Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

MewtwoX · Feb 3, 2007

The Gregorian said:
And mammoths don't take carbon directly from the air? Your source says the mollusk experiment is false because the molusk lived in the water, therefore c-14 dating is off... yet scientists still continue to use c-14 dating on other ocean dwelling creatures and call it fact? Yet your source shows that c-14 dating doesn't work with creatures in the water. And what about the snails... all your source said to validify the snails being 27,000 years old is that the snail drank water, and was therefore not a valid subject because the water nullified some of the c-14... So is c-14 dating invalid for anything that drinks water... which is almost every living organism?

I detect strawmen being made:

1.It is not "just because snails lived in the water" that the dating method is off.

It's because of a particular contamination of Paleozoic Limestone and in some cases carbonate aquifers. Not to mention that current scientists take this contaminant into consideration when they do their tests.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

2. It would look like the Mammoth claims by Hovind are wrong for different reasons then air:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

Lastly, you said we should keep religion out of schools, yet still continue to teach evolution... but Hovind's main point, which I very much agree with is teachers are telling their students that "evolution is a scientific fact and anyone who considers the possibility of life having started with a cause as opposed to no cause is ignorant and scientifically unsound"

Problems with this paragraph:

1. Evolutionary Theory is not a religion in any sense.
2. Evolution is a "Scientific Fact", as long as people agree that Germ Theory of Diseases is also a "Scientific Fact".
3. Hovind conflates Evolutionary Theory with Abiogenesis, which is dead wrong. There's nothing about life having no purpose or no cause in Evolutionary Theory.

MewtwoX · Feb 3, 2007

True enough, they discribe, quite well, how the tongue of a "red bellied" woodpecker could grow with it's anchor further and further up it's head until it's around it's eye... but they completely avoid the real issue: the european green woodpecker, who's tongue does not anchor farther and farther up as it ages... but who's tongue starts at the throat, and goes backwards, up around it's skull, out near the eyes, back in a nostril, then out it's beak forward.

That would be because it's false:

Other Links: Creationist sites providing false information about woodpeckers

C1. Answers In Genesis: - This organization sells a CD with "information" like this to be taught to children.
"Second, how could the unique arrangement for the woodpecker’s tongue have evolved, if, in the beginning, its tongue was anchored in the back of the beak, as it is in ordinary birds? How did the tongue manage to move into the right nostril? If the anchor suddenly hopped from the back of the beak up into the right nostril, the tongue would be too short. And during all the intermediate stages, would the tongue have been long enough to reach the insects and worms inside a tree so the woodpecker could eat and survive?"

C2. Creationism.org: - The author of this page claims to be writing a book called "Answers to my Evolutionist Friends."
"Evolutionists surmise that the woodpecker must have evolved from other birds with normal tongues that go straight out of the beak. The small mutation scenario, however, could never have evolved the woodpecker's tongue because far from adding to the bird's ability to survive, after turning backward, the tongue would have been completely useless until it had completed the entire circle. Only the last step in the evolution of the woodpecker's tongue, that of coming back into the beak had survival value. To explain further, a tongue rooted in the nostril facing backwards would have been a great survival disadvantage until the moment the tongue and its bones had grown long enough to go all the way around the neck, back into the base of its beak, and extend far enough out the end to reach food."

C3. Straight-talk.net - "Straight talk?" Hmm...
"Most birds have a tongue and a beak about the same length. The tongue of the woodpecker has evolutionists scratching their heads. It can be stretched far beyond the tip of the woodpecker's beak as it searches the larval tunnels for food. The tongue of some woodpeckers does not come from its throat up into its mouth like other creatures. The European Green woodpecker's tongue goes down the throat, out the back of the neck ... around the back of the skull beneath the skin, and over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eye socket. In some woodpeckers the tongue exits the skull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of the nostrils!"

Read the article a little more carefully next time...

Another question it fails to answer is the adhesive in the bird's mouth... woodpeckers coat their tongue with an adhesive to help grab the grubs, and produce a solvent so the tongue won't stick to their own beaks. Which evolved first? Or did these two mutations happen at once?

Typical IC misunderstanding of evolutionary development.

The organism does not "build" to make an adhesive/slick tongue. It comes together from useful intermediate traits.

