Evolutionary Understandings And Doubts...
Fire_Eel
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
Join Date: 2003-08-19 Member: 19950Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">No flaming or counter-point!</div> From what I have heard and read, life started on Earth 4 billion years ago, from the first lifeform to now.
However, I was told by 2 other person that the Sun is starting to shrink down, By maths calculation, it was proven that 1 billion years ago, the Sun was close to the Earth, and much too hot for any life to even be created.
Is this true?
Also, what is the true meaning, the understanding of Evolution? From what I know, Evolution is supposed to be change, the mutation of cells, the adaption and natural selection of life.
Feel free to discuss about Evolution-only topics, but try not to sound religious. Also refrain from flaming, or making counter-points unless the person asking the question requests for it.
However, I was told by 2 other person that the Sun is starting to shrink down, By maths calculation, it was proven that 1 billion years ago, the Sun was close to the Earth, and much too hot for any life to even be created.
Is this true?
Also, what is the true meaning, the understanding of Evolution? From what I know, Evolution is supposed to be change, the mutation of cells, the adaption and natural selection of life.
Feel free to discuss about Evolution-only topics, but try not to sound religious. Also refrain from flaming, or making counter-points unless the person asking the question requests for it.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
However, I was told by 2 other person that the Sun is starting to shrink down, By maths calculation, it was proven that 1 billion years ago, the Sun was close to the Earth, and much too hot for any life to even be created.
Is this true?
Also, what is the true meaning, the understanding of Evolution? From what I know, Evolution is supposed to be change, the mutation of cells, the adaption and natural selection of life.
Feel free to discuss about Evolution-only topics, but try not to sound religious. Also refrain from flaming, or making counter-points unless the person asking the question requests for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discussion without critique? Isn't that just an advertisement for a position? Why post that advertisement in a discussion forum? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In response to the idea of a shrinking sun, many people who don't understand the process of statistical modeling assume that taking data points over a small period of time will give them license to extrapolate indefinitely, which simply isn't the case. There may be physical clues to support the idea of a shrinking sun, but often young earth theories are based on pure extrapolation of a narrow data set. If the people who told you about this could provide physical evidence that this happened, that'd go a long way toward my acceptance of the idea... if it's purely based in extrapolation, I wouldn't give it much weight until more proof comes along.
A curve that fits perfectly over one section of time can't be said to extend indefinitely. Taking a few hundred years of data and saying that a condition held true for millions of years without correlating evidence is the equivalent of timing acceleration from a red light for a few seconds, then claiming that the car will eventually reach light speed since it's constantly moving faster. If a car goes zero to 60mph in 7 seconds, that does not mean it can go 0 to 600mph in 70 seconds.
Modern evolutionary theory and modern geologic study are both based on detective work with actual physical evidence of early earth history rather than on taking modern numbers and attempting to work backwards, which still doesn't provide experimental reproduction, but at least allows the record to speak for itself rather than attempting to project mathematical models into areas without any physical evidence as support.
EDIT:
Most "main sequence" stars like the Sun are believed to expand over time...
<a href='http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/stars.html' target='_blank'>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/stars.html</a>
QUOTE
The mass of the star determines what happens after the main sequence phase. Stars similar in mass to the Sun burn hydrogen into helium in their centers during the main-sequence phase, but eventually there is not enough hydrogen left in the center to provide the necessary radiation pressure to balance gravity. The center of the star thus contracts until it is hot enough for helium to be converted into carbon. The hydrogen in a shell continues to burn into helium, but the outer layers of the star have to expand in order to conserve energy. This makes the star appear brighter and cooler, and it becomes a red giant.
So you have the core contracting but the overall volume increasing over time... the NASA link also places the total lifetime of the sun at about 10 trillion years. This number and the quoted paragraph about are theories based on observation of other stars and modern physics.
Roughly, it's rather unknown at the moment but bacteria are probably the oldest organisms and their ancestors can be found some 3 billion years ago. It's likely that there were other forms of 'life' before that. Unfortunately, it only left chemical markers of its presence and nothing much else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
However, I was told by 2 other person that the Sun is starting to shrink down, By maths calculation, it was proven that 1 billion years ago, the Sun was close to the Earth, and much too hot for any life to even be created.
