Why evolution is so stupid

[SLP]

Really, I'd like to see this refutation.

Quit stalling already

"Cut and Paste" or not, I stand by it.

Do you understand the 'science' behind the claims in the first place?

That is, if someone takes the timew to refute these claims, will you accept the refutations or merely dismiss them, as John et al. routinely do?

 

[SLP]

I've spent more than just 5 minutes viewing material which raises questions about evolution, or supports creationism. I didn't cut and paste either, I watched a 2 hour video and took notes. Perhaps all the material of viewed on the subject makes up that 8 hour day.

A video! Well, slap my fanny and call me aunt Millie! If it was in a creationist video, it HASTA be true!

 

[SLP]

That is false advertising because darwins book claims to be about the origin of the species. You are right though in that he does not deliever and he does not talk about the origion of anything.

 

[Split Rock]

*TheLowly Tortoise*

This thread is a trainwreck. If you are serious about discussing these issues, I recommend that you abandon this thread and start a new one. Don't call it "Why Evolution is so Stupid," and pick just one point out of your long list. Perhaps you could start with the "6 types of evolution" and why you think they are wrong or non-scientific. Cite any sources you use.

 

[_Origen]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

And when you add your entire post together, we have enough evidence to know that you know almost nothing about the Theory of Evolution, and what little you have learned came not from Science but from Creationists.

Please educate yourself on what the ToE is before coming here and soudning foolish.

Try the Quiet Thread or TalkOrigins as a start.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

Again, you've been lied to.

Biogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution.

Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics any more than a seed growing into a plant.

The Big Bang isn't part of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution doesn't perscribe human behaviour.

You have been lied to.
You don't know what the theory of evolution says.

Whether you chose to continue believing those lies or try to learn more is up to you.

 

[Silent Bob]

Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself.

And I thought that evolution theory was about how species change over time. Thank you for correcting this I cannot believe that no serious source in science or education ever mentioned this! How insightful.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

the science of TofE says nothing about human morality. evolutionary psychology does but you dont have to listen to them, they are all crazy. *grin*

to go from descriptions of what is to prescriptions of what ought to be is not the task of science, it is the task of ethics (and maybe politics and religion). Social darwinianism is not science it is ethics and social criticism drawn out of science, but exceeding the reach and domain of science.

 

[Abongil]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics dont apply to evolution because the earth is not a clsoed system, energy is introduced into it all the time from the Sun and other stars. The Big Bang was not a singularity, the Big Bang is a name for the actual act of the expnasion, and we dont really know if it was a singularity or not.

 

[Gracchus]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis,...

How is that? As a matter of fact, can you state that law? If you are talking about Pasteur et al. demonstrating that spontaneous generation of complex organisms from non-living progenetors does not occur, that has nothing to do with the modern theories of abiogenesis.

... the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics,...

How? The first law is:

You can't create or destroy energy.

http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html

The second law is nearly as simple:

Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.

http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html

Evolution does not "reject" or contradict either law.

... and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity.

Perhaps you could explain this? It isn't even grammatical.

It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world.

If anything, it takes a material cause to create a material world, because an immaterial cause cannot effect anything in the material world.

Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; ...

No it doesn't. It says that population growth will always reach limits, making it impossible for some organisms to survive long enough to reproduce. It says that there are phenotypic differences in populations arising from genetic variations, and that some of these variations are more likely to survive than others under environmental stress. These statements have been verified by observation and are consistent with reason.

...but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself.

...even when your neighbor hates you. So it is the "law of Christ" that says, "Be better than your neighbor."

When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

When we add all this together we have enough evidence to know that you, _Origen, are ignorant of biology, thermodynamics, logic, and cosmology. I suspect you are an adolescent on a mission from GOD. I am not impressed. I question the authenticity of your mission. I don’t think God would send you into any intellectual discussion unless it was to teach you a lesson in humility.

