Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stuu]

The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world.

The fossil record is the record left in fossils. You are confusing that with the geologic column, which contains the fossils. There are 25 places in the world where the geologic column is essentially complete.

In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing.

That's geology in action. Uplift, overturn of layers, erosion of softer layers, it's happening around you and below your feet at the moment, if you live anywhere remotely geologically active, but it does take hundreds of thousands to millions of years for any significant change.

The "record" does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc.

In North Dakota you can drill back from the Tertiary to the Precambrian.

The idea that such a sequence is actual comes from inferring that layers in one place must fit in somewhere with layers in another place, either side by side, on top, or on bottom. But who says they have to? The inference is not from science but from necessity because it comes from a naturalistic worldview where the layers must represent long ages of sequential time periods. If they are simply sediment deposits from a worldwide flood, there is no reason to assume that global sediments must have been deposited in the same sequence at all locations on the globe. So the missing layers and out of order layers are no problem in a Biblical framework.

But unfortunately, there is sorting of different fossils into different layers, and the sorting cannot be claimed to be based on the hydrological properties of the fossils. And of course the layers date very differently.

These are ancient creationist canards, long disproved. There is no debate. There really never was.

Stuart

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

These are ancient creationist canards, long disproved. There is no debate. There really never was.

In other words, "I disagree. That is my opinion."

Sigh.

AMR

 

[Tnkrbl123!]

Well it seems this thread is a total and complete failure!
Too bad

Haha you read my mind at the exact same point in reading through the thread ��

 

[Stuu]

In other words, "I disagree. That is my opinion."

Sigh.

AMR

No, my opinion has nothing to do with it. If you read, you will note that I say they are long disproved. I didn't disprove them. To the extent that those creationist canards make testable claims, the evidence shows the claims to be wrong.

If creationists want to bask in the reflected glory of real science, they will be expected to subject their claims to the test of evidence. Creationism loses that test so consistently that to claim there is any kind of debate is perverse.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

The most spectacular confirmation of a creationist's prediction was by the comet lander that photographed "dinosaur eggs" — rounded boulders that seem to make up most of the mass of the space object — after Dr Walt Brown said, years before the spacecraft was launched, that they would be found there.

www.creationscience.com

 

[7djengo7]

If monkeys evolved into human why do we still have monkeys?

...the question assumes the fallacy of imagining that a species must go extinct if it gives rise to another species; it's sometimes called the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" fallacy.

Note the hypocrite, The Barbarian's, futile recourse to talking about an individual ("you") and an individual ("your uncle"), as though he imagines he's dealing out some sort of analogy to the nonsense he calls "evolution", whereas, his ilk are all about meaninglessly shouting things like "Evolution is not about individuals", and "Populations evolve, not individuals".

What about Darwinism's nonsense phrases, "parent species" and "daughter species"?

Obviously, when, say, a human mother (an individual human) conceives/gives birth to a human daughter (an individual human), we've all along two things:

1. the mother
2. the daughter

Only an abject, raving fool could say something like, "The mother evolved into her daughter." And yet, somehow, according to Darwinist clowns, we are to take their nonsense language game seriously, and to play make-believe with them that something they call a "parent species" has "evolved into" something they call a "daughter species". Do Darwinists really wish to tell us that the phrase, 'gave birth to', is analogous to the Darwinists' nonsense phrase, "evolved into"?

It's hilarious that, while the Darwinists worship their phrase, "the theory of evolution", yet they find it utterly impossible to even say what it would be for something to "evolve into" something. Now, should that not be thought to be of the most absolutely primary, fundamental, elementary importance to have already, successfully tackled, in any attempt to sell something called "the theory of EVOLution" to rationally-thinking (aka, anti-Darwinist) people--being able to say exactly what it would be for something to "EVOLve into" something? But, that's just the crux of it: Darwinists mean absolutely nothing by their phrase, "evolve into", and that is exactly why they can't answer the most elementary questions. And, the fact that they can't answer the most elementary questions is why they're always so irate with those asking them the questions.

When Darwinists say "Populations evolve", reply to them: "What do populations evolve into? Do populations evolve into populations? Do populations evolve into non-populations?" Use their own language game against itself.

