mattison0922: As to polystrate fossils, flooding events and large waves can deposit large volumes of material deeply (very possibly in multiple events), thus burying flora quickly, a precursor to good fossilization. Perhaps they were buried partially yet survived until another depositional event(s) finished them off, by which time burial was accomplished. Again, in what type of rock were the tree fossils found?

There is a great example of a large lycopod (extinct) stump at the Illinois State Geologic Survey in Urbana, Illinois that consists largely of carbon. In that case, the debris that buried the lycopod was organic and formed a coal deposit. There certainly is no problem explaining how the high-profile stump could be penetrating multiple strata, especially the roots. How else can the cyclothems in which coal seams occur be explained? As observed in coal-bearing rock, cyclical climatic, erosional and depositional history resulted in sands being laid down first in such a cycle. Then the depositional environment changed to deeper water clay which is succeeded by coal from organics, usually then overlain by shale and finally limestone, a very deep-water deposit. And this pattern often repeats several times. Not only was much time needed for conditions to change within entire regions for the depositional environment (erosion and uplift are very, very slow processes), but then the entire cyclothem is repeated several times and finally buried deeply through cycles of still-subsequent depositional regimes. Such is the nature of coal deposits over very wide areas.

Simply the presence of replacement-type fossils confirms extreme age; the organic material was replaced molecule by molecule. Groundwater infiltration is slow, the suspension/solubilizing of mineral material at low temperatures even slower. Then the deposition/precipitation of such materials within tiny void spaces is another excruciatingly slow process. And the minerals are not easily dissolved even in the laboratory, much less in nature at large.

The evidence of a very old, evolving Earth is preponderous and is readily available from many sources. However, one must dig to be able to "cherry-pick" anomalous data. And of course, one must provide more and better evidence than already exists in order to verifiably posit alternative theories. The existing proof would require a very large bibliography and not merely sporadic references. And many of those cited by the proponent of the opposing view appear to be biblical fundamentalist in nature. This is despite an assertion of not being religious. For example, "Ex Nihilo" obviously is a treatise written for asserting creation "out of nothing."

One must remember to actually prove one's own hypothesis, not attempt to disprove another, thinking that by default the alternative is proven. The burden of proof is upon the opposing proponent now, especially given the slanted nature of the references cited. What proof is there that the universe was created instantaneously, somewhat recently? That is a question that is never answered, but for which only a vain attempt to aggressively question ad nauseum is offered. All wait for the actual proof of creationism, for a very long time now. None is ever offered.

Still waiting...


Emphasis edit on 10-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Aeon10101110]

I think its very important to mention that disproving evolution or proving a younge earth dose not prove creationisam.

Quick Question to this Group:

Why is it when most people on these types of threads start talking about "Evolution" v. "Creationism", immediately everyone seem to assume that everyone else automatically means "Darwinian evolution" v. "the Hebrew Bible or "Genesis" --

(i.e. the 2 Contradictory Creation myths of the Jews, Gen 1:1 to 2:4a compared with Gen 2:4b to 4:34 where the order and content are different altogether) when there are in existence worldwide more than 15,000 differerent ancient Creation myths which were believed as "factual" for countless generations of ancient people (e.g The Egyptian Seed Spilling Myth of Ptah who created Shu and Tefnut from his own ejaculates) etc.

The Creation Myths of the Jews are just two of several thousand: so why are we focussing on those two alone? One myth is as good as another in terms of symbolic story (moral) telling after all and there is nothing particularly "scientific" (in the modern sense) about creating VEGETATION before the SUN and the STARS, or belief in a Raq'iaq (or "Solid Dome" of the Heavens, aka "The Firmament" in Gen 1:3...etc.

NEWSFLASH : THERE AINT NO FIRMAMENT, so before you even pass the first sentence of "Genesis" you are already out of the Modern Scientific Discussion..and it only gets worse when people claim that vegetation preceded the formation stars, and by the way our own "sun" is one of them, despite the fact that our ancient Israelitish semi-nomads did not know that---or that the earth was round even.

For the average person discussing the subject today merely to say the only alternative to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is talking-snakes, I think we need to look around further afield.

Just a thought.

Conflict has been a great engine for change in some circumstances.. and yes one for distruction. The problem is now with the advent of technology it does actually threaten our entire species with extinction. It used to be arm to arm combat.. now you can kill half a million people with the press of a button. The future is looking grim.
And yes insects to have behaviour [I've been told off before for suggesting this] ..that may suggests the presence of emotion.. I assume when I see a fly struggeling to break free from a web when a spider is approaching it'd be # scared.


'Love' may exist to ensure parents stay together for the duration of a child's most vulnerable years.



Christians already have 'their answer' and some may feel they have no need to question further.. where as athiests and agnostics will keep wanting to learn and question.. as I've said before.. 'god' might be something we chase to the ends of this universe [if there is an end].



Actually they do. I recently saw a doco where they were challenging various animals with puzzles. One example was a crow that was trying to get to a piece of meat suspended in the air by string.. but it was tied too tight to fly up and rip it out.. [it tried several times]. It finnally stood on top of the knot and reeled it up by the sting like it was going fishing. Trial and error.. it needed to use it's imagination to create a new approach.


Some foods evolved to taste good to birds so they could # out the seeds including humans and other animals... this applies to alot of things.. there are many species.. plant and animal that have a natural co-dependancy and harmony with eachother. It's called the food chain.

My fights in the scienitific society was that evolution should not be taught without substantiation, nothing to do with religion. Yet they were very insistent make accusations about my religion and political party - what does any of that have to do with science? Keep to scientific fact. Again, you can be a Christian and believe in evolution or all-at-once creation.

I like how this argument can be re-titled 'The Biologist vs. the Geologist". Funny how Darwin reads one book on Geology and thinks he can apply the same theory to Biology. Here's the thing - Biology and Geology are two different sciences. Seriously, they really are. One is a science of the living while the other is not.

Thanks for the education Mattison, I enjoy reading your posts. Still waiting for the biological facts on pro-evolution side to balance the debate. I keep hearing (even in the National Geographic article) "There are mountains of evidence" of trans-speciation but have yet to read a viable book, article or thread. This Christian's mind can be changed by proof when it comes to science, so give it a go please.



[edit on 10-11-2004 by saint4God]

I find your choice of a flood explanation particularly intriguing in light of the topic of this thread. So what you are saying is the example of polystrate fossils is evidence for some type of flooding event. Assuming you looked at the size of some polystrate fossil beds, and observed the complete burial of entire trees, you are aware of the large scale nature of the alleged flooding event. Furthermore, had you taken the time to examine the nature of these polystrate fossils, you would have realized that we are not talking about stumps and roots. We are talking about entire trees, spanning what is alleged to be millions of years worth of rock. Interestingly enough you contradict your own explanation by insisting that groundwater seepage would be slow during some sort of flooding event. Extreme age may be implied by full mineralization of the polystrate fossils.... how many years though thousands? Millions?


We can continue in this manner, and I can continue to post additional evidence in support of my initial statement. All this does is further my initial postulation, which judging by some of your more recent statements, you didn't take the time to read.


More and better evidence with respect to what in particular? If you'll note, my initial post never stated that I could prove creation over evolution, I merely stated that I could put forth multiple sources of evidence that stood in opposition to the idea of macroevolution. I further stated that I could put forth evidence that was in support of a young Earth theory. I have done this and can continue to do this. My intention was never to 'prove' creation over evolution, as creation can certainly never be proven, but then again macroevolution can only be 'proven' by piecing together pieces of disparate, fragmentary, and often contradictory evidence. There will never be experimental proof of macroevolution. We can certainly enter into the semantical arguments re: what exactly is speciation, what defines macroevolution etc, however, IMO this is not likely to be fruitful.


As I said we can continue in this manner, and the list of refs. can continue to grow, and all this does is further support my initial postulate that substantial evidence exists that would argue against the mainstream theories.


I absolutely love these types of statements. First "many" of my refs. appear to be biblical fundamentalist in nature: It's interesting how one of the two possible non mainstream refs contained in the 7 or 8 refs total I mentioned thus far becomes "many." All but the Ex Nihilo which "appears to be biblical fundamentalist in nature," and "Origins," are from well established and respected sources: Nature (multiple), PNAS, J of Geo, etc. Furthermore, maybe you can explain how the Journal of Evolutionary Biology is not published with a particular 'slant.' We can certainly discuss the process of peer review, which being a published scientist, I am certainly well aware of. But it doesn't change the fact that the reviewers in such journals are at least as vehemently opposed to examining evidence that doesn't support their particular view as you are. Furthermore, I claim to not be religious because I am not. However, I am not a completely close-minded individual, unopen to other points of view. Because I am willing to examine, explore, and evaluate evidence and data from multiple seeminly incongruent sources, I am a religious or fundamentalist person? Hardly, it makes me open minded and person who thinks critically about and evaluates multiple relevant pieces of evidence from multiple relevant sources in an effort to form his own opinions about the world around him.


My initial postulate is already proven.


Please see my earlier rebuttals in this post regarding my intention of disproving evolution and subsequently proving creation.



We've already discussed the alleged slanted nature of my refs., and thoroughly demonstrated that to be false. It is noteworthy however that you continue to place some burden of proof on me, and exaggerate about the "biblical fundamentalist" nature of my refs., having offered no refs. of your own to back even a single one of your assertions thus far.


Hmmm... how about the popular but nonetheless controversial big bang theory. Perhaps you've heard about it.


Okay, let's talk about the sun. The mainstream belief is that the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.6 billion years ago. The slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during the it's first 600 million years than it does today. See: Gregory S. Jenkins et al., “Precambrian Climate: The Effects of Land Area and Earth’s Rotation Rate,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, 20 May 1993, pp. 8785–8791. A decrease in the sun's radiation of only a few percent would cause all of our oceans to freeze... for like 600 million years in this case. Over such a long period of time, the ice’s mirrorlike surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation away, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If this did happen life couldn't have evolved.

This argument is frequently countered by stating that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was about 1000X greater than it is today.
There is significant evidence in opposition to this. See: “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations before 2.2 Billion Years Ago,” Nature, Vol. 378, 7 December 1995, pp. 603–605.], and Gregory Jenkins, as quoted by Tim Folger, “The Fast Young Earth,” Discover, November 1993, p. 32.