My Unprofessional estimate would be that the solvent formed first for wholly different reasons (perhaps to help passage of food down the throat? I'm not sure...) and became even more beneficial with sticky tongues.

Edx · Feb 3, 2007

The Gregorian said:
That the idea of anything smarter than humans is completely illogical, and if you believe that you're not the superior race in the universe, you're an unscientific fool.

The universe? Wow. You sure know a lot...

FishFace · Feb 3, 2007

The Gregorian said:
How two parts of the same mammoth have been dated at thousands of years apart... yet "scientists" still accept carbon dating?

This is a PRATT. You should check your sources before you shout them over the internet. In actual fact, our dear Mr Hovind has shown his apparent lack of reading ability, because the article he cited has different dates for... surprise surprise, different mammoths.

And mammoths don't take carbon directly from the air?

They do, but they were different mammoths. I don't think this is really your fault, mind - you can't help the fact that you were lied to. (Hovind was contacted in writing, stating that he had perhaps misread his source, and should probably correct himself. He failed to do so.)

Your source says the mollusk experiment is false because the molusk lived in the water, therefore c-14 dating is off... yet scientists still continue to use c-14 dating on other ocean dwelling creatures and call it fact?

Show us one instance where this has been done.

Yet your source shows that c-14 dating doesn't work with creatures in the water. And what about the snails... all your source said to validify the snails being 27,000 years old is that the snail drank water, and was therefore not a valid subject because the water nullified some of the c-14... So is c-14 dating invalid for anything that drinks water... which is almost every living organism?

No. These snails lived in a region where the water ran over Paleozoic limestone, which is deficient in C14. Some of the deficient carbonate dissolved into the water, and was used to build the snails' shells. This is why we can't just take a value from some method and assume it's true; it must be corroborated.

how can your tongue slowly evolve to going down your throat and over your head? The first one who's tongue appeared backwards would have died

Slowly... Appeared... Slowly.. Appeared. You answer your own question then contradict yourself in adjacent sentences.

FishFace · Feb 3, 2007

The Gregorian said:
Another question it fails to answer is the adhesive in the bird's mouth... woodpeckers coat their tongue with an adhesive to help grab the grubs, and produce a solvent so the tongue won't stick to their own beaks. Which evolved first? Or did these two mutations happen at once?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I will give you plausible speculation, not fact. (Which is all you're likely to get, since you're giving the classic argument from incredulity, "I don't know how X could happen, therefore Y happened.")

First, a weak adhesive evolved. This provided an advantage, because food stuck better. However, it also caused a small disadvantage, because it was more difficult to manipulate the tongue. This prevented a stronger adhesive evolving until a solvent had evolved, but once a solvent evolved that could dissolve the glue, the glue got stronger.

flicka · Feb 3, 2007

exactly. I don't like the fact that teachers often (not in every school, but most public schools and all universities) that all religions are wrong accept their true religion of we evolved from soup. That the idea of anything smarter than humans is completely illogical, and if you believe that you're not the superior race in the universe, you're an unscientific fool.

That sounds pretty foolish to me.

Well, out of the mouths of fools...it is foolish.
When you lie you tend to make a fool of youself.

Pikachu · Feb 4, 2007

Pikachu said:
So what? I responded to the first two with (more or less) "I don't know" because that is a perfectly truthful, valid answer. You seem to be reading a lot into "faith" there.

You make the assumption that all of a sudden, a woodpecker was hatched with its tongue attached to a location opposite that of its parents. This is akin to arguing that suddenly, one day in history, an ape gave birth to a human, which is clearly not the case.

I was just trying to get you to think and do some research on your own, rather than relying on the creationist propaganda upon which you are basing this claim. Did you bother to look at the link another poster provided? Here it is again, in case you didn't.

You voiced your opinion, and I voiced mine. The scientific community seems to agree with mine, however.

No response gregorian? I'm disappointed in you.