 

[Bright Raven]

Note the hypocrite, The Barbarian's, futile recourse to talking about an individual ("you") and an individual ("your uncle"), as though he imagines he's dealing out some sort of analogy to the nonsense he calls "evolution", whereas, his ilk are all about meaninglessly shouting things like "Evolution is not about individuals", and "Populations evolve, not individuals".

What about Darwinism's nonsense phrases, "parent species" and "daughter species"?

Obviously, when, say, a human mother (an individual human) conceives/gives birth to a human daughter (an individual human), we've all along two things:

1. the mother
2. the daughter

Only an abject, raving fool could say something like, "The mother evolved into her daughter." And yet, somehow, according to Darwinist clowns, we are to take their nonsense language game seriously, and to play make-believe with them that something they call a "parent species" has "evolved into" something they call a "daughter species". Do Darwinists really wish to tell us that the phrase, 'gave birth to', is analogous to the Darwinists' nonsense phrase, "evolved into"?

It's hilarious that, while the Darwinists worship their phrase, "the theory of evolution", yet they find it utterly impossible to even say what it would be for something to "evolve into" something. Now, should that not be thought to be of the most absolutely primary, fundamental, elementary importance to have already, successfully tackled, in any attempt to sell something called "the theory of EVOLution" to rationally-thinking (aka, anti-Darwinist) people--being able to say exactly what it would be for something to "EVOLve into" something? But, that's just the crux of it: Darwinists mean absolutely nothing by their phrase, "evolve into", and that is exactly why they can't answer the most elementary questions. And, the fact that they can't answer the most elementary questions is why they're always so irate with those asking them the questions.

When Darwinists say "Populations evolve", reply to them: "What do populations evolve into? Do populations evolve into populations? Do populations evolve into non-populations?" Use their own language game against itself.

Have you read Barry Setterfield's work? I think you would find it very interesting in that it points to a young earth.

 

[Stuu]

Have you read Barry Setterfield's work? I think you would find it very interesting in that it points to a young earth.

What aspect of his work do you find most convincing?

Stuart

 

[Bright Raven]

What aspect of his work do you find most convincing?

Stuart

The fact that the speed of light is slowing down.

 

[Right Divider]

One day, Darwinists will learn to engage rationally. :thumb:

Don't count on it.

 

[Right Divider]

You mean the science community.

As if... Darwinists are anti-science.

 

[Stuu]

The fact that the speed of light is slowing down.

And you are not put off by the fact that the Young Earth Creationists at ICR have written this?

Measurements of the speed of light have been made for the past three hundred years which could potentially provide the required empirical basis. Norman and Setterfield tabulate the results of 163 speed of light determinations in The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, and claim clear support for the decay of c hypothesis from this data set. My inability to verify this claim when this data set was subjected to appropriate, objective analyses is the motivation for this article, which is intended to caution creationists against a wholesale, uncritical acceptance of the Norman and Setterfield hypothesis. At the present time, it appears that general support by the creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis is not warranted by the data upon which the hypothesis rests.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

And you are not put off by the fact that the Young Earth Creationists at IRC have written this?

Measurements of the speed of light have been made for the past three hundred years which could potentially provide the required empirical basis. Norman and Setterfield tabulate the results of 163 speed of light determinations in The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, and claim clear support for the decay of c hypothesis from this data set. My inability to verify this claim when this data set was subjected to appropriate, objective analyses is the motivation for this article, which is intended to caution creationists against a wholesale, uncritical acceptance of the Norman and Setterfield hypothesis. At the present time, it appears that general support by the creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis is not warranted by the data upon which the hypothesis rests.

Stuart

That does nothing to help support the bogus idea that life magically sprung up from non-life and then "evolved" into men and women.

 

[Stuu]

That does nothing to help support the bogus idea that life magically sprung up from non-life and then "evolved" into men and women.

You would accept though that there is a link between evolution and the age of the earth. Barry Setterfield is known in creationist circles for claiming that the speed of light today is much slower than it was in the past so the physical processes used to determine ages of things, and the so-called 'starlight problem' can be made to fit a Young Earth Creationist model. If he had demonstrated that the age of the earth is only a few thousands of years, then that also solves the problem of disproving evolution by natural selection, because there wouldn't be enough time for what AiG calls 'molecules to man' evolution.