If you aren’t an adolescent…grow up!

 

[MewtwoX]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis,

That's Abiogenesis, not Evolutionary Theory.

the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics,

2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been shown time and again to have no application to Evolutionary process.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is also a non-sequitur to Evolutionary Theory.

If you want to argue these points ,you're going to have to explain why they are against Evolutionary Theory.

and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity.

Elaborate. Also, note that the Big Bang Theory is not a scientific Creation account for the universe.

It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world.

Not necessarily, there has yet to be any argumentation that material causes cannot either (A) Be uncaused causes or (B) Be axionomic to existence.

Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

1. Evolution doesn't provide a moral theory, it merely describes how species change. There's no reason why humans must follow it as a moral theory.

2. The Theory of Evolution doesn't reject the existence of a deity. It remains separate from such an issue.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is foolish because it rejects the biological law of biogenesis, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the simple fact that the big-bang as zero singularity. It takes an Immaterial Cause to create a material world. Furthermore, evolution theory says: Be better than your neighbor; but the law of Christ says: Love your neighbor as yourself. When one adds all this together, you have enough evidence to know that God is absolutely evident.

Congratulations. You have single handidly falsified 150 years of scientific inquiry made by hundreds of thousands of scientists. And all in a single paragraph on an internet message board. Your Nobel prize awaits.

 

[BigRed11]

Harsh wording, I know. I’m going to start off by stating my beliefs. I believe in creation, I believe that God (in one being with the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ) created this universe and everything in it. I believe the bible from front to back is the closest thing we have to absolute truth on the face of this planet. In this post I will simply ask questions of all the evolutionists here.

Hm...you believe a book you were handed as a child with no solid proof behind it. How intelligent of you.

This is generally how disbelievers of evolution are regarded by believers of evolution, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)” ~ Richard Dawkins Put Your Money on Evolution New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35

I agree with Dawkings

This sort of poison serves often to discredit opposition to evolution with a smear campaign.

First, let’s define some terms:

Stupid: adj. 1 lacking normal intelligence 2 foolish; silly 3 dull and boring

Thank you, Master of the Obvious.

We will also need to define evolution, which has at least 6 different meanings, only one of which is grounded in science.

1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie the Big Bang (No one saw it happen)

HAHAHA! And someone saw God create the Earth? Someone saw God create the universe?

2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (Supposedly, the big bang created hydrogen, and we got 92 elements out of that)

All elements are protons, neutrons, electrons. It's simple chemistry. If you have enough pressure (because of amassing of Hydrogen), the heavy elements will arise.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution - origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star or planet form.)

And someone saw God make the sun? If you don't think gravity is true, you need a lesson in common sense.

4. Organic Evolution - Origin of life. (According to evolution, life must have come from non-living matter, we’ve never seen that happen)

Refer to previous criticism.

5. Macro-Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (No one has seen a pig give birth to a sheep)
You, sir, are truly an imbecile. I beg you to find a decent article on evolution and read carefully.

6. Micro-Evolution - Variations within kinds. (the only observed fact within evolution, but could simply be called “variation.”)

It is observed fact...it is true.

So, a few questions for big bangers out there:

What exploded?. . . Where did it come from, and where did the energy come from?

A one-dimensional point of infinite density that spontaneously expanded...nobody really knows. But I can ask you the same, "where did god come from?".

According to the big bang theory in a general science text book, all the matter of the universe is drawn into this “dot” of matter spun faster and faster and faster, until finally it exploded in a big bang!

Physics law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum provides that from this spinning big bang, all of the matter released from this “dot” will spin in the same direction. If the whole universe started as a spinning dot, why do two planets and 6 moons in our own solar system spin backwards?

What? You obviously have a very simplistic understanding in physics. If you want an explanation of simple dynamics, find a good physics book and settle down for a long read.

