how they stack up to the evidence. Damn, I got so tired of waiting for walkingtall to state his damn theory that I'm doing it for him. BTW Kathleen Hunt is the author of these 5 theories, credit where it is due.

Models 1, 2, and 3 are all consistent with the known fossil record.

4)Standard "young-earth" creationism

Creation of separate "kinds" in the order listed in Genesis, in six days, followed by a cataclysmic flood.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model. Note that this is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. In addition, countless geological formations seem to be the result of eons of gradual accumulation of undisturbed sediment, such as multi-layer river channels and deep-sea sediments, and there are no indications of a single worldwide flood. In addition, the Flood Model cannot account for the obvious sorting by subtle anatomical details (easily explained by evolutionary models), or for the phenomenon that lower layers of lava have older radiometric dates. These are only a few of the problems with the Flood Model. See the flood FAQ for further information.

Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

5"Separately created kinds", but with an old Earth.

Literal creationism won't fly, but could the concept of "separately created kinds" still be viable, with the creations occurring over millions of years? This would require the following convoluted adjustments:

First, if every "kind", (species, genus, family, whatever) was separately created, there must have been innumerable successive and often simultaneous waves of creation, occurring across several hundred million years, including thousands of creations of now- extinct groups.

Second, these thousands of "kinds" were created in a strictly correlated chronological/morphological sequence, in a nested hierarchy. That is, virtually no "kind" was created until a similar "kind" already existed. For instance, for the reptile-to-mammal transition, God must have created at least 30 genera in nearly perfect morphological order, with the most reptilian first and the most mammalian last, and with only relatively slight morphological differences separating each successive genus. Similarly, God created legged whales before he created legless whales, and Archeopteryx before creating modern birds. He created small five-toed horse- like creatures before creating medium-sized three-toed horses, which in turn were created before larger one-toed horses. And so on. This very striking chronological/morphological sequence, easily explained by models 1, 2, and 3, is quite puzzling in this model.

Third, God did not create these kinds in a sequence that obviously progressed in any direction, as discussed briefly under model 3. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw (mysterious are the ways of God, right?), but it is another puzzle, another unexplained aspect of the fossil record.

Fourth, what about those species-to-species transitions? They appear to show that at least some species, genera, and families arose by evolution (not necessarily all, but at least some.) How can a creationist model be reconciled with this evidence?

a)"Minor" evolution allowed.
In this model, the species-species transitions DO represent evolution, but of a minor and unimportant variety. Note, however, that during these bursts of "minor evolution", the evolution took place in an apparently non-directed manner, sometimes crossed genus and family lines, and resulted in just the same sorts of morphological differences that are seen between the other, presumably created, groups of animals.

b)Separately created fossils.
In this model, the "species-species transitions" do not represent evolution. This implies that every individual fossil in the species-to-species transitions must have been separately created, either by creation of the animal that later died and was fossilized, or by creation of a fossil in situ in the rock. I have heard this model called the "Lying God Theory".

In summary, models 1, 2, and 3 (slightly different versions of basic evolutionary theory) are consistent with the fossil record, and go further to explain its notable features with a coherent overarching framework. Evolutionary theory has made successful predictions about fossils that were discovered later (e.g. the whale fossils), about genetic patterns, and about numerous other aspects of biology such as the development of disease resistance. Model 4 (literal young-earth creationism) appears unsalvagable, as all of its predictions are wrong. Model 5 (nonliteral creationism, with separately created kinds on an old earth) can just barely be modified to be consistent with the fossil record, but only with bizarre and convoluted tinkering, and only, apparently, if God created the world to make it look like evolution happened. In my humble opinion, this still utterly fails to explain the record's notable features or to make any useful or testable predictions. It also raises the disturbing question of why God would go to such lengths to set up the appearance of evolution, right down to inserting the correct ratios of radioisotopes in the rocks.
Okay, having blathered on about that, now I'll quit pontificating and get to the main point.

The Main Point
Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.
As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."
 
2004-06-16 02:46:01 PM  
walkingtall

I never said Endogenous retroviruses was proof of evolution, I merely said that it is consistant with the theory and therefore supports it. What are your claims, and what, if any evidence do you have to support them. At this point I am done with this debate unless you state your theory, it really isn't that much to ask.
 
2004-06-16 02:49:46 PM  
walkingtall

Things more complicated that DNA:

1)Fusion
2)Gravity
3)How/Where human conciousness comes from and works
4)World politics
5)String theory
6)Women
 
2004-06-16 02:50:42 PM  
Yellow Number Five

I would like to be able to argue evolution and Christianity at the same time. I would love not to be laughed at and my beliefs mocked by a large number of people. I would like nothing else but to have a beer with you and talk about the wonderful advances in evolution theory and have a beer with my Christian friends and talk about theological issues. Unfortunately having studied both with equal fervor I cannot do that. Intellectual integrity demands I make a choice. If you care to debate why I cannot believe in both that is a different debate. You have to throw out the Bible to believe in evolution. I suppose God did that so you would have to make a choice. I do not know why things are the way they are. But they are and all I can do is do the best I can. If you are correct and your theories prove to be correct, I must throw down my Bible and face life without God. That is reality. I could not stand before God with a clear conscience and claim to have an open mind if I was not willing to face that if I had to. That is what intellectual honesty is all about. It is facing the reality that wherever the evidence goes you go. Even if the destination is not one you want to go to.
 
2004-06-16 02:53:41 PM  
Yellow Number Five

I know you are partly being funny with that but I should have qualified that as being the most complicated thing we can see and touch.
 
2004-06-16 03:03:14 PM  
walkingtall

[I suppose God did that so you would have to make a choice. I do not know why things are the way they are.]

That's what confuses me. Why would God, if He exists, "plant" evidence that leads us to false conclusions and possibly damnation? That's not free will, that's just cruel and confusing. I have a reasoning mind, why I do not know, but I'll be damned if I won't use it - hell, according to some people I'm damned BECAUSE I use it.