Is this true?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, this sounds distinctly like someone is over-extrapolating some data.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, what is the true meaning, the understanding of Evolution? From what I know, Evolution is supposed to be change, the mutation of cells, the adaption and natural selection of life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution can be summed up very succinctly as a change in the frequency of alleles (genes) in a population. Over time, changes in the allele frequencies of different populations accumulate and may drive the creation of new species. That, is all evolution is to be honest and the above process is fact. The argument surrounding evolution is the exact mechanism (natural selection, sexual selection, niche selection for example) that accounts for why species differentiate into new ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Feel free to discuss about Evolution-only topics, but try not to sound religious.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hopefully. If you have questions pertaining to various aspects of biology I'll see if I can give an answer or three.
A curve that fits perfectly over one section of time can't be said to extend indefinitely. Taking a few hundred years of data and saying that a condition held true for millions of years without correlating evidence is the equivalent of timing acceleration from a red light for a few seconds, then claiming that the car will eventually reach light speed since it's constantly moving faster. If a car goes zero to 60mph in 7 seconds, that does not mean it can go 0 to 600mph in 70 seconds.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say the exact same thing about radio-active decay dating techniques... but apparently that isn't "scientific".
Before the evolutionists all jump in this thread... let me say that there is plenty of "evidence" for both points of view. Creationists tend to piont to a global flood as the source for the geological column - a catastrophic beginning that accounts for all the fossil records, as well as their unusual placement (dinosaur graveyards at the tops of mountains, etc.)
Evolutionists reject the bible outright as having any scientific value - and proceed to come up with the only other logical explanation... evolution. The evidence supports thier construct only so far as they reject the possibility of the other. Once creation is no longer "scientific" - rejecting it is easy.
Some problems that creationists face: proving the existance of God, relying on a faith based/ religious argument in a "scientific" debate.
Problems for evolutionists: Low probablities, and the whole "origin of life" debate... (were here, so it must have happened).
In either case, I want you to examine the "faith" involved. Both have high degrees of uncertainty. One solves it by placing faith in God. The other by placing faith in billions of years.
Correct, pseudoscientific literature doesn't count. Shall we be citing scientology as a criticism and refutation of psychology and psychiatry now?
Not once has any of the creationist 'assertations' been verified as having any factual basis, in fact, they've usually been exposed for getting things horribly wrong or simply lying about them. Partly why they don't publish in any sort of real peer reviewed scientific journals. People then wonder why they don't get published which will be a whine you'll bring up in future, so let's nip that in the bud now. Judge Overton asked the creationists to present these papers of 'original' research they whined were being rejected from evolutionary 'biased' journals. To no ones great surprise who has waded through enough creationist rhetoric to sink an arc (hehehe) they couldn't produce these 'rejected' papers because <i>they plainly didn't exist</i>. This was one of the main reasons that Overton threw creation 'science' out as being unscientific.
Simply put creationists do not advance positive testable theories for creation (obviously, they can't) and instead just attempt usually baseless criticisms (that are weak at best) then claim 'HA! POOF IS THE ANSWER!'. As a Christian, one who is a scientist at that, I find that plain dishonest and completely contrary to the minds that God clearly encourages us to use. Of course, you're going to find that I'm no atheist and that I'm going to vociferously argue against it, because I've come to the conclusion creationism is the best tool in the atheists tool box for making more atheists. In any event, on with more rebuttals.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Before the evolutionists all jump in this thread... let me say that there is plenty of "evidence" for both points of view. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no there isn't and it's why every single time creationism has been taken to court it's been thrown out on its rear end. Where is your evidence, as in actual testable conclusions that meet with the available predictions and observations. More importantly, what test was performed to <b>falsify</b> the creationist conclusion? Even more importantly, is it merely a turtles all the way down argument?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Creationists tend to piont to a global flood as the source for the geological column - a catastrophic beginning that accounts for <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which doesn't account for anything actually and flood geology was discarded in the early 19th century as it was completely untenable with the evidence from geology. No accredited geological or palentology journals accept a world wide flood and this idea was again, rejected by <b>Christian</b> geologists in the 19th century.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolutionists reject the bible outright as having any scientific value<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Because it doesn't</b>.
For example, if a world wide flood occured some 4,000 years ago, why is it that:
A) We have never found the archtypical 'kind' ascribed by creationists. After all, in order to fit the several million known animal species in the arc, they rely on one kind of 'animal' being taken onto the arc and then by a series of hypermutation suddenly 'develop' all of the species of animals today (aside from being illogical, it's also refuted in that numerous existing animals on the planet have no such detectable genetic bottleneck). With all the fossils in existence, where are these freak animals that are mish mashes of every single animal within its kind? After all, we can't have *new* genetic information in creationist rhetoric, so it must already be there?
