"Evolution"- The chameleon.

[samaus12345]

well i guess it comes down to world view if someone hasnt been brainwashed into 'evolution' looking at those structures is pretty good evidence it didnt happen imo hahahaha. i cant elaborate on that the onus of proof is on the one who claims there is

 

[KTskater]

well i guess it comes down to world view if someone hasnt been brainwashed into 'evolution' looking at those structures is pretty good evidence it didnt happen imo hahahaha. i cant elaborate on that the onus of proof is on the one who claims there is

Oh, yes. I've been brainwashed. Sorry 'bout that.

And plenty of people claim there are dates for fossils. Where most of the hominid fossils have been found, they use K/Ar dating of the volcanic ash found in the strata with the fossils. That gives us the aprox. date of when those fossils were placed there.

 

[samaus12345]

no it doesnt, one has to assume based on NOTHING that just because xyz's half life is abc that, that means its been here for x long, there is no law that says things have to start decaying from the top of the decay chain too, it goes back to world view, if someone apriori believes the big bang/13.75 billion years then of course everything looks x million/billion years old

 

[sfs]

The FACT that we have fossils is evidence things got buried in MUD VERY QUICKLY hmmmm

Not all fossils were buried very quickly. And dead creatures get buried in the mud all the time -- is there a global flood going on at the moment?

sfs just because the entire world is delusional doesnt make it fact hahahaha

No. If you think everyone in the world is deluded but you, it's possible you're the only sane one -- but that's not the way to bet. (And what's with the "hahahah" business? Are you having some kind of seizure?)

i think a quick look at a biology book should be enough to convince people its impossible

I think that a lengthy comparison of creationism and real biological data should be enough to convince people that creationism is codswallop.

 

[KTskater]

no it doesnt, one has to assume based on NOTHING that just because xyz's half life is abc that, that means its been here for x long, there is no law that says things have to start decaying from the top of the decay chain too, it goes back to world view, if someone apriori believes the big bang/13.75 billion years then of course everything looks x million/billion years old

It's actually based off repeated studies. If you take a radioactive isotope (let's say carbon 14), and observe it decaying, it will decay at the same rate over time, numerous times. You don't need to witness enough decay to get to the actual half-life, just enough to statistically determine the rate of decay. It's the same as determining the velocity of your car. You don't need to drive a whole hour to figure out how many miles per hour you're going.
We use a mathematical equation for decay (R(t) = R0e−λt), and mathematical equation for determining MPH (distance/time), and they work in much the same way.

I understand that your concern is that, if I may continue with the car analogy, our car is not on cruise control, and thus the rate will change. If that's the case, then we would definitely be off. However, when you test thousands of cars at different places in travel from point A to point B, and all of them have the same velocity, the likelihood that they're all going at the same speed.

 

[samaus12345]

Bleh if wanna use radioisotopes there is EMPIRICAL evidence that falsifies deep time/earth was hot molten glob myth etc

Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

 

[KTskater]

Bleh if wanna use radioisotopes there is EMPIRICAL evidence that falsifies deep time/earth was hot molten glob myth etc

Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates

I have heard murmurs of this idea for the last couple years, and did some brief research on it at one point. It's not accepted in the scientific community, however, one would expect scientists to be hesitant to accept findings that contradict their entire body of evidence.
While I have a very tiny bit of knowledge about geology via my training in archaeology (which, if I'm honest, isn't much either), much of this goes over my head and I would have to do extensive research to not take someone else's word in regard to the validity of Gentry's findings.

Right now, I cannot find any journal articles that debunk Gentry, and if his findings really aren't based in reality, then shame on the scientific community for not speaking up about it.
I did find this: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted
It's of the same quality (as far not being part of a peer-review journal) as your post, so I will put it up.

Please be mindful, however, that I'm not here to fight against creationists, nor am I here to back up theistic evolutionists. I'm simply looking for truth. I will be swayed by whichever direction the evidence takes me (in regard to science).

 

[KTskater]

I had never heard of Talk Origins until I looked up your info on Mr. Gentry. I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of the internet consists of poorly educated people, on both sides of the fence. However, I am interested in his findings. I have a friend who is studying geology, so I might ask him what he thinks about the matter.
Also, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood/sisterhood, could I respectfully request that you refrain from using the term "r e t a r d e d" to refer to people/ideas/theories? Some may be offended by that use of the word. There is a reason why it's censored, after all. It will help your case if you speak (type? haha) in a less condescending manner, as well. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are stupid.
The Spirit has been checking me on pride quite a bit since I've been on this forum, and it seems like we all need a healthy dose of humility here. I pray that we don't get so caught up in proving that we're right that we forget to love each other.



Oh, and to your question about skating:
I used to in middle school and a bit in high school, but I don't anymore.

 

[sfs]

Right now, I cannot find any journal articles that debunk Gentry, and if his findings really aren't based in reality, then shame on the scientific community for not speaking up about it.
I did find this: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted
It's of the same quality (as far not being part of a peer-review journal) as your post, so I will put it up.

You might prefer this, which was published in the Journal of Geological Education, which was peer-reviewed (or at least I think it was, and its successor journal is).

 

[samaus12345]

sfs would you please, kindly in your own words describe what Gentry proposed? and what the link you linked says re his proposal?

 

[Leggomyegolas]

So it comes down to, if one wants to be scientifically honest and not blindly cling to dogma, mutations that ADD information. NOT *alleged* beneficial mutations (which is a misnomer of sorts). You cant gain something by wrecking a little something at a time.

That's the biggest hangup I have with evolution. It depends on a destructive influence, mutations, to bring about something constructive. That's like trying to build a house by repeatedly smacking a bunch of lumber, plumbing fixtures, and electrical wires with a wrecking ball. I suppose once in a great while, you might get two boards to line up just right by sheer coincidence, but the next hit from the wrecking ball would undo that progress, if not completely shatter the boards and make them useless.

And yet, the majority of people would rather believe that's the way houses get built, instead of a team of construction workers putting their knowledge and skill to use to design and build it.

 

[Greg1234]

That's the biggest hangup I have with evolution. It depends on a destructive influence, mutations, to bring about something constructive. That's like trying to build a house by repeatedly smacking a bunch of lumber, plumbing fixtures, and electrical wires with a wrecking ball. I suppose once in a great while, you might get two boards to line up just right by sheer coincidence, but the next hit from the wrecking ball would undo that progress, if not completely shatter the boards and make them useless.

And yet, the majority of people would rather believe that's the way houses get built, instead of a team of construction workers putting their knowledge and skill to use to design and build it.

To use an analogy-

"My door changes. Given enough time it could change into anything." -Darwinism

"Termites change my door." - Creationism

"My door changes. Given enough time it could change into anything. Oh yea...and termites...whatever." - Christian Darwinism

 

[Leggomyegolas]

To use an analogy-

"My door changes. Given enough time it could change into anything." -Darwinism

"Termites change my door." - Creationism

"My door changes. Given enough time it could change into anything. Oh yea...and termites...whatever." - Christian Darwinism

More like, "My door changes. Given enough time it could change into anything. Oh yeah, and those termite holes in the door are figurative. So, um yeah.... whatever." - Christian Darwinism

 

[gluadys]

That's the biggest hangup I have with evolution. It depends on a destructive influence, mutations, to bring about something constructive. That's like trying to build a house by repeatedly smacking a bunch of lumber, plumbing fixtures, and electrical wires with a wrecking ball. I suppose once in a great while, you might get two boards to line up just right by sheer coincidence, but the next hit from the wrecking ball would undo that progress,

Actually, this is where you are wrong. This is where you are leaving out natural selection.

And reproduction and inheritance.

Remember, evolution is a change in the population. Mutations are a change in an individual.

So, first that "sheer coincidence" can't remain in one isolated individual. That would not be evolution.

That "sheer coincidence" has to be inherited by the descendants of the lucky individual in whom it first occurs. And generation after generation, those descendants need to have, on average, more descendants that those without the new improvement until the trait is fixed as the norm in most individuals in the population. That is called "adaptive selection" and it works to spread any beneficial change through a whole population.

None of the unsuccessful changes get that far.

Second, the "next hit from the wrecking ball" only occurs in one individual. And, guess what? It does not get reproduced successfully. So all the other individuals and their descendants don't get hit by it.

That is called "purifying selection". It keeps the sub-standard changes from impacting the population as a whole and means there is no next hit from the wrecking ball of any evolutionary importance.