Joel W. said:
Nick: :icon_conf If you are not even willing to read the link to dispute it or not, then why should I even bother to try explaining anything else to you. The answers are there in detail based on science facts.
Joel, it isn't scientific fact. It is a subjective opinion. The industrial revolution that we had in the late 1800's through now alone would change the ratio of the carbon. At best it is only accurate to a few thousand years. There is not a consensus on this, just as there is not a consensus that humans are changing the global climate. But only one side is published in National Geogphrphic.
Yes Carbon 14 is useless for dating fossils older than 70,000 years... Again,,,there are other ways like dating the age of the rock the fossil was found in. (AKA Radiometric Dating),,, if you would look at my links. :3d_frown:
See above. Did you know the earth jumped recently from 4.5 billion years old to 12 and then quickly to 20 billion years? Ask yourself why.
I assumed you started this thread to try and find some "missing" answers. Perhaps I assumed wrong... :dunno:
Joel, I sat through public education where the misinformation is spoon fed. I started this to show what the missing information is. I already know what evolutionists say about the age of the earth.
Take the king daddy of living fossils, the Coelacanth. This fish was said to have been extinct for 70,000,000 years. An arbitrary number, but hey, this is evolution. We will make the evidence fit the hypothesis. Anyway before it was found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock with the Coelacanth to be 70,000,000 years old. It is called an index fossil. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread about the strata layers.
Back to the Coelacanth. Evolutionists incorrectly believed it had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. A transistion fossil if you will. Artists renditions taken with great liberty showed what it looked like. Just like the walking cavemen drawings we see now. Evolutionists reasoned that crawled out of a shallow sea, filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged animal. This practice continues today. I was reading about a walking whale not to recently on somebodys website. And this isn't the only living fossil. I was glad somebody else put them in there. Thanks. I was getting to them.
Of course, this is why I posted findings on the first page from people who have studied palentology, and their stories of how "they are beside themselves" over not being able to proven anything. In fact, finding the opposite of what public schools are still teaching.
Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.
Does this really refute anything? No evidence. I provided a bunch. This is straight up horseshit. For example, not a real scenario, what has happened has been things like finding a T-Rex skeleton and a watch in the same rock. That disqualifies T-Rex from being 65,000,0000 years old.
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Who is saying Dinos arent real? I don't know anybody who says that except a nutty baseball player named Carl Everett. He plays MLB and has said ridicuoluos things like that. *If* there was a global flood, then there should be hundreds of millions of fossills in the sedimentary layers around the world. And they would not match the suggest time frame. The lowest complexity would not be at the bottom, but it would all be mixed together. What do we find? We find hundreds of millions of fossils in the sedimentary layers all mixed together.
Even the Bible teaches of the might of the dinosaurs. I asked for no religion, just talk about the findings. But since it was brought up, here it is.
the Lord said:
Behold now Behemoth, which I have made with you; he eats grass like an ox. His strength is in his loins, and the force is in the navel of his belly. He moves his tail like a CEDAR, the sinews(strength)of his stones are wrapped together. HIs bones are as strong pieces of brass; hi bones are like bars of iron...he can drik up a river and hasteth not, he can draw up the river Jordan into his mouth.
Ok, not in 11th century english. Look at Behemoth, which I have created with you. He eats grass like a cow, his strength is in his huge and powerful midsection, and swings his tail like a cedar tree. His bones are strong like iron bars. He can stand in the raging river and drink, he is so big and strong.
Now this book was written by a man 3500 years ago. Some apologists say it must have been an elephant. However elephants have distinct tails like a rope. A skinny little thing that I only see them swat flies with at the Zoo. Perhaps somebody else knows what the elephant tail is for. But this creature had a tail like a tree. Probably to balance it in the river, and for his sheer size. The animal described here sounds a lot like a brontosaurus to me. So once again, the creationists is intentionally misreprepresented by the evolutionist. I don't do that. I don't quote fringe groups and call them main stream. I quoted very respected palentologists at the top of their field.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
And of course I have shown this not to be true by themselves. But if you want to brainwash, just say what you want. And repeat it over and over. Like Bush lied about Iraq. Radiometric dating...hmmm 50% accuracy on published results. I wonder what the hidden results were?
Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.
Joel, why would you copy this? I really don't get it. It is a total contradiction of what palentology has found up to today, shown on the first page. In fact, the fossil record is so poor that some evolutionists don't believe in a gradual change, but instead a jump. Becuase there is no fossil record to support the theory.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; THE REST IS INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...we fancy ourselves as the only true students of lifes history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view datat as so bad that wenever see the very process we profess to study
Remember the facts?
Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy -- that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
1800 huh...
Based on the index fossil of the not 70,000,000 Coelacanth. This whole statement is still being told from a false presumption, which I showed on the first page.
From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of 'progress' going on.
David M. Raup said:
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the the situation hasnt changed much. The record of evolution is still suprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples evolutionary transision than we had in Darwins time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America,(and the cocelacanth) have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information-what happened to be nice sample progression when relatively few data were available low appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection
David S. Woodruff said:
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition
Dr Niles Eldredge said:
But the smooth transition from one form of life to another wich is implied in the theory is not borne out by the facts. The search for the missing link between various living creatures, like humans and apes is probably fruitless...becuase they probably never existed as transitional types. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divsions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete hen it must be the theory.
I don't understand rehashing this disproven babble. It almost makes me want to not continue.
Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great 'tree of life'.
Oh really? Read the above.
Steven J Gould said:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology.
from
Evolutions Eratic Pace
I am done with this author. Moving on. Joel, that is the UFO link joke. This author flat lied through his teeth about the fossil record.
So when you say the fossils are found in layers formed during the flood do you mean the supposed great flood that covered the earth?
That is the one. The flood of Noah
Referred to here...when asked by Porcher Taylor about a 500 foot boat seen on Masis, a mountain in eastern Turkey. The question was laughed at of course, but the response quieted the room, according to Taylor.
Dr. George A. Carver said:
Well, I don't recall the CIA working on Noah's Ark, but I do remember that at the time there were some pictures taken, and there were clear indications that there was something up on Mt. Ararat, which was rather strange. There were various archaeological expeditions that were mounted. The Turkish government was not too thrilled about supporting them, because it was getting into an area that was politically dicey from the Turk's point of view. But that is but one of the indications, you know, I haven't been up there, I don't think anyone has, but it certainly was eyebrow lifting and it was certainly another indication that despite its splendor as a work of poetry, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, might not be all that bad as history also
And I will say that many people have perpetuated hoaxes about seeing Noah's ark. They have lied. And there is also mistaken identity from air craft due to the nature of the mountain.
You see, it's not like there would have to be a lot of "new genes" to be created during each transition. Most genes are already there, they just have to change their function through mutation. It's just a very lengthy step-by-step process
A nice golden parachute. How long? A process that have never been observed. We observed reorganizing genes, not new genes. This isn't even debateable. As stated before about Mendels LAW, a common occurance by the way, that evolution contradicts known scientific LAWS, Mendel discoverd that genes are merely reshuffled from one generation to the another. Different combinations of genes are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendels laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding expirements and common observations have also confirmed these boundaries.
That is the point. Micro evolution plus time does not eqaul macro evolution.
BTW AFAIK Mendel's laws were about inheritance and recombination of certain characteristics during regular reproduction, not about new characteristics triggered by mutation which is what evolution is all about?
I hope you now understand Mendels law.
You can't be serious on that? Ever seen a box of telescope parts reproduce, either by cleavage or mating?
A living carbon unit that reproduces is bound to the same scientific laws of the universe as every non living matter. Yes, we reproduce.
That's like saying "a million years old rock doesn't blow headgaskets, so why should my 16 years old 7M-GTE?".
That isn't a good analogy. A rock can be destroyed by outside influences, even melt. Just the same as a machine can.
You are seriously doubting that earth is older than "a few thousand years"?
Ok, make that rock from my example above a 3000 years old one
Using scientific processes the earth is anywhere from about 10,000 years old to 20,000,000,000 years old. Of course the 20 billion is a stretch becuase things are not working out for the evolutionists. It doesnt add up to what they predicted, so they changed the predicted answer to fit the theory. Way to be impartial.
I think this discussion is going nowhere. You won't change your mind and I can't take you or your arguments serious enough (sorry!) to change mine either.
If you read any of the fact on the first page from what science has found trying to prove Darwins hypothesis, you would not say that. I have simply shown that the evidence is not there. Maybe aliens came down and beamed up the missing links.
Not too long ago, people thought to know that thunder and lightning were sent by God/Thor/Allah or some other unknown force. Today we know that it's pure physics (unless you are doubting this too?).
It's not much different from what we are discussing here.
Yes, I am glad you brought this up. Highly hated Christian Christopher Columbus knew he could get to China and the far east for spice by sailing
WEST, becuase the earth is described in the bible in 3 dimensions. Not flat. Nor did my party believe that sun was a god being pulled by a chariot in the sky. Future evolutionists did. They couldnt explain it as it was created that way, so make up something suggesting a non-monotheist theory.
But for now, I'll stick with evolution as it is by far the most appealing theory to me.
Do yourself a favor, and read creation science. I know you havent. I can suggest volumes of books on the subject matter, from evolutionists also showing how they have not found what they were looking for.
The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:
No Joel. I had quoted a PhD on subject matter on something and somebody said I came off as not knowing what I was talking about. That is about all I have. And I was showing that not every scientist believes in it. Which is what was presented as fact, and isn't.
only an IDIOT would take the bible literally
You can not comment on a book you have not read. Can some of it not be taken literally? Of course. If you had read you would no where. For example the Bible says if your eye offends you, pluck it out. So you should gouge out your eyeball? Of course not. If you read all of it, you would know you were being told not to put yourself in the situation in the first place. Don't look at it.
it says specifically that god set things in motion and let people have free will to do whatever they want. its up to people to do or not do something.
That is correct. So the athiest can commit horrible crimes and then say" see your god did nothing to stop it".
with all corruption in organized religion aside, why is it so hard to see what the story of jesus was REALLY trying to get across?
his message was simple: be nice to everyone!
That was not his message. Yes, it was part of it, but not the most important part, and it is also out of context. He taught to judge, but judge righteously. Do not tell that person smoking weed, they are wrong, if you are doing it too. His main message was salvation.
That he will stand in for your judgement if you let him. He will take away your death sentence, if you let him. And if you reject him, he will grind you into powder like a rock.
another point, all the bible really is is a collection of fables and cultural myths that have been told for many years. they are only stories to try to make sense of life. i dont believe it was ever intended to be a steadfast rule book.
It is a historical document. You again are showing you haven't really read much of it, if any, but are still comenting on its contents.
what bugs the shit out of me is that so many people think there should be some kind of battle of "Creationism VS. Evolution"
Actully, I started this and offered proof of a lack of evidence of evolution. You decide after reading it and studying it. And it is creation, not creationism.
why? does one have to overrule the other? you either believe in one or the other? it is this type of CLOSE MINDED viewpoint that causes most of the problems in this world.
Your refusal to look at any evidence is close minded. I have seen both sides. One side makes much more sense. I have barely scratched the surface.
I think that it is odd that you so easily dismiss the work of paleontologists and geologists because their info is also "online" and therefore bogus.
I already stated it above. I just hope you read it.
Pat Robertson is a wealthy man... An extremely wealthy man. Some estimates put his net worth at 140 million in 2003.
The differnce between him and somebody like Jesse Jackson, is Pat didnt pass the collection plate for himself. I don't have a problem with people earning a living, even Bill Gates. Pat Roberston runs a very successful resort and media empire. And he has nothing to do with my faith, or the lack of evidence for evolution.
I have never had a geologist/scientist call my house asking for donations or knock on my door trying to change my beliefs. Just so you know
I have. But I think I will put up a sign that says Jehova's false witness will be shot on site....
j/k:biglaugh:
Suggested reading.
Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J Behe 1996
Behe is a biochemist, not creationist. But like many before him, he may change his mid.
Origin by Design by Harold G Coffin with Robert H Brown 1983 this is kind of a laymans book on geology.
After the Flood: The Early Post-Flood History of Europe Traced back to Noah by Bill Cooper. 1995
Coopers study of ancient genealogies and histories, found in a few European libraries, goes back to Noah and his descendants mentioned in Genisis. Those records, written before Christianity was introduced in Europe were often a basis for ancient rulers establishing their authority.
I beg and plead with anybody interested in learning to pick up this one.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton 1986
Denton a PhD in molecular biology is an active medical resarcher. Because he is
NOTa creationist, Denton's hardhitting and authoritative arguments take on even greater force. He deals at length with homology, molecular biology, genetics, design in nature, taxonomy, the
absense of transitional fossils(right where you need them most) and the historical development of evolutionary thought. Denton believes that "ultimately the Darwinian Theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century". He is merely pointing out that biologically, it can't happen. In addition to the fossil gaps.
The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William R Fix 1984
This guy I admit is off the chart. But I give it to you becuase it is an entertaining, accurate, readable, and critical attack on the evolutionist claim that humans descended from apelike creatures. Fix opposes both creation and evolution, he proposes "physchogensis" an idea without scientific merit. Fortunately, the two chapters that deal with this bizzare idea do not detract from the other twenty chapters.
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record Duane T Gish 1985
This book replaces and expands on Gish's earlier book "Evolution, the fossils say no!" Evolutionists usually point to the fossil record as their best evidence. Gish a PhD biochemist, takes each category of the alleged fossil evidence and exposes the fallacies. Gish is best know for his public debates with evolutionists. I am guessing despite the many debates, many haven't seen one, or heard of him. This is intentional. IMO.
