Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    The Cambrian Explosion occured ~500 million years ago (very rough estimate... the date escapes me.) Prior to this, we have a few sponges, a few cute little jellyfish, nothing in particular-- then bang! Complex organisms with no prior common ancestors. It's been a huge thorn in the side of Darwinism since it was discovered.

    As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.

    Java man and archaeoptryx (sp?) are another two examples that are cited by evolutionists, though it is fairly easy to prove them wrong.
    sigpic

    The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

    Larry Hardiman

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
      The Cambrian Explosion occured ~500 million years ago (very rough estimate... the date escapes me.) Prior to this, we have a few sponges, a few cute little jellyfish, nothing in particular-- then bang! Complex organisms with no prior common ancestors. It's been a huge thorn in the side of Darwinism since it was discovered.

      As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.

      Java man and archaeoptryx (sp?) are another two examples that are cited by evolutionists, though it is fairly easy to prove them wrong.
      i'm going to take this time to do some research and collect my thoughts... and sleep. i will get back to you in the AM.
      "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
      -George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
        Personally, I believe that the universe is ~20 billion years old, the earth is ~4 billion years old,
        This thread is really not the place to discuss the age of the universe, but since you obviously missed the simple explanation for the misunderstanding I brought up, let me give you the short version.

        The universe could be 20 billion (or 13.5) light years in size and we could still see stars that far away in a young universe IF the universe was rapidly expanded.

        The Big Bang does assume that universe was rapidly expanded by an enormous factor in the first instant of its creation. What is not widely known is that if that inflationary period had lasted just one more instant at the original expansion rate that the universe would have reached its current size. That is how fast the Big Bang assumed the expansion rate was during its so-called "inflationary period".

        So if this was what actually occurred then time would have effectively been enormously speeded up during the expansion, meaning that the propagation rate of light would also have been speeded up. In fact, if you would check Wikipedia you would see that the Big Bang assumes that during the inflationary period the effective rate of light propagation is millions of times faster than its current speed.

        This scenario fits into Creation Week. We see light from distant stars because the light rays in transit during the expansion would also have been stretched out as the expansion proceeded. The catch is that what we are seeing today in our telescopes is a slow motion version of what really took place in less than a second, or at most less than a day (because the expansion is no longer continuing).

        I hope that this brief and simple explanation helps you to see that the rapid expansion of the universe, halfway embraced by Big Bang advocates, solves the starlight travel time problem and at the same time shows that the universe and everything in it may be no more than 6-7000 years old.

        Although this is not conclusive proof of what really happened or how long it actually took, it does show that a universe billions of years old is not a logical requirement of a universe which is billions of light years in physical size. It all depends on how long it took for the universe to expand to its present size, and this cannot be determined scientifically for obvious reasons.

        If you wish to discuss this further, please start a separate thread.
        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
          I would recommend reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. He is an agnostic.
          That is a twenty year old book that has already been thoroughly refuted. Ironically, it was refuted by Denton himself in his next book, where he espoused evolution...
          "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

          "The best things in life aren't things"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
            The Cambrian Explosion occured ~500 million years ago (very rough estimate... the date escapes me.) Prior to this, we have a few sponges, a few cute little jellyfish, nothing in particular-- then bang! Complex organisms with no prior common ancestors. It's been a huge thorn in the side of Darwinism since it was discovered.
            again, you've come very close by just guessing the dates based on memory. the cambrian explosion took place about 540 million years ago, but it was not the origin of complex life. evidence of multicellular life from about 560 million years ago as well as from about 590 million years ago appears in the doushantuo formation in china (chen et al. 2000, 2004). testate amoebae are known from about 750 million years ago (porter and knoll 2000). eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 million years ago according to fossil chemical evidence (brocks et al. 1999). there is more...

            it's also good to note that the earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the cambrian explosion (hoffman 1998; kerr 2000). an ice age before the cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today.

            Originally posted by eveningsky339 View Post
            As for the pribiotic soup, Darwin speculated in one of his letters that life originated in a nice, little pond with all the things necessary for life. Since one of these ponds has a fairly high content of certain elements, that should be present in the fossil record. Sadly, there are none.
            more to come.
            "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
            -George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #81
              I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

              Dates of fossils are not determined by radiometric dating. This can easily be seen by examining material that was published prior to the invention of radiometric dating methods which established dates for the sedimentary layers. One can obviously not date sedimentary layers radiometrically, because one is interested in when a layer was first deposited, not the age of the material (mud) in the layer itself.

              There is a possibility of directly dating a fossil by C-14 dating because some fossil bones recently discovered seem to have retained soft tissue, material that has not turned to stone. Evolutionists have carefully kept such material from being carbon dated, probably because if it turned out that some C-14 was still present it would be evidence that the fossil was not millions of years old, but only thousands of years at the most. Such a finding would have the potential of upseting the whole applecartof radiometric dating of sedimentary layers and fossils.

              The risk of this happening is too great for any single evolutionist to take, because it would embroil the discoverer in a firestorm of controversy and possible retaliation from the entire dogmatic evolutionary science community, who would vigorously resist any finding that would threaten their carefully worked out beautiful edifice.
              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

                Dates of fossils are not determined by radiometric dating. This can easily be seen by examining material that was published prior to the invention of radiometric dating methods which established dates for the sedimentary layers. One can obviously not date sedimentary layers radiometrically, because one is interested in when a layer was first deposited, not the age of the material (mud) in the layer itself.