[That is what intellectual honesty is all about. It is facing the reality that wherever the evidence goes you go. ]

I agree, and in my interpretation the evidence points to evolution.
 
2004-06-16 03:03:19 PM  
Yellow Number Five

Here is an article that I believe in. It makes assumptions about DNA and mutations that are right up your alley. If you disagree or have competing numbers please use them. These are NOT my words by they fit what I believe. I am willing to accept them as my own. Please feel free to start shooting.

by David A. Plaisted

Creationism has been criticized for not making testable predictions. Therefore I will make some predictions based on creationism. If these are refuted, it will not necessarily mean that creationism is false, but that the theory needs revision. If these are confirmed, it will not necessarily mean that creationism is true, but it will tend to support it.
First, I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different kinds of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms.

So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.

In addition, since these organisms were all created at about the same time, and did not evolve from one another, we should not expect to find any clear ancestor-descendent relationship between different organisms in the fossil record. In fact, it should be very difficult to construct reasonable and convincing phylogenies of organisms. Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship, in most respects, since they were created for a continuum of environments.

Now, since the basic organisms were created recently, we should expect all of the descendents of a created kind to be very similar. They should generally have the same number of chromosomes, and the same genes at the same locations on corresponding chromosomes. They also should often be able to interbreed, which should make tracing their evolutionary relationships fairly complex. In addition, their nuclear and mitochondrial DNA should be fairly similar. However, between different created kinds, we should generally expect to find greater differences in the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

In fact, we should be able to quantify how much genetic diversity there is within a species. The genetic diversity measures the probability that a corresponding base pair of DNA will differ between two randomly chosen individuals. If the genetic diversity is 1/100, this means that two randomly chosen individuals will differ in about 1/100 of their DNA. We predict that the amount of genetic diversity should be consistent with the theory of neutral evolution and an origin about 6,000 years ago. We choose the theory of neutral evolution because one would expect created beings to be optimal in some sense, so that very few mutations would be beneficial. Thus the great majority of mutations should be neutral or slightly harmful.

Thus if we know the rate r of mutation per generation, which is the percent change in DNA per generation, and the generation time g in years, then the genetic (nucleotide) diversity should be about 2(6000/g)r, since there will be 6000/g generations since the creation and each one will tend to contribute 2r to the genetic diversity. Or it could be less, for species originating more recently. This means that for organisms with similar rates of mutation, we should expect the genetic diversity to be inversely proportional to the generation time. It is reasonable to assume, for example, that most of the mammals have similar rates of mutation, since many of the mammals are very similar genetically. This implies that the genetic diversity of mammal species should generally be inversely proportional to their generation times. Similar comments apply to the amount of genetic difference between species that have diverged from a created kind since the creation.

The hypervariable parts of the mitochondrial DNA control regions appear to mutate at a rate of about one percent every 200 to 300 generations in humans, and this seems to be a reasonable figure for any organism having about the same number of cell divisions in the female germ line (24) as man. So for this part of the mitochondrial DNA, we can let r be about 1/20,000, and our above formula gives a genetic diversity of 2(6000/g)(1/20,000) or 0.6/g. Thus with a generation time of 20 years for humans we should expect a diversity of 0.6/20 or 0.03 in the hypervariable regions of the mitochondrial DNA. For organisms with a one year generation time, and about 20 cell divisions in the female germ line, we should expect a diversity of about 60 percent. Of course, as one approaches the limit of 75 percent, these estimates of genetic diversity have to be reduced to some extent, because there will be many repeated mutations at the same base pair.

A similar calculation can be done on the nuclear DNA, assuming that most of it is non-functional. However, this calculation should be based on mutation rates that are directly observed as differences in DNA sequences from one generation to the next, and not based on evolutionary assumptions.
 
2004-06-16 03:03:47 PM  
. I have true faith because I am willing to put it to the test. I am willing to listen to other religions, other points of view. I listen to evolutionists and atheists. I use logic and reason to decide what makes the most sense given everything I know.

Why are you lumping atheists with evolutionists? Not everyone who accepts evolution is an atheist. In fact, the majority of them are not.

Moreover, if you actually had listened to anyone who accepted evolution, you wouldn't be confusing evolution with the Big Bang and making so many obvious errors about evolution theory and science in general.
 
2004-06-16 03:15:06 PM  
Dimensio

You do not know what you are talking about. This is not a forum of microbiologists who are debating the merits of biological evolution and have limited it as such. This is a general discussion of evolution and all the other theories are part and parcel. YOU do not know science or evolution theory so please be quiet and stop harassing me unless you have something meaningful to say. I have my hands full with people who actually have a clue.
 
2004-06-16 03:26:37 PM  
Creationism has been criticized for not making testable predictions. Therefore I will make some predictions based on creationism. If these are refuted, it will not necessarily mean that creationism is false, but that the theory needs revision. If these are confirmed, it will not necessarily mean that creationism is true, but it will tend to support it.

In other words, he can claim that finds will support creationism, but he also claims that nothing that he's presented can be used to falsify creationism. Sounds like he doesn't consider creationism to be an actual theory.

You are aware that non-falsifiable explanations are fundamentally useless, right?


So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians.

This is a meaningless prediction. It's saying that you expect to find animals living in environments where they will tend to thrive. Well duh! You'll also expect to find water puddles in indentations in the ground lower than surrounding areas. This doesn't confirm creationism, it's just common-sense reasoning. Now, finding creatures thriving in environments to which they don't seem suited, that would be something (do not mention humans and Antarctia, humans are hardly "thriving" there and humans only "thrive" in many environments because they are able to alter the environment to suit their needs).

This doesn't confirm creationism (it also doesn't confirm evolution, so don't bring that up). Even if all of the organisms were tossed about willy-nilly into random environments, you would still expect that only the ones best suited for surviving in given environments would be the ones to survive over extended generations.

Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms.

What, exactly, does he mean by "links"? It sounds like he's already trying to pit a "creation theory" against another theory. Theories don't work that way. They stand or fall on their own. I do hope that he explains how one would confirm or deny a "link" between organisms.

In addition, since these organisms were all created at about the same time, and did not evolve from one another, we should not expect to find any clear ancestor-descendent relationship between different organisms in the fossil record. In fact, it should be very difficult to construct reasonable and convincing phylogenies of organisms. Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship, in most respects, since they were created for a continuum of environments.

Wow, he makes a prediction that has already been falsified. Not surprising that he would make this prediction, though. Creationists tend to blatantly ignore the evidences of transitional fossils so that they can pretend that they're being honest when they deny the existence of them.

In fact, we should be able to quantify how much genetic diversity there is within a species. The genetic diversity measures the probability that a corresponding base pair of DNA will differ between two randomly chosen individuals. If the genetic diversity is 1/100, this means that two randomly chosen individuals will differ in about 1/100 of their DNA.

I do hope that he further explains this, as it's not making a lot of sense to me.

We predict that the amount of genetic diversity should be consistent with the theory of neutral evolution and an origin about 6,000 years ago.

What the hell is the theory of "neutral evolution", and why is he assuming 6,000 years for an origin? What justifies this assumption? What evidence leads him to believe that the origin was 6,000 years ago?

We choose the theory of neutral evolution because one would expect created beings to be optimal in some sense, so that very few mutations would be beneficial.

Why is he assuming that the creatures would be created "optimal"? Moreover, is he completely unaware that whether or not a trait is "benefical" can be entirely dependent on the environment? A trait that allows resistance against the cold isn't terribly useful in tropical climes, and it may in fact prove detrimental, yet a trait like that is what lets penguins and polar bears thrive in their environment.

I could go into his math, but I'm already going to tell you what you'd get from his initial assumptions: all species on earth should be equally genetically different from all other species (unless the species is "new", which is a concept that he introduces out of the blue without explaining why it would ever happen even though he's already poo-poohed the idea of benefical mutations happening on a scale sufficient to cause speciation). I can already tell you that he's wrong. Anyone who has actually studied genetics would know that.
 
2004-06-16 03:34:29 PM  
You do not know what you are talking about.

So says the person who insists that common descent of species is somehow linked to stellar formation.


This is not a forum of microbiologists who are debating the merits of biological evolution and have limited it as such.

True. Evolution covers all of biology, not just microbiology. However, it only covers biology (though geology and palentology can be used to dig up evidence for it).


This is a general discussion of evolution and all the other theories are part and parcel.

What other theories are part and parcel? Be specific. You asserted that the Big Bang hypothesis is somehow directly connected to biological evolution. I have asked you, more than once, to justify this attempt at linking the two. Thus far, you've done nothing but call me a fool because someone who has actually studied both biological evolution and the Big Bang is telling you that they're not connected.

WHY are evolution and the Big Bang dependent on one another? Stop asserting it and actually justify your assertions. Calling me names because I refuse to accept something that you pulled from a badly-written creationist tract only makes you look arrogant and stupid.


YOU do not know science or evolution theory

Typical creationist dishonesty. I point out how your understanding of evolution theory is wrong, so rather than look into the issue to see whether or not you made a mistake, you simply assert that I'm the one lacking in knowledge.


so please be quiet and stop harassing me unless you have something meaningful to say. I have my hands full with people who actually have a clue.

"Waah! The mean evolutionist is showing that I don't know anything about the theory that I'm trying to trash! Make him go away!"

Stop being a baby. If I'm really ignorant and evolution and the Big Bang are interconnected, then show a link. Point out how one is absolutely dependent on the other. Stop brazenly asserting it without any justification and calling names when someone disagrees with you.
 
2004-06-16 03:50:00 PM  
Dimensio

You reply shows you are not even qualified to speak about what you believe. This forum was never limited to biological evolution. All the other parts are given as proofs of biological evolution. It is a logical step to move from explaining the progression of life to how it began to how the earth and sun began to how the universe began. There is nothing unscientific about this progression. Evolution vs Creationism covers all these areas and the debate rages in all areas. That is why I wrote you did not have a clue. After your last two posts you still do not have a clue.
 
2004-06-16 04:02:06 PM  
walkingtall

I've heard of Dave Plaisted before. Since you saw fit to let him speak for you, I'll let Kevin Henke speak for me. I've known Kevin for a few years, he's a geologist, nice guy.

Not So Amusing Geological Misinterpretations
Dr. Kevin R. Henke

The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as it's not altered, edited or sold.

Dr. David Plaisted is a computer scientist and creationist critic of orthodox geology, see A Creation Perspective.

He is also the radiometric dating "expert" for the True.origin website:

Dr. Plaisted seems to be a very nice and sincere guy. However, his essays on creationism contain numerous errors; unproven speculations and accusations; "discoveries" and "observations" that geologists knew about decades or even hundreds of years ago; citations from anonymous emails, newspaper articles and other questionable sources; misinterpretations of the literature and serious misunderstandings of geology, chemistry, physics, biology, and other topics that are clearly beyond his area of expertise.

At Musings on Geology Dr. Plaisted attempts to describe the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary record and its origin. Without using references, Dr. Plaisted makes several generalizations about the characteristics of sedimentary rocks that are mostly false. First, he claims that there's "often not much evidence of erosion" within Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks. Of course, unconformities (that is, surfaces of erosion or non-deposition) are more common than not in the geologic record. As one example, the cross-section of Nebraska at the following website shows only small amounts of Jurassic rocks in western Nebraska, whereas the rocks are entirely absent in the eastern portion of the state, see Adobe Acrobat file Geologic Bedrock Map of Nebraska.

