Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
.....so the Evolutionists are in taxonomic MELTDOWN....soon they won't be able to tell a species from a boomerang!!!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote: »It's a debate. We support our points.
I didn't suggest "chromosome number and some specific gene loci positions", I suggested "chromosome number and gene loci positions", that being all of them. Big difference. Further, I said "gene loci positions" and not "gene sequences". My suggested test allows for polymorphism at all loci.
Species may be definable by genetics, but there's a very good chance it is not. We are not assuming it is. We may have to abandon "species" as meaningful. The supertaxa above species are already considered no better than short hand.
Cladistics seems to be the way forward but for common usage taxonomy will suffice.
So, we're not claiming we can define species by genetics. We know that we may have to dismiss the species concept (beyond it's use for mere convenience).
What then of Created Kinds? Will you do the same if the genetics don't pan out? Can you now suggest, as I did for species, a genetic means to test Created Kinds?0 -
.....so the Evolutionists are in taxonomic MELTDOWN....soon they won't be able to tell a species from a boomerang!!!!!:pac::):D
No, taxonomy is undergoing a scientific revolution which will result in a more nuanced system. The pattern of crisis, revolution and resolution- in other words scientific paradigm shifts, is explained here.
The breeding definition of species will still be relevant and meaningful, but in terms of genetics we may need to be more exact. This wont have any real impact on the discussion of taxonomy or evolution outside of scientific circles.0 -
...and here the great S J Gould looks at the gradualists idea of an 'interermediate' structure like half a wing and finds it utimately just as preposterous as I do.....it's a bit of a long quote but it is certainly worth the effort:-
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record--if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms--that is, viable, functioning organisms--between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no." "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History June 1977 p.24
"Gradualism, the idea that all change must be smooth, slow, and steady, was never read from the rocks. It was primarily a prejudice of nineteenth-century liberalism facing a world in revolution. But it continues to color our supposedly objective reading of life’s history. " Natural History February 1978 p.24 †
....but unfortunately for Neo-Darwinian Evolution.....GRADUALISM is the very basis for its invalid conjectures.0 -
In this quote Gould completely invalidates the idea of gradual evolution which is the BASIS of neo-Darwinian Evolution:-
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed'. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace” Natural History May 1977 p.14 †
.....one is tempted to add that the REASON that species exhibit 'stasis' and appear suddenly and 'fully formed' in the fossil record is because they WERE Created!!!!:pac::):D:eek:
If that were true, then we shouldn't see that in the fossile record at all. Unless the species were created on many different days?0 -
...and here the great S J Gould looks at the gradualists idea of an 'interermediate' structure like half a wing and finds it just as preposterous as I do.....it's a bit of a long quote but it is certainly worth the effort:-
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record--if only one step in a thousand survives as a fossil, geology will not record continuous change. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms--that is, viable, functioning organisms--between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no." "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" Natural History June 1977 p.24
So do you accept punctuated equilibrium as described by Gould? I should warn you that it falsifies Creation.
I think you've hit your quote limit for the day also, don't you?0 -
Advertisement
-
....why so.....when the fossil record is largely a record of the order of Flood burial...bottom dwelling marine invertibrates first, marine vertibrates next and land dwellers LAST???AtomicHorror wrote: »If that were true, then we shouldn't see that in the fossile record at all. Unless the species were created on many different days?0 -
...although there is evidential support (with species exhibiting 'stasis' and appearing suddenly and 'fully formed') I see no materialistic mechanism to account for it.......so I don't accept its validity.AtomicHorror wrote: »So do you accept punctuated equilibrium as described by Gould? I should warn you that it falsifies Creation.
.....Punctuated Equilibrium is actually a 'half-way house' between Gradual Evolution (which neither has a mechanism nor evidential support) and Creation which has BOTH evidential support (with species exhibiting 'stasis' and appearing suddenly and 'fully formed') as well as a plausible 'mechanism' in the form of an Omnipotent God.
:pac::):D0 -
....why so.....when the fossil record is largely a record of the order of Flood burial...bottom dwelling marine invertibrates first, marine vertibrates next and land dwellers LAST???
Even better. That version of events is immediately falsified by the first bottom-dweller found at the same layer as a land vertebrate. You'll find plenty of that sorta thing in the record.
Funny how we don't find any primates down in the lower layers though, isn't it?0 -
....I think that wicknight's 'brain cell' just broke!!!!!:eek::D
.....please take a long deep breath ....or even a few deep breaths...and then put your question(s) in plain (uncontorted) English...and I will try and answer them!!!!:pac::D:)
Certainly
1 - Define a "kind" in the context of a biological definition, not a theological one. In other words, a definition that can and is actually used to classify living things.
2 - Describe the "kinds", if any, that have already been defined. What are their names and what are their defining characteristics.
3 - Describe the process that a biologist would use to classify a particular organism or species into one of the "kind" groups detailed in question 2.
4 - Describe the process that a biologist would use to determine that an organism or species is not a member of one of the "kind" groups detailed in question 2
The more real world examples you can give the better JC.
I await with baited breath the excuses you will use to not answer those questions ... :rolleyes:0 -
......why are Evolutionists so wary about discussing the views of other LEADING Evolutionists??????AtomicHorror wrote: »I think you've hit your quote limit for the day also, don't you?