The Gregorian · Feb 4, 2007

Sorry about not responding since yesterday... I responded to the first few posts yesterday, but I was distracted in the middle of responding to the next set of posts... so I believe this is where I left off and I'll give a breif responce to all the major points... after I catch up, if there's anything I haven't responded to adequitely, let me know and I'll go back to that:

plindboe said:
Seems like the three main questions have been answered though, so I'll just comment on the last paragraph.

well 1: no one gave me any reason c-14 should be trusted except that the ones that can't be trusted are the ones where water is involved, as it breaks down the c-14... which leads me to question why c-14 dating is still used to date ocean dwelling creatures? Do we at least agree that THAT is invalid? If not, why is the dating of a LIVE snail at 27,000 years old invalid just because it lived near a pond?
2: the only responce to the geologic column (how we date fossils based on which layer of strata they're found in) and why there are trees going up through millions of years worth of strata and multiple seams of coal was "the strata could have only been weeks old." Yet finding fossils in one layer vs. another will lead us to believe the fossil is millions of years older.
3: They did refute woodpeckers OTHER than the green european woodpecker... but that was specifically my question: The length of the woodpecker's tongue could certainly evolve to be longer... but the green european woodpecker's tongue starts out going backwards down his throat, then up and over it's head, through it's nostril and then out it's beak. The tongue going from forward to backward, then going up and over it's head cannot be explained through evolution beyond "well... look, it's the only bird that does that, so it can be ignored."... but the fact that there is no intermediary between a tongue that goes forward to a tongue that goes backward, through the neck, over the head, through the nostril and out the other side...

So... no, I'd say they haven't been answered (as of the post I'm responding to now).

If something is taught in the science class room it should be supported by scientific evidence, and not religious propaganda.

Click to expand...

Exactly why I don't think the religion of evolution should be taught in school. Teach science... not religious theories that have no scientific backing other than "well, it could possibly happen over billions and billions of years of random genetic mutation" without ever answering where the first cell came from since "how the first cell got here isn't a part of the theory of evolution."

When you first hear the idea that we should teach conflicting ideas equally, it sounds quite fair, but then you start thinking and realize how stupid it really is. Should we teach the holocaust along side holocaust denial?

Click to expand...

The difference is we have eyewitnesses that the holocaust happened. We have yet to give any rational explaination as to how the first cell formed. We have yet to see, anywhere in nature, where a non-living thing could be made to live without the help of anything else alive. We have yet to observe anywhere in nature where two animals of one species would give birth to something that is not of the same species as either of the two parents. We have yet to observe a dog give birth to a non-dog.

Should we teach abiosgenesis+evolution alongside the thousands of other creation stories in the class room (why only the christian creation story?). I say, let science be taught in science class and religion in religion class.

Click to expand...

I'm not, in ANY way, saying they should teach christianity in schools. I am saying they SHOULD at least propose that the idea of SOMETHING creating life. I'm not saying teach evolution and christianity. I'm saying teach that life originated with no outside source OR some outside source. If you want to believe it was a race of alians, the christian God, the hindu gods, whatever you believe is your religious freedom... but if you're going to delve into "why is life here?" you're going into religion, whether it's a creation or a natural explosion that came alive.

(sorry about any typos... there was... certain distractions which caused me to not be able to look at the screen for most of this post.)

Click to expand...

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
Sorry about not responding since yesterday... I responded to the first few posts yesterday, but I was distracted in the middle of responding to the next set of posts... so I believe this is where I left off and I'll give a breif responce to all the major points... after I catch up, if there's anything I haven't responded to adequitely, let me know and I'll go back to that:

plindboe said:

Seems like the three main questions have been answered though, so I'll just comment on the last paragraph.

well 1: no one gave me any reason c-14 should be trusted except that the ones that can't be trusted are the ones where water is involved, as it breaks down the c-14... which leads me to question why c-14 dating is still used to date ocean dwelling creatures? Do we at least agree that THAT is invalid? If not, why is the dating of a LIVE snail at 27,000 years old invalid just because it lived near a pond?

Click to expand...

It is not that water breaks down C14. The snails lived in artesian springs that were disolving carbon from limestones and dolomites so the carbon source was not the current atmosphere. The carbonate and bicarbonate in the water would serve as a food source for algea and water plants, eventually moving up the food chain to the snails. I have actually measured the incorporation of bicarbonate from water into phytoplankton so I know this is a real phenomonon. The measurement were made to test to see if this type of error can occur and it does.