Obviously, there was little deposition and/or extensive erosion of Jurassic deposits in Nebraska before the deposition of the Cretaceous Dakota Formation.

As another example from the United States, unconformities are common in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks of the Williston Basin of North Dakota as shown in Figure 7 at the Overview of the North Dakota Williston Basin site.

In response to the obvious presence of unconformities in the Paleozoic-Mesozoic geologic record, Dr. Plaisted simply suggests that the forces of "Noah's Flood" could explain any of the unconformities. However, many unconformities show strong evidence of LONG periods of weathering, including the presence of in-situ ancient soils, or paleosols. In North America alone, paleosols (ancient soils) are fairly common. Like modern soils, paleosols show evidence of a slow and subaerial origin. That is, they show no sign of being produced or disturbed by a violent "Genesis Flood" on a "young" Earth. Paleosols have been identified in the Ordovician of the Southern Appalachians (Driese and Foreman, 1992), Silurian of central Pennsylvania (Driese et al., 1992), Devonian of Pennsylvania and New York (Driese et al. 1997), Devonian to Lower Carboniferous of Nova Scotia (Martel and Gibling, 1996), Mississippian of Tennessee (Driese et al., 2000, Caudill et al., 1996; Driese et al., 1994) and Alabama (Kenny and Krinsley, 1992), Carboniferous of Arkansas (Webb, 1994), Pennsylvanian of Arizona (Nick et al., 1991), Pennsylvanian of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas (Joeckel, 1994), Pennsylvanian of Kansas and Missouri (Olszewski, 1996), Pennsylvanian of Iowa and Nebraska (Joeckel, 1995a), Pennsylvanian of Missouri (Retallack and Germanheins, 1994), Pennsylvanian of Pennsylvania (Gill and Yemane, 1996), Pennsylvanian of the Appalachians (eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and surrounding states) (Joeckel, 1995b), Pennsylvanian-Permian of Arizona (Kenny and Neet, 1993), Permian of Kansas (Miller and West, 1998), Permian of southeastern Nebraska (Joeckel, 1991), Permian of mid-USA (Miller et al., 1996), Triassic of western Canada (Davies, 1997), Triassic of Utah (Chan, 1999), the Chinle Formation (Late Triassic) of Arizona (Therrien and Fastovsky, 2000), the Triassic-Jurassic of the northeastern USA, and in many other Precambrian to Pleistocene deposits from around the world. Also see Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth Creationism, and Weathering mantles and the Age of the Earth.

Again, most of these paleosols contain textures, structures, in-situ fossils and other features that utterly refute "Flood geology." For example, the Ordovician Beans Gap Claystone paleosol contains textures and structures, which indicate that the ancient soil formed in a climate with a 4-8 month/year DRY season (Driese and Foreman, 1992). Evidence of alternating wet and dry seasons are also present in the Late Silurian paleosols of the Bloomsburg Formation of central Pennsylvania (Driese et al., 1992). How can widespread paleosols with evidence of alternating wet and dry seasons occur in the middle of a geologic record that supposedly formed during a "year-long worldwide Flood"? Root and in-growth position stump casts of Devonian trees are present in the Catskill Delta Complex of Pennsylvania and New York (Driese et al., 1997). Root and intact rootlet traces also occur in an Arizona Pennsylvanian paleosol (Nick et al., 1991). How could these undisturbed trees and their delicate roots and soils form within "Flood" deposits? The properties of a Late Mississippian paleosol from central Tennessee indicate that the climate was semiarid (Caudill et al., 1996), which is also hardly consistent with "Genesis Flood" deposits. Weathering and subaerial exposure are also evident in regional paleosols associated with the Mississippian Hartselle Sandstone in central Tennessee and northern Alabama (Driese et al., 1994). These paleosols and their fossils flatly contradict Dr. Plaisted's claims that there is no evidence of plant or animal growth between "layers of sediment." Miller and West (1998) note that the Lower Permian rocks of Kansas contain a "multitude of subaerial exposure surfaces ranging from desiccation cracks [which result from the drying of sediments before burial] to well-developed paleosols." Again, how can sediments repeatedly form and dry out during the middle of "Noah's Flood"? Chan (1999) describes a 37 meter-thick layer of wind-blown silt (a loessite) in the Triassic Ankareh Formation. Silt layers commonly accumulate in dry climates, but how can wind-blown silt layers accumulate during "Noah's Flood"? Now young-Earth creationists (YECs) might suggest that these brittle soils and rocks formed in the desert and glacial climates of the "Pre-Flood" world, but how could any "Flood" neatly stack these rocks and sediments without them being overturned, mixed and destroyed?

Dr. Plaisted's further claims:

"The layers of sediment (that were obviously flat when they were deposited) often extend for hundreds of miles. These facts are visible to all, but their significance is often missed."

In the 17th century, Nicolas Steno recognized that gravity causes sediments to be more or less deposited "flat." His discovery is called the "Principle of Original Horizontality" (Boggs, 1995, p. 3). Field geologists have used this principle for centuries.

Although non-geologists may "often miss" the extensive nature of "sediment layers" (formations), geologists recognized long ago that formations may extend for hundreds of kilometers. Now, many young-Earth creationists mistakenly believe that because formations APPEAR homogeneous, they must have an essentially uniform age. However, geologists abandoned this belief decades ago (Mintz, 1977, p. 31-34, 218-220). Formations do not necessarily have uniform ages. Structures, fossils and textural evidence in many formations, such as the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, clearly indicate that parts of a formation may be significantly older than other areas. Specifically, migrating shorelines are recognized in the St. Peter Sandstone (Mintz, 1977, p. 31-35). For example, the youngest shoreline is located in Nebraska and the Dakotas. Another shoreline passes through Wisconsin, Iowa and to the southwest. Two more shorelines pass through different parts of Illinois and Missouri. The oldest shoreline is located in Kentucky and Arkansas (Mintz, 1977, p. 35). Field evidence indicates that the extensive coverage area of the St. Peter Sandstone resulted from the migration of near-shore environments over millions of years.

The extensive sorting and polishing of the highly pure quartz grains in the St. Peter Sandstone (Levin, 1978, p. 278) are also hardly compatible with a "quick and dirty" year-long "Genesis Flood" (Young, 1982, p. 85). Studies indicate that for several million years during the Cambrian-Ordovician, carbonates were deposited and dolomitized in North America (Dott and Batten, 1981, p. 256-257). Afterwards, the Ordovician sea RETREATED from North America, which eroded many of the earlier deposited dolostones and allowed for previously deposited Cambrian sandstones to weather and undergo extensive resorting, which further rounded the grains and purged them of softer and more weatherable non-quartz minerals (Dott and Batten, 1981, p. 257). A rapid "Genesis Flood" cannot effectively destroy non-quartz minerals, thoroughly purge their remains from the sediments, effectively round the quartz grains, and still quickly deposit the sediments. Without magic, only slow chemical reactions and physical sorting can remove non-quartz minerals and purify and polish the quartz sands. These long cycles of deposition and erosion during the Cambrian-Ordovician are also hardly compatible with a "young" Earth.

Next, Dr. Plaisted compares his beliefs on the characteristics of Mesozoic and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks with his knowledge of sediment properties in modern depositional environments. The purpose of the comparison is to determine whether depositional processes in modern environments can explain the origins of ancient sediments or whether a "Genesis Flood" is "required." Dr. Plaisted begins his comparison by making some statements on the deposition of sediments in river deltas. In the following statement, Dr. Plaisted unknowingly describes the slightly dipping topset, forset, and bottomset beds of deltas (Boggs, 1995, Figure 11.6, p. 362):

"Now, river deltas are affected by the current of the outflowing water, and so are not completely level. In addition, the accumulation of sediment causes the river to extend further and further out into the ocean, so that the layers would not continue to accumulate in the same location and parallel to one another for millions of years. Geologists appear to recognize this."

Certainly, geologists recognize these migrating structures in deltas (Boggs, 1995, p. 356-377), especially geologists that look for petroleum deposits in them (North, 1990, p. 166f). Beginning with G.K. Gilbert's fieldwork in the Pleistocene deposits of Lake Bonneville in 1885, geologists identified the internal structures of deltas in detail and developed explanations on how they form (Boggs, 1995, p. 361-362). Rivers certainly tend to frequently meander and shift the locations of their deltas as Dr. Plaisted claims, but they do not support his creationist views. As an example, the Mississippi River and its deltas have been migrating southward from southern Illinois for millions of years. Figure 13.28 in Press and Siever (2001) and Ritter et al. (1995, p. 265-268) show the locations of the active Mississippi River deltas during just the past 6,000 years.

Dr. Plaisted also correctly claims that lakes will fill with sediments over time. Many of the smaller lakes in Minnesota, Michigan and other areas, which were created by glaciers more than 10,000 years ago, have filled in and are now bogs or farmland. Geologists recognize that lakes may only last for a few centuries to millions of years depending on their size, depth, the presence of any tectonic or volcanic activity and the amount of sediment they receive. Dr. Plaisted further states:

"In fact, the lakes existing today are for the most part filling with sediment and will not last for long. So this could not account for millions of years [worth] of sediment, either, as required by conventional geologic time scales."

Certainly, ancient lake deposits (such as the Eocene Green River Formation) are locally important in the geologic record. However, Dr. Plaisted fails to recognize that multiple Quaternary glaciations in North America and Eurasia and tectonic and volcanic activity in other areas (such as Crater Lake in Oregon) periodically produce new lakes. The existence of lakes does not imply a "young Earth" as Dr. Plaisted seems to suggest.

In making the following statement, Dr. Plaisted fails to recognize the presence of erosion and facies changes in defining the boundaries of different formations:

"In addition, lakes must have borders, but the sediment found in nature is not bordered by other rock structures. Rather, the sediments just continue on indefinitely in all directions [sic]."

No formation indefinitely extends worldwide in all directions. For example, Figure 3.3 in Mintz (1977, p. 34) shows the remaining distribution of the St. Peter Sandstone in North America. Although the highly eroded formation covers large patches of the central United States, its distribution is hardly "indefinite." Figure 14.6 in Boggs (1995, p. 500) also illustrates the facies relationships for Upper Cretaceous rocks in the Rocky Mountains of Montana. Formations may "pinch out" along ancient shorelines or grade into rocks with different lithological properties (facies changes). Specifically, the non-marine deposits (hardly compatible with Noah's Flood!) and coastal sandstones of the Judith River Formation pinch out into the Pierre Shale.

Dr. Plaisted is perplexed by how massive and supposedly flat-lying formations could ever form on continents. However, the origins of these formations is not a great mystery when one realizes that most formations do not have uniform ages and many of the more extensive formations (such as the St. Peter Sandstone) were deposited on very eroded and fairly flat areas. Shallow seas, as well as subaerial conditions, would have periodically covered these flat areas. Nevertheless, because of their depositional characteristics, compaction during diagenesis (sediment "lithification") and possible tectonism, many formations are not that flat or uniform in thickness. For example, Figure 15.14 in Boggs (1995, p. 549) shows a seismic cross-section of sediments in the Beaufort Sea, which includes many gently sloping and faulted sediment sequences. A cross-section of the Muav, Bright Angel and Tapeats Formations of the Grand Canyon region also shows that many of these rocks are not absolutely "flat." Similar sloping rock units may be seen at The Hydrocarbon Potential of Costa Rica.

Additional information on sediment deposition and facies changes can be found at Seismic Stratigraphy.