....why is it that I could go on all day discussing the ideas of Darwin, Gould, Gee, etc.....but the Evolutionists on this thread seem to have an aversion to doing so!!!!!
....could it be that many leading Evolutionists are so free with their doubts about Evolution.....that reading their writings could prick the bubble of denial in which the evolutionists on this thread cosset themselves!!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
...although there is evidential support (with species exhibiting 'stasis' and appearing suddenly and 'fully formed') I see no materialistic mechanism to account for it.......so I don't accept its validity.
.....Punctuated Equilibrium is actually a 'half-way house' between Gradual Evolution (which neither has a mechanism nor evidential support) and Creation which has BOTH evidential support (with species exhibiting 'stasis' and appearing suddenly and 'fully formed') as well as a plausible 'mechanism' in the form of an Omnipotent God.
:pac::):D
Nope, it's just a version of evolution in which the rate of change varies over time. Gradualism is still in there, but as the name suggests, it is punctuated by phases of more rapid change. Not at all rapid in the manner you'd like though.0 -
......why are Evolutionists so wary about discussing the views of other LEADING Evolutionists??????
I'll say it yet again. Opinions are not science. There's value in them, but to paste dozens of quotes is not an argument.....why is it that I could go on all day discussing the ideas of Darwin, Gould, Gee, etc.....but the Evolutionists on this thread seem to have an aversion to doing so!!!!!
You don't discuss their ideas. You quote pieces of text they've written out of context and claim they're supporting your point. That's not discussion, it's not debate. It's lying. Forgive me if we hesitate to embrace that tactic.....could it be that many leading Evolutionists are so free with their doubts about Evolution.....that reading their writings could prick the bubble of denial in which the evolutionists on this thread cosset themselves!!!!
The opinion of a scientist about evolution, assuming it really does display doubts (and none so far actually have, you've just quoted them out of context), does nothing to my opinion. Science is not a system of authority, and you as a scientist are meant to know that. If we are good scientists, we each base our opinions on the evidence.0 -
The fact that we can't determine into what kinds asexual species belong is not to say they don't belong to a kind - just as difficulty in placing some in one species or another does not mean they don't belong to a species.
True, but then as Atomic points out that isn't the issue.
"Kinds", unlike classical biological taxonomy such as species and genus, are supposed to be an actual division that exists in nature, determined by God at the moment of creation. This is supposed to be real world division (contrasted with human classification methods) and is supposed to apply to all life.
If "kinds" are determined by the ability of an organism to sexual reproduce, then this division doesn't apply to nearly 99% of all living things on Earth (since the vast majority of life on Earth are single cell, asexual life). Except your limited interpretation of the word "kind" in the Bible says that it should apply to all life.
Again the strong suggestion coming from JC's reply, and the nonsense quoted from groups like AiG, is that this is just being made up on the spot to try and find something that fits with a very specific interpretation of a Bible passage.
I would point out again that I've no problem with you guys saying something along the lines of "We have no idea in a scientific sense what 'kind' refers to, or even if it is actually a biological definition. We are more focused on the theological side..."
It is when the theology is married with ridiculous on the spot pseudo-science that I object. JC hasn't a clue what a "kind" is actually supposed to be. No Creationist has. Which is fine. Just stop pretending
Smoke and mirrors as I said to JC0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
......why are Evolutionists so wary about discussing the views of other LEADING Evolutionists??????
....why is it that I could go on all day discussing the ideas of Darwin, Gould, Gee, etc.....but the Evolutionists on this thread seem to have an aversion to doing so!!!!!
....could it be that many leading Evolutionists are so free with their doubts about Evolution.....that reading their writings could prick the bubble of denial in which the evolutionists on this thread cosset themselves!!!!
Copy and pasting is not discussion.
Perhaps it is because by the time someone does reply, it has already been buried under yet more pages of random carefully edited partial quotes, all with the intent of avoiding discussion or answering any of the every growing list of questions directed towards you.0 -
.......more 'Grounhog Day' fun and games!!!!.Certainly
1 - Define a "kind" in the context of a biological definition, not a theological one. In other words, a definition that can and is actually used to classify living things.
2 - Describe the "kinds", if any, that have already been defined. What are their names and what are their defining characteristics.
3 - Describe the process that a biologist would use to classify a particular organism or species into one of the "kind" groups detailed in question 2.
4 - Describe the process that a biologist would use to determine that an organism or species is not a member of one of the "kind" groups detailed in question 2
The more real world examples you can give the better JC.
1. The biological definition of a Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.
2. Names of Kinds would include the Horse Kind, the Dog Kind, the Cattle Kind, the Elephant Kind, the Fowl Kind, the Rhinoceros Kind, the Whale Kind, the Seal Kind, the Penguin Kind, the Finch Kind, the Crocodile Kind, the Frog Kind, the Big Cat Kind, The Kangaroo Kind, The Ostrich Kind, The Duck Kind, the Butterfly Kind, the Bee Kind, the Fly Kind, the Salmonoid Kind and Mankind!!!!
....to name but a few!!!
The definitive characteristics of a Kind is the ability of its members to interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.....or at least to interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.
