Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

I thought fossilization had to occur rather quickly in order to preserve details?

Nope. Who told you that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you have a source for your last two sentences?

Some of Gentry's samples are known to have been taken from metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins that are intruded into, or occur on top of, sedimentary rocks - sometimes even fossil-bearing rocks (Collins, 1997a, 1988a, 2000; Wakefield, 1988a, 1988b, 1990). Logically, such veins must be younger than the sedimentary layers, and therefore cannot be primordial "creation rocks" as Gentry claims. Gentry has tried to deny some of this evidence, but it is extensive and well documented, and acknowledged even by other creationists (DeYoung, 2006; Snelling, 2002, 2003; Wise, 1989).
Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos

 

[The Barbarian]

Another puzzle is that at five of the 20 Po-radiohalo-bearing biotite localities the host granitic rocks intrude apparently older rocks arguably produced during the Flood.22 If these granitic rocks therefore also formed during the Flood, then how were the Po radiohalos produced in them?
Andrew Snelling, Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery" ICR Impact August 2000

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Kurt Wise said that fossils showed a stasis throughout the column.

You don't listen well. Move to the 32:30 mark and listen to what he had to say:

He concludes with:

"The 5% (of the fossil record) that does seem to correspond (to the evolution model) happens to be in groups where evolution says, 'this group evolved from sea to land' . . . which is what I would expect with a flood."​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Evolution has been observed directly, but it does not depend on any particular age of the Earth.

Beware of bait-and-switch. Macroevolution has never been observed, nor will it ever be. Microevolution (e.g., dog breeds, beak sizes, etc.) is a much-abused term which simply means variation within a species.

It should be noted that Darwin won an argument on the age of the Earth (with Lord Kelvin) based on his observation that many millions of years would be necessary for evolution to have produced common descent. At the time, Kelvin's calculations of the heat flux of the Earth and Sun indicated perhaps 10 million years at most.

What exactly did Darwin "win", except the notoriety of being the chief promoter of the bigotry that is destroying western civilization.

Later on, when radioactivity was discovered, Darwin's view won out.

Radiometric dating is notoriously unreliable; but, like all other icons of evolutionism, it will be religiously promoted as "science", even after it is thoroughly discredited.

It is, although some particular interpretations of the Bible haven't fared very well.

I cannot think of any. Perhaps you will list a few.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The fact that the human genome is just a difference of 2 between a human and a monkey does not prove that the monkey is a common ancestor. What it does prove is that the have a common creator/designer.

For the record, there are many millions of differences between the chimpanze and human genomes. This is from a paper by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, PhD Genetics, Clemson University:

"To compare the two genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genome’s 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimpanzee genome—that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless “junk DNA”. However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules." ​

"Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

[Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%." Answers in Genesis, 2015] ​

https://assets.answersingenesis.org...sions/arj/v6/chimpanzee-human-chromosomes.pdf​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No, that's wrong. Monkeys are quite different than humans. Other apes are rather closely related to humans. In fact, chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is related to any other ape.

Baloney. That is an old-school myth.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Pakicetus fossils, shown below, looks nothing like those of a whale:

But don't expect evolutionists to give up the silly whale evolution icons without a fight. Evolutionism icons are extremely hard to find (or, invent), and therefore they Die Hard!

Dan

This isnt a real response. Its teeth are whale like, as are its skull. Now, of course it doesnt have flippers and a blow hole. But it shouldnt have flippers and a blow hole, as a transition has to start somewhere. In the fish to tetrapod transition, the fish doesnt have legs, right, it has to evolve legs before it has legs. Just the same, pakicetus has to evolve a blow hole, before it has one.

 

[Job 33:6]

There are no transitional forms; just vivid imaginations.

Dan

This again, just isnt even a real response.

 

[Job 33:6]

Baloney. That is an old-school myth.

Dan

Another post that isnt a response.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

For example, humans have hands, lower backs, hips, knees, and feet that don't work so well, precisely because they are modified from quadrupedal apes. A designer would have done things very differently, if we were designed from scratch. On the other hand, if we evolved from apes, it makes perfect sense.

More baloney. You are clueless about the concept of design. Perhaps you have been reading too many Richard Dawkins' novels. Certainly you are familiar with Richard Dawkins, the man who knows more about the design of living things than God (actually, he thinks he is God, but that is another matter altogether).

Designers are starting to realize that evolution works better than design for many complex problems. This is why engineers are going with genetic algorithms that mimic evolutionary processes for many things that have been resistant to design.

That is pure nonsense.

Turns out, God was right, as usual.

True. He created all living kinds to be unique from all others, as written:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Humans were created no more than about 7,500 years ago.

Dan

Another post that isnt a real response. Its just you speaking, as opposed to addressing the statements.

 

[Job 33:6]

A more accurate statement would, "AIG routinely contradicts the pseudo-science of evolutionism and therefore cannot be used as a source, under penalty of law".

Dan

And here you are defending AIG, even though they blatently have published false information. They said that DNA was discovered in the T rex fossil, but in reality, it has not. This has nothing to do with pseudo-science or evolutionism or anything. Its just AIG publishing false information. And you defending them, tells us about your dishonesty in the topic, as well.

@NobleMouse Check it out^

These are the people you're working with. They dont care if AIG publishes blatently false info, they still support it. I just dont want you to miss this one^.

There have been a few times now where ive point out young earthers bearing false witness. Here it is, again by AIG, and further, defended by another.

Take notes.

 

[Job 33:6]

The evolutionary model of the geological column is based on unsound hydraulic and sedimentary principles.

Dan

Again, this isnt a response. A youtube video, isnt a response to anything.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What we learn from His creation is that it's elegant; it works by relatively few rules. Indeed, that's why engineers are now mimicking evolution; it works better than design.

What we know about creation is approximately ZERO. And no engineer in his right mind would consider evolutionism to be anything other than a faith-based religion. Engineers apply science in design, not religion.

A Creator Who makes all living things by natural processes is far more powerful than one who would have to do it all a bit at a time. I think one reason creationists deny Him that kind of power is that it makes them uneasy to think of a God that great.

So, now you are claiming to know the mind of God?

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" -- Rom 11:33-34 KJV​

It appears Paul was foretelling your future arrival. But how would he explain this passage?

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." -- Eccl 3:11 KJV​

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

You don't listen well. Move to the 32:30 mark and listen to what he had to say:

He concludes with:

"The 5% (of the fossil record) that does seem to correspond (to the evolution model) happens to be in groups where evolution says, 'this group evolved from sea to land' . . . which is what I would expect with a flood."​

Dan

This again, isnt a response. He said the succession demonstrated a stasis, and then suggested fossil transition from sea to land.

We've displayed transitions that are not of a static nature, that transition from land to sea. The person in the youtube video is incorrect.

So this isnt a response^.

All you have are your brief remarks and a few youtube videos mixed in with some denial.

If you can present a real argument, ill be here. But if all you have are vague 1 sentence responses and these random youtube videos, i cant be bothered here. Ill be moving on, and again, you can have the last remarks.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The evidence He left for us, shows he used evolution to create the diversity of life we see today.

More bait-and-switch. Simple variation within a species is not Darwining evolution, which requires common descent, or macroevolution, which is both unobservable, and unprovable.

This is why engineers have found that complicated problems may be solved very simply by copying evolutionary processes.

I am a retired engineer, and I have never heard such nonsense, until now. Show us your sources.

As St. Augustine noted, He did it in an instant, from which everything else came to be as a result of His creation.

What are your sources? I am certain it is not this one:

"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Philip Schaff, Augustine, City of God, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232] ​

Perhaps you have been deceived.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There are an unlimited amount of things, since "evolution" means "change." Anything that changes, can be said to have "evolved." Many creationists try to obfuscate with it. So we'll use DWM for this discussion, then.

That is called equivocation. We simply want you to admit that microevolution, which is simple variation within a species or kind, is not Darwinian evolution, which requires common descent.

Descent with modification has been directly observed. Even macroevolutionary events have been observed.

Baloney. Macroevolution has NEVER been observed.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You say that nobody was around millions of years ago to see things like evolution or the formation of the earth or continents. But really, we don't need to be present in the past to see what has happened.

We can see what happened; but we have to guess HOW it happened since no amount of experimentation can prove HOW it happened.

Guessing is not science. The pretense that a guess is a fact is called faith, which is religion.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

When it comes to dating of the earth, really there are a few simple points to keep in mind.

1. Relative dating methods (cross cutting relations, inclusions, superposition, faunal succession alone are easily enough to demonstrate a planet that is millions of years old, at minimum.

It "proves" only what the applied presuppositions allow.

2. Radioactive methods are cross-checked with one another. Things like the K-T boundary have been dating using varying methods, which yield the same result.

Radioactive dating methods are notoriously unreliable, and only as accurate as the initial assumptions about the item to be dated, which are typically unknown.

The true test of radioactive dating occurs when the initial assumptions ARE known, but not revealed, as proved to be the case in the dating of Mt. Saint Helens rocks, which dated to be millions of years old using several laboratory methods.

3. Radioactive ages can also be confirmed through a common sense approach of comparing ages with rates of continental drift.

That statement is also based on a major-league assumption -- that the rate of continental drift has been constant. However, there is reasonable evidence for catastrophic plate tectonics, in particular for the enormous momentum required for the Indian plate to push up the Himalayas.

For example, and I will do this right now because I enjoy it,

I open google earth.

I measured the distance between Africa and South America, parallel to fractures that are perpendicular to the mid-oceanic ridge.

The distance measured is 254,460,435 centimeters (see the google earth image below).

A quick google search identifies rough estimates for continental drift. About the rate at which our fingernails grow, 2.5 cm per year.

So, we take 254,460,435, divided by 2.5 cm per year, and we get an age of... 101 million years.

Now apply catastrophic plate tectonics, with the resultant "continental sprint" of up to 10 m/s, and recalculate.

An excellent lecture on catastrophic plate tectonics, based on a model created by Dr. John Baumgardner's PhD dissertation, can be watched at the 48:37 mark:

The segment about the Indian plate colliding with the Asian plate begins at the 1:17:17 mark.

Dan