2: the only responce to the geologic column (how we date fossils based on which layer of strata they're found in) and why there are trees going up through millions of years worth of strata and multiple seams of coal was "the strata could have only been weeks old." Yet finding fossils in one layer vs. another will lead us to believe the fossil is millions of years older.
3:

Click to expand...

Where are trees going through millions of years of strata? Below we have a picture of an object which goes trhough several different layer of lahar.

Will future creationists think that this polystrate telephone pole near Mt Pinatubo was deposited by a worldwide flood?

Click to expand...

The Gregorian · Feb 4, 2007

USincognito said:
Folks, if you're going to discuss Mr. Hovind's disdain for American law, at least make an attempt to discuss his bogus science as well as his bogus interpretation of the 16th Amendment. To do otherwise is to engage in ad hominem.

Again, I couldn't care less about Hovind as a person, or his opinion on anything other than evolution vs. creationism. However, his points on THAT topic are very well presented and well organized. No, I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old and within a week of the earth popping into existance, it was already filled with plants and animals and people and God was already resting from having done it all. Each creative day COULD have been more than 24 literal hours, and dinosaurs MAY be older than 6,000 years... this doesn't mean that people and my pet ribbon snake both have a common ancestor.

The FAQ response that Grimby linked to fully covers it, but I just wanted to point out that a lot of these claimed polystrate "trees" are actually fossils, i.e. petrified trees that go through different layers, not living trees that continued to grow through different layers.

True... are you saying that the tree died, was petrified, then changed positions? Of course it didn't continue to grow through the dirt, no one's saying that. I AM suggesting that the dirt was likely layered down while the tree was still standing... yes, this would have killed the tree.

----
next, tocis refutes my points by saying he doesn't like Hovind... again... I don't agree with him as a person in a LOT of places... but his creation/evolution arguements are not disproven by HIM being financially mischeivious. Unless his points would be PROVEN by him having a perfect record, in which case, I can make the same points he makes and they would be, by default, correct, because I have very good credit and owe the IRS nothing.

also he says a picture saying "Pratt" on it is an explaination to why the green european woodpecker's tongue evolved.... sorry, but I don't see the explaination there.

If you find yourself suffering from recurrent headaches, will you trust your plumber just as much as your doctor when you want to get rid of them? Why (not)?

No... likewise, I don't trust science teachers to teach religion... then call their religion science though they have no proof, nor logical theory for how the first cell formed. (Yes, they can make a few proteins out of a cocktail of chopped up proteins... that's not a living, self replicating cell.)

And that first theory of yours is... what exactly?

The big bang theory: All matter in the universe was in one singularity. At the beginning of time this infinitely dense object (with infinite gravity due to it's infinite density) exploded, and hydrogen escaped at near the speed of light, swirling around... until it was all the planets and stars we see today. Is that not a (very general) summary of the big bang? If not, you can try to put the big bang into one paragraph. If something has infinite force holding it together, what caused it to explode? What force overpowered it's infinite gravity? True, gravity is the weakest of the 4 universal forces, but there was not infinite matter, only infinite density. Therefore finite electromagnetic force, finite nuclear force, but infinite gravitational force. What overpowered gravity? How did all the matter in the universe reach the escape vilocity to come apart? Hawking says nothing can possibly escape a black hole because the escape vilocity is passed the speed of light, so what could escape something infinitely more dense than a black hole? If all matter came from the same explosion, why (in our OWN solar system) are some planets spinning clockwise, and some spinning counterclockwise?

The big bang has plenty of holes in it, yet it is taught as "scientific fact" just because we have nothing better. It's a theory just as any theistic creation is a theory.

The Gregorian · Feb 4, 2007

down to post #14 now:

flatworm said:
For the same reason blood tests are trustworthy even if they give ridiculous results when used on urine.

So c-14 tests are invalid on snails? What are c-14 tests not valid on? Mammoths too, I assume? Since two parts of the SAME mammoth have been dated thousands of years apart? Again, I'll ask: If c-14 tests are invalid on mollusks and snails which live near water because the water is KNOWN to skew the results, why is c-14 testing used on oceanic fossils? And the results trusted, although they're known to be skewed? Why does c-14 testing never work on things where we KNOW when it died, yet c-14 seems to ALWAYS work when we have no idea when it died except the results of the c-14 testing?