A "Genesis Flood" is also not required to bury and fossilize large numbers of organisms. Marine landslides (turbidites) are common on continental shelves and may bury numerous marine animals. Shells may be readily found in modern beach deposits. Storms, periodic shifts in ocean currents or changes in the flow directions of rivers may easily bury the shells. Organisms may also be slowly buried and well-preserved in low-oxygen bottom waters, such as the Black Sea or in many bogs and swamps. The famous Danish "bog mummies" are an excellent example of preservation in modern bog environments, as shown at Bodies of the Bogs.

Water is not always required to bury organisms, which may later become fossils. For example, slides on desert sand dunes or dust storms may bury organisms or footprints, burrows and other traces left by animals. Massive volcanic ash falls may also preserve animals and plants, such as the infamous destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79AD. Organisms are also buried and fossilized in cold marine and non-marine environments, such the Permian of South Africa (Martini and Banks, 1989; Taylor et al., 1989). Again, the burial and fossilization of Paleozoic organisms in dry and cold climates are hardly compatible with "Noah's Flood." (Also, see Ancient Ice Ages AND Submarine Landslides, but NOT Noah's Flood for a rebuttal of young-Earth creationist Oard's attempt to explain away the reality of Precambrian and Paleozoic glaciations.)

The source rocks of local or regional sediments that formed Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks are also not as mysterious as Dr. Plaisted claims:

"Finally, much of the [Paleozoic and Mesozoic] sediment is inorganic that must have had a source (a mountain or volcano) and must have been transferred to the area for millions of years. This source has disappeared from the geologic record without a trace, and the transport of inorganic matter to the layers of sediment implies processes of erosion which however are little in evidence. There are deposits, but as far as I know, no volcanic mountains."

As stated earlier, many of the highly pure sands in the St. Peter Sandstone originated from the erosion of older Cambrian sandstones. Also, for hundreds of millions of years, the Canadian Shield and the Appalachian Mountains have provided a lot of quartz-rich sediments for various formations in the central portion of the United States. To be exact, the chemistry of minerals in metamorphic and igneous rocks that now crop out in the English River Subprovince and elsewhere in the Canadian Shield of northwestern Ontario indicate that they originally formed AT LEAST 12 kilometers (3.5 kilobars) below the Earth's surface (Baumann, 1985; Winkler, 1979, p. 5). Over the past 2.5 billion years, the thick overlying materials eroded away to provide sediments to surrounding regions. In areas that lacked silicate sources, it's not surprising that limestones and other carbonates are dominant. Similarly, modern limestones are dominant in the Bahamas and parts of the Caribbean where silica-bearing volcanic rocks are absent. Because volcanoes often consist of fine-grained and easily weathered glasses, ashes and high-temperature minerals, it's not surprising that large, intact volcanoes are rare in the geologic record.

Dr. Plaisted further denies that paleovalleys are preserved in the geologic record:

"No edges to the valley are found in the sediments, either, but the sediments extend on and on in all directions."

Although widespread erosion typically destroys paleovalleys and other large-scale paleolandforms, paleovalleys have been identified in the geologic record, including in the Carboniferous of Nova Scotia (Gibling and Bird, 1994), eastern Kansas (Buatois et al., 1998) and northeastern Oklahoma (Ye and Kerr, 2000), just to name three examples. Paleosols are also associated with the Nova Scotia deposits. Clearly, paleovalleys and their associated formations are very localized and are associated with rivers and other features that are also seen in the modern world. The geologic record supports actualism and not the unusual claims of "Flood geology."

Dr. Plaisted further asks:

"Also, if there were multiple floods in a desert region, where do all the marine fossils come from?"

Of course, the presence of marine fossils near desert deposits is not unusual. Many modern deserts are commonly located near marine shorelines (California, Namibia, Chile, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc.). As sea levels changed over time, perhaps from the growth or destruction of massive continental glaciers in other parts of the world, desert and near-shore marine deposits would readily overlap. Again, a "Genesis Flood" is not required to explain the presence of marine deposits overlying or underlying desert deposits.

In his essay, Dr. Plaisted describes an angular unconformity. However, he does not appear to realize that there are other types of unconformities, including paraconformities, disconformities and nonconformities (Boggs, 1995, p. 495):

"Let me comment briefly on these unconformities between layers. There are places where one geologic layer is tilted relative to the next one, indicating some erosion and passage of time in between the layers."

So far, Dr. Plaisted's description of an angular unconformity is correct. Sediments are laid down, deeply buried, lithified to sedimentary rocks, folded, uplifted and partially eroded. Eventually, fresh sediment is deposited on top of the folded rocks. Everything is buried, lithified to sedimentary rocks and eventually uplifted again to crop out where geologists find them as an angular unconformity. However, Dr. Plaisted's descriptions soon divert into error:

"However, these unconformities are not cosynchronous [sic] all over the world. This means that for any two successive geological layers A and B, there is somewhere in the world where they are laid down without significant evidences [sic] of erosion between them."

It is utterly false to claim that ALL rocks above or below angular unconformities are conformable in other areas. For example, where are the conformities between the Devonian Old Red Sandstone and the underlying Silurian strata? This contact in Scotland was the first angular unconformity to be identified, which was recognized by James Hutton in 1788 (Levin, 1978, p. 202). Once more, Dr. Plaisted is making blanket statements about geology that have no support.

The following statement by Dr. Plaisted is also false:

"Assuming as geologists do that geological layers are deposited simultaneously all over the world, this would imply that the whole geological sequence was laid down rapidly at one time."

Geologists do not believe that "geological layers are deposited simultaneously all over the world." As discussed above, extensive formations often do not have uniform ages. The geologic record consists of a series of localized to regional deposits, which formed in different places at different times. Preservation of these sediments was also very selective. Even today, sediments are being deposited in the Gulf of Mexico, while at the same time erosion and non-deposition may be occurring in large portions of central Iowa. It is very rare to find geologic deposits in diverse parts of the world that formed at exactly the same time. Indeed, even with the best dating methods, we can't date rocks to within one year. Dr. Plaisted has no scientific evidence to claim that the entire geologic record formed rapidly from a year-long, worldwide "Genesis Flood." In the early 19th century, geologists correctly concluded that the geologic record refuted "Flood geology" and a "young Earth" (Young, 1982, p. 41-54).
 
