Evolution

[RadicalModerate]

Here ya go Radical:

here's some unbiased, "science-based" FACTS!

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Oh, yes, I'm very familiar with AIG...browsing the website is always good for a larf.

 

[MoSurveyor]

What can I say, the experiments were independently checked bro. So it goes with science.

LOL! I never argue religion with people. You believe whatever it is you want to believe and I'll continue to call it faith until it meets a certain standard, which this apparently does not.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Oh, yes, I'm very familiar with AIG...browsing the website is always good for a larf.

Or if thinking gets too hard! :mrgreen:

 

[RadicalModerate]

Man, these guys really know how evolution works, don't they?

 

[MarineTpartier]

Are we really gonna get into the same ol "what the word theory" really means again?

I don't know why I argue with the ignorant...

MTP caught an intellectual snag three words in, so he just stops there like the rest of the article and sources don't even exist.

I'm dealing in facts here bro. That's all. No need to sling the "ignorant" tag around like most of your ilke do. I am aware that a scientific theory is different from the normal meaning of theory. I am not discounting these theories because of a misunderstanding of the word. I should have underlined traditional just as much as theory in that post. Thats my issue with it. There are different versions of that same theory. This means there are inconsistencies in it.
I am diving into the science side of this instead of relying on the "I just believe it" defense like most Christians or other creation based religions do. The least you could do is pull up some facts. I have shown that the Bible acknowledges micro-evolution. I easily found a counter to the evidence you presented simply by Googling "are whales proof of evolution".
Not at all like a whale

 

[marduc]

And, in keeping with my statement, there is a retort to your sources retort.
Feedback: Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination? - Answers in Genesis

And in no point in your "retort" did it address the issue of the various carbon isotopes being present in inconsistent ratios. If the Carbon were intrinsic to the diamonds they would be found in consistent, predictable ratios. So no, albeit longwinded, and accusatory, it does not offer anything by way of countering this.

 

[marduc]

But isn't an old man simply another version of a human being the same as a small boy? He didn't grow from a small boy into a giraffe did he? They are both humans, just different versions of one.
The above mentioned examples are microevolution. These lizards, etc aren't developing into a whole other species. Just a different version of their current one.
I think it is explained well here.
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?

Do you not understand the concept of an analogy? Why is that so many people find them so hard to grasp?

and your AIG and Creation Institute propaganda is not going to get you ANYWHERE.

edit: hell that copy paste job of yours fails on the very first sentence, it is not the "origin of a new type of organism" that is not how it works at all, it is modification of existing organisms. This makes it out to sound much like the "dog suddenly gives birth to a cat" scenario. They are almost assuredly trying to convey some degree of this and convey an aura of incredulity, this is a standard ploy and a standard obfuscation in the creationist playbook.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I easily found a counter to the evidence you presented simply by Googling "are whales proof of evolution".
Not at all like a whale

Wow, a whole half page rebuttal. Took me 2 minutes to read. Alarmingly devoid of details, to say the least.

Here's something a bit more substantial.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'm dealing in facts here bro. That's all. No need to sling the "ignorant" tag around like most of your ilke do. I am aware that a scientific theory is different from the normal meaning of theory. I am not discounting these theories because of a misunderstanding of the word. I should have underlined traditional just as much as theory in that post. Thats my issue with it. There are different versions of that same theory. This means there are inconsistencies in it.

There are inconsistencies in the exact celestial clock for Earth. Each year there has to be an observation correction because we're off just a little bit. Does that mean the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun or Einstein's Theory is wrong?!?

I am diving into the science side of this instead of relying on the "I just believe it" defense like most Christians or other creation based religions do.

But you contradict that sentiment by posting links like this ...

The least you could do is pull up some facts. I have shown that the Bible acknowledges micro-evolution. I easily found a counter to the evidence you presented simply by Googling "are whales proof of evolution".
Not at all like a whale

 

[Paschendale]

Here's proof that macro evolution takes place, and species transition into other species. Species are a made up distinction!! We made up the classification ourselves. This is seriously the most moronic argument I've heard in a while. MTP, you clearly don't know a lick about the science involved here. Go back and take high school biology again, maybe pay attention this time, and you will understand the answers to all the questions you've posed here. It's seriously all covered in a high school textbook.

 

[marduc]

View attachment 67129476

Man, these guys really know how evolution works, don't they?

its the old chance canard.. "no way it could happen by random chance"

no ****.. good thing it does not work that way. Unfortunately those ignorant on the topic are not typically aware that evolution is NOT random, and is NOT chance.

Pure propaganda in the name of the LORD! (and in the name of making a few million dollars for the bank account!)

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why is it that a discussion of evolution always seems to come down to a discussion of the existence of god?

Could it be because of the mistaken belief that evolution somehow disproves god?

It must be. Why else do otherwise rational people try to stand reason on its head trying to disprove evolution?

 

[PrometheusBound]

From the article:
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Or theists could say that God had the power to accelerate natural processes so that, in a superfast world, strata that would normally take millions of years to lay down would pile up in a day. And you could look deeper into the meaning of "on the 7th day, God rested" to mean that he quit quickening and let Nature take its glacially slow course from then on.

 

[marduc]

You know what I just noticed something going back through these posts.. granted it has already been pointed out Carbon14 is not used on samples older than 60k years old, and that virtually all fossils are WAY older than this, by several orders of magnitude, and this whole C14 red herring is completely irrelevant in regards to evolution.

But I have to highlight this because it is rather amusing, and quite telling. From 2 seperate posts:

Carbon dating commonly used by most scientists has been disproven by another group of scientists.

and of course with the above statement you provide a link that goes on about how unreliable and faulty C14 dating is.

Then a few posts later we get this:

From the article:...

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

The "from the article" statement was a carryover from the previous post, where you linked to an article allegedly disproving C14 dating.. the same article then refers to C14 as "powerful evidence"

So which is it? Has C14 dating been disproven and invalid or is it "evidence" confirming that the earth is thousands of years old?

So, if it is to undermine the credibility of an older earth it is unreliable rubbish that "has been disproven", but then when it seems to support a timescale of thousands of years (this is debunked) it is "powerful evidence". Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

This fits the situation perfectly I think:

 

[EagleAye]

The "from the article" statement was a carryover from the previous post, where you linked to an article allegedly disproving C14 dating.. the same article then refers to C14 as "powerful evidence"

So which is it? Has C14 dating been disproven and invalid or is it "evidence" confirming that the earth is thousands of years old?

So, if it is to undermine the credibility of an older earth it is unreliable rubbish that "has been disproven", but then when it seems to support a timescale of thousands of years (this is debunked) it is "powerful evidence". Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

He shoots, he scores! :applaud

 

[RadicalModerate]

You know what I just noticed something going back through these posts.. granted it has already been pointed out Carbon14 is not used on samples older than 60k years old, and that virtually all fossils are WAY older than this, by several orders of magnitude, and this whole C14 red herring is completely irrelevant in regards to evolution.

But I have to highlight this because it is rather amusing, and quite telling. From 2 seperate posts:



and of course with the above statement you provide a link that goes on about how unreliable and faulty C14 dating is.

Then a few posts later we get this:



The "from the article" statement was a carryover from the previous post, where you linked to an article allegedly disproving C14 dating.. the same article then refers to C14 as "powerful evidence"

So which is it? Has C14 dating been disproven and invalid or is it "evidence" confirming that the earth is thousands of years old?

So, if it is to undermine the credibility of an older earth it is unreliable rubbish that "has been disproven", but then when it seems to support a timescale of thousands of years (this is debunked) it is "powerful evidence". Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

This fits the situation perfectly I think:

View attachment 67129533

Nice work marduc! Creationists DO use the scientific evidence that back up things they want to back up, but reject scientific evidence that conflicts with what they think.

Nice catch, good work!

 

[Quag]

Thanx for posting the C14 thing marduc, I've seen it before in other forums and It has been completely debunked but I couldn't be bothered to look for the debunking.
The post about the double standard was very good as well. kudoos to you for catching it.

Once again I would like to point out as so many people have before the theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of any god or gods. So religious peopel shoudl not get their knickers in a knot about this. Unless they are fundementalists who believe in young earth creationism. In which case I see no way to discuss the issue with them as their minds are made up before the issue is even broached.

 

[MarineTpartier]

You know what I just noticed something going back through these posts.. granted it has already been pointed out Carbon14 is not used on samples older than 60k years old, and that virtually all fossils are WAY older than this, by several orders of magnitude, and this whole C14 red herring is completely irrelevant in regards to evolution.

But I have to highlight this because it is rather amusing, and quite telling. From 2 seperate posts:



and of course with the above statement you provide a link that goes on about how unreliable and faulty C14 dating is.

Then a few posts later we get this:



The "from the article" statement was a carryover from the previous post, where you linked to an article allegedly disproving C14 dating.. the same article then refers to C14 as "powerful evidence"

So which is it? Has C14 dating been disproven and invalid or is it "evidence" confirming that the earth is thousands of years old?

So, if it is to undermine the credibility of an older earth it is unreliable rubbish that "has been disproven", but then when it seems to support a timescale of thousands of years (this is debunked) it is "powerful evidence". Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

This fits the situation perfectly I think:

View attachment 67129533

No, the disproven portion is clearly in the article. As in secular scientists use of c14 dating is inaccurate and disproven due to their improper usage. You can clearly read that under the "Critical Assumption" portion of the article.
Further, proper use of c14 dating shows that the scientists of RATE are correct.
Try reading the article again.

 

[MarineTpartier]

The best part about the evolutionists, atheists, etc is they are just like creationists. They believe a book, written by some guys they've never met, that says some stuff in it that they can't fully decipher, and they have FAITH that its accurate. Atheists and the like enjoy painting people that believe in a god, any god, as ignorant and illogical. Atheists are in fact the same, simply on the other side of the prism. An atheist, instead of having faith in a god or group of gods, have faith in themselves and scientists they've never met. I'm not making fun of you guys. Its just ironic and entertaining that you seem to lose sight of the fact that you are a human being just like us and don't know anymore than I do about how this earth came to be. Sure, you can quote science the same as I can quote the Bible. They are both collections of documents written by many different people that you've never met. You just choose to believe a different book than I do.
I can't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with them. Evolution is now on my list of do not debate subjects along with abortion. It always devolves into "haha look at the dumb creationist" followed by "haha, you'll see.....". There's not changing anyones mind on this subject, just like abortion.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The best part about the evolutionists, atheists, etc is they are just like creationists. They believe a book, written by some guys they've never met, that says some stuff in it that they can't fully decipher, and they have FAITH that its accurate. Atheists and the like enjoy painting people that believe in a god, any god, as ignorant and illogical. Atheists are in fact the same, simply on the other side of the prism. An atheist, instead of having faith in a god or group of gods, have faith in themselves and scientists they've never met. I'm not making fun of you guys. Its just ironic and entertaining that you seem to lose sight of the fact that you are a human being just like us and don't know anymore than I do about how this earth came to be. Sure, you can quote science the same as I can quote the Bible. They are both collections of documents written by many different people that you've never met. You just choose to believe a different book than I do.
I can't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with them. Evolution is now on my list of do not debate subjects along with abortion. It always devolves into "haha look at the dumb creationist" followed by "haha, you'll see.....". There's not changing anyones mind on this subject, just like abortion.

The difference with science is that I don't have to take another person's word that sunlight has a whole spectrum of colors. I can borrow or buy a prism and prove it myself. The same is true for everything else in science. Just because one scientist says this or that doesn't mean anyone else will believe them. It takes another unrelated scientist repeating the same experiment and getting the same results for anyone to even start to believe it. After that, more scientists, depending on the subject, cost, and difficulty of the experiment, will also repeat it for verification - because that's the key in science, verification. If data can't be verified then it's only conditionally accepted. No data is accepted as fact without that verification.

With religion it's mostly faith - there is virtually no verification.


The best you can do in comparing science with religion is to say all scientists believe in reason and logic.

 

[RadicalModerate]

The best part about the evolutionists, atheists, etc is they are just like creationists. They believe a book, written by some guys they've never met, that says some stuff in it that they can't fully decipher, and they have FAITH that its accurate. Atheists and the like enjoy painting people that believe in a god, any god, as ignorant and illogical. Atheists are in fact the same, simply on the other side of the prism. An atheist, instead of having faith in a god or group of gods, have faith in themselves and scientists they've never met. I'm not making fun of you guys. Its just ironic and entertaining that you seem to lose sight of the fact that you are a human being just like us and don't know anymore than I do about how this earth came to be. Sure, you can quote science the same as I can quote the Bible. They are both collections of documents written by many different people that you've never met. You just choose to believe a different book than I do.
I can't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with them. Evolution is now on my list of do not debate subjects along with abortion. It always devolves into "haha look at the dumb creationist" followed by "haha, you'll see.....". There's not changing anyones mind on this subject, just like abortion.

Did MarineTP just bash his own camp to put down "the evolutionists"? Lol, that's low.

 

[marduc]

The best part about the evolutionists, atheists, etc is they are just like creationists. They believe a book, written by some guys they've never met, that says some stuff in it that they can't fully decipher, and they have FAITH that its accurate. Atheists and the like enjoy painting people that believe in a god, any god, as ignorant and illogical. Atheists are in fact the same, simply on the other side of the prism. An atheist, instead of having faith in a god or group of gods, have faith in themselves and scientists they've never met. I'm not making fun of you guys. Its just ironic and entertaining that you seem to lose sight of the fact that you are a human being just like us and don't know anymore than I do about how this earth came to be. Sure, you can quote science the same as I can quote the Bible. They are both collections of documents written by many different people that you've never met. You just choose to believe a different book than I do.
I can't remember who said it earlier in this thread, but I agree with them. Evolution is now on my list of do not debate subjects along with abortion. It always devolves into "haha look at the dumb creationist" followed by "haha, you'll see.....". There's not changing anyones mind on this subject, just like abortion.

nice rant, its a tell tale sign of cognitive dissonance rearing its ugly head.

A whole lot of projection going on there

I just want to quickly delve into this issue of faith that you are claiming we have. Faith is by definition a belief in the absence of evidence. It is required for religion. Evidence is required for science, therefore the concept of faith is anathema and diametrically opposed to science. despite you wanting to project your position onto us to attempt to assuage this cognitive dissonance issue of yours - that shoe does not fit.

I will get back to your C14 thing tomorrow. Despite it being a red herring that is IRRELEVANT to evolutionary theory, and that it looks like you may be bowing out of the debate here, it shall have a response just to wrap up the loose ends. Beware more cognitive dissonance ahead.

 

[OhIsee.Then]

The difference with science is that I don't have to take another person's word that sunlight has a whole spectrum of colors. I can borrow or buy a prism and prove it myself. The same is true for everything else in science. Just because one scientist says this or that doesn't mean anyone else will believe them. It takes another unrelated scientist repeating the same experiment and getting the same results for anyone to even start to believe it. After that, more scientists, depending on the subject, cost, and difficulty of the experiment, will also repeat it for verification - because that's the key in science, verification. If data can't be verified then it's only conditionally accepted. No data is accepted as fact without that verification.

With religion it's mostly faith - there is virtually no verification.


The best you can do in comparing science with religion is to say all scientists believe in reason and logic.

I'm sorry. I don't believe in reason or logic. My reasoning, logic, observations are things that I can get to work, but the is no belief there. I was in trouble at church at a very young age when being taught the fact of Noah's arc.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No, the disproven portion is clearly in the article. As in secular scientists use of c14 dating is inaccurate and disproven due to their improper usage. You can clearly read that under the "Critical Assumption" portion of the article.
Further, proper use of c14 dating shows that the scientists of RATE are correct.
Try reading the article again.

Even if C14 dating is inaccurate, which is a pretty wild claim in and of itself, it has nothing to do with evolution. As has already been pointed out, C14 dating is only used to go back a few thousand years. Evolution has been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

Of course, none of that is going to matter to someone whose view of the world is based on faith rather than on evidence and fact.

 

[Dittohead not!]

To get an idea of the time scale involved in evolution, consider the Grand Canyon.

The grand Canyon of the Colorado was carved by the river at the bottom of the canyon at the rate of one inch every thousand years. The canyon is about a mile deep at this point.

So, as you descend into this canyon, consider that the top of it corresponds to the end of the age of dinosaurs, 60 million years ago. At that point, mammals begin slowly to dominate the planet.

Less than 200 feet from the bottom, you pass the point at which upright Astralopithicas first began to exist.

As you begin to approach the bottom, 200 inches from the river, less than 20 feet, you're at the dawn of man, 200,000 years ago.

For the next 150 inches of descent, you're in the age of hunter gatherers. No evidence of abstract thought exists yet.

50 inches from the bottom, less than four feet, is where we see homo sapien sapien, indisputable evidence of modern man.

Six inches from the bottom is where the young Earth creationists insist it all began.

Two inches above the river is where Christ was born.

A half inch above the river, Columbus sailed.

And, the age of dinosaurs that ended at the top of the canyon lasted long enough to carve another mile deep canyon at the same rate.

Young Earth creationism is absurd. It is like saying that there were computers back in Ancient Greece, a total anachronism.