B) If we have eight people on the arc, we have a maximum of 16 HLA genes (2 at each genetic locus). Yet today, through processes of gene duplication and other known mechanisms, there are over 108 HLA types in one particular locus. How do we, without positive mutations or ways of 'increasing' information as creationist nonsense goes, get 92 more genes?
C) Please explain, using detailed models how coral reefs survived through the flood seeing as: They cannot take the changes in salinity, sunlight, chemical composition and turbulance of the flood waters as they moved out. Either every coral reef was damaged beyond repair or destroyed, or God 'enabled' an absolute miracle to occur to save the coral reefs as they are (which grow so slowly, they couldn't have replenished their ranges in under 4,000 years).
This is just getting onto the tip of the iceberg where flood geology fails miserably to explain anything in a sensical pattern.
So where are these genetic bottlenecks? How do we get Noahs family deriving nearly 92 new HLA genes if they are unable to generate new potential mutations?
D) Speaking of, how does creationism account for the Hawaiian Islands and their formation. As many know, the islands to the northwest are progressively smaller and are no longer volcanically active. As a result they suffer from higher amounts of erosion due to being colder and the lack of new material being input to them. The present day Hawaiian Islands show little to no sedimentation, particularly compared to the <b>continents where creationists claim hundreds of feet of sediment were deposited</b> over one year. This means they have not been submerged at all recently.
Considering the observed rate of plate motion measured by global positioning satellites and the distances between the islands, the ages of the islands can be calculated without the use of any carbon dating (from this estimate, see your first gripe initially, which is about to be proven bung, fun eh?). K-Ar dates of the islands, a form of radioisotope dating is shown in the diagram below. You'll notice that these match the predicted ages we figure out from the plate tectonics extremely accurately. This simply demonstrates the geologists predictions were pretty correct.
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/Aegeri/ages_of_islands.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The first number is the distance between the two islands listed, and the second figure is the difference of ages between the islands. The third figure is the plate speed (from tectonics).
1. Hawaii to Maui: 125 km / 1.3 Ma = 9.6 cm/yr
2. Maui to Molokai: 80 km / 0.805 Ma = 9.9 cm/yr
3. Molokai to Oahu: 125 km / 1.32 Ma = 9.5 cm/yr
4. Oahu to Kauai: 180 km / 1.95 Ma = 9.2 cm/yr
Average plate speed = 9.6 cm/yr
Actual observed plate speed is about 10 cm/yr
These two predictions match perfectly and essentially argues that plate movements have been uniform for <b>millions</b> of years. But catastrophism and diluvial deposition require massive and rapid sedimentation and tectonic plate movements. Yet the movement, sediment patterns and radioisotope dates of the Haiwaiian islands crush this notion completely.
Again, care to explain? Assertions btw, aren't evidence (Credit goes to Mech Bliss from the IIDB forums for the inspiration and technical aspects of the islands argument, which I advise anyone to look up, because it's once again another flaw of the 'YEC' model to explain anything representing reality at all).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- and proceed to come up with the only other logical explanation... evolution. The evidence supports thier construct only so far as they reject the possibility of the other. Once creation is no longer "scientific" - rejecting it is easy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Creation never was scientific, that's part of the problem. Pseudoscientific assertions and vapid claims about evolution (usually based on gross inaccuracies or strawmans) do not cut the mustard.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Some problems that creationists face: proving the existance of God, relying on a faith based/ religious argument in a "scientific" debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except the whole having 'no' supporting evidence at all. There is a reason why Christian geologists threw flood geology out the window: It didn't fit with the evidence. Evolutionists/atheists had nothing to do with this originally, because all you're doing is dismissing the world of devoutly Christian men and women, who on good evidence saw that a world flood was untenable.
Speaking of, care to tell me which of these are ape and which are human, I'm a tad confused:
<img src='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
A response with detailed analysis of what makes a skull 'human' and what 'ape' is greatly appreciated. Afterwards, I'll be talking about reptile->Mammalian jaw bone structure or one of many transitions that somewhere along the line you'll erroneously assert 'don't exist'. Or perhaps we can talk about how creationists butchered two scientific papers concerning the chemical defossilisation of 'soft' dinosaur tissues, which Ken Ham and crew so fancifully strawman into being 'fresh' dinosaur parts as if they had come from newly cracked open bone marrow?