2004-06-16 04:06:59 PM  
It is a logical step to move from explaining the progression of life to how it began to how the earth and sun began to how the universe began.

Why is this a logical step? Geologists had already determined that the earth was more than 6,000 years old BEFORE Darwin made his voyage to the Galapagos Islands. Even if Darwin had never been born, people would have been investigating the age of the earth issue and formulating a hypothesis as to how it came to exist. Darwin's discovery did not lead to the Big Bang hypothesis.

If you disagree, show a clear link. Repeatedly asserting the same thing over and over again does not vindicate you.

The findings that have lead to the theories regarding the formation of stars, planets and solar systems have absolutely nothing to do with biology. Those findings would still be around even if we did not have evolution theory.


There is nothing unscientific about this progression.

Your assertion makes no sense. I've asked you to justify linking the Big Bang with biological evolution and you have absolutely refused to do this. You are doing nothing but offering lame excuses.


Evolution vs Creationism covers all these areas and the debate rages in all areas.

Evolution only covers the origin of the species. It has nothing to do with anything that occured before life exists. I know that you've had it drilled into your skull by badly written creationist tracts, but you need to accept the fact that they are wrong, that you are wrong and that evolution only covers events amongst biological life forms. There are theories regarding stellar and planetary formation, but they are not part of the theory of evolution.


That is why I wrote you did not have a clue.

Yes, I know that you said that I don't have a clue because you're not only completely ignorant, but also stubbornly arrogant.

After your last two posts you still do not have a clue.

Well, gee, maybe if you'd actually present the link between evolution and the Big Bang -- as I have asked at least THREE TIMES already -- I might be able to get a clue. Thus far the only "clue" I'm picking up is that you not only don't know anything about the nature of evolution theory, but you don't actually want to know anything about it because if you learned some real facts it might contradict your stupid, false misconceptions and you might have to abandon your faith because your faith in God is so absolutely weak that it cannot survive the disovery that you happen to be misinformed about even one thing.
 
2004-06-16 04:21:35 PM  
Yellow Number Five

You gave a good synopsis of young earth theory but nothing you wrote falsifies anything. Just as you are arguing that I am poking holes in evolution theory does not invalidate evolution theory works the same here. This is what I am talking about scientific arrogance. You are using small issues to invalidate the entire theory. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The Flood model is completely falsified, since the fossils appear in a different order than can be explained by any conceivable "sorting" model.

That is a blatant falsehood. There are many sorting models that fit with the distribution. Please give me info on how the distribution of fossils is inconsistent with flooding.

We cannot possibly understand the catastrophic effects of a world wide flood and the process that created it. In the Bible God only states what happened. He did not say He did it directly. The Bible is usually very clear when God does something against natural laws. The fact nothing is said implies natural events happened to cause the flood and natural events were allowed to happen according to the rules He created. ie flow managment of fossils etc. So creationists are hard at work trying to make sense of the evidence as it exists. Same as evolutionists. You can drive a few trucks through the holes if you like but on the whole evolution does not fit reality enough for it to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which is the impression that is given. My son came to me crying last year because his teacher told him that the Bible had been proven false beyond a reasonable doubt by science and the teacher stopped at telling my child not to believe in God but that is the logical next step. That is why I try to combat the arrogance that that teacher showed which you and Dimensio so eloquently state time and time again.
 
2004-06-16 04:26:13 PM  
My son came to me crying last year because his teacher told him that the Bible had been proven false beyond a reasonable doubt by science and the teacher stopped at telling my child not to believe in God but that is the logical next step.

I have to wonder about this story. Given that your knowledge of evolution is woefully steeped in ignorance and misconceptions and given that you are obviously stubbornly arrogant to the point of refusing to accept that you might be misinformed on the issue, I question both you and your son's interpretation of this claim.

That is, if you're not just lying about it. Your brazen arrogance has led me to question your honesty as well.
 
2004-06-16 04:42:35 PM  
Yellow Number Five

I know geology fairly well so I am reading your post and the debate between these two models with interest. Again there is nothing in that post that I read that refutes a flood theory. Pokes holes maybe but not refutes. The fact is that billions of years with processes as we have now do not give us what we observe. He uses mud slides and sand and volcanic eruptions to make the case for fossilification other than water. However, when we find fossils from these processes it is very easy to see what created the fossils. The millions and maybe billions of fossils we have found and are continuing to find are consistent with water immersion with very few exceptions. Many of the arguments I read are straw arguments and refute nothing. I will study it and try to find other holes. The very fact we are having this discussion and going back and forth really proves the only point I came into this thread to make. Evolution in whatever form you care to argue, except for variation within kind is far from a proven fact. There are very smart people arguing both sides. So stop trying to assert evolution as a proven fact beyond question. I am tired of hearing that because it is a lie. "You tell a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes fact." Adolph Hitler


Hopefully others like me will stand up to deceit wherever deceit rears its ugly head. The only thing evil needs to thrive is the silence of the good.
 
2004-06-16 04:43:13 PM  
[You gave a good synopsis of young earth theory but nothing you wrote falsifies anything. Just as you are arguing that I am poking holes in evolution theory does not invalidate evolution theory works the same here. This is what I am talking about scientific arrogance. You are using small issues to invalidate the entire theory. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.]

First, you haven't poked any holes in evolutionary theory as far as I can tell, because philosophy will never trump scientific observation. Second, your creationist theory has NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back it up (the genetics in Dave's theory are badly misrepresented and/or simply not true, I challenge you to sight a legitamate document supporting those claims).

[That is a blatant falsehood. There are many sorting models that fit with the distribution. Please give me info on how the distribution of fossils is inconsistent with flooding. ]

As I said before, if you buy the order of "kinds" were created in Genesis, that order is inconsistant with the fossil record. The order or age of fossils clashes with what the bible tells us. We find fossil evidence of one "kind" of animal before another "kind" that was supposedly created first. This is true not just for terrestrial vertebrates, but also for aquatic vertebrates, pollen, coral reefs, rooted trees, and small invertebrates. For example, ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers. Creation in six "metaphorical" days is also falsified, since the animals appeared in a different order than that listed in Genesis, and over hundreds of millions of years rather than six days.

It occurs to me now that young earth creationism clashes not only with evolution, but with all of geology, most of biology, all of astronomy, and even some physics and chemistry. I guess nearly every thing we think we know is all wrong.

Do you seriously believe the earth is only 6,000 years old? Nearly all of science will refute that. Your kid's teacher was wrong to tell your son what she/he did, but are you seriously claiming that the bulk of what we've learned about out world is bullshiat? How can you dismiss the entire field of geology?
 
2004-06-16 04:44:12 PM  
Just a little humour note. It seems that the "renown" Dr. Dino himself, Kent "my degree comes from a non-accredited diploma mill" Hovind has proven his journalistic integrity once more by posting a debunked urban legend on his website. A simple check will show that the story that he is presenting as truth was proven false a week ago, but apparently fact-checking isn't Hovind's strong suit.

To be fair, not all creationists consider Hovind a champion. A number acknowledge that Hovind's methods are bad and that his knowledge of science is lacking at best.
 
2004-06-16 04:47:09 PM  
Dimensio

I am not responding to you anymore. I have given you no reason to call me a liar. I have used logic and reason to make my arguments and never told a falsehood or used deception. That is just your twisted mind at work. I have found in my life that liars and charlatans are always the first to accuse others without provocation. Evil always sees evil in others whether it is warranted or not. I have attacked theories and beliefs. I try not to attack personally. If I have I apologize but your comment was uncalled for and I am ignoring you from now on.
 
2004-06-16 04:50:02 PM  
It occurs to me now that young earth creationism clashes not only with evolution, but with all of geology, most of biology, all of astronomy, and even some physics and chemistry. I guess nearly every thing we think we know is all wrong.

I think that this is the cause of walkingtall's incorrect assessment of evolution as covering every scientific field under the sun. Faced with the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with just about every scientific theory out there, walkingtall is unable to accept it. However, if he just decides that all of the bits in science that pose a problem for his holy text are part of the same theory, he can work to trash that one "theory" on its own and leave the rest of science standing. So he takes the name of a known "controversial" (only because it conflicts with religious beliefs, not because there's actually anything wrong with the theory), lumps in a load of other irrelevant explanations such as the origins of the earth, the sun, the solar system and the universe, and then stubbornly refuses to accept that he's created a monster that does not at all resemble the real theory of evolution.
 
2004-06-16 05:02:05 PM  
I am not responding to you anymore.

It was only a matter of time. I knew that I could only demolish your bogus claims for so long before you threw a temper tantrum.


I have given you no reason to call me a liar.

Except for that whole "repeating false claims even after it is explained that they are false and why they are false". That's called "lying" amongst civilized people.

Oh, and let me quote something that you said on June 14, 2004 at 18:33:55 on this very discussion:

"I am not debating in this thread anymore."

What did you do after making that statement? You came back and debated some more.

Tell me again why I am not justified in calling you a liar? Oh, wait, you said that you weren't replying to me anymore. Then again, you may have been lying as you were before.


I have used logic and reason to make my arguments and never told a falsehood or used deception.

You said that evolution covers the formation of the cosmos. when I pointed out that you were wrong, you called me clueless. That's not using logic and reason, that's using ignorance and insults.


That is just your twisted mind at work.

From the creationist dictionary:
Twisted: Disagreeing with a creationist's interpretation of the theory of evolution, regardless of how wrong their interpration is.


I have found in my life that liars and charlatans are always the first to accuse others without provocation.

I'll note that you were the one who accused me of being clueless. I'll also note that I called you a liar because you were repeating the same false claims over and over again even after being told that you were wrong, and you never tried to explain why you were right (that would be "provocation").


Evil always sees evil in others whether it is warranted or not.

I never said that you were evil.


I have attacked theories and beliefs.

No, you've attacked a complete misrepresentation of a theory and called it sound reasoning.

You asserted that you have a "theory of creation". I asked you to state it. You dishonestly ducked the issue, which is typical of a liar.

If you weren't lying about a "theory of creation", then why did you never state it?


I try not to attack personally.

So you say to the person who you repeatedly called "clueless".


If I have I apologize but your comment was uncalled for and I am ignoring you from now on.

"Waah! The big mean evolutionist proved that I am not only ignorant but also dishonest! I'm never talking to him again! Waaah!"
 
2004-06-16 05:06:13 PM  
walkingtall

[Hopefully others like me will stand up to deceit wherever deceit rears its ugly head. The only thing evil needs to thrive is the silence of the good. ]

I'm getting a little sick of you suggesting that myself and other evolutionists are decietful. I'm a damn scientist, I let the facts speak for themselves. Every example I've given thus far is backed by scientific research, feel free to question my interpretation of the data, it doesn't make the research itself any less true.

The main problem with creation theory is that it is really not a theory at all, not in the scientific sense of the word. Creationism does not give itself any nullification conditions, as real theories do. For example, if all of a sudden you floated up into the sky, the theory of gravity would be turned on it's head. If we find a fossil of a monkey with feathers, evolutionary theory is toast. What disproves creation? If you don't think that's an important question, then you aren't approaching the subject scientifically at all.

Dimensio

Thanks for the link, good stuff.
 
Displayed 50 of 1101 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report