3) There are conditions, especially in swampy areas, where an anoxic layer forms at the bottom of a body of water. A dead tree can just sit in that anoxic layer for a long time and not decay as sediment collects around it.

not for thousands of years. How do we know these 30'+ of layers formed within a year or two, yet these few feet of layers were a million years apart?

Evolution is not a religion any more than trigonometry is. I don't worship Charles Darwin, and in fact I know more about evolution than he ever did. There are no worship services for evolution. I don't look to evolution to guide moral choices.

Then why is evolution religiously defended by faith alone? No one has evidence of how the first cell formed, let alone animated, let alone started to reproduce.

What do you mean, both? As if there are only two? There's evolution, a well-supported scientific theory of biological origins, and then there are reams and reams of creation myths (yes, myths) from every culture around the globe. Maybe we should start with the Iroquois creation story, then segue into the ancient Chinese version, and we'll get to the genesis myth around #57 or so.

Again, I'm not saying teach christianity. There's no way to scientifically prove WHAT created the universe, but the idea that something ALIVE brought life to the earth is a perfectly logical statement. I'm NOT saying "teach evolution and christianity." I'm saying "if you're going to teach that 'science says we came from soup that got hit by lightning' teach that 'it is also possible something could have created life.' Either way, the origin of why we're here is religious, and should be discussed with whatever religious leaders you choose."

I challenge you to find any evolution textbook that describes anything like "dirt decided to explode". Go ahead.

Is your best arguement the fact that I called the universal singularity "dirt?" I sincerely apologize if I offended your ancestors (the dirt, from which you evolved).

How life itself started is a scientific question to which we do not yet have a firm answer- but that's the question of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution picks up after the first life forms appear.

You can't have a theory of how the first life forms evolved if you have no bloody clue how what evolved got here! "I see multiple kinds of finches... so they all evolved from bacteria, and I have no idea how that bacteria got here." Honestly? That's what science accepts? A complete theory, for you, is "These bacteria with very little DNA material passed on what the information they didn't have, until what wasn't passed on is all you see?"

The Gregorian · Feb 4, 2007

arunma said:
Since the Bible tells us that we ought to pay our taxes (Romans 13:7), the fact that Kent Hovind is in prison can tell us something about his creationist ministry. Add to that the fact that aside from a two year degree in Christian education, the rest of his degrees came from a diploma mill. Why lie about one's education? Kent Hovind is an unscrupulous figure no matter which way you slice it. And that speaks against his creationist models.

... you know what I've noticed about people who have no idea what they're arguing about? You ask them a direct question and the discussion goes on for pages about everything BUT the direct question... for example: Saying someone's arguements on one topic is wrong because they have bad posture.

Fine... Hovind is wrong in every way because he sucks with money.

I'm very financially responsible, and my theory is: A living cell cannot form from non-living liquid being zapped by lightning. Also, were a cell to form, I don't think it could survive long enough to reproduce with no other organic material to eat. I theorize that single celled organisms will not reproduce into functional multicellular organisms. Lastly I suggest that asexual organisms will not produce an organism requiring sexual reproduction, and were it to produce one, that sexually reproducing creature would have nothing to sexually reproduce with, therefore sexual reproduction should not have evolved since asexuality is more efficient either.

Because I have no legal problems, and I'm financially sound, I am irrefutably correct... right?

Parmenio · Feb 4, 2007

Gregorian,

You really should actually look at the data for the big bang. You are citing points made by laymen on theories devised by experts in fields. Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell is an excellent place to start, but, based on your earlier responses, I sincerely doubt that you are honestly looking into the theories. If I had the slightest inkling that you cared if you were totally refuted, I would join with many here in attempting to show you the various ways in which your assertions are flawed.

One thing though: Science is not a religion. Science is science. You are at liberty to attempt to assert otherwise, but you only show ignorance in knowledge of both.

The Gregorian · Feb 4, 2007

to post #19:

Pikachu said:
So what? I responded to the first two with (more or less) "I don't know" because that is a perfectly truthful

Because if I give you a valid point, and you say "I dunno, but I have faith that someone else probably does, cuz they're real smart." Is just as much of a religious statement as "I think an outside, living force, brought life to this once dead rock."