Speaking of, now that I've thought about it, if the flood depositions occured rapidly enough to form the stratification we see today, why is it there are fossils of ancient animals that are lighter than dinosaurs lower down in strata. Surely if dinosaurs are bigger and heavier than other animals they would sink first if fossils are 'explained' by a flood. Also, why isn't this coverage universal? For example, why are their unique therapod fossils in africa and asia that are not seen in America or south America? Why does Australia have its own unique set of fossil marsupials (giant buggers too!) yet nowhere else? If flood waters deposited fossils why are they so definitely located due to isolated geographic regions? For that matter, why aren't there any fossils of modern animals like zebras in with dinosaurs or other ancient animals either? Surely these animals were there too?
Or do we end up with Paleys 'archetype' again which everyone, even other creationists threw out (He didn't just start ID you know!)?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Problems for evolutionists: Low probablities, and the whole "origin of life" debate... (were here, so it must have happened). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, again you provide the perfect example of a creationist strawman. Evolution concerns the change in allele frequencies over time in living populations of animals, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution in that context. It's an area of active research however and if you dare bring up outdated creationist rhetoric against 'urey-miller' without realising more research has been done since, then I suggest you head on over to <a href='http://www.iidb.org' target='_blank'>www.iidb.org</a> and debate there because there are numerous people who would love to hear it. I won't have the patience for refuting the same strawmans and assertions I've heard a million times before. If you have new arguments, aren't going to copy and paste rubbish from AiG or any creationist site (I will show you a modicum of respect by presenting non-copy and pasted arguments, I expect the same courtesy) I'll be pleased to hear them.
Speaking of AiG care to comment on this:
<a href='http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and...sm_response.htm</a>
I just wish AiG had kept it up on their main page, it's even better when they actively claim they 'oppose racism' caused by none other than evolutionary theory, yet for some reason post an article that proposes that evolution makes it seem 'whites' and 'blacks' are from the same ancestor and hence equivalent and is hence <i>wrong</i> because of it. Oops, talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Evolutionary theory actually breaking down racism? UNPOSSIBLE?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In either case, I want you to examine the "faith" involved. Both have high degrees of uncertainty<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, wrong wrong wrong.
Tell me, is weather forcasting based on faith? What about medicine? Electricity? Gravity? What about these theories isn't atheistic for removing the role of God, demons or an angry Norse fellow who throws lightning around?
Should we be proposing the demon model for causing disease by chance?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One solves it by placing faith in God. The other by placing faith in billions of years.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correction: One lies, abuses science and openly makes Christians look ignorant to other people and causes many to regard faith as a matter for morons and backwards rednecks. Creationism is the best argument for atheism I've seen in years, and I find that some atheists have pretended to be particularly daft 'creationists' in order to make belief in a God look stupid deliberately (which I find deplorable).
There is no such thing as 'faith' in billions of years when the weight of an insurmountable number of studies, geologists, biologists, astronomers, physicists and more; <b>many whom were and are Christian themselves</b> have decided that this is the best supported position from current scientific understanding.
You're barking up the wrong tree in terms of evidence and you've got no teeth to back up that bark.
Anyway, I am curious. Is this a rumour? It is said by my Christian friends that Noah's Ark have been found, and one even claimed it to be marked as "Area 51". Personally, I do not believe in the existence of Noah's Ark, but can anyone back that fact up?
Incidently, like Cagey said, you're not going to have much success in posting a topic in a discussion forum and then telling people not to discuss. Sorry.
Anyway, I am curious. Is this a rumour? It is said by my Christian friends that Noah's Ark have been found, and one even claimed it to be marked as "Area 51". Personally, I do not believe in the existence of Noah's Ark, but can anyone back that fact up? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure if the ark has or has not been definitavly found... chances are it decayed away. It most definatly is not at Area 51.
Aegeri, everything you posted assumes that things are constant today the same way they were millions of years ago. It is a valid assumption - but not one I am willing to make.
I will touch on your anti-ark rant. I don't know how God sorted the animals out - or which ones he brought - or what "types" of animals there were. By the same token, I don't know how Jesus died and came to life 3 days later. I can speculate, but I don't have definitave knowledge of the method - or proof that either of those events happened. I take it on faith.
You on the other hand choose to put your faith in the minds of scientists... some of them christian, but many of them who have dedicated their lives to "proving christianity wrong". Just as Creationists can't "prove" a flood - or creation for that matter, neither can they "prove" abogenesis, or even a simple evolutionary change from one species to another (apparently it used to happen all the time... not so much now days.) They can't reproduce them in a laboratory, all they can do is look at bones and guess.
OT: I was wondering - what other books of the bible do you cut out? Obvously Genesis... Job, the gospels, Pauls writings? At what point does your faith in God superceed your faith in humans?
I don't mind you taking it on faith, but ultimately, it's faith in that you're right and they're wrong, based largely on your own opinion. The fact that a community as diverse as the scientific one - from all over the globe and of differring beliefs - can come to a consensus isn't a point against the validity of evolution/abiogenesis, it's a point <i>for</i> them; if forced to choose between whether I'm right about a scientific issue, or whether a wide array of proper scientists are right, I'll choose the latter.
But since Aegeri claims to be Christian, that makes it entirely possible for him to support an evolutionary theory that doesn't include Abiogenesis. I don't know whether that's his current opinion or not, but even if you manage to definitively disprove Abiogenesis, that does very little to disprove the rest of Aegeri's theories. Abiogenesis is not required under a theistic understanding of Evolution.
Well... your bible is missing books as well...
Quotes to make it easier to read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Andrew -
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Andrew and Matthias*
Barnabas -
Acts of Barnabas*
Epistle of Barnabas
Gospel of Barnabas
Bartholomew -
Gospel of Bartholomew
Martyrdom of Bartholomew*
Apocryphon of James
Book of James (protevangelium)
First Apocalypse of James
Second Apocalypse of James
Acts of John
Acts of John the Theologian*
Apocryphon of John (long version)
Book of John the Evangelist
Revelation of John the Theologian*
Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
The Martyrdom of Matthew
Nicodemus -
Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)
Peter -
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Apocalypse of Peter - version 1
Apocalypse of Peter - version 2
Gospel of Peter
Letter of Peter to Philip
Acts of Philip
Gospel of Philip
Thaddeus -
Acts of Thaddeus (Epistles of Pontius Pilate)*
Teaching of Thaddeus
Thomas -
Acts of Thomas
Apocalypse of Thomas
Book of Thomas the Contender
Consumation of Thomas
Gospel of Thomas
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats the small list of them. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aegeri, everything you posted assumes that things are constant today the same way they were millions of years ago. It is a valid assumption - but not one I am willing to make.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, RE-READ it. I made several challenges to common creationist rhetoric and in the same way, you utterly ignored the point about the islands in question. I suggest you pay attention to three key points:
1) The movement and distance between the islands matches the tectonic plate theory; new islands are created at the point where the plates meet where there is current volcanic activity (as the plates colliding forces magma up through the area they are pressing on).
2) The movement of the islands matches the tectonic plate movement, and the average speed of each island worked out by satellite modelling also matches the movement of the islands by tectonics.
3) If this model is right, we would ALSO expect the islands oldest in the north and youngest in the south. Guess what? Radioisotope dating perfectly confirms this and is corroborated by the expected tectonic plate movements as well. If it had not been like this it <i>would</i> have been evidence for creation.
So let's see if you can actually answer this or not:
1) Why aren't these islands covered in any sediment, even though this is next to continents creationists claim got buried in it? Were they not there during the flood? These islands didn't suddenly spring into existence 4000 years ago did they?
2) Why is it clear that these islands have moved accordingly north at a speed consistent with the tectonic plates here. If creationist 'flood' geology is correct, particuarly things like the hydroplate "<i>theory</i>" how is it these islands have ended up exactly as would be predicted by other plate tectonic theory yet be so contradictory to creationists?
Of course, I just expect a 'dismissal' (OMG MILLIONS OF YEARS BIAS) as you did before without actually bothering to understand the argument. That's ok though, it merely proves my point you're all bark and no teeth.
Speaking of, let's again mention the court trial in 1981 where Creation had the floor mopped with it, from a trial note:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of "what scientists think" and "what scientists do." The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. <b>Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused</b>. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. <b>It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assumptions? Hardly, once again, the real research, done at benches in labs accross the world proves that Creation science isn't science. It proves that creationists do not perform research for publication as Judge Overton (above) just so succintly noted in the court trial that 'Creation science' got. There is no evidence that indicates creation has any legitimacy as science or fact.
The rest of the decision can be read here if you feel like doing so:
<a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html' target='_blank'>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html</a>
Further from the trial after the creationist witnesses castrated themselves (From <a href='http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/robert_l_hall/ISB1F01/ScienceInCreationScience.html' target='_blank'>http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/robert_l...ionScience.html</a> this site if you are interested in having a read)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Witnesses for the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed on one point: that science must be explanatory, tentative, and falsifiable (testable). Even before the first scientific witness for the defense took the stand, the attorney general's case was laboring under a distinct disadvantage. Namely, in their pretrial depositions many creation scientists admitted that what they practiced was not scientific. "No," said Harold Coffin, of the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, California, "creation science is not testable scientifically." Asked if creation science was a science, Ariel Roth, of the same institute, replied, "If you want to define 'science' as testable, predictable, I would say no.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is from the creationists themselves that went on trial in this case. Again, that creationism isn't scientific and that it isn't testable. It's NOT science and it does not fit with the facts and evidence around us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Henry Morris and Duane Gish, director and associate director of the Institute for Creation Research. "Creation ... is inaccessible to the scientific method," asserts Morris in his book Scientific Creationism. "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, there isn't 'evidence' for creation <i>as admitted by its proponents</i> because you cannot actually test how that 'evidence' fits in with creation or how. Basically creationism is trying to prove a negative, eliminating evolution but not actually providing positive testable claims that creation ever occured or how. Again, this continues essentially to this day and nothing has changed.
Interestingly though, even creationists now (like poor Pepe) can't answer this, which a so called 'creation research expert' at that trial couldn't. I've had an obsession with corals and creationist explanations ever since this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roth discussed his own work, on the growth of coral reefs, during his 70-minute testimony. <b>He suggested that if reefs grew faster than people generally believed they do, then the massive reef structures would not need the millions of years' growth period that is currently supposed. This, he said, would be evidence for a young earth</b>.
His cross-examination was swift:
<b>Q. What is the last sentence of your article on the growth of coral reefs?
A. . . . this does not establish rapid growth of coral development.
Q. The most you can say is that nothing precludes rapid growth, isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any evidence that coral reefs were created in recent times?
A. No.
Q. No further questions</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BANG.
Again, assertions and pretending that any interpretation that 'sounds' like it could be an explanation without positive, testable claims and hypotheses is not 'evidence' for creation. It's nonsense plain and simple.
Again, how did the coral reefs survive through the flood? More importantly, how do they cover the vast areas they do today from only a mere 4000 years of growth? What evidence is there that corals grow considerably more rapidly 4000 years ago than they do today?
And finally, from a Creationist, Chandra Wickramasinghe at the trial:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Q. Could any rational scientist believe that the earth's geology can be explained by a single catastrophe?
A. No.
Q. Could any rational scientist believe that the earth is less than one million years old?
A. No.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sums it up nicely.
But again, you've come here barking, now bare your teeth or get muzzled!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I will touch on your anti-ark rant. I don't know how God sorted the animals out - or which ones he brought - or what "types" of animals there were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course not, no creationist does. Just don't claim this rubbish is 'evidence' or 'science'. Thanks for avoiding all the main arguments though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You on the other hand choose to put your faith in the minds of scientists... some of them christian,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many of them Christian.
Here's an interesting musing, it was researching the failed history of creationism that made me realise that I didn't have to have a problem with God or the natural world. You see, as I've tirelessly bought up now, it wasn't evolutionists at all that threw out creationism, or atheists or any other such nonsense. It was numerous Christian scientists and writers, who first argued that the flood may have happened but due to good experimental methodology changed their opinion because the <i>evidence</i> clearly said otherwise.
To me, all creationism is doing is spitting on the work of some extremely competent and educated Christian scholars. They had immense foresight in their conclusions and I often use them to prove succinctly to 'atheists' that belief in God doesn't make one ignorant in any way.
Why did I expect a response to anything I raised? Did I really think you'd actually be capable of a discussion on the points I made or just assert more nonsense without any real basis in support? Drop the 'assertations' and rhetoric and actually answer the argument with this 'evidence' you purport to claim is on your side.
Where is it though? Dismissing data such as the islands matching plate tectonics and radioisotope data perfectly with NO logical counter argument at all? Indeed.
Tsk tsk.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just as Creationists can't "prove" a flood - or creation for that matter, neither can they "prove" abogenesis, or even a simple evolutionary change from one species to another (apparently it used to happen all the time... not so much now days.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off you make another strawman that somehow evolution needs abiogenesis when it doesn't although again, there is active research in that area. Then you make a stupid assumption on 'speciation' which is well known by anyone doing this enough to be false (IE another baseless assertion). We already know there has been observed speciation in numerous insects and several species of birds and fish. Again, if you are not familiar with the Grants work on the Galapagos islands I would suggest making sure you are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They can't reproduce them in a laboratory, all they can do is look at bones and guess.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, again, quit making Creationist rhetoric which is based on strawmans, appeals to ignorance and 'turtles all the way down' arguments. Speciation has been tested in the lab numerous times, particularly using Drosophila as a model organism. Examination of fossils is more than just a 'guess' either, but then again, seeing as neither you or any other creationists bother doing proper lab work real scientific approaches wouldn't be something they would actively know about right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->OT: I was wondering - what other books of the bible do you cut out? Obvously Genesis... Job, the gospels, Pauls writings? At what point does your faith in God superceed your faith in humans?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What point does your faith in ignorance override common sense? Notice that you've failed miserably to answer EVERY single question I put forward. You merely made further ridiculous (and easily disproved) assertions that yet again have no basis in fact.
Speaking of, before I go any further, do you think that women should be silent in church and never speak? What about making sure hospitals have adequate ability to remove demons from afflicted individuals? Slavery? How do you determine what parts of the bible you ignore and don't ignore seeing as you're claiming the 'literal' interpretation here. My beliefs are irrelevant anyway, aren't you purporting that you have 'evidence' that supports the biblical account? So far you've failed miserably to refute my (if you have evidence) simple arguments about Noahs ark.
Speaking of, let's put some biblical references here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 Corinthians 14
34. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has a woman ever spoke at your church? You should demand action that she doesn't!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exodus 21
2. "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment.
3. "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.
4. "<b>If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone</b>.
5. "But if the slave plainly says, `I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,'
6. then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
20. "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
21. "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; <b>for he is his property</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Slaves are clearly property, do you believe that as well? Remember, you're the literalist here and not me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Matthew 17
15. "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.
16. "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."
17. And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me."
18. And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This man had a 'demon' in him. Should modern medicine have an exorcist to remove demons? Personally, I understand it as Jesus healing the man of an illness or 'sickness' of some kind, but YOU have a literal interpretation. So let's hear it, how do we know when people are afflicted by demons and how do we remove them?
Speaking of, as a Bible literalist maybe you can explain to me when the Fig Tree that Jesus cursed died:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Matthew 21:1-22</b>
"When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,
2 saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, 'The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately."
4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them;
7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.
8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.
9 The crowds that went ahead of him and that followed were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"
10 When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, "Who is this?"
11 The crowds were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee."
12 Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
13 He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a den of robbers."
14 The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he cured them.
15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they became angry
16 and said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself'?"
17 He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.
18 In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry.
19 And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.
20 When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?"
21 Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done.
22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mark 11:1-24</b>
"When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples
2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it.
3 If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' just say this, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.'"
4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it,
5 some of the bystanders said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?"
6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it.
7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it.
8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields.
9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David! Hosanna in the highest heaven!"
11 Then he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple; and when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry.
13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it.
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves;
16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.
17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."
18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching.
19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.
21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."
22 Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God.
23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you.
24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So did the Fig tree die immediately (Matthew) or did it die the next day (Mark). For that matter, even if it did die immediately, did the disciples see it immediately (Matthew) or the next day (Mark). Which is it and why? You've got the "Literal" truth in two versions that get the same singular event but the details don't appear correct. To me, that's irrelevant because I see the underlying meaning more important than the event, but to you it MUST be literally 100% correct (or you're being hypocritical aren't you?). So which is it?
Incidently, I accept these books as they were meant to be: As allegorial accounts that aren't meant to be taken as literal truth (accounts that sometimes contradict like the above as well). Let's face it, in the end no 'evilutionist' with 'millions of years bias' decided flood geology was a load of nonsense, that was Christians in the ninteenth century. Again, that you've ignored every argument I've bought up (and failed miserably to understand the point behind the tectonics matching the radioisotope date of the Haiiwain islands) speaks volumes for this 'evidence' you are purporting to claim. How is that bark going anyway?
<!--QuoteBegin-"Cwxf"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("Cwxf")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've always considered Abiogenesis to be the single weakest point in the theory of evolution, and by far the easiest to attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be because it isn't the theory of evolution, but it gets lumped into it anyway because probiotic lifeforms (such as hypothesises RNA/protein molecules) have been found to undergo selection and competition (like living organisms).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But since Aegeri claims to be Christian,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am indeed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that makes it entirely possible for him to support an evolutionary theory that doesn't include Abiogenesis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll go with the best supported hypothesis, which at the moment is probably RNA-world, but I'm not going to be dragged into debating AiG and other creationist organisations pointless rhetoric and assertions (IE: Goo to you through the zoo).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know whether that's his current opinion or not, but even if you manage to definitively disprove Abiogenesis, that does very little to disprove the rest of Aegeri's theories.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abiogenesis isn't required in evolution full stop. Again, what theory are you lot thinking I'm talking about?
Heh, "turtles all the way down" that was something to do with Feynman wasn't it?
EDIT: I think it was Feynman, I just read your blog, something to do with a lecture on astronomy, I'm pretty sure it was him...I remember a while back about something to do with that guy and turtles...
lol, what a coincidence, flatworm fencing: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95523&st=45' target='_blank'>My De-Railed Thread</a>
Creation science ripped itself apart by proving it was devoid of any logical facts and that it is an oxymoron: IE it doesn't actually do any science.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and the reason of the existence of your posts are to disprove doubts in evolution? I'm gonna have to do some major research and re-reading here, I have no clue when it comes to this stuff...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fair enough, I would suggest going to <a href='http://www.talkorigins.com' target='_blank'>www.talkorigins.com</a> which sums up most of the arguments used here. I don't like referencing websites very much though but it's good for general audiences. If you are up for a laugh, <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.com' target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.com</a> can be side splittingly hillarious at times in their sheer ridiculousness. The best is probably Hovind criticising AiG and then AiG becoming a little exasperated that Hovind does to them exactly the sort of nonsense creationists routinely do to science all the time.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp' target='_blank'>Arguments creationists should not use (but do anyway despite what AiG say).</a>
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp' target='_blank'>Hovind demonstrates why AiG has a worthless list and that few creationists actually pay attention to them. Evidence makes little difference to creationists, contrary to what Pepe or any other creationist would actually tell you.</a>
Oh yes, it's worth noting that quite a few creationists don't care what AiG say, and if 5 years of debating is any indication despite this creationist 'peer review' system none of them pay attention and the same debunked arguments are trotted out again and again and again... The amount of times I've had to refute that 2nd law of thermodynamics nonsense for example, urgh.
As noted, be well aware that AiG=<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/Aegeri/FamilyGuy_Ridiculous.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heh, "turtles all the way down" that was something to do with Feynman wasn't it?
EDIT: I think it was Feynman, I just read your blog, something to do with a lecture on astronomy, I'm pretty sure it was him...I remember a while back about something to do with that guy and turtles...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, apparently the quote is originally attributed to a book Steven Hawking wrote, where he discusses it at length <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->lol, what a coincidence, flatworm fencing: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95523&st=45' target='_blank'>My De-Railed Thread</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, I couldn't help but spread the flatworm **** fencing love.
WHAT?!?!?!??!
That is so contradicting that if Mr Spock read it he would go into a "That is highly illogical, Captain" malfunction and his head would explode.
A curve that fits perfectly over one section of time can't be said to extend indefinitely. Taking a few hundred years of data and saying that a condition held true for millions of years without correlating evidence is the equivalent of timing acceleration from a red light for a few seconds, then claiming that the car will eventually reach light speed since it's constantly moving faster. If a car goes zero to 60mph in 7 seconds, that does not mean it can go 0 to 600mph in 70 seconds.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say the exact same thing about radio-active decay dating techniques... but apparently that isn't "scientific".
Before the evolutionists all jump in this thread... let me say that there is plenty of "evidence" for both points of view. Creationists tend to piont to a global flood as the source for the geological column - a catastrophic beginning that accounts for all the fossil records, as well as their unusual placement (dinosaur graveyards at the tops of mountains, etc.)
Evolutionists reject the bible outright as having any scientific value - and proceed to come up with the only other logical explanation... evolution. The evidence supports thier construct only so far as they reject the possibility of the other. Once creation is no longer "scientific" - rejecting it is easy.
Some problems that creationists face: proving the existance of God, relying on a faith based/ religious argument in a "scientific" debate.
Problems for evolutionists: Low probablities, and the whole "origin of life" debate... (were here, so it must have happened).
In either case, I want you to examine the "faith" involved. Both have high degrees of uncertainty. One solves it by placing faith in God. The other by placing faith in billions of years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.. there isn't plenty of 'evidence' for creationism.
Creationism in a nutshell: Wow this sure is complex, well, **** it, it was all made by a sky fairy! I KNOW BECAUSE I FEEL HIM IN MY HEART!
<span style='color:red'>Locked.</span>