|
4 registered members (Quad, M_D, Ayumi, AndrewAMD),
783
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69151
05/19/06 18:30
05/19/06 18:30
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 254
Colorado, USA
Spaz
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 254
Colorado, USA
|
As Dan mentioned, the dating metods are based on erroneous assumptions and are, at best, guesswork. On top of that, though, even if you're willing to pretend that the gigantic gaps in the fossil record don't exist, basing a fossil's age on it's location in the geologic strata is loaded with problems. It completely ignores known scientific processes like liquefaction, which far better explains the sorting of fossils into different strata. Most geologic dating techniques are based on circular reasoning. They start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old, base their dates on that, and then use it to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. The theory of evolution is so full of holes that it really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Take your strata, for example. If the earth formed by gravitational accretion, as most evolutionists believe, then simple mathematics shows that the energy dissipation in such a process would have meant that the entire earth would have been molten for millions of years. If that were the case then all the heavier metals, like gold, should have sunk beyond our reach to much deeper strata - yet we find gold on the earth's surface. The theory of evolution falls apart all the way from protiens and DNA to the mountains on Venus.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Spaz]
#69152
05/19/06 23:10
05/19/06 23:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Through accumulation of advantageous mutations. Random DNA modifications and insertion of foreign DNA sequences are both mutations.
Cool, I've already shown that random mutations don't increase complexity (all modern examples do the opposite). This still begs the question. WHAT WROTE THE DNA IN THE FOREIGN SOURCE? If we don't know where it came from, then we can't attribute it to an evolutionary change. Its more like sharing....But either way, while the bacteria may be getting something new, you have to explain how random changes in DNA can write this data in the first place. Eventually, if we put all the known bacteria in a test tube and let them share plasmids (etc), we would eventually reach equillibrium, and if you believe this is evolution, then evolution ends with all of the 'germs' being the same germs they were before. Hardly sounds like evolution to me.
Quote:
The short periodic comets that are allegedly a contradiction originate in the Kuiper and Asteroid belts.
I fail to see how Kuiper explains away the problem. Maybe you can elaborate?
Quote:
Science is motivated by the search for truth, while creationism is motivated by propagating literal bible belief.
That's an unfair stereotype if I've ever heard one. That would be like me asserting that evolutionists are simply motivated by propagating atheist views. Oh, wait....
Quote:
creationism you begin with a fixed "theory" and then need to interpret the observations until they fit the theory.
You've gotta be kidding me?! This is what everyone is doing nowadays. This is what science has become. How are we considered the only ones doing this? If at all.
Quote:
science it's vice versa, you begin with observations and then develop a theory that fits the observations.
This is funny 
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69153
05/20/06 08:04
05/20/06 08:04
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
while the bacteria may be getting something new, you have to explain how random changes in DNA can write this data in the first place.
Just like in the example I've mentioned with the electronics experiment kit.
Explained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.
- As to the Kuiper and Asteroid belt question: Both are the origins of short-lived comets (the Oort cloud is only the origin of long-lived comets). "Origin" here also means the aphel of comet orbits, i.e. the position far from the sun in an elliptical comet orbit.
Asteroids, Kuiper belt objects and Oort cloud objects normally all have circular orbits. They do not come close to the sun. From time to time, objects are ejected from the belts due to gravity effects by close encounters with other objects. Those gravity effects are not directly observed, but can be computer simulated and are scientifically undisputed. The ejected objects then get elliptical orbits that lead some of them into the proximity of the sun, eventually causing their evaporation. Thus, both belts are permanently losing matter, but at a very low rate. They still have enough matter to produce comets for the next billions of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
There's no "comet contradiction" at all.
---
@Dan: The "initial amount" is one of the two arguments on creationist websites for dealing with the fact that the earth age disproves their faith. The other argument is "decay rates change over time".
The creationist who first came up with the "initial amount" argument apparently confused the C14 method with uranium/lead isotope dating. The C14 method indeed depends on the initial amount of C14, and thus must be calibrated. The U235->Pb207 method however does not depend on the initial amount of Pb207 and does not need any calibration. For lead rejecting minerals, like Zircon, the initial Pb207 amount is zero. For not lead rejecting minerals, isochrone dating is used. Its result is independent of the initial lead content of the rock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating
Because calibration is not required, the U235->Pb207 method is extremely accurate - the error is less than 0.1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating
---
On a side note: On creationist-oriented websites you'll find listed about 100 arguments for explaining away all discoveries about evolution and earth age. And on science-oriented websites like talkorigins.org you'll find a list of the refutations of all those arguments. But it's not much fun when you post an argument and I then just look up its rebuttal on talkorigins. I suggest that we discuss about more interesting themes.