You make the assumption that all of a sudden, a woodpecker was hatched with its tongue attached to a location opposite that of its parents. This is akin to arguing that suddenly, one day in history, an ape gave birth to a human, which is clearly not the case.
I was just trying to get you to think and do some research on your own, rather than relying on the creationist propaganda upon which you are basing this claim. Did you bother to look at the link another poster provided? Here it is again, in case you didn't.

Also notice... again... that that site completely avoids the question. The red bellied woodpecker's only strange attribute is a tongue that is anchored all the way around it's head... The question was for the green european woodpecker... it's tongue starts in it's throat, goes backward, down it's throat, up behind it's neck, around it's head, through it's nostril, and out it's mouth. What sort of intermediate would there be for that. When the tongue starts out going backwards down the throat and is only partially up over it's head? How would that survive? The tongue sort of has to be able to come out the mouth... unless you're suggesting that intermediate generations just had the ABILITY to stick their tongues half way over their head, but their tongues really just came straight out their mouth? in which case, how did the channel that the tongue takes continue to form?

Maybe you need to stop trusting the evolutionist propaganda out there? Notice, I'm not saying that intelligent design is absolute, unquestionable fact and that anyone who entertains the idea of anything else is a fool for disagreeing with the "accepted theory." It's the evolutionists that are trying to keep ONLY evolution in schools, and silence all other ideas. Is it not true, throughout history, that when one way of thinking is forced upon a populace, and all opposing ways of thinking are actively silenced, the way first way of thinking is, generally, a bad idea?

Saying that Hovind's arguements are false just because he's in jail for financial reasons right now is like saying Martha Stewart's cooking sucks because of her little stock market scheme. Yes, she's a sleezy person financially. She can still bake you a cake that will instantly give you diabetes.

post #21 (thankfully it actually has some points instead of "I don't want to answer because hovind's fat." type comments... bravo to you mewtwo)

1.It is not "just because snails lived in the water" that the dating method is off.

It's because of a particular contamination of Paleozoic Limestone and in some cases carbonate aquifers. Not to mention that current scientists take this contaminant into consideration when they do their tests.

Click to expand...

Then why was this paleozoic limestone not accounted for with the snail? Why was it not accounted for with the mollusks? The mammoths? Why does it seem to never be accounted for when we test anything with a priorly known date of death? Yet, we assume it's perfectly accounted for when c-14 dating is used by itself?

note this quote from your source:

For example, carbon dioxide in the water can partially come from Paleozoic limestone, which lacks carbon-14. As a result, the carbon dioxide in the water is deficient in carbon-14 relative to the atmosphere, and mollusks living in the water build shells that give apparent dates older than they really are. This is a type of "reservoir effect."

Click to expand...

So shouldn't ALL carbon-14 dating from water dwelling creatures be invalid because of the potential for paleozoic limetsone CO2?

Next, your source specifically says again that the snail dating was off, therefore it must have had some sort of reservoir effect... How do we know what does and doesn't have this same reservoir effect? Unless this reservoir effect is accounted for in all c-14 dating, if so why was it not accounted for in the case of the snails and mollusks and seals and mammoths?

Have to go now, but I'll continue with more on post 21+ when I get back.

Click to expand...

arunma · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
... you know what I've noticed about people who have no idea what they're arguing about? You ask them a direct question and the discussion goes on for pages about everything BUT the direct question... for example: Saying someone's arguements on one topic is wrong because they have bad posture.

Fine... Hovind is wrong in every way because he sucks with money.

I realize that my earlier statement might be misconstrued as the ad hominem fallacy. Furthermore, if you feel that I've spoken off topic, then I do apologize. Nonetheless, I must ask: do you believe what the Bible says? I do, and I note that in specific, it says that Christians should pay our taxes, and that bad trees do not bear good fruit. From a Biblical standpoint, what does this say about Kent Hovind's theories?