3. A Biologist would make a PROVISIONAL determination based on the morphology of the organism concerned. S/he would make a definitive determination based on the organism's interbreeding abilities with established definitive members of that particular Kind.
4. A Biologist would use morphology to provisionally determine that an organism or species is not a member of one of the "kind" groups detailed in question 2....but such a determination would always be open to challenge from new interbreeding data .... DNA sequencing is being evaluated as a means of assisting in the process without needing to resort to interbreeding as a definitive test.:):D0 -
....A 'mix-up' such as you describe between a bottom-dweller and a land vertibrate is explicable in a dynamic flood situation...but it is impossible to account for if the geological layers ARE ordered layers that represent aeons of time BECAUSE the lower ones SHOULD ONLY have aquatic creatures because all life supposedly spent millions of years in the sea...before emerging onto land!!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »That version of events is immediately falsified by the first bottom-dweller found at the same layer as a land vertebrate. You'll find plenty of that sorta thing in the record.
....so YOU have just invalidated Evolution....and the Geological Column with that one observation!!!!
The fact that many supposed 400 million year old fossilised creatures are IDENTICAL in morphology to living specimens completely invalidates the whole 'shooting gallery' that is 'millions of years' Evolution!!!!
.....because they were intelligent enough to escape onto the higher land and ended up drowned and floating on the waves where they largely putrefied....rather than petrified!!!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote: »Funny how we don't find any primates down in the lower layers though, isn't it?
...occasionally, Primate fossils ARE found alongside ALL kinds of other fossils (of totally different 'Evolutionary ages' including extinct ones)...but the Evolutionists INTERPRET such finds as a group of relatively 'modern' creatures that were fossilised in a local catastrophy!!!!:eek:
An Evolutionist wouldn't call a layer in which a Primate was found a 'lower layer'...and therefore they never find them in a 'lower layer' ...such is the power of circular reasoning... and denial!!!!:):D0 -
....A 'mix-up' such as you describe between a bottom-dweller and a land vertibrate is explicable in a dynamic flood situation...but is impossible to account for if the geological layers DO describe aeons of time from when ONLY aquatic creatures lived right up to modern times with land dwellers!!!!
Untrue. We only ever see significant mixing in one direction. Upwards. There's no reason why that should be so, if the layers were laid down in a flood and mixing is a result of turbulence.The fact that many fossilised creatures (including the supposedly ancient ones) are IDENTICAL in morphology to living specimens invalidates the whole 'shooting gallery' that is Evolution!!!!
Untrue. Evolution would not be invalidated even if those morphologically identical organisms were also shown to be genetically unchanged.
"Evolution" is not equal to "genetic or morphological change", these are outcomes of evolution when selective pressures change......because they were intelligent enough to escape onto the higher land and ended up drowned and floating on the waves where they largely putrefied....rather than petrified!!!!!:pac::):D
Strange that none of them sank following putrefaction. Strange that the turbulent flood you mention did not mix even one of them to the lowest layers....occasionally, Primate fossils ARE found alongside ALL kinds of other fossils (of different 'Evolutionary age')...but the Evolutionists INTERPRET such finds as a group of 'modern' creatures that were fossilised in a local catastrophy!!!!:eek:
...such is the power of belief ... and denial!!!!:)
Very well. Give me an example of a primate found fossilised at a level that geologists consider to represent 300 million years ago.0 -
.......more 'Grounhog Day' fun and games!!!!.
1. The biological definition of a Kind is a group of organisms that are directly descended from a Created Pair of organisms.
You were asked for a biological, non-theological definition. That would either exclude "Created Pair" or define it in biological terms also.2. The definitive characteristics of a Kind is the ability of its members to interbreed with each other....even with infertile offspring.....or at least to interbreed with an intermediate organism. For example, if Organism A cannot interbreed with Organism C, but both organism A and C can interbreed with Organism B then Organisms A, B and C are members of the one Created Kind.
That's about the only testable thing you've ever given us. However it does not demonstrate the connection to the undefined "Created Pair".0 -
....define 'upwards mixing'....and tell me how you would tell the difference between 'upwards mixing' and 'downwards mixing' and just plain old 'simple mixing' in a group of fossils.AtomicHorror wrote: »Untrue. We only ever see significant mixing in one direction. Upwards. There's no reason why that should be so, if the layers were laid down in a flood and mixing is a result of turbulence.
.....so you are saying that NOTHING can really invalidate Evolution in your mind then!!!!:eek:Originally Posted by J C
The fact that many supposed 400 million year old fossilised creatures are IDENTICAL in morphology to living specimens completely invalidates the whole 'shooting gallery' that is 'millions of years' Evolution!!!!
AtomicHorror
Untrue. Evolution would not be invalidated even if those morphologically identical organisms were also shown to be genetically unchanged.
....and you DO expect us to believe that while something that looked like a glorified rat evolved 'upwards and onwards' to produce Human Beings over about 300 million years....Cockcroaches, Crocodiles, Lungfish and Horshoe Crabs remained COMPLETELY unchanged!!!!