How about Stars? Star deaths have been observed (novas and supernovas), but no star births have been. About every 30 years a star “dies” and explodes into a [super] nova. Yet, there are fewer than 300 dead stars. If the universe is billions of years old, shouldn’t there be several hundred million dead stars floating around?

Good thing that the universe is infinite from our point of view. Even with several hundred million dead stars, that would put about one in each galaxy.

Supposedly, the earth formed from a large molten mass, and cooled down 4.6 billion years ago and formed a rocky crust. But, when scientists look into granite rocks all over the world, they find little radio polonium halos from when the polonium within the rock decayed. 218 Po has a half-life of 3 minutes. 214 Po has a half-life of .164 seconds. If the granite was hot, the particles sent out by Po to make the halos would have melted away. Thus, the polonium would have to be decaying in a rock that is already solid.

I've never heard of these findings, link me to the article please.

How about the grand canyon? Evolutionists maintain that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years. The river enters the canyon at 2800 ft. above sea level. From there the height of the canyon has an uplift of 6900-8500 ft. That’s some river to be able to flow 4000 ft uphill and come out the end without a delta as evidence of the buildup of the sediment.

Geological uplifts and shifts would explain that.


The theory of organic evolution (origin of life) asks us to believe that torrential rains soaked the rocky crust of earth for millions of years, creating great oceans. Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.


Apparently, we all evolved from rock soup. Where’s the record, the proof? Why haven’t we seen any examples of life evolving from rock soup?

Because the environment is no longer the same. Oxygen prevents any spontaneous formation of amino acids. There would be no proof, use your head. And i can ask you the same: Where is the record, the proof of Eden?


Macro-evolution supposes that slow variations accounts for the diversity of life on this planet. Where are the records? Why can’t we see examples of this theory in recorded history? Shouldn’t there be millions or a t least thousands of these “missing links”? Yet, only a few fossils have been found to be examples of such, yet these fossils only prove one thing, it died. There is no proof some lung-fish had any children, much less different ones.

Because we only thought about evolution for two centuries, nobody would have noticed microevolution. And with macro-evolution, you once again prove your ignorance. This process takes millions of years, there would be no records. If you think finding fossils of these links, even if billions lived, is easy, think again. Only a fraction of a percent of them would be fossilized and this would be spread across a huge area and across a variety of depths. A proverbial needle in the Pacific ocean.

A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left nostril. Are there any fossils that show intermediate species between a normal bird and a woodpecker?

Refer to previous answer.

Termites chew on wood, and they swallow it, but termites can’t digest it. The wood goes into their stomach and in the termites’ intestines are smaller organisms (critters) which actually digest the cellulose. These critters can’t live without the termite, nor the termite without the critters. Which one evolved first?

Neither. They evolved together - symbiosis. Some time in the past they grew together and began to depend on each other, until they became so dependent that neither could live without the other.

It is said that it would take 30,000 years for the amount of C14 in the atmosphere to reach equilibrium, that is where the rate of new C14 matches the rate of decay. There is more C14 in the atmosphere now than there was 10 years ago, so that right there should be enough to prove that the earth is not more than 30,000 years old.

Good thing corporations are pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

C14 occurs in the atmosphere at about .0000765% This percentage is taken into plants which use the carbon dioxide and C14 non-discriminatively and a certain percentage of the is eaten by animals and becomes part of them, only we don’t know for sure how much C14 was actually in the animal when it died. Carbon dating can measure the amount of C14 in a fossil, and the current rate of decay, but must assume how much C14 was originally there, and must assume a constant rate of decay with no proof that it is constant. No one’s been around long enough to observe that it reaches a half life in 5, 730 years.

Wow. You don't need to wait until half is gone. By measuring miniscule amounts of decay over a few days, weeks, what have you, you can extrapolate the data to reach that number.

“Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old.” (Science vol. 141, 1963 p. 634-637) “A freshly killed seal was carbon dates as having died 1300 years ago” (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 p. 211) “Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” (Science Vol. 224, 1984 p 58-61) “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” “One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 years old and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old.” (Troy L. Pewe, Quaternaty Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, 1975) “Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.” (Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Scince Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999)

Radiometric Dating:

Samples of Known Age --> Radioisotope dating doesn’t work

Samples of unknown age --> Radioisotope is assumed to work

Mistakes occur, that is the point.

You can believe evolution if you want to, it doesn’t bother me a bit, but don’t call it science!

Oh for the love of god, listen to yourself. Your idiocy is unsurpassed at this point. EVOLUTION IS PURE SCIENCE! It is drawn from solid facts and reasonable conclusions! What do you believe in? A book with no evidence written eons ago? How does that in ANY way disqualify the accepted scientific theory?

I had some fun with this one.

 

[Edx]

I assume the next 9 pages are of people showing you your ass, but I figure its fun to reply to such a newbie. You Hovindites just make it too easy, really.

The question is, will you reply and defend Hovinds nonsence, becuase he wont. He refuses written debate where all the points he raises can be responded to and refuted individually.

We will also need to define evolution, which has at least 6 different meanings, only one of which is grounded in science.

And only one of which is the ACTUAL "Theory of Evolution". All the rest the good Dr has seen fit to conflate several different fields of study that he doesnt agree with under one umbrella term, "Evolution".

1. Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space and matter, ie the Big Bang (No one saw it happen)

2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen (Supposedly, the big bang created hydrogen, and we got 92 elements out of that)

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution - origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star or planet form.)

4. Organic Evolution - Origin of life. (According to evolution, life must have come from non-living matter, we’ve never seen that happen)

"Organic Evolution" is really what science calls the field of study "abiogeneis". It too, is not Evolution.

5. Macro-Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (No one has seen a pig give birth to a sheep)

6. Micro-Evolution - Variations within kinds. (the only observed fact within evolution, but could simply be called “variation.&#8221

Evolution never says one animal should ever change into another kind of animal. And it certianly doesnt say that a pig should ever be able to give birth to a sheep. That example is so wrong for so many reasons, any of which would falsify Evolution if observed, not prove it.

Oh and I love how he calls everything that isnt Evolution, Evolution, except the last one "micro Evolution" he manages to get half right yet thinks it would be better called "variation".

According to the big bang theory in a general science text book, all the matter of the universe is drawn into this “dot” of matter spun faster and faster and faster, until finally it exploded in a big bang!

No it doesnt.

How about the grand canyon? Evolutionists maintain that the Colorado river carved the canyon over millions of years. The river enters the canyon at 2800 ft. above sea level. From there the height of the canyon has an uplift of 6900-8500 ft. That’s some river to be able to flow 4000 ft uphill and come out the end without a delta as evidence of the buildup of the sediment.

Someone didnt learn plate tectonics in school.

Apparently, we all evolved from rock soup. Where’s the record, the proof? Why haven’t we seen any examples of life evolving from rock soup?

This is a bad caricature of abiogenesis not evolution.

Macro-evolution supposes that slow variations accounts for the diversity of life on this planet.

Slow variations?

WAY TO GO DR SELF-CONTRADICTION!

Wasnt the example the good Dr gave for "macro Evolution", a pig giving birth to a sheep?

“Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old.” (Science vol. 141, 1963 p. 634-637) “A freshly killed seal was carbon dates as having died 1300 years ago” (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 p. 211) “Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.” (Science Vol. 224, 1984 p 58-61) “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” “One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 years old and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000 years old.” (Troy L. Pewe, Quaternaty Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, 1975) “Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.” (Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Scince Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999)

Out of context quotation on purpose just proves you are dishonest, not right.

You can believe evolution if you want to, it doesn’t bother me a bit, but don’t call it science!

And dont claim you have a legitimate Phd, Hovind, or that you know what you are talking about. Of course, youve been doing this for years and years so theres no way you dont know all of this already.

 

[Edx]

The people who write textbooks (particularly high school and lower textbooks) are pedagogists, not scientists.

Well thats not strickly true at all is it? Even Dr Ken Miller writes text books.

 

[Edx]

Even he is coming around a little.
.

Are you kidding, Shinbits has gotten a LOT worse.

 

[Edx]

A video! Well, slap my fanny and call me aunt Millie! If it was in a creationist video, it HASTA be true!

How rude!

 

[JediMobius]

Instead of "defining terms" you've decided to REDEFINE terms. If you want to talk to scientists about these issues, wouldn't it be much easier to use the terms that have been in place for hundreds of years? Evolution in a scientific sense generally applies ONLY to biologial evolution. The other points (besides micro/macro evolution, which is nonsense) are completely separate scientific fields, but since they ARE scientific fields, I won't go further than to say that redefining words is not a constructive way to start a debate.

Forgive me, evolution seems to be a term which often changes meaning, and becoming so complex that it cannot be put simply. Perhaps, one of you here could define the term more accurately?

The people who write textbooks (particularly high school and lower textbooks) are pedagogists, not scientists. This is an extreme oversimplification to give the average high school student an IDEA of what might have happened. Cosmology has driven our understanding of what happened back very near the initial event, but not to the event itself.

Is that to say, all we know is the universe was once smaller, and has been expanding since? The bible says that, though not in so many words.

This is blatantly false. First of all, there is no general concensus (again that I'm aware of) that the universe is spinning. Without evidence of universal spin, I don't know why anybody would assume it. Again, high school science textbooks are generally written for those who could not understand the raw published papers. Any real objection to the Big Bang should address material published by scientists, not professional pedagogists.

Undersight on my part.

That said, the claim about the conservation of momentum is also blatantly false. If you take a spinning grenade and set it off, you will have shrapnel spinning in totally random directions. Yes, the TOTAL angular momentum must be conserved, but the interaction between the explosive and the pieces adds energy which must also be accounted for.

I'm not sure what bearing the explosion of a grenade has on events in a vacuum.

There are many more than 300 "dead" stars. Of course you'd have to say what you mean by "dead" stars, but astronomers know of thousands (millions? who counts?!?!?) of stars that are essentially "dead" as in brown dwarfs, black holes, neutron stars etc... Maybe you're thinking that every star goes nova or supernova, but that's quite false too.

Some astronomer or group of scientists must be curious enough to know. After all, nebulae and new stars are searched out often enough.

As for the first bit, star "births" have indeed been observed. Hovind likes to say that all was see is a bit of sky getting brighter, but he ignores that we can actually verify whether the star is starting fusion or if something stops obstructing it based on the spectrum of the star. This is a whole topic in itself, but quite basically, the spectrum shows the precise makeup of the star as WELL as the precise makeup of any material between the star and the Earth. This is worth its own thread though and if you have no background in spectroscopy, I suggest you try googling "star emission spectrum" or "star absorption spectrum."

Interesting, I've simply never heard of such a thing. My search on the birth of stars (a shallow search, but a search nonetheless) only showed nebulae of already born stars.

Quite simply, this research relies on the assumption that ONLY Polonium could have made the halos. Quite simply, the halos are only found in Uranium-rich rocks. This is significant because one of the isotopes in the decay series of Uranium is Radon. This is significant because Radon has almost EXACTLY the same decay energy as Polonium and thus would make halos of the same size. So yes, the halos exist, but no, they're no mystery and they're certainly no challenge to modern geology.

Doesn't this refutation rely on the assumption that none of the halos were from polonium?

Perhaps you have heard of plate tectonics? The Grand Canyon is still rising if I recall correctly. Of course, when the canyon began millions of years ago, there was no uplift and the water was still flowing downhill.

Of course, it must be assumed that the earth is old for this hypothesis to hold.

It depends on how you define life. Amino acids have been shown to develop in conditions easily replicated in ANY body of water. However, like the origin of the Big Bang, you're right that nobody knows exactly what happened. As with every area of science, this is one that's currently under investigation. Further, it will certainly never be "proven" as fossils of organisms smaller than single cells are rather difficult to come by

Even if a few amino acids were produced without bonding to some other molecule first, how did they know how to assemble themselves neatly into a pattern of life?

I think what you're looking for might be the twin nested hierarchy or an even more basic evidence -- ERVs. They give markers that shows (as any parental test shows) ancestry. The same organisms that were fit into the nested hierarchy morphologically were verified as linked through ERVs genetically when genetics came along.

Is it proof? Of course not -- science and ESPECIALLY historical science doesn't prove anything. But it IS strong evidence.

It's just as plausible that these markers are simply similarities, and not evidence of common ancestry.

Well, a woodpecker IS a normal bird, but yes, there are intermediate fossils that have been found:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Fossils? This link only shows that yes, birds have similar hyoid structures, but the woodpecker's is still abnormally long. It also lists species of woodpecker in order of length of hyoid/tongue structure. These species are dispersed in many areas, often seperate from each other. There's no proof of a common ancestor other than a woodpecker.

evolution is ongoing -- every organism today is exactly the same amount "evolved." It stands to reason that they evolved alongside each other. The smaller organisms made digestion easier for the termites' ancestors and over time, the termites lost the ability to digest themselves as there was no longer any selection FOR the ability to digest.

If the termite was able to digest cellulose, then why did it need the trichonympha? If the termite was not able to digest cellulose, then what did it eat that the trichonympha would survive in its stomach? Symbiotic relationships can't simply be explained away by slow change.

Indeed, the C14 levels are rising. Scientists know why too. The C14 levels rose very slowly during the industrial revolution since more and more carbon was dumped into the atmosphere. Then it spiked with the first atomic bomb and with each subsequent bomb/test. This is no mystery, and certainly nothing to do with decay rates -- it's directly related to input rates.

C14 ratios have drifted slightly over time. They are verified by matching the ratios in tree rings and ice cores from all over the world.

Actually we CAN know that the decay rate was constant. Pretty simple calculations will show that if the decay rates increased at any time, the Earth would become so hot that life would no longer exist on Earth. Like the speed of light, decay rates have been observed to be constant, and have been modeled accurately to show that they do not change. Every experiment to detect a change in decay rates has found that they are constant except in extreme situations that couldn't exist on Earth (like the radiation level in the center of the sun).

I'm sure you simply forgot that C14 dating assumes a C14 ratio in the ATMOSPHERE. Sea creatures do not get their C14 from the Atmosphere, but from the sea where C14 ratios are not constant due to unpredictable mixing between surface and deep ocean waters.

What I've seen is that, evloutionists admit variations in C14 content in the atmosphere. Still, a certain base amount of C14 is assumed for fossils that are radiometrically dated

You're welcome to call it whatever you like (on this board you'll have to show SOME restraint of course) but in order to REFUTE scientific research, you have to have better arguments than these.

I'm asking for proof or at least sound reason, I want to know why everyone should believe in evolution. I haven't seen that.

 

[Micaiah]

Occasionally???? It should crop up all the time. Tell us why it should be considered an explosion?

There is no chemical/nuclear change occurrring powering the expansion. There is no shock front. There is no space external to the event. There is no space internal to the event that is not undergoing the expansion. There is no variation in the expansion properties anywhere in the expansion at a given time.

It certainly is not an explosion in the classical sense of one. BUT it is a big problem that many write ups (even on college websites) do use the word explosion as the metaphor of choice. Of course, they don't expect Creationists to twist the use of the word. We know better though, don't we Micaiah?

Provide a response to the questions asked. What was the rate of the supposed expansion rate during the first stages of the universe?

Was there energy associated with this explosion?