The Gregorian said:
I'm very financially responsible, and my theory is: A living cell cannot form from non-living liquid being zapped by lightning. Also, were a cell to form, I don't think it could survive long enough to reproduce with no other organic material to eat. I theorize that single celled organisms will not reproduce into functional multicellular organisms. Lastly I suggest that asexual organisms will not produce an organism requiring sexual reproduction, and were it to produce one, that sexually reproducing creature would have nothing to sexually reproduce with, therefore sexual reproduction should not have evolved since asexuality is more efficient either.

Because I have no legal problems, and I'm financially sound, I am irrefutably correct... right?

Regarding your issue with abiogenesis, I must note that the theory of biological evolution does not depend on this. Biological materials could have been first seeded on the earth by God, or by aliens for that matter. Biological evolution addresses how biological organisms grow into more complex organisms.

Now as to the issue of sexual reproduction, evolution would likely say that an asexual organism would not directly produce a sexual organism, but would produce some sort of transitionary species. I don't have very much formal education in biology, so I can't say for sure. Nonetheless, we can be certain that the existence of sexual reproduction poses no problem for evolutionary biology.

By the way, I say this as someone who also believes the Bible when it says, "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth." (Acts 17:26). But nonetheless, we cannot deny that evolution is a scientifically valid theory. Thus far I've never run into a valid argument against evolution.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
down to post #14 now:

So c-14 tests are invalid on snails? What are c-14 tests not valid on? Mammoths too, I assume? Since two parts of the SAME mammoth have been dated thousands of years apart?

They were two different mammoths. That is why they gave different dates.

Again, I'll ask: If c-14 tests are invalid on mollusks and snails which live near water because the water is KNOWN to skew the results, why is c-14 testing used on oceanic fossils?

I don't think c-14 dating is used to date oceanic fossils. Where did you get the idea that it is?

And the results trusted, although they're known to be skewed? Why does c-14 testing never work on things where we KNOW when it died, yet c-14 seems to ALWAYS work when we have no idea when it died except the results of the c-14 testing?
not for thousands of years. How do we know these 30'+ of layers formed within a year or two, yet these few feet of layers were a million years apart?

What? C-14 dating is not used for objects more than 50,000 years old but it does work quite well on many things when calibrated for cosmogenic production of c14. Uncalibrated dates tend to be too young.
You might want to check out Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective which gives a good overview of the subject.

Then why is evolution religiously defended by faith alone? No one has evidence of how the first cell formed, let alone animated, let alone started to reproduce.

You are talking about abiogenesis not evolution. There is a massive body of evidence for evolution

You can't have a theory of how the first life forms evolved if you have no bloody clue how what evolved got here!

We have clues but I don't think we will ever know for sure.

"I see multiple kinds of finches... so they all evolved from bacteria, and I have no idea how that bacteria got here." Honestly? That's what science accepts? A complete theory, for you, is "These bacteria with very little DNA material passed on what the information they didn't have, until what wasn't passed on is all you see?"

Evolution explain common descent. It doesn't deal with abiogenesis. I am sure you have been told that before. Without a complete theory of quantum electrodynamics should we assume that Thor throws lightening bolts?

FishFace · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
A living cell cannot form from non-living liquid being zapped by lightning.

Correct. And the problem this fact poses to evolution is..?

Also, were a cell to form, I don't think it could survive long enough to reproduce with no other organic material to eat.

As above. Perhaps you ought to learn what abiogenesis is before you criticize it, and also what evolution is, so you don't go criticizing the former in order to attempt to refute the latter.

I theorize that single celled organisms will not reproduce into functional multicellular organisms. Lastly I suggest that asexual organisms will not produce an organism requiring sexual reproduction, and were it to produce one, that sexually reproducing creature would have nothing to sexually reproduce with, therefore sexual reproduction should not have evolved since asexuality is more efficient either.

You need to learn about bacteria swapping bits of DNA and other proto-sexual acts.

FishFace · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
Then why was this paleozoic limestone not accounted for with the snail?

A few options. Perhaps at that point the effect of non-direct carbon uptake was not known. Perhaps it was, and the figure was produced by a creationist trying to refute C14 dating. Perhaps that was the pre-adjustment date, and the creationist didn't take the post-adjustment date.

Why was it not accounted for with the mollusks?

In modern C14 dating, calibration is done routinely.

The mammoths?

That had nothing to do with limestone; they were different animals.

Why does it seem to never be accounted for when we test anything with a priorly known date of death?

It is. Oh wait, you mean when a creationist cites an example? There's an obvious answer: Because the creationist only wants dates that meet his preconceived dogmas. In actual radiocarbon dating, this doesn't happen.

So shouldn't ALL carbon-14 dating from water dwelling creatures be invalid because of the potential for paleozoic limetsone CO2?

No, because not all water runs over paleozoic limestone. However, it should be taken into account - hence the need for calibration and corroboration.

Next, your source specifically says again that the snail dating was off, therefore it must have had some sort of reservoir effect... How do we know what does and doesn't have this same reservoir effect?

Corroboration.

Pikachu · Feb 4, 2007

The Gregorian said:
to post #19:

Because if I give you a valid point, and you say "I dunno, but I have faith that someone else probably does, cuz they're real smart." Is just as much of a religious statement as "I think an outside, living force, brought life to this once dead rock."

Oh, is it really?

Let's analyze this, shall we? In past threads, questions have been asked which I was unsure of the answer. Those questions have been consistently, accurately answered by others here. The fact that I said that someone would probably be able to answer the question shortly is based on and observation of the available empirical evidence. If I had ignored those parts of the post completely, it may have appeared I was being willfully ignorant, which is not something I make it a habit of doing.

Also notice... again... that that site completely avoids the question. The red bellied woodpecker's only strange attribute is a tongue that is anchored all the way around it's head... The question was for the green european woodpecker... it's tongue starts in it's throat, goes backward, down it's throat, up behind it's neck, around it's head, through it's nostril, and out it's mouth. What sort of intermediate would there be for that. When the tongue starts out going backwards down the throat and is only partially up over it's head? How would that survive? The tongue sort of has to be able to come out the mouth... unless you're suggesting that intermediate generations just had the ABILITY to stick their tongues half way over their head, but their tongues really just came straight out their mouth? in which case, how did the channel that the tongue takes continue to form?

If the question was about the green european woodpecker, it would have behooved you to have stated that. Here is the question of yours to which I was responding; verbatim:

3: How can you guys explain animals such as the woodpecker? Is it really possible for a bird with a tongue starting in the back of the throat and going straight out the mouth to evolve into a bird who's tongue goes backwards, over his head and all over the place? That's not really something that could have evolved in steps.

And while you're on the subject, I'm interested in knowing why you don't feel it could have evolved that way?

Maybe you need to stop trusting the evolutionist propaganda out there? Notice, I'm not saying that intelligent design is absolute, unquestionable fact and that anyone who entertains the idea of anything else is a fool for disagreeing with the "accepted theory." It's the evolutionists that are trying to keep ONLY evolution in schools, and silence all other ideas. Is it not true, throughout history, that when one way of thinking is forced upon a populace, and all opposing ways of thinking are actively silenced, the way first way of thinking is, generally, a bad idea?

It isn't being silenced. It is being kept out of the public school science classroom because it isn't science.

Saying that Hovind's arguements are false just because he's in jail for financial reasons right now is like saying Martha Stewart's cooking sucks because of her little stock market scheme. Yes, she's a sleezy person financially. She can still bake you a cake that will instantly give you diabetes.

I don't remember having said that. Please point it out to me. I personally feel Hovind is a fraud regardless of his incarceration status, not because of it.

Now, if you want to have a civil debate, that's fine with me and I'm receptive to that. If you want to keep accusing me of doing things I didn't do, and saying things I didn't say, that is where I have to draw the line.

aerophagicbricolage · Feb 4, 2007

Woodpecker tongues could easily arise- they are simply elongated bird tongues. The horns of the hyoid muscles in birds extend upwards from the lower jaw. Look up "chicken tongue" on the internet- it wraps up just like the woodpecker, just to a much lesser degree. http://omega.med.yale.edu/~rjr38/Woodpecker.htm
This site shows intermediate forms and, basically everything, to debunk the woodpecker tongue myth.

Evolution vs. Creation: hovind debate

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Regular Member

Troll

Contributor

Troll

Troll

Troll

Senior Member

Troll

Flaming Calvinist

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency