Evolution... good, bad or ugly?

[Jeslek]

Re: 16. WRITTEN RECORD

The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

Well, I'm throwing in my towel on that one. I tried my best, but when presented with such an airtight argument, I must admit that there is simply no refutation.

Well I wouldn't take this as a real valid argument to counter evolution either. heh. I would just mention it as a side note.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 15. EARTH'S ROTATION

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

Using an even higher rate of .005 seconds per year per year (since it is a deceleration, a 'per year per year' type of unit is correct) yields a 14 hour day 4.5 billion years ago. This is hardly a problem for mainstream science. Also, using this .005 seconds figure gives roughly a 22 hour day 370 million years ago, which agrees quite well with analysis of coral outlays from that period. However, it is thought that the deceleration rate is currently much higher than it would have been in the past due to resonance modes with the oceans. When the Earth was spinning a bit faster, these resonance modes would not have acted as the brake that they currently are (as a type of hysterisis damping).

What is really amusing is that the .00002 second per year per year figure given in the argument above would not have caused any notable deformation of the Earth by centrifugal force.

OK this I can't counter yet. I think I've read about this, but I will need to reread a few books to remember clearly... Give me some time, I will come back to this.

 

[Jeslek]

When you find a mixing bowl and arrowheads down in a soil layer that is known to be 40,000 years old...

How is it known to be 40,000 years old?

Radiometric dating is one very reliable method.

Radiometric is basically carbon-14 and that kind of dating methods. It has never been proven to be totally accurate. Unless you can PROVE it, we can't admit it as a valid argument.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW

Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

What? So the author identified a possible geologic feature that might be less than 30,000 years old. Some mountains are much younger still. How does that in any way suggest that the age of the entire Earth is dependent on the age of the Nile river delta? Besides, there is again that lingering assumption of a steady state system, which river delta formation is most certainly not. How is it that this is consistently overlooked?

Good point. That wasn't really a great argument at all, now that I read through it again... For now, dismiss it. I might be able to pull more on this later.

 

[Nixy]

Whatever happened today the world is FUCKED and that's all that really matters :mad2:

 

[Nixy]

I'm sorry

This stupid essay about alienation int he labour force and how i've been alienated at work is making me VERY bitter

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 12. DINOSAURS

Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

Whoa, a lot of stuff there. First, do you seriously believe dinosaurs and man lived at the same time? Perhaps so, if the earth is less than 10000 years old.

Yes I do. And there is proof. There are dinosaur and human footprints that overlap, in the same strata. There is more proof, but I don't recall it right now.

The Paluxy River footprints were not human footprints. Some were eroded dinosaur footprints, and some were carved by man. This argument has long since been refuted.

Well, those were one of the arguments I think, but there are more. Gee I really can't remember all the details... I feel stupid. I really wish I had a better memory.

Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science? What about the hundreds of thousands of species present? What about all the food they would need to eat for a year? That sounds like a pretty serious problem to me.

Well, I believe the Earth was quite lush with vegetation before the great Flood. Plenty of food for all. Hence all the oil fields we have today.

 

[Jeslek]

Whatever happened today the world is FUCKED and that's all that really matters :mad2:

Nixy if you don't want to contribute to the discussion, don't try to derail it.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 11. DATING METHODS

Whoever wrote the above arguments against radiometric dating knows as much about the science behind it as your average house cat does.

Perhaps... I don't pretend to know a lot about it... But, just remember, those dating methods, while scientifically reasonable, have not been proved.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.