                There is a possibility of directly dating a fossil by C-14 dating because some fossil bones recently discovered seem to have retained soft tissue, material that has not turned to stone. Evolutionists have carefully kept such material from being carbon dated, probably because if it turned out that some C-14 was still present it would be evidence that the fossil was not millions of years old, but only thousands of years at the most. Such a finding would have the potential of upseting the whole applecartof radiometric dating of sedimentary layers and fossils.

                The risk of this happening is too great for any single evolutionist to take, because it would embroil the discoverer in a firestorm of controversy and possible retaliation from the entire dogmatic evolutionary science community, who would vigorously resist any finding that would threaten their carefully worked out beautiful edifice.
                C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth. Are you that eager for another nail to be driven into the coffin of creationsim? You make it sound as though this T-Rex is the only biological sample from more than a few thousand years ago and everything is riding on it. Malarkey.
                Last edited by PlastikBuddha; May 19th, 2007, 01:15 PM.
                "Those who have crossed
                With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                Violent souls, but only
                As the hollow men
                The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
                  C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth. Are you that eager for another nail to be driven into the coffin of creationsim? You make it sound as though this T-Rex is the only biological sample from more than a few thousand years ago and everything is riding on it. Malarkey.
                  Actually, since the original discovery other fossil samples have been uncovered.

                  I should also point out that when Libby, the inventor of the C14 dating method, was interviewed a few years ago, he revealed that his original work was done with samples from Egypt. There were two reasons for this. One, there were few samples that went back very far in history and that had fairly well established ages. Egypt seemed to be the best bet for samples meeting these criteria. Second the Egyptian environment was believed to have been arid in ancient times, and there was a fear that long time exposure to moisture could affect the accuracy of the method.

                  Today people claim that they can accurately date plant samples that have been under water for many years, but there is no effective way to authenticate this claim.
                  Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                  Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha
                    C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth.
                    So when jurassic coalified wood is C-14 dated by two different labs to an age of ~23,000 years you accept this great age?

                    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/geology.asp

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Jehu View Post
                      So when jurassic coalified wood is C-14 dated by two different labs to an age of ~23,000 years you accept this great age?

                      http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/geology.asp
                      You'll believe just about line if it confirms your previously held beliefs. The nature of the sample was indeterminate and the samples were likely contaminated. Both labs confirm this, and this has not been taken seriously in years. Stay with the times. They have newer, better bull-puckey out there now.
                      "Those who have crossed
                      With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                      Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                      Violent souls, but only
                      As the hollow men
                      The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I must remind posters on this thread that it is supposed to be for relating the best evidence for evolution. I note that so far nothing specific and valid has been posted.

                        It this because there is none?
                        Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                        Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I said the Whale was best evidence.

                          How else could it exist if it did not evolve ? Did god create this obviously once land creature in it's present form or did god create it in the forms shown in the fossil record ( See my thread )

                          If he created it in it's present form... then why at all, there are better suited "Designs" for the sea, and why go to the trouble of it's previousl forms in the fossil record.

                          If he created it Land based are you seriously telling me it only took 6000 years to evolve into it's current form ?

                          The very existance of the whale poses unanswerable questions to a 6000 year old universe.

                          Regarding the fossil record !! why is everything so neatly layerd with very very very few exeptions. I mean why are there no Rabbits with the dinosaur layers, or no men at all in the dinosaur layers ? why are there no whales as they are now in the dinosaur layers, how did "The Flood" get so organised !!

                          And what about cave systems, animal burrows, and footprints that we find throughout the fossil record? How can a these things occur during a flood ?

                          If they didn't occur during the flood how come they are buried in prehistoric rock like well over 6000 years old

                          Animals would'nt be pottering along leaving footprints if a raging flood was going on above them, would they?

                          And how can a cave possibly get created in the middle of a flood ? With nice drawings in it only then to be coverd again... with layers and layers... of Fossil Filled Sediment each predating the flood ?

                          Get over it Bob the earth is not 6000 years old. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR A 6000 YEAR OLD EARTH BUT THE BIBLE and if all you need is the bible then why all this pseudo scientific creationist nonsense to try and back it up.

                          If a global flood caused the sediment layers and fossil record... why are the sediment layers and fossil records so consistant with simple celular organisms in the past leading to complex organisms in the future.. why are they not all mixed up.
                          Stay Sharp
                          Doogie Talons
                          ----------------------------------------

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. What bob b is really asking about is the theory of abiogenesis.

                            I'm not saying this means that there is no discussion to be had but simply to make sure everyone is careful with their terms. Evolution often gets a bad rap because it is presented as the direct opposite of creationism when, at its core, it is nothing more than a theory about genetic traits. All sides of the argument about the origin of life often incorrectly use the word "evolution" or ascribe to it more meaning that it has.

                            With that out of the way, can I ask you a question, bob? Can you put together a short list of what kinds of evidence would be convincing to you that evolution occurs? Or is you wish to focus on abiogensis, that it occured? It would be helpful to me if you gave me some insight as to how you typically come to accept something as having value as a theory. This way I can focus my efforts on gathering information for you.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Neverfox View Post
                              I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation.
                              YECs often pretend not to understand the difference between abiogenesis and the ToE.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                                I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.
                                how about the simple fact that most people resemble their parents? while it may not be the best evidence, i think it's certainly noteworthy.
                                "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
                                -George Bernard Shaw

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X