Furthermore, there exists evidence arguing that large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.” Please see: “Avoiding a Permanent Ice Age,” Nature, Vol. 359, 17 September 1992, p. 196.

For a refreshingly frank discussion re: this 'faint sun issue' please see: Carl Sagan and Christopher Chyba, “The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Organic Shielding of Ultraviolet-Labile Greenhouse Gases,” Science, Vol. 276, 23 May 1997, pp. 1217–1221.


And you will continue to wait. Please see me earlier statements in this post regarding the impossibility of 'proving' creation. Please also refer back to my original intentions with respect to this thread.

Thanks for your input.

Thanks for reading... my advice is read the refs. for yourself, don't take my word for it.

Saint, maybe I am reading wrong, but there could be come confusion. I am the biologist.... maybe Aeon is a biologist too, I don't know. Despite the nature of my posts thus far, I am not a geologist. Sorry if you knew this.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by saint4God]

www.talkorigins.org...
Apparently, the cases where this is involved are where the tree is actually sitting in several layers that are not thought to have been deposited over eons.
www.talkorigins.org...
this is not a tree, but relevant none the less. Deformation of the strata was responsible for the odd angle.



You had mentioned that archaeopteryx is a fake, but I don't think any credible scientists who have worked with the several specimins agree with this, certainly not John Ostrom for example. Also, how do the various other transitionals fit into this? Do they all need to be fakes, even if one just considers that dinosaur-bird 'transition'?


I don't understand, why isn't radiometric dating acceptable evidence of this? Or what about the time it takes star light to travel to earth?


Interesting. Thats a new one to me, I;ll have to look into it.

www.talkorigins.org...
briefly






Entire plates have been re-absorbed by the mantle during plate tectonics. And this cubic mile of ejecta, is it compressed or diffused?



I'm don't understand, are you saying that the colorado river doesn't connect to anything? That it just stops?

I don't understand why those who argue against evolution expect that the theory while still being researched, should be providing absolute proof of same. That would be like telling scientists not to bother trying to find a cure for cancer, or that there was no need to bother researching sub-atomic particles. or to find new anti-biotics because our bodies become immune to them.

Within the last century we saw the occurrence of two diseases by what is thought to be zoonosis. It might be all well and good for some to presume that HIV and SARS always was but lay dormant, yet that does not explain the fact at least not with SARS anyway, why it took 6,000 years to manifest itself into teh killer it was. So what was it then to the creationist crowd? Creation or evolution, and if the former, should scientists just throw in the towel and stop trying to save lives?

The fundamentalists in the US are setting dangerous precedence, to have won the right for textbooks to hold a sticker advising the reader that the account of evolution within that book is a controversial theory. Perhaps, Bibles should come with the same warnings.

I think that'd be a good start. Also, if creationism is supposed to be taught in science classrooms because of 'equal time', then hinduism has to be taught in sunday schools, because we want to be fair right? And why only christian creationism? Harun Yahya is a muslim creationist group, primarily active in Turkey I beleive. Muslim creationism requires an understanding of the Koran and Hadiths and islam in general, exactly like how christian creationism doesn't exist without the bible. So, just as validly as students are supposed to learn about creationism in public schools, they also have to learn about islam and islamic creationism. Non muslim teachers probably can't do this properly, so groups of muslim fundamentalists (they are the one pushing islamic creationism, so its got to be them) scholars are going to have to go from school to school, recruiting er I mean teaching to the kids. Obviously this can't be done without funding, so the government is going to have to provide some tax dollars for the effort.

Teach the controversy right? And in keeping with that, sunday schools are just going to have to teach about the crucifixtion, and the idea that christ didn't die on the cross. Baptist sermons are going to have to also mention and give equal time to the dogmas of Greek Orthodoxy to. I mean, thats what the creationists want right, to be fair no? They don't have any other motive right?

Evolution is BS because of one little problem. The number of species is diminishing not growing. IF evolution we real whouldn't there be more species not less. And don't give me this Man killed them off garbage.

Next, so called dating is theory not fact. It is based on 'layering" effect and gross assumptions. It has been 6000 years since Adam. Adam was not the 1st man as so many have been decieved. He was the first in the line of David. The bible indicates a long time lag between creation and Adam.

Fact, the hebrew word translated into "day" was (yahm, SP?) which means days, years, 10,000 years.

Well look who it is. Going to run away again?


Its going to take a little more than that to reject evolution. What data suggests that the number of species is decreasing? Are you talking about in modern times? Its painfully obvious that they are dying off because of human efforts, like habitat destruction.

Next, so called dating is theory not fact. It is based on 'layering" effect and gross assumptions.

Since no one can seem to use the Boolean search, here.

Charles Darwin “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank clothed of many plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the bushes, and various insects flitting about, and worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and yet dependent on each other in so complex a manner have all been produced by laws acting around us thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.” The first thought of Evolution.

Creation is taught in several schools in America. It is taught in secondary classes that teach religion to students who wish to learn about religion through an educative mean. But the creationists have also been getting creation taught in science classes. Several schools in Georgia teach creation as a science, not religion. This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.

A creationist has led a war on science for over 30 years, his name is Dwayne Gish. He has gotten creation taught as science in Georgia after losing in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas. Russell Brock led the war in Georgia. He believes it is right to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, created in six days, flood happened explaining the Grand Canyon (more on this later) and that Evolution is as scientific as turning lead into gold. This of course is wrong, Evolution is a science. Yes it is the Theory of Evolution, but one must take note that Theory in science does not mean guess, shot in the dark, acid trip gone bad, or anything else creationists make it seem to be. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. This was also discredited in the bible. Theory in science means a Hypothesis leading to tests, discussions, and debate.

There is nothing wrong with religion being taught at home or at church or even as a secondary class, but to teach it in a science class as fact, well, in the USA we pay taxes to fund things like schools. Now, the schools have to be run by a certain set of laws, also known as the constitution. Now in the constitution, it says that there shall be freedom of religion for state. Meaning, that something that is funded by the people through taxes shall not teach religion. Now this deal we made means we don’t have religion in school, church doesn’t have magic tricks during service.

Now Evolution has not been proven 100%. It has, but the creationists came up with a new arguement. "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not the rest." Why is that? They are shown prrof they are wrong so they twist the facts to "prove" they are right. It is a science. Science will prove something or other, but it takes time. How many centuries did it take for the Theory of Round Earth to be proved? The theory of sun in center to be proven? It took many years, was discredited by the bible, but we know those theories are correct for studies were done, tests done, discussion, debate, so forth. Of course, even if it is proven there will still be tests, experiments, and more debates. Gravity is a known fact. But they still study the effects of gravity on certain objects. Anti gravity tests, how strong it can be (black holes ring a bell?) and many other tests are done with gravity. All the laws and effects of gravity have not been proven or tested or realized. But does this mean gravity does not exist? One can not prove all of it 100%, and with the creationists argument, it would mean Gravity does not exist.

Creationists want Evolution to be proven, and until then they want creation to be taught in schools either with evolution or without it. In areas that creation is taught the biology books have little intros in the front of the book saying “Evolution is a theory, not fact. And should be critically considered.” They don’t include an intro stating the fact that intelligent design isn’t validated by any science, we just made it up. They throw out all the science behind it because it has not been proven 100%. They claim that the bible is an accurate historical book and that anyone with historical background believes this. This of course is not true. The main argument is that it defies all logic and probability that there was not a master plan. They have no proof of this, but this is one of the statements they make. They try to convince people that creation is a science, which it isn’t. So they repackage the name and change it to “intelligent design” to make it sound scientific. Well god isn’t a science. “I choose to use the term intelligent design because it takes out the philosophical and religious setting.” Creationist. They try to pass religion as science by creating a scientific sounding name. “Isn’t it a great idea to teach both and let the children decide? Let them and the parents consider both options and let them choose what they want to believe. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing?” Russell Brock. What this leaves out is the fact school is for teaching, not religion.

Thankfully, reason has come through in some areas of Georgia. In one county a man has gotten the ACLU in a lawsuit to try to keep religion out of public schools. Now the ACLU isn’t the best choice for this, I sure as hell wouldn’t have picked them. But for once in the past 10 years the ACLU are doing something right in my opinion. Religion is not allowed in public schools, and any attempts to allow it in should be fought. They are still in court last I heard. “To deny that this whole argument is not about religion is ludicrous to me. It is spin, when someone says intelligent design is science and is based on god, that’s religion.” Sellman, guy who brought the ACLU into the fight.

Now one can vote on whether or not intelligent design is science or religion. But it isn’t science no matter what you vote. We can all take a vote on whether or not Drew Carey is human or not. If the majority vote he is a mongoose, does it mean he is? No, just like voting intelligent design is a science, it doesn’t truly mean it is a science.

Now, back to the leader of the modern creation movement, Dwayne Gish. He is the senior vice president of the Institute of Creation Research. He believes… “To have all the scientific evidence that evolutionists believe that can prove evolution, have that presented to our students. Then take all the evidence creation scientist have that prove, that DEMANDS creation is fact, and let them decide.” Dwayne Gish. Gee, sounds like someone isn’t bias at all, does it? He has been fighting for creation and against evolution for almost as long as it has been around. But during this time we have founda million pieces of biological evidence including genetics. We have found millions of astronomical evidence that gives us the age of the Earth and the universe. Millions of pieces of geological evidence like transitional fossils and “missing link” fossils of past animals and animals of today, like dogs, cats, horses, bears, and so forth. Dwayne heads ICR, Institute of Creation Research, a California conservative religious group with a strict focus to prove what they believe with whatever amount of double talk and twisted evidence they can create. They state that Evolution is not science and neither is creation. “Neither creation or evolution are scientific. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and creation is no more religious than evolution.” Dwayne Gish. Only one little problem, evolution comes from science, creation comes from god, and god is not a science. Dr. Eugene Scott of the National Center for Science Education “ It would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute among scientists about evolution took place for it isn’t. You see school districts all over this country wrestling with the problem of what to teach. Evolution, creation, both, or neither. It seems to come up when peoples religious views need to take the bible literally are offended when evolution is taught in the classroom.” Dwayne Gish explains that him and his people do not want to bring religion into the classroom but evidence that proves a theistic supernatural origin to humans, life, and the planet. One little problem, supernatural, like god, is not a science.

Creationists will try to sound scientific, but they fail. They will go through the journals and books and notes and nit-pick every single last detail. If they found one word in anything about evolution is misspelled or wrong, they say throw out everything. There is a problem with this. Unlike religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving. Science once believed the Earth was flat. But then they found evidence leaning towards a non-flat Earth. So they did tests, changed views, changed ideas, and after a few hundred years of research and being killed by the church, proved that the Earth was round. The same is true with Evolution. Creation was believed to be correct. Then scientists started seeing things wrong with it. For those who think Darwin was the first to think of evolution you are wrong. Greeks came up with the conclusion that some land animals and sea animals are related. They came up with a theory that had animals such as horses, lions, bears, rodents, so forth, as coming from species that lived in the water. In fact, the horse created a new legend of the Greek gods with the creation of the horse being that of Posident.

The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of the bible) But science does not work that way. If one little piece of the evolution puzzle doesn’t fit then throw the whole thing out. But science, as said, does not work like this. Dr. Ron Mattsen, Professor of Biology at Kenenthshaw State, Kennethshaw, Georgia “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. We have to start with ideas that can to be tested. And there is always the possibility that conclusions we draw could be wrong. That is not the case with creation. They are saying that they are right and we are wrong but have no data to back this up.”

Bob Carroll, Professor of Philosophy, Sacramento City College. “Creation science is an Oxymoron. The real question is why are they trying to pretend they are a science when they aren’t. The real reason is they have a different agenda and that is to destroy science. They know they can’t do that from without but must do so from within. Basically terrorize it.” But Dwayne Gish says he has scientific evidence, the Grand Canyon. “The Grand Canyon is a very interesting geological object. Now if that canyon, possibly, was cut by the release of enormous amount of water from lakes to the north that were dammed and then broke through and cut the canyon in a matter of a few days.” We all know that is bs, but that is what he says is fact and wants taught, is being taught, in some schools and the public. But what he is referring to is the big flood of Noah that made him make a boat and get 2 of every animal on it. As anyone who knows about genetics will tell you that is impossible! Inbreeding would have killed off the population after about the 3rd-4th generation. Also, no boat built could hold two of every animal. It would also need aquariums to save all the fish, dolphins, and whales. Why? Well, if all the water mixed then saltwater would become too fresh and freshwater would become to salty meaning every fish/mammal that lives in fresh or salt water would be killed. But there are millions of fish and mammals in the waters to prove that they weren’t all killed off by a sudden mix of fresh and salt water. So no flood, no Noah, no proof. Gish believes a single flood made the Grand Canyon and a single boat saved every damn animal on Earth.

Back to Dr. Eugene Scott. “Scientists hear this and just go wow. This is just amazing! Nobody thinks these people could possibly hold these ideas seriously. The Grand Canyon is granite, shale, and really hard rock, about 5,000 feet of it. You won’t cut this very hard rock with just a single flood.” Another claim by creationists is that the depth of fossils is only deep enough to have existed for thousands of years. They say that if evolution is correct, then there should be evidence of older fossils in the rock. Also, if there was all this evolution, then were are the transitional fossils? There are none. But there are! Homo Erectus ring a bell? Or Lucy? Gish just doesn’t look at the facts that we have. Dwayne lives in the margin of science, but he keeps the margins as wide as possible. Dr. Eugene Scott again. “What we do in science is find an explanation that work. The idea that we had common ancestors works. That is why scientists accept evolution. Creationists will say evolution is about chance, and how can anything have happened due to chance. But evolution is farthest from chance possible. Evolution is the survival of the fittest and that means not chance, but survival ratio, is how evolution works.” Brock admits he doesn’t know what’s going on. “Let’s just make one thing clear, I’m not a scientist.” He also tries to quote Isaac Newton and that Isaac Newton said there had to be a god, but he lived in the days of tyranny by the church where if you said something against the bible, you were killed. I’d say there has to be a god if the opposite meant death by torture. Brock also says that Darwin in his later years said that evolution was wrong, he was wrong. There has been no proof, no reason, and no facts sustaining this myth. This myth is right up there with the exploding toilet and duck quack has no echo. Darwin was a very serious scientist. He was convinced that evolution had happened and that his theory explained it. Remember that the fact that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun is theories.

Why does Dwayne hate science? Him and his people believe science has brought on materialistic atheism. Dwayne Gish. “The kids are in the classrooms sitting before these PHD professors and are told that everything began with some hypothetical big bang and out of that everything has evolved. Now, they say Well, who needs god? He doesn’t exist and if there is no god then there is no one to whom I am responsible.” In other words, if someone thinks that the christian god doesn’t exist they will go out killing and raping and stealing and just doing whatever they want because they don’t fear the all mighty powerful people in the clouds. This of course is false, many people don’t believe in the christian god. They are called Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, Druids, and atheists. Except for the fundamentalist Moslems, no killing, raping, stealing, doing whatever they feel like because they don’t worry about punishment. “We would like to reverse the situation of today. Today there is legalized porn, legalized abortion, legalized gambling, tremendous drug problem, and much more.” Dwayne Gish. I know, no christian has ever looked at porn, gambled, or did a drug, it is all those heathens out there that do them. NOT!

Now, why is religion taught in schools? Why do people believe in creation? Why do people believe in something with no facts or proof? Why do you believe it?

Just one last thing. Here is how evolution compares to creation. This is a good way to tell the difference between good science and non-science. Good science changes, it begins with observation, as we learn more we can come up with Hypothesis, then move on to tests which eventually lead to discussion and debate. Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing those who disagree. Whether or not creation or “intelligent design” sounds good doesn’t matter, it just isn’t science! Know what’s funny? There is a group that believes the exact same thing that Dwayne and Russell do, just one small twist, their higher being is an alien, not god. They are called Raelians. The creationists say the Raelians are nuts, but they believe the exact same thing.

So, your opinion on anything brought up here. Religion in school, creation a science or not, evolution, flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon, age of the Earth.

Here is a link to Dwayne's site. www.icr.org...

Sure, I'd be interetested in doing so.



No prob. It seemed clear to me you were in Biology. I was referring in part to Aeon's posts with the 'what kind of rock?' repeated questioning and detailing as well as Darwin's templating of geological theory onto a separate science. I think one should first study the nature of living things (concentrating genetics and cell mol), then fossils, then geological properties. Just my opinion.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by saint4God]

The problem with this (particularly in the fossil arena or in any buried (and long dead) lifeform) is that you absolutly NEED to know the geological processes to understand what's happened to the body and how it got to be buried at the location and depth where it was found and what other things are happening to it (mummification/fossilization/decay, etc.)

A living organism is part of its environment and how it reacts to that environment is critical knowledge in the study of living things and geology is critical to why the environment looks as it does.

Even if macroevolution is not proven yet, one can not go to the other end and suggest that all that is is made by God, especially 6000 years ago.

Maybe Man does not come from Ape. Maybe an animal can't mutate to something 100% different than what it was. We sure don't know that. But it does not mean that the evolution theory does not have some degree of correctness, especially in the micro level.

On the other hand, it is quire far fetched, and disrespectful (to say the least), to ditch the scientific way and the knowledge that man has gained over the last thousands of years. God is unproven, no matter what people say. I don't know if God exists, and I will never know. But we certainly can't dismiss the scientific way and the evolution theory so easily.

The problem with most people is that they are under emotional stress. They live their lifes under the emotional stress that religion teaches us from when we are little. We just can't think out of the box that is religion. And that is any religion! Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all religions are actually 'system of beliefs' that are based on the human's desire to feel secure; and to relieve the pain of death, as we all are conscious of our death at some point in the future. The people under emotional stress can't run their lifes without God. If God did not exist, life would be meaningless. Since God exists, our life's purpose is to try to live a life of goodness so as that we go to heaven.

Since under this emotional stress, we can't think logically. One would need Spock-like logic to find the truth. Why God created us? did God created evil? why God does not do anything for evil? why there is so much pain around the world? And there are million of questions like that, all unanswered, but people prefer to ignore them rather than torture themselves with these answers.

The psychology of the masses is also another great factor of why people believe in religions. There have been group experiments that led people to believe that it was night, instead of day. Most of us will believe what the next man believes, and we never dare to question that, even if we see it with our very own eyes.

to reply to the comment about what they should teach at schools.

If I go to a Christian school, then I would expect to be taught Christian beliefs. If I go to a Muslim school, then I would expect to learn about Islam. That is a given. If I go to a public school, I do not agree that you should be forced to learn any religious beliefs, however, they should be taught as electives for students who want to know more about these beliefs. As such, evolution should be taught as an 'elective'.

Why? Does being forced to know the 'theory' of evolution add any additional value or skill sets in life? Possibly if you are interested in that subject for future study, but for the majority of people on the earth, they really do not think about it. Do you use the theory of evolution every day? Does it make you a better person for knowing or not knowing it?

If you argue religion as a theory, and evolution as a theory (none can be proven 100% as fact) then there is no place for the compulsory learning of these theories in the classroom.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by shmick25]

Allow me to preface my reply to this post by stating some things. I find it somewhat disheartening that in a forum such as this, which seems to be dedicated to spreading information, mainstream or not, there seem to be very few people actually interested in information per se. There are a lot of people here who are interested in making sure that there their particular viewpoint wins. Where's the fun in that? Don't you want to learn? Don't you want to be exposed to information, whether it agrees with your beliefs or not? There seem to be very few people actually interested in reading primary information and making informed decisions for themselves. I would say in this thread, I've observed one, no probably two people who are actually interested in hearing what both sides have to say about a subject. So to you Saint, and to you too Schmick. I'm sure the evolution bunch will seize the opportunity to point out that the two people I gave thumbs up to are religious. This will of course lend further support to Aeons claim that I am a 'fundie.' But the fact of the matter remains the majority of people would on posting on this thread would rather rehash someone else's opinion then do any actual critical thinking for themselves. I think that's truly unfortunate. There is a further tendency for people on this thread to make statements re: bad vs. good science. I wonder how many of you actually have a clue about what bad vs. good science actually means. I would gather from the previous suggestion that statistical outliers need to be ignored or dismissed, most of you do not. (Stepping down of my soap box). That said, let's move on.

Nygdan, nice to hear from you again.