As I indicated above, Setterfield's work was criticised by ICR in the 1980s and is now generally rejected by creationists. It goes without saying that it is rejected by real scientists too.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

You would accept though that there is a link between evolution and the age of the earth.

I know that the age of the earth is required to be long to (supposedly) give "evolution" a "chance". That is why the "true" age of the earth has continually increased according to evolutionists.

Barry Setterfield is known in creationist circles for claiming that the speed of light today is much slower than it was in the past so the physical processes used to determine ages of things, and the so-called 'starlight problem' can be made to fit a Young Earth Creationist model.

Since you reject God's Word that He stretched out the heavens...

If he had demonstrated that the age of the earth is only a few thousands of years, then that also solves the problem of disproving evolution by natural selection, because there wouldn't be enough time for what AiG calls 'molecules to man' evolution.

No amount of time will help 'molecules to man' evolution. Science (real science) has shown time and again that life does NOT come from matter on its own.

As I indicated above, Setterfield's work was criticised by ICR in the 1980s and is now generally rejected by creationists.

Still no help for your failed "scientific theory".

It goes without saying that it is rejected by real scientists too.

Your bias is showing again.

 

[Stuu]

I know that the age of the earth is required to be long to (supposedly) give "evolution" a "chance". That is why the "true" age of the earth has continually increased according to evolutionists.

1856: 22 million years (Van Helmholtz)
1862: 20 million years (William Thomson, Lord Kelvin)
1892: 18 million years (Newcomb)
1890s: 56 million years (George Darwin)
1895: 2 to 3 billion years (Perry)
1897: 20 million to 40 million years, but closer to 20 million (Lord Kelvin)
1899: 80 million to 100 million years at least (Joly)
1907: 410 million to 2.2 billion years (Boltwood)
1927: 1.6 billion to 3.0 billion years (Arthur Holmes)
1956: 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years (Patterson)

Perry got much bigger numbers by including convection currents in magma, but was ignored. The numbers went from millions to billions when the previously unknown radioactivity was factored in. That also meant the development of radioisotope dating my Arthur Holmes. So it hasn't been a smooth, continuous increase, and it hasn't changed since 1956.

Since you reject God's Word that He stretched out the heavens...

What exactly does that mean? Was it meant to mean anything to ancient Jews? What was the purpose of Genesis as a scripture?

No amount of time will help 'molecules to man' evolution.

In that case, what is your particular interest in relation to Setterfield and Bright Raven's post?

Science (real science) has shown time and again that life does NOT come from matter on its own.

What do you mean by life exactly (for example, do you include viruses?), and can you give us some specific examples of how science has shown what you claim?

Still no help for your failed "scientific theory".

Which one do you mean?

Stuu: It goes without saying that it is rejected by real scientists too.

Your bias is showing again.

This is just a fact about real scientists in the real world. I disagree that you should be allowed to have your own set of facts. You want to have the alt-facts for the alt-worldview.

A major problem with the alt-facts usually is they don't join up in any meaningful way. They are connected by alt-logic.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

1856: 22 million years (Van Helmholtz)
1862: 20 million years (William Thomson, Lord Kelvin)
1892: 18 million years (Newcomb)
1890s: 56 million years (George Darwin)
1895: 2 to 3 billion years (Perry)
1897: 20 million to 40 million years, but closer to 20 million (Lord Kelvin)
1899: 80 million to 100 million years at least (Joly)
1907: 410 million to 2.2 billion years (Boltwood)
1927: 1.6 billion to 3.0 billion years (Arthur Holmes)
1956: 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years (Patterson)

Perry got much bigger numbers by including convection currents in magma, but was ignored. The numbers went from millions to billions when the previously unknown radioactivity was factored in. That also meant the development of radioisotope dating my Arthur Holmes. So it hasn't been a smooth, continuous increase, and it hasn't changed since 1956.

I didn't say that the RATE OF CHANGE was continuous. I said that the dates were continually changing.

These dates are ALL based on some ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be verified. There are MANY ways to "date" the universe and most of them produce recent ages.

What exactly does that mean? Was it meant to mean anything to ancient Jews? What was the purpose of Genesis as a scripture?