   Cytochrome C Differences          Cytochrome C Differences

   Bacterium to Six Organisms        Silkmoth to Vertebrates
   to yeast . . . . . . . 69%        to lamprey . . . . .27%
   to wheat . . . . . . . 66%        to carp. . . . . . .25%
   to silkmoth. . . . . . 65%        to pigeon. . . . . .26%
   to tuna. . . . . . . . 65%        to turtle. . . . . .25%
   to pigeon. . . . . . . 64%        to horse . . . . . .30%
   to horse . . . . . . . 64%
 
   Cytochrome C Differences          Hemoglobin Differences
 
   Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates   Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
   to bullfrog. . . . . . 13%        to human . . . . . .73%
   to turtle. . . . . . . 13%        to kangaroo. . . . .76%
   to chicken . . . . . . 14%        to chicken . . . . .78%
   to rabbit. . . . . . . 13%        to frog. . . . . . .76%
   to horse . . . . . . . 13%        to carp. . . . . . .75%

Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

What? I suppose that if I picked, more or less at ramdom, some arbitrary criterion for deciding what species are more closely related that I could get some odd results as well. How about... the number of hairs on an organism. By that criteria, we'd probably find we are more closely related to rats than to chimpanzees. Or, how about body mass? We'd probably be more closely related to a few shrubs than we would to a cat. How can people pass off such arguments as being in any way relevant?

Your arguments up to now have been reasonable good, but this one is weak IMHO.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA

Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.

Stephen Gould would be rolling in his grave were he able to read the above statements. Punctuated equlibria never claimed that a large jump could be made from parent to offspring in a single generation. Whoever the author was that made such an assertion needs to do a bit more reading. Gould's idea was simply about the relative mutation rate; while most evolutionists had assumed it would be fairly constant, Gould argued (correctly IMO) that it would be fairly stagnant for large periods of time when selection pressures were low, and then the mutation rate would rise dramatically as selection pressures rose (climate shifts, disasters, etc.). However, keep in mind that a relatively fast mutation rate, fast enough to be a blink in geologic time, would still be so slow as to be unmeasurable by humans in a labarotory. Related arguments about two "hopeful monsters" being necessary to have sex are equally laughable.

Alright, I didn't even know about this until I read it yesterday, so I won't persue this point. What I will ask is, Where is the mutations today? No, where are the beneficial mutations today. Actually, name some benficial mutations that happened on the genetic, or physical, level in the last 5,000 years. I'm not much informed, and there could be, but I'd like to know.

As far as I know, physical mutations do not carry over to offspring. Therefore, only genetic mutations can be considered. Now I know genetic mutations happen all the time, but isn't just about all of them DAMAGING to the person/animal? Take Down's Syndrome for example. The gene is damaged, but it isn't beneficial to the person. Is there a modern day mutation on a genetic level that is actually helpful? (I honestly don't know, and I'm not aware of any...)

 

[Nixy]

Oh, so now I'm forbidden to post my opinions?

Just because it is not directly related to the specific "discussion" at this point in the thread it is still my opinion and I can still post it.

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

I suppose then if it is possible to form a diamond in a few seconds in the laboratory, then we must conclude that the age of the Earth is only a few minutes? I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. Perhaps it is possible to form oil or coal deposits in a few thousand years in some rare circumstances. Perhaps that accounts for a minute percentage of all oil and coal deposits found thus far. How does that, in any way, argue that the Earth must be relatively young?

I think what they are trying to point out is that there is an explanation for the oil, coal, diamonds, and other naturally formed substances that does not require millions of years. Before I can argue this further, I need to ask you a question...

Do you believe that world-wide flood happened at one time? Or at least a very very large one, submerging great parts of the planet under water. Once you answered this I can take the discussion a bit further.

 

[Jeslek]

duplicate

 

[outside looking in]

For example, if you take three scales that tell you a box weighs 10 pounds, 9 pounds, and 11 pounds, that is by no means enough to sufficiently prove that the box weighs about 10 pounds. For all we know it could weigh 20 pounds and all three scales are inaccurate or defective.

And if those three scales were produced by different manufacturers, using three different means of measuring weight (one might have a piezo-electric pressure transducer, one a mass-balance, and another a fluid displacement apparatus), and all agreeing with one another, wouldn't you then tend to trust the measurements a bit more? And what if each of those manufacturers made thousands of scales each, and all agreed? And what if they not only agreed with each other, but also with what theory predicts they should read (based on the understanding on how piezo-electric materials behave, for instance)? And what if it wasn't three scales, but ten?

The argument becomes rather weak, doesn't it? How else do you ever prove something, aside from numerous corroborations of the measurement by independent means of testing, over and over, and backed up by theoretical predictions?

 

[Jeslek]

Re: 7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.

7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.

And what about male nipples?

To suck on... It feels nice

Vestigal doesn't mean useless, but rather it points to a trace of something else. Vestigal legs in snakes for example still have some limite use in locomotion, but their importance isn't in their usefulness (or lack thereof) but rather that they look like traces of legs. Think about that for a moment and you'll realize the fallacy of the above arguments.

OK I don't quite see your line of reasoning here... More explanations would be appreciated.

 

[Nixy]

I agree with OSLI

If all that stuff is true then there is MUCH more evidence to say that the box weighs 10pounds. There is absolutely no other way to prove ANYTHING except doing experiments OVER and OVER to find the trend.

If you are going to say this process is wrong then you may aswell say that everything we know about chemistry and physics is also wrong! Hell! The whole world must be a hoax according to you!

LL: Saying nipples were made to suck on is not contributing to this discussion. If you don't have anything VAILD to contribute then don't try to derail the disucssion.

 

[Jeslek]

For example, if you take three scales that tell you a box weighs 10 pounds, 9 pounds, and 11 pounds, that is by no means enough to sufficiently prove that the box weighs about 10 pounds. For all we know it could weigh 20 pounds and all three scales are inaccurate or defective.

And if those three scales were produced by different manufacturers, using three different means of measuring weight (one might have a piezo-electric pressure transducer, one a mass-balance, and another a fluid displacement apparatus), and all agreeing with one another, wouldn't you then tend to trust the measurements a bit more? And what if each of those manufacturers made thousands of scales each, and all agreed? And what if they not only agreed with each other, but also with what theory predicts they should read (based on the understanding on how piezo-electric materials behave, for instance)? And what if it wasn't three scales, but ten?

The fact still stands, you can make a billion scales that all give the same answer, and that answer can be wrong.

The argument becomes rather weak, doesn't it? How else do you ever prove something, aside from numerous corroborations of the measurement by independent means of testing, over and over, and backed up by theoretical predictions?

So because a lot of scales from a lot of manufacturers give the same answer, which is unverified, makes it completely accurate? *frown* I don't think so, personally.

 

[Jeslek]

I agree with OSLI

If all that stuff is true then there is MUCH more evidence to say that the box weighs 10pounds then the box most likely weighs 10pounds, even if it SAYS 20pounds on it. The person who wrote the 20 there may have only weighed it once with an inaccuracte balance.

You're missing the point. The box weighs 20 pounds, period. Thats the fact. Its the scales in question. Even though a trillion different scales from a trillion different manufacturers give the same answer, the fact is, unless you an prove that one of them is accurate and precise, the mass of the box has not been proved or established, only estimated.

 

[outside looking in]

Radiometric is basically carbon-14 and that kind of dating methods. It has never been proven to be totally accurate. Unless you can PROVE it, we can't admit it as a valid argument.

There are many types of radiometric dating other than carbon-14, and all agree with each other, and with theoretical predictions, and with observations about cosmology, astrophysics, etc. What more do you want?

I have a feeling that no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you. I find it quite amazing that someone who can take the existence of an all powerful being solely on the basis of faith will reject a dating technique that is as well proven as any other type of measurement in science.

As far as not being able to prove it, that comes into the realm of epistemology. While it is true that nothing can ever be proved, there is good reason for believing certain things to be true. Radiometric dating is most definitely one of them, as is the fact that the Earth is round. Your argument against the former might as well be an argument against the latter as well.