Jesus! (Sorry, Christians!) Doesn't anyone in this forum get their information from anywhere other than talkorigins? If the answer were simply on talkorigins, I never would have posted the question here. The fact of the matter remains fossilized trees are sitting buried in layers that were thought to have been deposited over eons, like coal and shale.


Please don't misquote me. I stated that there is considerable evidence to suggest it's a fake. I did NOT definitively state it was a fake. Interestingly enough Nygdan, what position are you in to judge to credibility of any particular scientist? Who are the uncredible scientists that claim this? What specifically makes them uncredible? Why would Ostrom agree with this? No other transitional forms have been mentioned, we can discuss these on a case by case basis, but no they don't need to be fakes, but maybe they don't need to be transitional either. Let's talk specifics if you've got some. And in fact, I might have indulged the archaeopteryx sub-thread a little longer were I not in such a foul mood because of talkorigins, but let's put it to rest now. Two modern appearing birds have been found in rock strata that evolutionists dated as being much older than Archaeopteryx. Fossilized true birds have been found that evolutionists date to very shortly after Archaeopteryx. In Argentina, many bird-like foot prints have been found that evolutionists predate Archaeopteryx by at least 55 million years. This has forced even some evolutionists to concede that Archaeopteryx is probably not ancestral to modern birds. Please see: . Tim Beardsley, “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses,” Nature, Vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677, Alun Anderson, “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, Vol. 253, 5 July 1991, p. 35, Sankar Chatterjee, “Cranial Anatomy and Relationship of a New Triassic Bird from Texas,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, Vol. 332, 1991, pp. 277–342. Lianhai Hou et al., “Early Adaptive Radiation of Birds: Evidence from Fossils from Northeastern China,” Science, Vol. 274, 15 November 1996, pp. 1164–1167, Ricardo N. Melchor et al., “Bird-Like Fossil Footprints from the Late Triassic,” Nature, Vol. 417, 27 June 2002, p. 936, and Early Birds Rise from China Fossil Beds,” Science, Vol. 274, 15 November 1996, p. 1083 for details... oh wait maybe you better check talkorigins first.



I don't think I said it wasn't acceptable evidence. For some it may be. I did state that these techniques generally rely on assumptions which may or may not be true. There is considerable radiometric evidence that doesn't agree with other dating techniques, including radiometric techniques, and there is often radiometric data generated that doesn't make sense in any sense of current geological dogma. I can cite references if need be, but would prefer not too. Call me on it if you need to.


Nygdan, I believe that you and I discussed this in a previous post. But briefly: the currently accepted interpretation of the observed red-shift is nothing more than that. I believe we've discussed alternate theories elsewhere. Again if need be I can cite multiple instances of abberant red shift data.


While the data may be controversial, they do not stand alone. This was left out of your 'short' summary. "Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, don't mean much until the results have been replicated by others." Humphrey's data does not stand alone, and in fact agrees with some of the sparse information available about this topic. Please see: Reiners, P.W., et. al "He diffusion and (UTh)/He thermochemistry of Zircon: Initial Results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Neveda, Tectonophysics 349(1-4):297-308, 2002. This study was done in a different location than Humphreys, and may address many of the possible artifacts introduced by the Humphrey's experiment.


I don't actually know about the compression vs. diffusion. This theory seems reasonable to me. I will investigate it further.


No, I am saying that there is not a visible River Delta to account for the massive amount of material moved out of the Grand Canyon. Perhaps you should examine an aerial photo of the Mississipi River Delta. The point is despite being dumped into the oceans these sediments accumulate and form massive deltas. The Delta for the Colorado is insignificant based on the carving out of the GC.


Oh jeez, the ocean, huh? I wonder why the geologists didn't look there? Please see above rebuttal.

Perhaps you could inform me as to which morphological data and which genetic data confirm each other. Then we can discuss it. This is sort of the whole point as to why I am doing this. The studies do not all agree with one another. The theories need to evolve. Theories will never evolve without a serious preponderance of ALL available evidence. Statistical outliers are part of the equation. They need to be averaged in when it comes time to analyze the data. Ignoring them is commonly referred to as 'data massage,' and is considered 'bad science.' Despite multiple claims to the contrary, it's clear that very few people actually have examined the primary evidence for themselves, thought critically about it, and came to an informed decision.

Sorry you don't understand. I am not making a fine tuning argument. I'll break it down for you.

Mainstream belief: The sun evolved 4.6 X 10^9 years ago from a spinning cloud of dust and gas.

The sun radiates less heat as it condenses, about 25-30% less for about 600 million years.

It is postulated by 'reputable scientists' that this would have sent the Earth into more or less of a permanent ice-age. This of course would not permit the evolution of life.

Thus, it matters because the 'faint-young sun' theory is at odds with not only current dogma regarding star and planet formation, but evolutionary dogma as well. It is frequently discussed in 'young universe' circles, but is further an acknowledged mainstream issue (Please see refs. in previous post).

Nygdan, It's always a pleasure.

I'd like to transition this thread into a genre that I am bit more familiar with. How can we explain this: We can all agree that DNA is a molecule with a definite shelf-life. Initially it was believed that DNA couldn't last 10,000 years. This is based on actual science experiments measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age such as Egyptian mummies.(see: Bryan Sykes, “The Past Comes Alive,” Nature, Vol. 352, 1 August 1991, pp. 381–382.) Suddenly despite claims that DNA can't possibly have a lifetime much greater than 10,000 years (please see: Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science, Vol. 257, 25 September 1992, p. 1862.), people want to increase this age limit. Why because of astonishing finds such as this: Living bacterial spores have been recovered, cultured, and identified in the intestines of bees preserved in supposedly 25–40-million-year-old amber (see: Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, “Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber,” Science, Vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060–1064.) Based on the experimentally observed half-life of DNA, how can we explain this. Keep in mind that this doesn't take into account the more delicate biopolymers, proteins specifically, that also must survive this extended time period in order for the bacterial spore to grow. Interesting conundrum, no?

The wealth of knowledge here is indeed inspiring. And the posts of those who are educated in the sciences are appreciated, especially those knowledgeable enough to realize that the overwhelming bulk of research supports evolution. One may find anomalies in any set of findings but only when such 'alternative' evidence is preponderous, does accepted theory become questioned.

An overriding factor dispels any notion of a young earth, with every life-form created all at once; that is the fact that the fossils of all species are not found throughout the rock record. Instead, a progression of fossil forms in successively younger strata is witnessed that increases markedly in terms of life complexity. And certainly, given that 99.9% of all forms are extinct, it would not be possible for all of them to exist on Earth at once. Presently, environmental pressures are forcing far to many species to extinction. While extinction events (similar to the present one, the 6th "great dying") result in the opening of environments, new forms arise to take advantage of the resources. Oftentimes, those creatures in similar circumstances as their predecesors are selected, naturally, for similar characteristics (vis a vis mutations). Such dynamisms occur every day and the idea of evolution is not new; the ancient Greeks are the first known to posit the idea. The theory of evolution is proved over and over again and not merely in geology.

There is a suggestion that the present thread is more appropriately entitled, "The Geologist vs. The Biologist." That is quite a perceptive observation. However, the biological sciences do not merely accept evolution, they advance the theory and find its mechanisms. Of course, like any other good science, there sometimes arises contrary evidence which may not fit accepted models.

Meanwhile geology, while starting simplistically with uniformitarianism (by James Hutton in 1785), has grown to encompass knowledge in vast realms, so much so that even a cursory listing is beyond the present scope of posting. As in biology, "dark horses" proposed mechanisms that were disdained then later vindicated. For example, Alfred Wegener's hypothesis in the early 20th century was confirmed decades after his demise. Thus science progresses, albeit without a predestined plan.

Why all the bruhaha about zircons? In my experience, creationists find much more interesting unexplained phenomena to dissect ad nauseum. But certainly, there are extremely old zircons known on the planet.

Zircon, a mineral (ZrSiO4), occurs in tetragonal prisms, has various colors, and is a common accessory mineral in siliceous igneous rocks, crystalline limestones, schists, and gneisses, in sedimentary rocks derived therefrom, and in beach and river placer deposits. It is the chief ore of zirconium, and is used as a refractory; when cut and polished, the colorless varieties provide exceptionally brilliant gemstones. Synonyms: zirconite, hyacinth, jacinth. Again, what are the source rocks from whence the zircons of interest are derived? Such is of exceeding importance, in fossil environments of course, but especially with respect to minerology and the origins of the crystals.

Uranium-lead isotopic analyses of zircon crystals have long been used as the most reliable method of determining the crystallization ages of felsic igneous rocks. Because of the chemical resistance of zircon to alteration by subsequent thermal metamorphism, determining the original age of emplacement of even highly deformed igneous bodies is often possible. In fact, zircon may be insoluble and its U-Pb system may remain at least partially undisturbed even through subsequent melting events. Igneous rocks derived from crustal protoliths commonly have zircons with xenocrystic cores. Uranium-lead analyses of such zircon produces apparent ages that are intermediate between the age of the protolith and the age of emplacement. Consequently, care must be taken in both the selection of individual zircons from the sample of interest and the interpretation of the data. A rare example of xenocrystic zircon coexisting as a discreet population with igneous zircon has been found in a granite dike in Estadio Canyon in the southern Manzano Mountains, central New Mexico.
external image

But how does the creationist notion explain the intrusion of huge magmatic bodies of molten rock into the solid crust of the earth? Certainly it could not be the way that data are distributed when plotted, which confirm relative age-dating by way of superpositional characteristics! Moreover, the creation time-frame is inadequate to account for not only the emplacement, but the cooling that has occured in so many of them. Concordantly, the plutons, as they are known, have smaller crystals around their outer regions where cooling is rapid and larger crytallization is progressively noted towards central areas. Modeling of heat transport, a very well-studied physical phenomenon, is indicative that the requisite period is in the tens of millions of years for such bodies. Of course, that is merely for the cooling process. Such a time frame considers only the cooling, not the upwelling of magma into the crust, not subsequent erosional processes of this igneous rock, nor for that matter, any of the events that had to occur for the magma and crust to exist in the first place! Fortunately, the metric of isotopic decay provides rock ages, though in terms of millions of years (Ma), consistent with other observations.

Yes, rocks and regions of the Earth are the subject of considerable study, in many places for many years and in many ways.