I meant what I said and so does Genesis.

In that case, what is your particular interest in relation to Setterfield and Bright Raven's post?

Since that is off-topic for this thread, I won't continue down that rabbit trail.

What do you mean by life exactly (for example, do you include viruses?), and can you give us some specific examples of how science has shown what you claim?

If you don't know what life is, then there is no way to discuss its origin with you.

Which one do you mean?

The "theory of evolution".

Stuu: It goes without saying that it is rejected by real scientists too.

:juggle:

This is just a fact about real scientists in the real world.

You've attempted to create a false definition of "science" and have been called out on this many times. Real science is not confined to the materialist world view (no matter how many time you try to make it so).

I disagree that you should be allowed to have your own set of facts.

Nobody has "their own set of facts". Facts just are.

You want to have the alt-facts for the alt-worldview.

You are actually talking about yourself. It's funny how that works.

A major problem with the alt-facts usually is they don't join up in any meaningful way. They are connected by alt-logic.

Again, you speak of yourself.

You have consistently used fallacious logic and false facts. You should stop.

 

[Stuu]

I said that the dates were continually changing.

Well that is wrong, isn't it. Hasn't changed since 1956.

These dates are ALL based on some ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be verified.

What assumptions exactly?

There are MANY ways to "date" the universe and most of them produce recent ages.

Please list them for us. You could make a list like the one I gave for the age of the earth.

I meant what I said and so does Genesis.

What are the heavens, and what does it mean that they spread out? Genesis doesn't actually say.

Since that is off-topic for this thread, I won't continue down that rabbit trail.

Do you regret all these off-topic posts then? This must be alt-logic. I won't continue with off-topic posting, but I'll just engage in some off-topic posting. Even though the age of the earth is directly related to the OP as stated.

If you don't know what life is, then there is no way to discuss it's origin with you.

I know what I think life is, but I don't know what you think it is. For example, since you are so keen to criticise the idea that life came from non-life, that means breathing into dirt is an example of life from life. So, what was the living thing that caused that, and how is it life?

You've attempted to create a false definition of "science" and have been called out on this many time. Real science is not confined to the materialist world view (no matter how many time you try to make it so).

So you agree that 'the supernatural' is subject to scientific investigation? You would be one of the few here to agree with me on that.

Nobody has "their own set of facts". Facts just are.

Well there can't be two ages of the earth, can there? Is it less than 10,000 years old or 4.55 billion years old? And what are the criteria for deciding which one is the fact?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Well that is wrong, isn't it. Hasn't changed since 1956.

As I said the dates WERE continually changing. That they now think that there is "enough time" for evolution is still false.

What assumptions exactly?

It depends on the dating method. Take radiometric dating for example, here are SOME of the assumptions:

• Radioactivity originated in star explosions.
• Earth formed from the materials of those explosions.
• Values of the ratios of mother and daughter elements at the beginning.
• No inclusion or exclusion of mother or daughter elements for millions to billions of years.
• Constant rate of decay for millions to billions of year.

There are more, but that's good enough to start with.

Please list them for us. You could make a list like the one I gave for the age of the earth.

Do your own homework. I already waste enough time with you.

What are the heavens, and what does it mean that they spread out? Genesis doesn't actually say.

It's too bad for you that God does not always give you what you want to know.

Do you regret all these off-topic posts then? This must be alt-logic. I won't continue with off-topic posting, but I'll just engage in some off-topic posting. Even though the age of the earth is directly related to the OP as stated.

Even if the age of the earth is much more than evolutionists currently claim, matter does not come to life on its own (i.e., by natural processes).

I know what I think life is, but I don't know what you think it is. For example, since you are so keen to criticise the idea that life came from non-life, that means breathing into dirt is an example of life from life. So, what was the living thing that caused that, and how is it life?

Are you just playing stupid or are you really that stupid?

It is a well know fact that matter does not come to life by NATURAL processes.

So you agree that 'the supernatural' is subject to scientific investigation? You would be one of the few here to agree with me on that.

Not using the type of science that produces airplanes and computers.

Well there can't be two ages of the earth, can there? Is it less than 10,000 years old or 4.55 billion years old? And what are the criteria for deciding which one is the fact?

I guess that's going to be a real problem for you.

Did you ever notice that the age of the earth used to be 4.5 billion years, but is now claimed to be 4.55 billion years? That was a recent "change" to give the appearance of "accuracy".

 

[Stuu]

That they now think that there is "enough time" for evolution is still false.

Do you believe that all the species alive today came from the 'kinds' on the ark? Maybe you should tell all those here who believe in ridiculous speeds of evolutionary change over a few thousand years that there isn't enough time for evolution.

It depends on the dating method. Take radiometric dating for example, here are SOME of the assumptions:
Radioactivity originated in star explosions.

Do you mean elements capable of radioactive decay were formed in star explosions? That's not an assumption, we can see it happening. And it doesn't even have to be an explosion, you can read about the observations of new heavy elements (capable of radioactivity) made in a neutron star collision.

Earth formed from the materials of those explosions.

That's not an assumption, it is part of a model, or theory of planetary accretion. It is consistent with all the evidence observable in the solar system today. But you seem to be claiming that it is unreasonable to link the observable production of elements in stars with the elements present in the earth. Is that it?

Values of the ratios of mother and daughter elements at the beginning.

You should read the Wikipedia article on isochron dating. It explains how this technique eliminates this assumption.

No inclusion or exclusion of mother or daughter elements for millions to billions of years.

Yes that is an assumption. Can you explain what you think might cause that to be invalid?

Constant rate of decay for millions to billions of year.

This is not an assumption. Since the time of the first direct measurements of decay rates there has been no change detected. Some studies report up to 1% variation in decay rates, but others report none. So if we apply that 1% to the age of the earth, it could drop to 4.50 billion years, which is the lower limit of the error given with the date anyway. Over the course of human astronomy, which is much longer, if the decay rates have changed then gravitational attractions have changed, which would give rise to differences in the orbital motions of the inner planets of our solar system. Such changes have not been observed.

There are more, but that's good enough to start with.

Please give us more.

It's too bad for you that God does not always give you what you want to know.

Did your god give you a brain to think with? Isn't it possible that scripture is wrong (it clearly is) and that science is fundamentally right about ages and biological processes, and your god is lamenting the fact that you rely on Bronze Age ignorance instead of your god-given curiosity? What if you have completely misinterpreted what this god expects you to do with your senses and logical brain? You might end up at some pearly gates somewhere being told off for your attempts to deny how the grand plan really works.

Even if the age of the earth is much more than evolutionists currently claim, matter does not come to life on its own (i.e., by natural processes).

And what do you think is stopping it? I have explained to you already what I think the problem is. Can you analyse your own claim?

Are you just playing stupid or are you really that stupid?

It is a serious question. If you can't tell me what life is then how do I know what you are talking about? You can't tell me whether you think viruses are living or not: they are the simplest form of organism we encounter because some are just a strand of DNA in a coat of protein. Their only life function is reproduction, as a parasite in a host cell. Is that life?? If you say that life can be something that was produced by an invisible being breathing into dirt, then I don't think an accusation of me being stupid is reasonable at that point: it is you who has all the explaining to do.

It is a well know fact that matter does not come to life by NATURAL processes.

So breathing into dirt wasn't a natural process. Does that mean the life came from life, or not? It is not me making up terms that require definitions. I've got no idea what you are talking about. I have good reason to suspect that I am not the product of breathing into dirt. So, what gives?

Not using the type of science that produces airplanes and computers.

Please list the different types of science you believe exist. Perhaps you could explain how they are different.

I guess that's going to be a real problem for you.

It's not really a problem for me. The type of science that I think is the only kind of science converged on a 4.55 billion year age for the earth a long time ago. Young Earth Creationism seems only to converge on the common theme of apparently impossible magic.

The scale of the mistake in believing the earth to be a few thousand years old is the same as claiming the distance from Los Angeles to New York is less than 100 yards. It's that wrong.

Did you ever notice that the age of the earth used to be 4.5 billion years, but is now claimed to be 4.55 billion years? That was a recent "change" to give the appearance of "accuracy".

No, the first time it was reported in 1956, it was 4.55 billion years. I recommend reading about experimental error and how it is calculated and reported.

Stuart