What I still would like to hear, for instance, is creationist theory itself. Since creationists gave up defending it long ago, this theory seems to have disappeared from all their websites. All their remaining efforts go in attacking scientific observations, but they do not offer anything to replace them. In which way, for instance, do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69154
05/20/06 13:27
05/20/06 13:27
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
In which way, for instance, do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?
JCL, you are really kidding me, right? The very name of the concept explains the origin ... it was "created". Christians believe it was created "ex nihlo" ... from nothing ... by the very word of God. However, as is pointed out, this cannot be tested. I suspect that this would be the reason you are not seeing this proposed as a theory to be tested scientifically.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69156
05/20/06 14:24
05/20/06 14:24
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
By the way, I'm not kidding - I'm taking this (well most of it) seriously.
First of all, I do appreciate it and, frankly, I do appreciate your tone throughout most of this discussion. It has been very interesting to see this thread and the Bible Contradictions thread be mostly friendly .
Quote:
If you believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago, then it was certainly no problem for God to place fossils in the earth, to create rocks that were already 4.55 billion years old, and to place photons in space so that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.
First of all, I think that most creationists are not hard set on a 6000+ year date. This date was originally conceived by James Usher when he attempted to calculate the age of the earth based on the genealogies in Genesis and through the Bible onward to his day. It is possible that his dates are way off because the Bible does not always give every single person in a genealogy, but tends to mention only the "significant" people in the genealogy (and those needed to "connect the dots"). As a result, it is possible that people (even generations) are missing from lineage presented to us. Therefore, most creationsists believe the earth is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old ... some older.
The other concept that you bring up about placing fossils there or photons already in place is called the Aparent Age theory (at least that is what I have heard it called). It is the concept that things may APPEAR older than they are because of the way that God created things. An example of this is the creation of Adam and Eve. It is obvious that Adam, one minute after being created, was not a baby of only one minute in age (or a fetus, etc). It seems rather obvious that Adam was a full grown adult. As a result, if we were there and saw Adam we would assume he was maybe 20 or 30, but the fact would be that he was only moments old. Perhaps this is the case with the rest of creation as well and it would certainly explain how we can see light from stars so far away.
As far as fossils there is a misconception. It has been reasoned that it takes a long, long time for fossils to form. However, when Mt. St. Helens errupted several years ago (was this in the 1980's?) and quickly laid down layers of ash scientists were excited to see what they would discover within. What they found surprised many of them. Animals that had been trapped in the ash were completely fossilized in under 4 months. Obviously the prossess of fossilization does not take very long periods to occur. I mention this only to state that this observation may lend credibility to the idea that the majority of the fossil record was created by the great Diluge (the flood of Noah) and thus the fossil record (and the strata they reside in) may not be as old as some think they are ... but that is another subject.
Quote:
So for what reasons do you need to explain away all those observations?
Anything I say here would be my personal oppinion. So please take it that way. I think that you bring up an interesting point. Why try to explain any of this ... scientifically or otherwise. In the past this may not have been necessary because many people believe in a God or gods as the creator(s) of all that they saw. As the idea of a force other than a god came to be the majority a need arose to try to show that a creator was behind all of this. In other words, as evolution became the accepted scientific way of explaining origins then those that believed in God wanted to come up with equally scientific means to validate their concepts. In this way, creation science becomes two things (once again, in my oppinion):
1 - A means to validate what they believe
2 - A means to cause people to believe what creationists preceive to be the truth
Lastly, the Bible states that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. I believe that part of this "dominion" manifests itself in the desire to explore the creation and to master it. As a result, even the Christian wants to scientifically examine the creation to see what "secrets" it holds. In the process of doing this they believe they will also find evidence of the handiwork of God himself:
Quote:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1
Quote:
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made - Romans 1:20a
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69157
05/21/06 17:04
05/21/06 17:04
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Mt. Helens? Wasn't that several hundred years ago? Not several years, unless I've missed something ... Anyways, about the fossils you meant, no well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid. However, to see this as evidence for all these kind of fossils to be possibly way younger ánd obviously ignoring the dating methods along the way is problematic, there are some good arguments against this. Apart from this: "Some upright fossils had rotted-away interiors by the time their burial was final. So, in those cases, the tree may have stood dead for some time. The typical height of upright fossils is on the order of two meters, so many of these fossils represent only the base of the original tree. The top of the tree presumably rotted." Quote:
There are at least three lines of argument against this.
The first argument is that the fossils aren't all found on one single level of the Geologic Column. Some are from the Devonian Period, well before the dinosaurs. Some were buried long after the dinosaurs went extinct. This is what you would expect if each burial was caused by a small, local event. And, there are differences, depending on where they are found. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks, and cypress trees aren't found below the Cretaceous Period. The same comment applies to their leaves and spores and pollen. But this is exactly what you would not expect if a single, global flood had washed over them. Surely the flood would have ripped many trees up, and dropped them elsewhere. Or if not the trees, at least the pollen.
The second argument is that some upright fossils were transported to where they are now. Others are clearly still in place (in situ), because they are still rooted into a fossilized soil. The transported trees have had their root systems ripped, but the in situ trees still have the small, fine rootlets in place. It does not seem possible for a single global event to transport some trees and not others.
The third argument is that there are some upright trees which are on top of other upright trees. We know that the upper tree grew after the lower one was buried, because the uppper tree is clearly in situ.
An example of this is a burrow pit near Donaldsonville, LA. When they excavated backswamp clays to rebuild the adjacent levee, they uncovered three levels of upright cypress forests buried on top of each other beneath the recent floodplain. These polystrate trees are buried within recent Mississippi River deposits that are only 4,000 years old. The much older upright trees in Yellowstone Park are similarly layered.
You see, the opposite result of what a 'global flood' would provide.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69158
05/21/06 23:24
05/21/06 23:24
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Explained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.
I know how the theory works. But you quoted me out of context. I was asking how getting the DNA from a foreign source, still doesn't explain how that foreign DNA was written in the first place.
Quote:
Because calibration is not required, the U235->Pb207 method is extremely accurate - the error is less than 0.1%.
I'll have to look into it when I have more time, but if you don't know the starting point, then how can you ever know how much of the daughter isotope is there in relation to the 'age'.
Quote:
And on science-oriented websites like talkorigins.org you'll find a list of the refutations of all those arguments
I've also found a lot of refutations to talk.origins arguments, back and forth and so on.
Quote:
What I still would like to hear, for instance, is creationist theory itself.
If evolution is change over time, then I suppose creation is change within a kind over time, within the limit of that kind. To be succinct.
I contest a lot of fundamental beliefs, like the age of the earth, and what have you. But the way I see it, it really doesn't matter. Creationists attribute the observations of nature to an all-powerful creator, evolutionists attribute all natural observations to an all-powerful nothingness.
I guess, if my succinct answer isn't what you were looking for, the I have to ask what specifically you want to know.
Quote:
Since creationists gave up defending it long ago, this theory seems to have disappeared from all their websites.
I don't know which sites you've been reading, but this isn't the impression I get at all. But maybe we're not coming from the same viewpoint.
Quote:
do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?
Big bang or not, we attribute it to either God or some sort of creator. Materialists must either say that nothing became something, or that matter is in some aspects supernatural.
Quote:
Ok, but this then again raises the basic question that I already asked in the other thread: If the earth was created by God in the way it is, what good is creationism then at all?
Creationists would not say the earth, or life, is in the state it was at the beginning of creation. Potentially having a bit to do with the second law of thermodynamics, but there's so much confusion surrounding that law that it could be a whole other debate.
Quote:
If you believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago, then it was certainly no problem for God to place fossils in the earth,
No one seriously believes that except certain ill-informed people.
Same with old rocks. Albeit rocks could have looked like they were older, its simply assumed that all heavy elements came from stars. Which is unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable. Which we can get into if you want. Let's assume a more reasonable explanation though, and say that elements didn't come from stars, but were all created at about the same time. That might throw a wrench into dating methods.
Quote:
to create rocks that were already 4.55 billion years old, and to place photons in space so that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.
Same thing here. I believe there's a fairly good chance that we are seeing things that are billions of lightyears away. Although I don't really agree with the way they figure out these distances.
Quote:
So for what reasons do you need to explain away all those observations?
I don't kow. Why does anyone care to discover anything?
Why do scientists try and figure out how matter could have created itself. Its a futile thing to do. It must ignore everything we know about nature. But they still do it. It doen't make sense to me either.
Quote:
Mt. Helens? Wasn't that several hundred years ago?
1980s.
Quote:
You see, the opposite result of what a 'global flood' would provide.
So instead of trying to fix the problem of polystrate fossils, they use them as a way to disprove the flood? As I know it, this isn't a problem for us. There could have been local flood events, or some other simple explanation. I'm not sure about all the details at this time. However, to say that some of these polystrate trees are just stumps ignores that many of them are huge and extend through many layers. So its really a bigger problem for you. Why, if these layers are so old, would the tree have stood up for that long? Even talk.origins explanation fails to address this in any real way, though it seems to address the problem, the argument is paper thin. If you guys want to pursue that line of argument, we can.
The deal isn't to say that polystrate trees prove THE flood, just that they prove that layers of strata can't be dogmatically believed to be millions+ years old.
Actually, I shouldn't say that it proves a young age for strata. But instead makes it hard to believe that any fossil found several feet above another is automatically 65 million years older than the lower one or whatever.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/21/06 23:29.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69159
05/23/06 09:44
05/23/06 09:44
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
I was asking how getting the DNA from a foreign source, still doesn't explain how that foreign DNA was written in the first place.
Then I haven't understood the question. Insertion of foreign DNA from other species is a frequent mutation of bacteriae and virae, but does not happen - as to my knowledge - in higher organisms. There the most frequent mutation is a point mutation. "Writing a DNA" by point mutations occurs in the way I described above, as an accumulation of beneficial mutations.
Quote:
Creationists would not say the earth, or life, is in the state it was at the beginning of creation. Potentially having a bit to do with the second law of thermodynamics, but there's so much confusion surrounding that law that it could be a whole other debate.
Only confusion among creationists. For an average educated person with some mathematical background, thermodynamics is easy to understand.
Quote:
Albeit rocks could have looked like they were older, its simply assumed that all heavy elements came from stars. Which is unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable.
Apart from the fact that we observe all those "unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable" heavy elements in star and supernova spectrae since 150 years.
Quote:
Creationists attribute the observations of nature to an all-powerful creator, evolutionists attribute all natural observations to an all-powerful nothingness.
If you think this over a little, you might notice that quite the opposite is true.
Creationists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces, scientists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of natural forces. What does that mean for a creator?
If you open your eyes and look around, you'll see that nature is running without any obvious supernatural events. The Creator (let us assume for a moment that he or she exists) does not need to manually rotate the earth or apply the breath of life to every living being. Obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.
The logical conclusion is that the Creator wanted to world to run this way. For this, he implemented the mechanism that science calls "nature's law".
The assumption that the world still needs supernatural interventions in order to develop species implies a limited ability or limited power of the creator. Only a bad watchmaker needs to push his watches from time to time to keep them running.
Scientists who believe in some creator attribute him the creation of the world and possibly the creation of nature's laws. They certainly do not attribute him the need to intervene permanently.
Permanent intervention is the belief of creationists. This is the belief in a lesser god. Admittedly all belief systems started this way. Ancient cultures also believed in gods that run the world by supernatural forces. Their gods carried the sun over the firmament, and, as creationists still believe today, literally created all species.
Thus, creationists do obviously not believe in an all-powerful creator. An all-powerful creator is basically an evolutionist belief (of religious evolutionists). I know that this might have come as a surprise to you, but if you think it over, it's just logical.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69160
05/23/06 10:07
05/23/06 10:07
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
xplained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.
This is getting old. Do some research.
Im not going to jump in this boat, but please tell me how do you explain the following:
Thoughts
Instincts
100 percent compatible sexes developing at the same time. How and why did the reproductive system evolve? Why did the switch take place from self-replication?
which evolved first, the need for food or the digestive system. If it is the digestive system, why did it, and how come it fits in perfectly with the rest of the system?
How did the blood system evolve? How did veins form?
This is just a small number. If you want to say we are here by chance, then you have a serious flaw in logic.
|
|
|
|