....I can tell you that the descendants of that glorified rat are still rats....and the Cockcroaches, Crocodiles, Lungfish and Horshoe Crabs fossilis ARE just a few thousand years old
....they probably DID....but an Evolutionist WOULDN'T call ANY layer in which a Primate is found a 'lower layer'....and thus with one bound, they become free to contine in denial of the reality which billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth....is telling them!!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote: »Strange that none of them sank following putrefaction. Strange that the turbulent flood you mention did not mix even one of them to the lowest layers.
....I have just told you that Evolutionist Geologists will INTERPRET such finds as a group of 'modern' creatures that were fossilised in a local catastrophy....and therefore such rock layers will NEVER be 'dated' at 300 million years old by Evolutionists.....and if a Primate is found in a rock layer that is already 'dated' at 300 million years old, they will rapidly 're-date' it downwards ....while simultaneously expressing amazement that Primates may be 'older' that they previously thought!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Very well. Give me an example of a primate found fossilised at a level that geologists consider to represent 300 million years ago.
If there are other 'embarassing' creatures, like Dinosaurs nearby, they will interpret this to indicate that there is a 'discontinuity' in the rock or even a fault line between the Dinosaur rock and the rock in which the Primate is found.....ANYTHING really, that will allow them to contine in denial of the reality that billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth...is telling them....which is that these creatures were buried in massive sedimentation events that accompanied an equally massive Worldwide FLOOD!!!!!:D
.....I dare say that even if we found a fossil of a Dinosaur in the process of eating a Primate....the Evolutionists would interpret that to mean that some Dinosaurs survived up to relatively recent times ....they have ALREADY performed even greater feats of 'mental gymnastics' in explining away the Coelacanth Fish ...and the 'Dinosaur Tree' or Wollemi Pine !!!!:eek:0 -
....look....IF God really did create each Kind as an original pair.....then such a pair would be biological entities from which ALL other members of their Kind are descended...and therfore my definition IS Biologically VALID!!!!:DAtomicHorror wrote: »You were asked for a biological, non-theological definition. That would either exclude "Created Pair" or define it in biological terms also.
.....if Creation never happened.....then the evidence will contadict the hypothesis that it did....and creatures will be spontaneously generating and spontaneously evolving all over the place!!!:D
.....sounds like Creation DID happen!!!!:)0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Small couple of points standing in your way of victory. I'll be soliciting your opinion on a few of these over the next few days JC if thats ok.
Before we get started, to get your initial position on the matter and to pin down which of the numerous flood theories you are a supporter of, "hydroplates" or "vapor canopy" etc., lets start with an easy one, an explaination of where the water came from, how it came to cover the earth and where it went again.
That way we can quickly establish which theories are too far fetched even for you and work from there.
Till tommorrow.List of 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=17&t=198&m=1
Geoscience – I have some familiarity with this area of study. In fact, I would say that virtually every geologic formation, virtually every rock, is evidence against Noah’s flood. However, I am far from expert due to both time and content so I’m sure this list can be improved.
1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?
2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.
3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.
4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?
5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.
6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?
7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.
8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.
9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed.
10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.
11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.
12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.
13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.
14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.
15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.
16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.
17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.
18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.
19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?
20. Heat of formation – I can’t explain this topic any better than has already been done.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
quote:
________________________________________
• If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
• Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 10E24 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 10E27 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
• Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 10E23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10E26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
• Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 10E26 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
• Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 10E27 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
________________________________________
21. River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift, not through a year’s worth of soft sediment deposition.
22. Large and extensive river potholes – As this is one of Iceage’s, I will defer the explanation to him, although I wouldn’t mind his input on others he brought up as well.
23. Glacial weathering – glacial deposits and weathering such as U-shaped valleys require longer than 4500 years to form.
24. Independent dating correlations – See Correlations Correlations Correlations (Message 1 of Thread Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 in Forum Proposed New Topics) enjoy!
25. Batholith formation – Why isn’t the Sierra Nevada granitic batholith still hot as it would have taken several million years to cool?
26. Differential weathering – How could the Sierra Nevada and the Appalachians show such different weathering if each are the exact same age of only 4500 years old?
27. Banded iron formations and red beds – Banded iron formations can’t form in the presence of significant oxygen. Yet they were supposedly deposited in a flood which supposedly allowed animals to breathe both before and after.
28. Water in confined aquifers – The chemistry of water may be measured as to its constituents, as any municipal water authority already knows. Under flood conditions, the water chemistry in a confined aquifer would have changed as lower elevation aquifers would contain more salt than higher aquifers as the flood waters diluted the salt content in the recharge zone. Not only is this behavior not shown by any known confined aquifer, but the age of such water according to the laws of physics is vastly older than any flood may have deposited.
29. Worldwide iridium layer – Although any worldwide flood evidence is lacking, there is a worldwide iridium layer at the K-T boundary where it exists. How could this iridium layer have been deposited among all those swirling waters in a flood?
30. Deformed structures in metamorphosed sediments – There are areas in metamorphic rock where pebbles and even fossils have been stretched and deformed in processes that would have taken several times any 4500 years since a global flood.
31. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.
32. Differential mineralization of fossils – Remains of buried humans in historic times show minimal mineralization. This increases overall with extinct mammals, then extinct dinosaurs, then extinct trilobites and ammonites.
