It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Confusion

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Arising last weekend, the opportunity to "discuss" evolution with a fundie was fruitless. While the fundamentalist is a friend and does not hold to the 6,000 year old universe, he remains adamant that all life on earth was created at once. Of course, he has not studied the fossil record or any of the processes that result in the Earth as it exists.

He did put forward very curious attitudes, interestingly. For one, he maintained that his beliefs in the spiritual, quite fundamentally Xtian, were not religious in nature
Now, I have encountered such statements many times and never was any proof or justification offered as to how that could possibly be true. But quite paradoxically, he was somehow convinced that evolution is a religion
which is another common assertion made by fundies.

Simply bizarre, the poor fellow obviously has never so much as cracked open a dictionary. However, many creationists I've encountered are deluded in such a way as to be able to completely invert definitions of salient terms. Evidently, cult double-speak is quite powerful for converting and maintaining membership. Frankly, it is frightening, especially given the massive failures of the educational system.




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Well, let me offer my point of view to your little story.

The reason why your Christian friend would have stated that evolution is a religion as well, is because evolution 'even though it has scientific basis' are still based on assumptions and are classed as theories, thus the evolution 'theory'. So, as this is the case, one must put their faith in the notion of evolution (and what it still can not account for). Once you put faith in something like this, then it could be classed as a religion.

But I feel the definition is a little mixed, as evolution offers no solution or advice on things of a 'spiritual' nature. In fact, most hard core evolutionists will not accept a notion of a God. So, I would argue that in its core, evolution is not a religion, but evolution zealots have the same passion to their belief as Christians do with theirs.

Unfortunately, the Bible does not have a lot of documented material about the beginning of the earth. What it does provide is a basic assumption that people can choose to believe or not.

As a Christian, there are many things that evolution (quite convincingly) present that have go against the bible, however, I still choose to place my belief in a all-powerful God than a not so powerful man.

There is another thread on this forum that has some rather interesting information from the national geographic. The statistics are something like: 45% of Americans believe the biblical accounts for creation. 12% believe in the science of evolution.. the remainder believe that evolution and religion work together (including the RCC).

I find it amazing, that even though Evolution is compulsory taught in the schools (and creation cant be taught at all), the majority of people do not believe it, even though it is 'scientifically proven'. Go figure...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Your points are well-taken, shmick, however, evolution no longer fits the definition of "theory." Rather, it is very well proven, especially by way of the fossil record. And even as a theory, like in Darwin's day, there is a good deal of credibility to it because the tenants are multiply peer-reviewed with respect to the evidence, etc. After all, it is not merely an educated guess, an hypothesis.

The Bible was not written as a scholarly tome, nor as a textbook. IMHO, the book attempts to answer the question "why," yet science generally answers as to "how." Of course, such generalizations are useful only for illustration but capture the essence of the point.

Belief is quite different from knowledge. No proof is required for a complete believer, while none is sufficient for an absolute skeptic. Certainly, skepticism epitomizes science due to the process of rational scrutiny prior to acceptance. But the beliefs of religion are not proven, though perhaps historical corrolaries might confirm background information. Indeed, belief is absolutist but science is dynamic, undergoing constant review and revision when warranted.

There is no proof for creationism. If it were so, all fossilized forms of life, extinct and extant, would appear contemporaneously in a single layer of rock. Also, they would be present throughout the rock record. But instead, a succession of more and more complicated organisms' fossils are witnessed in younger and younger rock. And though radiometric dating techniques are highly developed, providing solid estimates of age, such tools are not necessary to know that lifeforms evolve over time. Quite simply, lifeform complexity progesses in succesively overlying rock layers. Of course, the oldest strata was deposited first and is overlain by younger rock.

Many scientists have belief in God, myself among them. But I can not believe that God would misdirect our inquisitive minds by creating Earth in such a way as to deceive us. But there are many doctrines in the Bible that are highly confusing, after all, it was written by men. More confusion is yielded when others interpret it and 'cherry-pick' which directives to observe. So, what is more believable, a planet forged by God or a book written, rewritten and subject to interpretations (because of clarity issues) by fallible men?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Sorry Aeon, but evolution is not a proven fact as you have stated. Microevolution or adaptation is a fact. The fossil record is sorely lacking in transitional forms. Archeaopteryx is controversial at best, with considerable evidence to suggest it's a fraud.

The simple fact of the matter is that I can present evidence that will argue against nearly every facet of macroevolution. I can also argue a 'young-earth' if need be.

In addition to a lack of transitional forms, and contemporary animals being found in the same strata as extinct animals, there are multiple holes in the fossil record.

Aeon despite your claim that radiometic dating techniques are highly developed, radiometric dating techniques are highly suspect and rely on multiple assumptions which may or may not be true. Again, there is evidence either in support or in opposition to radiometric dating techniques.

I would be happy to discuss this with you in a civilized manner here in this forum. I should let you know some basic facts: I grew up an atheist. I am a trained scientist (Ph.D. in molecular and cellular biology). I think evolution is just as much a religion as creationism, intelligent design, or creation 'science.' I think it's unfortunate that well intentioned individuals are buying into the 'evolution is a scientific fact' statement. A serious preponderance of all available the evidence will indicate otherwise. Now before EVERYONE jumps down my throat and attacks me. I didn't say evolution didn't exist. I stated it wasn't a proven fact, and I stated that I could refute much of the evidence put forth by the evolution camp.

In reality, we can never prove or disprove the existence of any particular deity. Evolution, at least on the macro scale, may also be unprovable.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Yup, a lot of what you say is very interesting, and i know that the Bible does not go into a lot of it, however, absolute evolution still doesnt answer some of the big questions that plague my mind.

Why do humans have emotions? Why the need for love, the belief in something greater than themselves? Why the need for imagination? Why the need for variety of food and tastes? Why are humans way more complex in characteristics (mental) than other animals? Why dont monkeys start to form basic beliefs and worship trees and make offerings to the sun?

How do you explain the supernatural, ghosts, healings, demons etc.. How does that fit in with evolution?

I guess the problem I have is that evolution still does not account for many things that I feel religion has addressed.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Whenever I get into this discussion I get a "you fundamentalist Christian with no PHD in Biology, shut up!" Thanks for representing. I'd be interested in hearing more of what you have to say.
Again, not saying evolution didn't happen, just saying it doesn't have enough evidence to appear in a textbook. Genetic variation and adaptation, yes. I labeled myself Mendelist since I kept colliding into so many Darwinists in the field.

Good point also schmick25. It's important for believers to remember if it were a valuable moral question, it would've been addressed in the Book.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by saint4God]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
Why do humans have emotions?

Basically so we can tell good from bad.

Why the need for love,

So our offspring are nurtured and have a better chance at survival.. so we always want companioship.. which encourages us to breed.

the belief in something greater than themselves?

Because we want to be special in it's eyes

Why the need for imagination?

To invent.. solve problems and evolve.

Why the need for variety of food and tastes?

So we have a variety of nutrients.. if we crave for something tangy.. we might need VC.. if we crave meat.. we might require iron.

Vecan recognise their v Why are humans way more complex in characteristics (mental) than other animals?

If you study them close up you'd find that they have their own unique complexities.

Why dont monkeys start to form basic beliefs and worship trees and make offerings to the sun?

Must be a secret society of some sort
..or they just haven't reached the stage where they have started questioning their own existance in relation to their universe.

How do you explain the supernatural, ghosts, healings, demons etc.. How does that fit in with evolution?

How could that disprove evolution? I believe in ghosts. I also know people die.. they might 'evolve' into them from death.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by riley]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Belief is quite different from knowledge.


This is extremely true...and no matter how many facts you provide or doubts you raise to try and change someone's position, you'll never win against blind faith...
They choose the path of "ignorance is bliss". I guess it's debatable as to which path is wiser....



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hi Riely, thanks for the replies to my questions.

I will list one by one.



Why do humans have emotions? Basically so we can tell good from bad.


If this is the case, evolution has failed to 'preserve the species' as emotion is one of the greatest causes of conflict today and does not at all differentiate between good and bad. For example, emotions are formed on our basic belief structure. So good to one person is bad to another. Even animals have emotions though I cant prove that all do i.e. does an insect have emotion?



Why the need for love? So our offspring are nurtured and have a better chance at survival.. so we always want companionship.. which encourages us to breed.


I think the sex drive of the species is enough to ensure that breeding continues. I’m sure you would witnessed the sex drive of a male dog for instance.. they like to sow their seeds. Are they in 'love' with other dogs? That is up for debate. I also think love is much more complex than simply for reproduction purposes, especially when the world these days lacks this emotion on a grand scale of shamelessly helping others.




the belief in something greater than themselves? Because we want to be special in it's eyes


Why? Do we need this for survival? Are Christians going to live longer than atheists? Will they evolve to a higher level?



Why the need for imagination? To invent.. solve problems and evolve.


Beavers, birds and numerous other animals have the ability to build nests and little homes for themselves, however, I don't see them developing these skills to enhance to a great level these designs. Do these animals have imaginations? or is it basic instincts?



Why the need for variety of food and tastes? So we have a variety of nutrients.. if we crave for something tangy.. we might need VC.. if we crave meat.. we might require iron.


Yup, that sounds good, but why did food decide to tast good to humans? How did food and plants know to evolve to this level in taste, texture etc? What is the probability of this happening on a grand scale? Why are there so many plants that can aid in medicine for humans? Plants knew to evolve with these properties in place naturally? Coincidence.



Why are humans way more complex in characteristics (mental) than other animals? If you study them close up you'd find that they have their own unique complexities.


But only 'humans' have evolved to any level intelligence. Does the creation of WMDs add to the evolutionary process or subtract from it?




Why don’t monkeys start to form basic beliefs and worship trees and make offerings to the sun? Must be a secret society of some sort ..or they just haven't reached the stage where they have started questioning their own existence in relation to their universe.


Yeah, good secret society!
Possibly there are some humans that have joined this society!!
Why the need to question our existence? What value does it add to the evolutionary process?




How do you explain the supernatural, ghosts, healings, demons etc.. How does that fit in with evolution? How could that disprove evolution? I believe in ghosts. I also know people die.. they might 'evolve' into them from death.


I would have thought more research should be taking place into 'what we are evolving into' than 'what we have evolved from' if what you say is correct.

feel free to rebut anything that I have said.. I find it an interesting topic.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
mattison0922, I would be interested, with your wealth of knowledge, what is your spin on things?

I am curious as to why they teach evolution as a fact in schools? One idea is because evolution is so much more believable than an earth that was created in 10,000 years.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Schmick, thanks for your vote of confidence. However with respect to some of the things happening in this thread currently, my "wealth of knowledge" is an overstatement. While I am interested in the origin of emotions and the 'selective pressure' with respect to some of the things mentioned thus far, my input would be just as much speculation as anyone else's.

With respect to why they teach evolution in schools as a fact: this is strictly my own personal opinion but most people either believe it to be a fact, or are not armed with sufficient scientific knowledge, background, or expertise to refute 'experts' in the field. I would also tend to think that this is due to the particular political climate that exists in this country with respect to separation of church and state. I also think that the U.S. has seen a growing secularization of its institutions in the relatively recent past.

With respect to some of your other questions like how do ghosts, demons, and healings fit into evolution: The simple answer is that they don't, and they can't. Demons and healings do not fall into the category of a testable hypothesis. Ghosts and entities are still considered by mainstream science to be 'pseudoscience' and receive no formal recognition. In the minds of many mainstream scientists, ghosts, healings, demons, and creation theories all are filed in the same location: circular file.

With respect to the idea of the evidence suggesting that the Earth and universe is in fact old rather than young being more believable: I would again judge this as a consequence of social pressures, a lack of understanding about the information in general, and a lack of knowledge regarding resources about where to obtain information. Certainly information exists to the contrary. If it didn't, I wouldn't have opened myself up to discuss these things in this forum. As to the why the information is not mainstream... your guess is as good as mine.

And while we're on the topic since we've not opened up the creation vs. evolution debate yet. I'll pose a first question I posted in another thread a while back.

Evolution postulates that we are ancestors of a primordial cell that essentially rose from the combination of 'organic precursor molecules' that existed in the primordial soup (Personally, I believe this an interesting parallel with the 'created from the dust of the earth' story of Genesis).
I'd be interested to hear some theories regarding 'genesis' of the first cell.
There are some fundamental things that need to be considered:

1. stereospecifity-nearly all biological molecules are stereospecific
2. Function- Biomolecules all have a particular function
3. Ability to recreate copies of itself with some degree of reliability
4. Sequestration-Cells are isolated from there environment, any theory of cellular evolution must account for the sequestration of biomolecules and chemical reactions away from the external environment.
5. Energy-Cellular reactions require energy from the environment in order to maintain their ordered state.

I think this a great place to begin a discussion about evolution... the very beginning.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
The difference between scientists and Creationists is this- Scientists are willing to denounce their "theory" and accept a new one if it is supported by evidence. Creationists(i.e.-religious fundamentalists) are unwilling to change their opinions, even if the evidence against it is overwhelming. This is from the latest issue of National Geographic entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?" On the inside it says "No. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming". Read on...

"Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.

Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. "




[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The difference between evolution and the other theories out there, is that there is still so much debate and divide about the issue. If there was concrete evidence to support it, then we wouldn’t be seeing such a large % of the population still dismissing it.

I guess this debate will never really get solved in our life time. I saw a news article on tv last night about the polar ice caps melting at over twice the speed originally thought, and how polar bears will be wiped out as a result. Evolution works over millions and billions of years, yet our environment is changing a lot quicker than that. Will the polar bears evolve to survive the changing environment? Time will tell.. will humans evolve quickly enough to survive global warming? Some.. possibly the rich that can afford the technology. This is not evolution.

If evolution does exist, then It has not progressed beyond that of man, as man has the ability to halt the process of evolution. Hitler tried to keep it going by creating an Arian race.. however, that was not natural. Once can argue hospitals and medicine stop the weak from dieing and prevent natural selection from occurring.

An interesting difference between Christianity and evolution is that the concept of Christ is to protect the weak and help them, while evolution is about letting the weak die so that the strongest can evolve.

More of my views anyway.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   


If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory.

I personally am skeptical, such is the nature of scientists, I personally am not unfamiliar with science terminology or its techniques.


In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.

This is all well and good but is this the 'evidence' that you prompted me to 'read on' and discover?



Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different.

Okay... then let's discuss it!


despite the vast body of supporting evidence.

Again, let's discuss!


As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. "

I personally am not threatened by anyone's theory. I am not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. I am simply one person trying to resolve the overwhelming volume of information out there with respect to this particular issue. I made a simple point that the alleged factual nature of evolution is refutable using information pulled from mainstream science literature. I offered to demonstrate this in a civilized manner in this forum. So... Please, let's discuss some of this incontrovertible evidence.

I'll start: Let's talk breifly about the fossil record:
Let's start off with something easy to get the discussion rolling.
In 1982 Edwin McKee A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years. Please see:Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96.

This should be an easy one too: Explain the fact that sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Please see Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. for details.

How about this: In Venezuelax, in Guyana, in Kashmir, hell in the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved.
Please see:R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294, and A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

How about another easy one: In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs, coupled with the observation that hoofprints of some other animal are alongside approximately 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Please see: Richard Monastersky, “A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,” Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21

I think that these issues are a good place to start... these observations should be easily refuted, and they are far from my area of expertise, which levels the playing field a little relative to my first question regarding the 'genesis' of our distant cousin, the 'primordial cell'. Let's get this thread rolling!



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Schmick25, yes, there is alot of debate and divide. However, that is not a result of a lack of evidence supporting evolution, it is a result of the fact that the evidence contradicts what fundamentalists WANT to believe, namely creation.
There is a key concept that you arent getting about evolution, one that confuses many people. The limitations of language cause this misunderstanding. Our language was designed around human thoughts, and most words that describe actions automatically assume that these actions have purpose. Evolution, however, is not purposeful. It doesnt progress towards a goal. It is not a force driving change, but the change itself. It is more akin to a chemical reaction than a plan of action.
Also, you are incorrect when you say that "If evolution does exist, then It has not progressed beyond that of man, as man has the ability to halt the process of evolution". Evolution does not "progress", it has no goal to reach. Sure, polar bears might become extinct(along with 99.9% of all species that have ever lived) as a result of our actions, and hey, we might too.
You also said this, "One can argue hospitals and medicine stop the weak from dieing and prevent natural selection from occurring." Actually, that is just another example of natural selection! Our intelligence(which is a result of natural selection) has allowed us to overcome disease, which would have killed an organism that wasnt as well adapted to deal with it.
Your hospital arguement is like saying that a gazelle is preventing natural selection because it wont stand still when a lion is chasing it!


[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Thank you, Gazrok, riley, apw100, et al. But in so many cases, mere prejudice appears to predominate. That is the effect of deeply-held belief usurping rationality. Certainly, the factual nature of the theory of evolution is not at all debatable. Even a cursory review of fossil evidence, of course in stratigraphic context, abundantly demonstrates evolution.

A peculiarity of creationist (or rather in the "religiousity correct" term) intelligent design viewpoint, is the notion that dispelling one theory implies that another hypothesis is true. Perhaps such a delusion arises from the blind acceptance implicit in religion. Before any formulation can be even be hypothesized, there must be some actual observation to support it. Other than a single old and oft-translated body of writings, there is nothing on the planet that suggests creation of all species at once.

If that were so, all life-forms would appear, not only in the very oldest strata but all the way through the rock record. But that simply is not the case. And while a few very successful species (e.g. sharks, coelacanths and certain plants) are found from midway through the geologic record, such fossils do more to prove evolution than any sort of disproof.

Information collected, compiled and correlated regarding Earth history proves irrefutably that its age exceeds 4 billion years (BY), 4.6 BY more accurately. Many lines of evidence in various sciences confirm the very ancient origin of rock. Indelibly carved in stone all around the world is the Earth's story in a book whose pages number in the millions, and which is many miles thick. By reading this book through centuries of difficult field studies and serious inquiry, very useful descriptions of our planet's interior are revealed. As examples, geologists and engineers know where to find oil, gas, groundwater and ore as a result of the study of rocks (things the Bible can't help with). Moreover, these are found by logically putting together the evidence of ancient events like mountain building and oceans that dried up. In geology alone, information is gathered from surface exposures, excavations, deep drilling and geophysical imaging, among various means. Other sciences' findings often confirm those of geological discoveries, like DNA studies, as our base of knowledge grows vastly.

The pages of Earth's huge book of stone were written while being created, each page imprinted by the events that caused its very creation. Because the same natural processes were at work in the past as today, reading the pages (layers) is straightforward. Many instances of nature in operation that occur now are also seen in rock layers. Examples include the raising of mountains that slowly erode and deposit sediments around them, as well as abrupt volcanic eruptions and also incredible forces pushing and pulling on landmasses. And the processes mentioned here are only a few of those known to occur. Therefore, literally rock-solid evidence persists that indicates not only the same processes go on today as in the past, but also that they have gone on for a very long time.

Radiometric dating methods are not required to reveal our planet's long saga. Simply by noting the variations in the composition of rock strata in extremely deep natural formations, the implications are undeniable. Based solely upon the existence of such very deep and widely extensive layering, the conclusion must be that processes in the past sequentially caused the layers to form. And of course, evidence of each geologic process reflects in the nature of the deposits, such as grain size, composition and fossils. Clearly, based logically on processes that occur every day, Earth's ancient ages are validated. And by way of one corollary, radioactive substances and their respective daughter products in rock strata verifies their extremely ancient origins. By way of such dating techniques, in conjuction with knowledge of how older layers underlie younger ones, events like worldwide glaciation around 1.2 BY and continental origins at 3.8 BY are noted. Of course, repeated verifications by way of actual evidence are required before asserting theories, as is the case for all valid science.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110


Certainly, the factual nature of the theory of evolution is not at all debatable. Even a cursory review of fossil evidence, of course in stratigraphic context, abundantly demonstrates evolution.

Interesting how you quote exactly zero evidence to support you claim. While you discuss the fossil record and it's stratigraphic content, perhaps you can explain the appearance of polystrate fossils. In particular please explain the appearance of fully upright fossilized trees that protrude through 'several layers' of sedimentary rock.



If that were so, all life-forms would appear, not only in the very oldest strata but all the way through the rock record.

Please address the 'fossil' questions posed in my earlier post.



Information collected, compiled and correlated regarding Earth history proves irrefutably that its age exceeds 4 billion years (BY), 4.6 BY more accurately. Many lines of evidence in various sciences confirm the very ancient origin of rock.

Again, no evidence put forth to support your claim?

I can quote several sources that 'prove' the universe and Earth is young.
Consider the idea of Lead and Helium Diffusion
Lead diffuses from zircon crystals in a regular predictable fashion. The rate that increases with increasing temperature. Because these crystals are found at different depths in the Earth, those at greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference was found. Similar conclusions are reached based on the helium content in these same zircon crystals. Because helium escapes so rapidly and so much helium is still in zircons, they (and the Earth’s crust) must be less than 10,000 years old.
Please see: Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, 16 April 1982, p. 296, Robert V. Gentry, “Letters,” Physics Today, April 1983, p. 13, and Robert V. Gentry et al., “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1982, p. 1130.



Indelibly carved in stone all around the world is the Earth's story in a book whose pages number in the millions, and which is many miles thick.

Let's discuss for a minute: Consider volcanoes: Volcanoes eject approximately a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year, on average. At this rate, about 10 times the entire volume of Earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of Earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have ever been proposed by which this volume of debris could have removed or transformed. What happened to all the missing volcanic sediments? Earth’s sediments, therefore, seem to be much younger than 4.6 billion years old you've postulated. Please see: Ariel A. Roth, “Some Questions about Geochronology,” Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 75–76.

While we're at it let's answer a few simple questions regarding the Grand Canyon: The standard answer for the formation of the Grand Canyon is that primarily the Colorado River and side streams carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened would there not you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? Where is it? Not there? Don't feel bad, geologists can't find it either. Where did all the dirt—1,000 cubic miles of it—go?


Other sciences' findings often confirm those of geological discoveries, like DNA studies, as our base of knowledge grows vastly.

Actually, the fossil record, rRNA analysis, DNA sequenece analysis and protein sequence based analysis, like say cytochrome P450 analysis, often stand in stark opposition to each other.



Radiometric dating methods are not required to reveal our planet's long saga. Simply by noting the variations in the composition of rock strata in extremely deep natural formations, the implications are undeniable. Based solely upon the existence of such very deep and widely extensive layering, the conclusion must be that processes in the past sequentially caused the layers to form.


Please address my other fossil issues, particularly with respect to polystrate fossils and then we can move forward.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Statistical outliers are ordinary phenomena, and the examples in the following are easily explicable, as noted. But simply due to a small number of data which appear to be nonconformal, anomalous findings can not override the overwhelming preponderence of evidence. However, the compulsion for "debate" is hereby indulged:


In 1982 Edwin McKee A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years. Please see:Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96.

The operative term is "horselike footprints." Certainly, nothing actually implies a horse, nor an equine form either. It is possible that a dinosaur or other animal developed horselike feet. Indeed, the Mesozoic was a rich period of diversification. Also, there exists a well-known evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence, whereby distinct species develop similar characteristics as a result of natural selection in similar environments (i.e. corresponding adaptation; e.g. nautiloid cephalopods vs. modern nautilus mollusks). Even mammals evolved during that time, but only small ones escaped dinosaurs' voraciousness. If extant mutations were too large, they became easy prey for the "terrible lizards" (and a satisfying meal instead of tiny snacks). Perhaps pre-equine forms forms emerged prior to the Cenozoic, but if so, they became fodder, such that only smaller mutations survived to breed. That is why Edwin McKee's observations are not often replicated.


This should be an easy one too: Explain the fact that sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Please see Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. for details.

Quite easy. Some event such as a volcanic eruption (with a pyroclastic flow), earthquake, tsunami or storm killed the animals near a seashore, transporting the bodies a small distance, which were quickly buried of course. But what type of rock was it?


How about this: In Venezuelax, in Guyana, in Kashmir, hell in the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved.
Please see:R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294, and A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.

Apparently the rocks in all cases were exposed to surficial conditions where the microscopic debris could penetrate. When pollen coated the material it could then infiltrate rock pores, carried by water (i.e. cross-contamination). Again, what types of rock? It is interesting to note that Cambrian rock is predominantly sandstone, generally quite porous.


How about another easy one: In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs, coupled with the observation that hoofprints of some other animal are alongside approximately 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Please see: Richard Monastersky, “A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,” Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21

Operative term "some other animal." (See first refutation.)

Any other "evidence?"



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well, I am not the smartest guy in the world, i will admit that to anyway. So I looked up on the net what the Smartest guy in the world thinks about all this. A very interesting article covering his perceptions of evolution and where man will evolve to.

www.hawking.org.uk...

It is worth a read, and I would like to hear your comments regarding the material covered.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Aeon, thanks for taking the time to respond to some of the specific issues I presented in a previous post. I appreciate the time you've taken to write an eloquent, confident, and authorotative sounding post. I thought it implicit in one of your posts that you were or are a scientist. Did I read wrong? If you are a scientist, what is your particular area of interest? Just curious.


In 1982 Edwin McKee A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years. Please see:Edwin D. McKee, The Supai Group of Grand Canyon, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93–96.

The operative term is "horselike footprints." Certainly, nothing actually implies a horse, nor an equine form either. It is possible that a dinosaur or other animal developed horselike feet. Indeed, the Mesozoic was a rich period of diversification. Also, there exists a well-known evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence, whereby distinct species develop similar characteristics as a result of natural selection in similar environments (i.e. corresponding adaptation; e.g. nautiloid cephalopods vs. modern nautilus mollusks). Even mammals evolved during that time, but only small ones escaped dinosaurs' voraciousness. If extant mutations were too large, they became easy prey for the "terrible lizards" (and a satisfying meal instead of tiny snacks). Perhaps pre-equine forms forms emerged prior to the Cenozoic, but if so, they became fodder, such that only smaller mutations survived to breed. That is why Edwin McKee's observations are not often replicated.

Interesting, in my mind the operative phrase is "predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years" I acknowledge your highly speculative comment that some animal with hooflike feet may have existed at the time but this is merely speculation in the face of 'evidence.' I've taken Bio101 as well, and I am aware to the theory of convergent evolution. But again is your reply really anything more than speculation? And while your point regarding the nautilus is acknowledged, you are comparing a situation for which evidence of 'convergent evolution' exists in the form of fossil evidence, and saying it applies here, where the evolutionary evidence absolutely suggests otherwise ie: "predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years." The very ideology you are defending argues against your speculation.


This should be an easy one too: Explain the fact that sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Please see Andrew Snelling, “Fossil Bluff,” Ex Nihilo, Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8. for details.


Quite easy. Some event such as a volcanic eruption (with a pyroclastic flow), earthquake, tsunami or storm killed the animals near a seashore, transporting the bodies a small distance, which were quickly buried of course. But what type of rock was it?

I promise to get back to you on the rock type in the near future. Again, I am inclined to address the speculative nature of your comments without having actually examined any info I've presented. In the mean time perhaps you'd care to comment on a similar 'statistical outlier' observed in the phosphate beds of South Carolina. It is reported that items that should clearly not be fossilized together based on evolution are. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in fossilized in close proximity in these South Carolina phosphate beds. Please see: Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870), and Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.


How about this: In Venezuelax, in Guyana, in Kashmir, hell in the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved.
Please see:R. M. Stainforth, “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana,” Nature, Vol. 210, 16 April 1966, pp. 292–294, and A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, “Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir,” Nature, Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056–1057.


Apparently the rocks in all cases were exposed to surficial conditions where the microscopic debris could penetrate. When pollen coated the material it could then infiltrate rock pores, carried by water (i.e. cross-contamination). Again, what types of rock? It is interesting to note that Cambrian rock is predominantly sandstone, generally quite porous.

Oh, apparently, huh? Another interesting speculative reply backed up once again by exactly nothing. In the case of Roraima formation we are talking about sandstone. But again, I draw attention the speculative nature or your reply with 0 supporting documentation. But let's grant you this, despite the highly speculative nature of your reply, and move on then and talk a little about some 'statistical outliers' observed in coal beds. Perhaps you can speculate on the round, black lumps called coal balls contained in coal beds, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed. Please see: A. C. Noé, “A Paleozoic Angiosperm,” The Journal of Geology, Vol. 31, May–June 1923, pp. 344–347.


How about another easy one: In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs, coupled with the observation that hoofprints of some other animal are alongside approximately 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.
Please see: Richard Monastersky, “A Walk along the Lakeshore, Dinosaur-Style,” Science News, Vol. 136, 8 July 1989, p. 21


Operative term "some other animal." (See first refutation.)

So, again in this case I should ignore what evolution teaches about the chronological appearance hoofed animals and dinosaurs, and I should apply your speculative comments with respect to McKee's findings here also. Perhaps in the future I can consult you on a case-by-case basis to determine when the findings of evolution are relevant and when they are not. Isn't it interesting how the evolution camp feels no need to back up any assertions with anything other than imaginative stories thus far.


Any other "evidence?"

You mean in addition to that which you've addressed only by speculation? Sure, I do. Would you like to continue with this discussion of fossil records? Perhaps, we should address some 'young Earth' questions I've mentioned in this particular thread. Or maybe we can talk about some of the more recent genetic studies that might argue against macroevolution. It's your call.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join