33. Surface features buried throughout geologic column – Examples include: rain drops, river channels, wind-blown dunes, beaches, glacial deposits, burrows, in-place trees, soils, desiccation cracks, footprints.
34. Pollen sorting – Why is pollen sorted according to evolutionary principles instead of hydrodynamic principles in the geologic record?
35. Inconsistent worldwide geologic formations – Any flood would have left a single layer of similar sediment worldwide, not the tremendous amount and variety of layers that exist in each of the thousands of boreholes and outcrops in geology.
36. Existence of soil after flood – Soil is a delicate mixture of organic and inorganic materials. How could any soil exist after an environment that was supposedly turbulent enough to destroy all the earth’s crust?
37. Tectonic spreading rates – Observed tectonic spreading rates indicate that there is no evidence of any disturbance due to any global flood 4500 years ago.
38. Tar pits – If all petroleum was caused by some global flood, how can there be tar pits filled with land fossils that have not become coal or oil?
39. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years.
40. Oklo and other natural reactors – Such natural reactors could not have been formed a mere 4500 years ago unless the laws of physics involving radioactive decay are violated.
41. Multiple glaciations – There are at least four major separate evidences of glaciations in the geologic record separated by eons. How could all four occur during a flood while supposedly underwater?
42. Meteoric impacts – For the evidence of meteoric impacts to be buried under sediments indicate that such impacts all occurred in the span of one year. Such a bombardment would allow for no life due to a lack of sun.
43. Hydrocarbon formation – The amount of hydrocarbon deposits in the ground from organic causes represent a greater biomass than is possible to have formed within 4500 years.
44. Conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates – Conglomerates are made up of diverse weathered rock that is eroded then recemented. In order to have a 4th level conglomerate there needs to be four episodes of weathering and recementation of rocks which are often impossible to form and erode in 4500 years such as when some within the conglomerate matrix are igneous or metamorphic rock.
45. Change in physical properties of rock correlated with age and fossil content – The older the sedimentary rock under current scientific models, in most cases the greater its compaction. How would near-simultaneous deposition explain this observation?
46. Delicate structures preserved in supposed turbulence – Delicate structures such as insect wings and feathers are preserved in rock. How could a turbulence that supposedly weathers miles of consolidated rock simultaneously preserve delicate structures?
47. Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?
48. Meteoric dust accumulation – Both ice cores and evaporates indicate meteoric dust accumulates at a roughly steady rate over time. How can this dust remain constant under contracted meteoric bombardment?
49. Desert varnish – Desert varnish is created by microorganisms in arid conditions over a period of hundreds of years. How could such varnish be created throughout the geologic record in flood conditions?
50. Multiple layers of fossil forests – How can a single flood explain multiple fossil forest layers such as can be seen at Joggins, Nova Scotia or Yellowstone?
51. Detailed layering – How could a global flood create thousands of layers seen in several geologic formations, each of which requires a different depositional environment?
52. Lack of any geologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah’s Flood, I know of no single piece of geologic evidence in favor of Noah’s Flood.
Bioscience – I have little familiarity with this subject so I am sure that the number and quality of categories here could be improved and even increased by those with more expertise. Sorry about appropriating some dual categories under geoscience, perhaps a new dual meta-category would be appropriate.
53. Observed genetic diversity – The genetic diversity in all animals indicate that there was no genetic bottleneck.
54. Non-viable size of genetic population – A parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals is not genetically viable. Such inbreeding quickly causes fatal mutations.
55. Food requirements of animals – Some animals such as Koalas require very specific diets. How could these dietary requirements been provided, and who could keep up with such variable requirements on a ship?
56. Mobility considerations – How did sloths or other slow-moving animals get to any ark and how did they migrate from any ark without a trace in the time allotted?
57. Symbiotic relationships – Several species have a sole source of nutrition. How did these creatures exist during or after a global flood?
58. Parasites – Parasites require hosts in order to survive. Were all creatures on any ark hosts and how did they survive such parasitism?
59. Diseases – Diseases that exist today require hosts to survive. How did all the infected animals survive simultaneously being hosts to every disease currently around?
60. Social Insects – one pair of ants, bees or termites do not constitute a viable unit for survival.
61. Short-lived life forms – Mayflies only live a few days. How could they reproduce in a barge in a non-riparian environment?
62. Life forms older than flood – The oldest bristlecone pines are 5700 years old, they can’t survive underwater for any appreciable amount of time.
63. Vegetation – Neither most vegetation nor their seeds can survive under salt water. Nor can such vegetation root and thrive in salt encrusted ‘soil’ (which also largely didn’t exist immediately after any flood).
64. Food requirements subsequent to a flood - If a flood wiped out all but a pair of animals and plants, there would be insufficient food for any survivors.
65. Aquatic life - There are fresh water fish, salt water fish, and brackish fish, how could all survive in the same environment?
66. Tree ring data – Rings on currently living trees that indicate they are older than 4500 years do not indicate that they were drowned and died at the time of any proposed global flood.
67. Coral clocks – Annual coral growth is correlated to the number of days per year in the deep past. Such clocks indicate a slowing of Earth’s rotation consistent with physics and not a 4500 year maximum age of coral reefs.
68. Population growth subsequent to any flood – The population growth of humans necessary to produce pyramids, great walls, and great empires is insufficient to have a bottleneck of under a dozen individuals 4500 years ago. The population growth of prey species would be insufficient to support a 90-10 prey-predator ratio immediately after any devastating flood.
69. Coccolithophores – How could these creatures that bloom, oversaturate their environment and then die off have created so many and such thick deposits in the geologic record in so little time during a turbulent flood? (credit to Lithodid-Man)
70. Interdependent ecosystems – How were interdependent ecosystems where life requires a complex web of relationships preserved during and after a global flood?
71. Food pyramid – how could the predation relationship be preserved with only a pair of creatures at the bottom of the chain?
72. Difference between clean/unclean genome – Why do the seven pairs of clean animals not show any greater genetic diversity than the single pairs of unclean animals?
73. Aquatic fossils – Why are fossils from shallow marine environments far more common than all others if there was more land than water prior to any global flood?
74. Lack of any biologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah’s Flood, I know of no single piece of biologic evidence in favor of Noah’s Flood.
Engineering – Have some familiarity, but once again, it was a long time ago that it was a part of formal instruction.
75. Loading the ark – Animals and plants would have to enter the Ark in pairs within the space of a few seconds apart.
76. Amount of space – The amount of space provided by the Ark would not come near to enough to hold all species, genus, or even families observed today.
77. Construction – The construction of an object the supposed size of the ark using the tools available at the time is far greater than the size of the construction crew within the time allotted.
78. Materials – The Ark was supposedly constructed of ‘gopherwood’ which shows no evidence of having ever existed. Also, wood as a sole construction material would not be able to withstand the stresses on any ship and would likely capsize at the first opportunity.
79. Ventilation – Animals require air to survive. A single window would provide insufficient ventilation for the body heat and fresh air produced by wall-to-wall biomass.
80. Leakage – A wooden ship of this size would flex due to stress to such a degree that no tar type sealant would work to prevent leakage and eventual sinking within a few days.
81. Waste removal – The crew of the Ark would be insufficient to clear the ship of body waste. The stinking hulk would probably kill all life aboard before a few months had past.
82. Humidity – Many animals and plants, particularly those adapted to deserts, would quickly die in an environment of 100% humidity.
83. Food storage – How could Noah preserve food in 100% humidity among all those microorganisms, mold, and disease causing agents without modern refrigeration for nearly a year?
Addendum - Problems with ‘kinds’ – Many of the above objections are limited through the introduction of the undefined concept of ‘kinds.’ The ‘kinds’ argument fails however because to create the present diversity of life, biologic forms would have to undergo superhyperfragalisticmicromacro evolution, an absurd concept with no evidence and completely void of common sense such as demanding that housecats give birth to lions. It also supposedly is designed to show that evolution does not occur because of greater past evolution, a clear logical contradiction of unbelievable magnitude.
Archeology – Open to suggestions, no training here.
84. Ancient nature of most civilizations – Most civilizations have precursors that indicate a clear evolution of culture and technology through time without any bottleneck. The time allotted for such cultural development is most likely insufficient under any Noah Flood scenario.
85. Oetzi – Oetzi provides an example of a ‘pre-flood’ mummified individual dated and correlated by multiple methods. Where is the water damage?
86. No human activity in deeper layers – There are no indications of human activity, or even humans, in any geologic layers prior to the Pleistocene.
Linguistics - Open to suggestions, no training here.
87. Language variation – Because languages diverge by a set amount over time, and these have been reasoned to have diverged considerably prior to Noah’s Flood, linguistics represents another element of evidence against Noah’s Flood.
History – Please suggest and supplement my haphazard studies.
88. Egyptian history – Why did the Egyptians not mention a flood during their monument building period?
89. Sargon and the Akkadian Empire – How could Sargon conquer Sumeria and create the Akkadian Empire either underwater or immediately after a global flood with no troops?
90. Mohenjo Daro – Why does this ‘pre-flood’ city show no evidence of a global flood?
91. Chinese civilization – Why were the Chinese building canals during a flood?
92. Differential technology level between cultures – If all cultures started at the same level of technological skill 4500 years ago how could most cultures have advanced or deteriorated so quickly relative to each other?
93. Independent primary food sources between cultures – As cited in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond different cultures depended upon different food sources. For example the Aztecs had corn, the Incas had potatoes, the Egyptians had wheat, and the Chinese had rice. If these cultures and their foodstuffs were all in contact 4500 years ago, why did they not show a greater diversity in food sources such as we have today?
94. Inconsistency of flood myths – The prevalence of flood myths among diverse cultures is often cited as evidence for Noah’s Flood. However, the vast difference in the details of nearly each culture’s flood myth actually provides evidence against a single global event.
Biblical Scripture – I’m sure many could add here as they are much better versed in the Bible. (False gods in lowercase)
95. Use of parables in the Bible – If Jesus explicitly taught in parables why do some believe that can’t ever be applied to the OT as well? Are they better informed about god’s intentions than Jesus?
96. Why use a flood? – Instead of wiping out all animals and children along with ‘his’ creation, why didn’t god just punish the unrighteous?
97. Why punish those who use their god-created minds - Why would a just god reward those who hate science and show it by attacking it via the literal interpretation of Noah’s story and punish those who use science to save lives?
Miscellaneous Categories
98. No plausible mechanism to explain where water came from – Overhead ‘vapor canopies’ and underground ‘fountains’ violate the most basic principles of physics. There is no explanation of where the water came from.
99. No plausible mechanism to explain where water went – No remotely valid or rational explanation has been propounded to explain where such flood waters retreated to.
100. Dubious motives of many who seek to conflate religion and science – Many of the well-known originators and staunch defenders of the war against science are proven liars and even convicted criminals, usually for using religion to line their pockets. Why should any thinking and/or moral person accept their rants as gospel?0 -
....define 'upwards mixing'....and tell me how you would tell the difference between 'upwards mixing' and 'downwards mixing' and just plain old 'simple mixing' in a group of fossils.
Sure thing. Let's imagine a simplified fossil record with three layers, layers A, B and C. Layer A is the lowest, C is the highest. We will see invertebrates at layer A, but we'll see invertebrates and marine vertebrates at layer B and all three in layer C. So if this is the result of mixing due to turbulence, the mixing only took organisms from layer A into the upper layers, and never mixed anything from layer C down into layer A. This contradicts a flood model. However, what we are observing is exactly what we'd expect to see in a standard branching evolution model......so you are saying that NOTHING can really invalidate Evolution in your mind then!!!!:eek:
No, I'm saying that a lack of change does not invalidate evolution.
Finding an isolated primate sitting in a fossil layer from 400 million years ago with no evidence of fellow primates or any evidence that the fossil record was tampered with or altered by exceptional circumstances would invalidate evolution. Or at least it would show that primates had arisen by some other means.
Can you point to such an example or similar? Specifically please, not some vague anecdote.....and you DO expect us to believe that while something that looked like a glorified rat evolved 'upwards and onwards' to produce Human Beings over about 300 million years....Cockcroaches, Crocodiles, Lungfish and Horshoe Crabs remained COMPLETELY unchanged!!!!
If an organism finds a niche that does not change significantly, or does not put pressure on its morphology to change, then it will not change. Selective pressures can also work to conserve features. Further, an unchanging morphology is not evidence of an unchangeing genome. Take the tuatara for example. Once cited as one of those "living fossils" by dint of it's largely unchanged morphology, genetic analysis actually reveals that it has been undergoing significant genetic changes over the last 8000 years at least. Changes is biochemical cascades or cellular morphology will not be detectable in the fossil record.
None of this is controversial or unconventional in evolutionary science.....I can tell you that the descendants of that glorified rat are still rats....and the Cockcroaches, Crocodiles, Lungfish and Horshoe Crabs fossilis ARE just a few thousand years old
You haven't got a handle on basic biology so what you tell me isn't worth much.....they probably DID....but an Evolutionist WOULDN'T call ANY layer in which a Primate is found a 'lower layer'....and thus with one bound, they become free to contine in denial of the reality which billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth....is telling them!!!!:pac::):D
Then I assume you can give me an example? Any example at all of an animal group that we claim evolved in the last 100 million years that has been found at a fossil layer dated to 400 million years ago. That's "mixing downwards" only in the top 10% of the fossil record. Demonstrate it please. One example.....I have just told you that Evolutionist Geologists will INTERPRET such finds as a group of 'modern' creatures that were fossilised in a local catastrophy....and therefore such rock layers will NEVER be 'dated' at 300 million years old by Evolutionists.....and if a Primate is found in a rock layer that is already 'dated' at 300 million years old, they will rapidly 're-date' it downwards ....while simultaneously 'covering their tracks' by expressing amazement that Primates may also be 'older' that they previously thought!!
If there are other 'embarassing' creatures, like Dinosaurs nearby, they will interpret this to indicate that there is a 'discontinuity' in the rock or even a fault line between the Dinosaur rock and the rock in which the Primate is found.....
Fault lines and broken fossil records aren't really open to interpretation. They're there or they are not. The way you talk about "interpretation" of data is mystifying. Dozens of independent measuring techniques all confirm each other within minimal error rates. Yet you seize on that as evidence that they're all off by billions of years.
Imagine we can measure a mountain's height using trigonometric projection from numerous smaller objects of known height. There'd be some error in there for sure, but by your logic we can take a mountain measured at 3000 meters tall with a maximum error of plus/minus 30 meters and claim that the mountain is three meters tall. There's room for "interpretation", but if our dating techniques are off by even a massive margin, they will never date the world to 6000 years. You're living in an hilarious dream world.ANYTHING really, that will allow them to contine in denial of the reality that billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the Earth...is telling them....which is that these creatures were buried in massive sedimentation events that accompanied an equally massive Worldwide FLOOD!!!!!:D
Geologists don't give a fiddlers about fossils, so why would they tolerate the hijacking of their science, the corruption of it with spurious mechanisms, to satisfy biologists? The geologists are the people who are providing the explanations which allow biologists to make sense of the fossil record. If we throw up some unlikely mechanism to explain away data we don't like, there are plenty of scientists waiting in the wings to tear us down just to make a name for themselves.....they have ALREADY performed even greater feats of 'mental gymnastics' in explining away the Coelacanth Fish ...and the 'Dinosaur Tree' or Wollemi Pine !!!!:eek:
I don't know about the last two, but I just explained the first one in very simple terms. No mental gymnastics for anyone with a half decent mind.
So, some unanswered questions:
1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds
2. Define Created Pair in biological and genetic terms
3. Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally misquoted Dr. Gee in a context suggesting that he was talking about a topic that he was not addressing.
4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research.
5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. One example will suffice.0 -
....look....IF God really did create each Kind as an original pair.....then such a pair would be biological entities from which ALL other members of their Kind are descended...and therfore my definition IS Biologically VALID!!!!:D
Then you've identified them? Show me the data?.....if Creation never happened.....then the evidence will contadict the hypothesis that it did....and creatures will be spontaneously generating and spontaneously evolving all over the place!!!:D
No, that's not the case at all. False dichotomy. Because creation is false, it does not follow that spontaneous generation is true. Evolution has nothing to do with that concept.
Besides, the genetic evidence shows that all known life is related. So that does falsify multiple discrete starting points.0 -
.....if Creation never happened.....then the evidence will contadict the hypothesis that it did....and creatures will be spontaneously generating and spontaneously evolving all over the place!!!:D
This is a ludicrous statement. 'Spontaneous generation' as you quaintly put it only had to happen once, in a very particular set of conditions. Plus, it happened under environmental conditions vastly different to those that prevail today. Given these massive changes in the environment, and the long (but not impossibly long) odds against 'spontaneous generation' why do you expect to see creatures 'spontaneously generating all over the place? The conditions for it may quite feasibly no longer exist without in any way invalidating a one-off event in the distant past.
As for creatures 'spontaneously evolving' all over the place - well, again, it's quaintly put, but of course the fact is that they are.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »J C wrote:....the fact that ALL of the WORLD'S Hominid fossils can fit in a shoe box (and are made up of bone FRAGMENTS) certainly doesn't lend much support to the 'fairytale' that we are all an Ape's Cousin!!!!
Do you have a source on that quantity aside from Dr. Gee?
This has probably been forgotten by now (was asked nearly 40 posts ago), but I'd thought I'd link to the wikipedia list of homina fossils, which shows approx 120 fossils of human evolution, dating back all the way to 45 million years ago. Even if you just take into account the 41 with pictures (mostly skulls, some jawbones, but one partial skeleton), you would still want some shoe box to fit them into
. 0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »This has probably been forgotten by now (was asked nearly 40 posts ago), but I'd thought I'd link to the wikipedia list of homina fossils, which shows approx 120 fossils of human evolution, dating back all the way to 45 million years ago. Even if you just take into account the 41 with pictures (mostly skulls, some jawbones, but one partial skeleton), you would still want some shoe box to fit them into.
Well we can probably assume from the rest of Dr. Gee's book (and from the source above on fossils) that "a shoebox full" actually meant "relatively few" and not a literal shoe box.
Once again the creationists fall foul of that horrid literary trap: metaphor.0 -
This is a ludicrous statement. 'Spontaneous generation' as you quaintly put it only had to happen once, in a very particular set of conditions. Plus, it happened under environmental conditions vastly different to those that prevail today. Given these massive changes in the environment, and the long (but not impossibly long) odds against 'spontaneous generation' why do you expect to see creatures 'spontaneously generating all over the place? The conditions for it may quite feasibly no longer exist without in any way invalidating a one-off event in the distant past.
As for creatures 'spontaneously evolving' all over the place - well, again, it's quaintly put, but of course the fact is that they are.
Spontaneous generation is actually an old and now discredited origin of life hypothesis. There's a wiki article on it that's quite informative. Also, it wouldn't be technically correct to say that life is evolving spontaneously- since that implies a lack of external influence. Evolution doesn't happen without selective pressures and those are mostly (but not entirely) external to the organism.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »Spontaneous generation is actually an old and now discredited origin of life hypothesis. There's a wiki article on it that's quite informative. Also, it wouldn't be technically correct to say that life is evolving spontaneously- since that implies a lack of external influence. Evolution doesn't happen without selective pressures and those are mostly (but not entirely) external to the organism.
Thanks, I'm not a scientist and appreciate these clarifications. I've learned more from this thread than I would have thought possible.
I try to respond to J C using the same terms as he does, putting them in quotes to show that I don't recognize them as proper scientific terminology so much as ID-speak placeholders for "actual scientific theories".
With regard to "spontaneous evolution", I realize this is inaccurate but I seem to remember that one being done to death about a billion pages ago and I didn't want to open up that old can of worms. So I decided to leave it be. What a nightmare, debating with people who insist on putting words in your mouth all the time.0 -
Why must you believe in the false evolution theory when it brings no happiness? It is not spiritual, it is just an unproven mathematical concept. Have faith in God!0
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Why must you believe in the false evolution theory when it brings no happiness?
It is a scientific theory, the ourpose of a scientific is to improve our understanding of the world.It is not spiritual, it is just an unproven mathematical concept. Have faith in God!
Is it a mathematical concept like the 12 commandments you were going on about yesterday? :pac:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement