Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

And the point of this, is that the aig website is clearly stating false information.

Which is why you can't rightfully use it as a source. They blatently state false information. And the aig states false information relatively often.

They lost all credibility with me, after they blatantly edited the words of two astronomers in an attempt to make it appear that they believed something they did not.

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

Eventually, aig was shamed into removing the attempted deception, but they never did apologize.

 

[Job 33:6]

They lost all credibility with me, after they blatantly edited the words of two astronomers in an attempt to make it appear that they believed something they did not.

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

Eventually, aig was shamed into removing the attempted deception, but they never did apologize.

Hahaha, that's funny.

 

[NobleMouse]

This isn't really a response. As you admit, if these fossils were only a few thousand years old, then really it would be feasible that ALL fossils ought to contain DNA, as it has been demonstrated to at least last for over a million years.

But here we are with cutting edge research on exceptionally well preserved fossils, just to potentially find highly degraded DNA, if even that.

If dinosaurs were around just a few thousand years ago, we would have replicated Jurassic Park decades ago. Or at least we would have discovered some DNA. As you said, it ought to be abundant. But it's not, as we sit here with thousands of fossils and still no DNA.

I have never admitted fossils of only thousands of years old ought to contain abundant amounts of DNA - remember, that was your assumption that you keep bringing up in defense of your position, I can quote you the post numbers where you've brought this up if necessary. What I did indicate is that if DNA was found, there are no mechanisms supporting its survival of tens of millions of years... the fact that it is found in bones of only thousands of years is still incredible, and should be very rare.

In the references I've made, it has been suggested as being a step closer towards a "Jurassic park", as an eye-catching headline only. There is no technology to resurrect extinct species I am aware of, hence why animals that have recently gone extinct have not been resurrected. The argument a Jurassic park would have been replicated years ago (as the only logical conclusion of DNA being found in dinosaur fossils) is based on... what?

You have successfully convinced everyone you've come across here on CF you don't believe in biblical creation... we all believe you. If you don't like evidence that supports a biblical creation, you may find better success discussing with folks like M. H. Schweitzer, et al., who keep turning this stuff up rather than, frustratingly discussing with people who, how do you put it... struggle dribbling let alone shoot 3-pointers?

 

[NobleMouse]

Well, the colored legos would not have encased the green Legos, had the green legos not been in place for the colored legos to form around them to begin with. So no, there is no assumption about late entry of compounds.

It's like if you built a house, there is no late entry of support beams, as the support beams had to have been there for the house to be constructed to begin with. You cant build a house on decayed beams. If a house is erected, and the support beams then changed shape(decayed), but the outer walls of the house remained the same, you could look inside and find the daughter product of the beams. Then you could look at the outside of the house to see if any doors are open or if there are holes in the walls. And if not, what you have is an enclosed system with beams decaying within.

The amount of decayed beams lying within the house is isolated from the outside world in an unobstructed and defined crystal lattice.

You just don't know what you're talking about. It's as simple as that. And because you aren't knowledgeable of geology, you're incapable of understanding radioactive dating and decay rates.yet here we are with you acting like you're a degreed scientist.

I've openly admitted I am not a scientist, nor have any degrees in a scientific field. You make this statement only as a debate tactic called ad hominem. As is evidence in my posts, I cite other geologists when referencing matters of geology. I hope you realize these are not my ideas... imagine what kind of genius I would have to be to just invent things up about a field where I have no degree, then find articles that support my invented ideas, written by those with PhD's in that field. It would truly be amazing.

Anyway, that was a weird attack against me so we'll just pretend it didn't happen and move on. Whether talking about legos or now houses, we can assume that it has remained closed the entire time... saybillions of years, but there's no way to prove that. What I did bring up was that there is evidence that brings assumptions like this under question such as the presence of too much trapped helium atoms in zircon crystals and radiohalos... and to reassure you I'm not just inventing this as a counterfeit scientist:

New RATE Data Support a Young World
Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery"

 

[Job 33:6]

I have never admitted fossils of only thousands of years old ought to contain abundant amounts of DNA - remember, that was your assumption that you keep bringing up in defense of your position, I can quote you the post numbers where you've brought this up if necessary. What I did indicate is that if DNA was found, there are no mechanisms supporting its survival of tens of millions of years... the fact that it is found in bones of only thousands of years is still incredible, and should be very rare.

In the references I've made, it has been suggested as being a step closer towards a "Jurassic park", as an eye-catching headline only. There is no technology to resurrect extinct species I am aware of, hence why animals that have recently gone extinct have not been resurrected. The argument a Jurassic park would have been replicated years ago (as the only logical conclusion of DNA being found in dinosaur fossils) is based on... what?

You have successfully convinced everyone you've come across here on CF you don't believe in biblical creation... we all believe you. If you don't like evidence that supports a biblical creation, you may find better success discussing with folks like M. H. Schweitzer, et al., who keep turning this stuff up rather than, frustratingly discussing with people who, how do you put it... struggle dribbling let alone shoot 3-pointers?

Based on our current knowledge, my statement that fossils of only a few thousand years should contain DNA, is accurate.

And, regarding the Jurassic park statement, its with regards to sequencing of a dinosaur genome, or uncovering DNA.

Still, you are just avoiding the reality that if dinosaurs did in fact live just a few thousand years ago, it wouldnt be a complicated matter, finding DNA amongst the thousands of fossils we have.

Regarding your rebuttal, there is no research that demonstrates the ultimate limitations to the preservation of DNA over time. I even posted an article with scientists discussing the very fact that it is unknown how long DNA could ultimately last under varying scenarios of preservation. Their research was implemented in an attempt to answer this unknown question.

Also, even if hypothetically DNA were found in the T rex, it would still be unlikely to change anything with respect to our understanding of the old earth, just because this particular specimen has been exceptionally well preserved, as recognized by the woman who published research on it.

Regardless, while our side can be flexible and can accept either scenario (DNA is found or not), here we are still...with no DNA. Which for YECs, is an issue if all of these organisms allegedly were alive just a few thousand years ago.

Imagine...if these organisms were really just a few thousand years old, every single young earther, Ken Ham and Hovind and all those guys, they would be rushing to get DNA from these dinosaurs. The truth is, it would have been done decades ago. But it hasnt, which is telling of the reality that these fossils are far older than just a few thousand years.

Mummies are like a few thousand years old, and they have DNA, they have degraded skin still. Bandages, with plenty of organic material. But go look at a devonian tetrapod. The thing looks like its made of stone, its clearly ancient.

Go look at archaeological sites of native americans from a few thousand years ago. You can literally go outside with a shovel, and dig through soft soils to find this stuff. They might be 10 feet underground. But go and try to use a shovel to dig out a dinosaur fossils. You wont get far because dinosaurs arent contained in soft soils as thousand year old mummies or native american artifacts are.


This is why archaeologists and paleontologists have two separate lines of practice and methods of investigation. Its because they look at things that are temporally, completely different from one another and the environments in which work is performed by each, are completely different.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've openly admitted I am not a scientist, nor have any degrees in a scientific field. You make this statement only as a debate tactic called ad hominem. As is evidence in my posts, I cite other geologists when referencing matters of geology. I hope you realize these are not my ideas... imagine what kind of genius I would have to be to just invent things up about a field where I have no degree, then find articles that support my invented ideas, written by those with PhD's in that field. It would truly be amazing.

Anyway, that was a weird attack against me so we'll just pretend it didn't happen and move on. Whether talking about legos or now houses, we can assume that it has remained closed the entire time... saybillions of years, but there's no way to prove that. What I did bring up was that there is evidence that brings assumptions like this under question such as the presence of too much trapped helium atoms in zircon crystals and radiohalos... and to reassure you I'm not just inventing this as a counterfeit scientist:

New RATE Data Support a Young World
Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery"

Your quoting of websites is not a response to me. Nobody was talking about radiohalos, so your links are irrelevant.

You say that there is no way to prove that parent or daughter material, hasnt entered a system, but again, this is like saying that theres no way of knowing if new support beams were put into the house after it was built. It just doesnt make any sense.

It could be possible that builders would come in, knock down a wall, add new support beams inside a house, build the wall back up to make the house look "as if" it were never touched. And what you would end up with, is a situation where you would have too many support beams, within an isolated house. It wouldnt look right. It would look as if an alien material was stuffed into a lattice.

Or, imagine a house is built. Support beams decay, builders come along and destroy a wall, take some of the decayed beams out, then rebuild the walls, "as if" no daughter elements/decayed beams have left the system. But then this would just make the house look younger than it actually was, not older.

Either way, your proposal that materials could enter or exit the lattice without our knowledge, is poor.

From a common sense approach, its literally like trying to suggest that half of a house could be torn down, and rebuilt without evidence of such, but also that outside elements could be stuffed into a lattice where they wouldnt fit.

It just doesnt make any sense, and your random AIG links do not address these concepts.

 

[Job 33:6]

Really this whole thing is rediculous. You get one guy whos calling ambulocetus a crocodile. I mean come on, talk about dishonesty. Then he says "i havent seen the fossils". High definition images are posted, he just repeats that he hasnt seen the fossils.

Young earthers do not know why DNA is not found in dinosaurs even though theyre allegedly just a few thousand years old. DNA is found in whooly mammoths...its found in all sorts of recent aged fossils. But never in any Mesozoic or paleozoic fossils. eh, young earthers i guess just think its a coincidence.

AIG suggests that DNA was found in T rex fossils, but no such thing happened. Not that there is any research that suggests that DNA could not be found in the T rex under any possible circumstance related to exceptional preservation. But still, here we are, with thousands of fossils of mesozoic life, and no DNA, with no explanation.

We have other young earthers on this forum, suggesting that earthquakes made the meanders of the grand canyon.

And you have guys who think they understand flaws of geologic dating, who simultaneously cant read a geologic map. facepalm*

This whole discussion is like a big comedy.

You have denial and the ignoring of a lateral distribution of terrestrial to aquatic cetaceans.

You have people quoting websites that state blatantly false information, that even children could identify as websites that present false information.

And still further, no response for the proverbial cambrian bunny. The best response given was "well, bunnies shouldnt be in layers with marine animals because they lived in a different environment", yet when we examine terrestrial rocks, there are still no bunnies. Just as there are no whales beyond the eocene.

No response from the young earth camp, just more...changing of the subject, getting battered around, and the continual sourcing of websites that present blatantly false information. And the cycle repeats.

 

[Job 33:6]

One last thing @NobleMouse , me pointing out that you arent a scientist, is not an ad hominem. I am pointing out that you lack an understanding of the material, and your arguments demonstrate this. Its as clear as day.

And quoting random websites, cannot change this. Especially if the websites provide vague or false information.

For example, lets say a random person who is not a scientist, quotes AIG. AIG is typically vague, it isnt informative, it doesnt really dwelve into much detail. Its articles are usually pretty "simple". But it simultaneously presents false information or information that is incomplete.

Now, the random person will not be able to distinguish whether or not AIG is false or not, because they dont understand the material for themselves. All they can really do is blindly quote them.

The same goes with some of these other guys, like Kurt Wise. He has a pHd. Yet here he is, speaking as if no transitions exist. Then fossils are presented (the lateral cetacean transition) and what response is there on this forum? "Oh, ambulocetus looks like a crocodile" and "well i havent seen the fossils, so i dont know". << These are not real responses. Another response i often hear is "well you werent there so you dont know". Well, I also wasnt born to witness the apollo moon landings. I havent been around the world to see that it is round either. But we have evidence for these. Evidence that cannot be understood by people who think ambulocetus is a crocodile, nor can it be understood by people who cant read maps. Because literacy is a necessity in understanding science.

 

[NobleMouse]

And the point of this, is that the aig website is clearly stating false information.

Which is why you can't rightfully use it as a source. They blatently state false information. And the aig states false information relatively often.

I see this pattern repeated over and over in different threads where you delve into specific offshoots from the original topic, but am hoping you are considering a bigger picture here. DNA in fossils is just 1 line of evidence, but as I pointed out, there are multiple lines here.

I know the Bible is bottom of the list for you on this topic, but for me it still bears mentioning as the first and best evidence. Secondly, we have written accounts, artistic renderings, scientifically there is collagen, soft tissue, DNA... all these things present a unified and cohesive story.

Let's say you could prove one of these lines of evidence false, this does not 'disprove' the bigger picture. God has revealed a truth and there are multiple lines of evidence that support this truth... as we should not be surprised.

 

[NobleMouse]

Your quoting of websites is not a response to me. Nobody was talking about radiohalos, so your links are irrelevant.

Well then I guess you're done as you don't accept what God says regarding the creation account, you don't accept what I say coming from me and you don't accept what others say who are PhD's in the field. What other options have you left yourself?

 

[NobleMouse]

One last thing @NobleMouse , me pointing out that you arent a scientist, is not an ad hominem. I am pointing out that you lack an understanding of the material, and your arguments demonstrate this. Its as clear as day.

[QUOTE="KomatiiteBIF]"yet here we are with you acting like you're a degreed scientist"[/QUOTE]

See definition 1. Your quoted statement above is unnecessary to supporting your position that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is a fact, nor is it directed against the position I maintain.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see this pattern repeated over and over in different threads where you delve into specific offshoots from the original topic, but am hoping you are considering a bigger picture here. DNA in fossils is just 1 line of evidence, but as I pointed out, there are multiple lines here.

I know the Bible is bottom of the list for you on this topic, but for me it still bears mentioning as the first and best evidence. Secondly, we have written accounts, artistic renderings, scientifically there is collagen, soft tissue, DNA... all these things present a unified and cohesive story.

Let's say you could prove one of these lines of evidence false, this does not 'disprove' the bigger picture. God has revealed a truth and there are multiple lines of evidence that support this truth... as we should not be surprised.

Yes, the lack of DNA in any of the thousands of fossils found, is indeed evidence against 3000 year old dinosaurs. Thank you.

Artistic renderings...great...

Collagen in a well preserved fossil.

This isnt even a response. I would love to see someone go into an academic forum, and show a slide show of cave drawings as a case against evolution. They would just be laughed at. This isnt even worth mentioning.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, well, Ill be around for the next discussion i suppose. There isn't much more to see here.

 

[Job 33:6]

you don't accept what I say coming from me and you don't accept what others say who are PhD's in the field. What other options have you left yourself?

Kurt Wise said that fossils showed a stasis throughout the column. Transitional fossils were posted here in this discussion in a laterally continuous fashion. Images and diagrams were posted, but a youtube video is incapable of having a discussion and its incapable of responding. Its just a short vague clip of information. And so, it becomes your responsibility to respond and to speak on behalf of the video posted, or the link posted. But when the person isnt familiar with the information of the video, it becomes a lost point. You cant get a response from a vague youtube video, and you cant get a response from the person posting the video. So, really the discussion cant go further, you just have to settle on an unaddressed rebuttal that demonstrates that indeed there are transitionals.

And if a young earther cant respond to that, then it is what it is. If your video doesnt address the discussion, and you yourself cannot address it, then what other options do you have left?

And yes, i do not accept cave drawings as adequate evidence against the mass of scientific knowledge that we collectively have gained over the past couple hundred years worth of research. Unless they are like...highly detailed anatomically correct cave drawings. But, of course such things do not exist.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Alright, well, Ill be around for the next discussion i suppose. There isn't much more to see here.

Correct,
over 750 posts and not much to see....
Not in the last thread either,
and not in the next one probably either.....

 

[The Barbarian]

I have never admitted fossils of only thousands of years old ought to contain abundant amounts of DNA - remember, that was your assumption that you keep bringing up in defense of your position, I can quote you the post numbers where you've brought this up if necessary. What I did indicate is that if DNA was found, there are no mechanisms supporting its survival of tens of millions of years...

Which would explain why we haven't yet found any in fossils that old.

the fact that it is found in bones of only thousands of years is still incredible

Nope. Under the right circumstances, it's quite reasonable to expect that. Of course, after a few thousand years, it gets very unlikely. As you see, a human body about 10,000 years old had enough DNA to detect various genes.

You have successfully convinced everyone you've come across here on CF you don't believe in biblical creation...

He clearly doesn't believe in the modern YE revision of creation. But that's not the same thing as creation found in the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

WHO WAS THERE ?

 

[2tim_215]

Too bad they haven't been able to find any dna in any of these "fossils". If they did then maybe they could prove once and for all whether or not they were human ancestors? I don't really care how old the earth is (whether it's billions of year or not). It doesn't prove anything let alone evolution that we evolved from apes or chimpanzees. What matters to me is the history of civilization as we know it. The Bible regardless is still as solid as a rock.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Too bad they haven't been able to find any dna in any of these "fossils". If they did then maybe they could prove once and for all whether or not they were human ancestors? I don't really care how old the earth is (whether it's billions of year or not). It doesn't prove anything let alone evolution that we evolved from apes or chimpanzees. What matter to me is the history of civilization as we know it. The Bible regardless is still as solid as a rock.

footnote: behind the scenes: they (the enemy) are planning a lot in the next year(s), including more false dna tests and "evidence" already partly in use and published.

They will continue to destroy and to deceive as many people as they can. (the whole world is deceived according to Ephesians, Galatians and Revelation, et al)

As Jesus declared to His Own disciples:
John 16:4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will ...
biblehub.com/john/16-4.htm
But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may ... I am saying this to you now, so that when the time comes, you will remember what I have .... John 16:3; John 16:1, and John 15:21) refers to the full account He has given .... 16:1-6 Our Lord Jesus, by giving his disciples notice of trouble, designed that ...

John 15:11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that ...
biblehub.com/john/15-11.htm
I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. ... These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. ... You, and I am saying these things while I am in the world, so that they may have My joy ... The joy thought of is that which Christ Himself possessed in the ...

 

[2tim_215]

footnote: behind the scenes: they (the enemy) are planning a lot in the next year(s), including more false dna tests and "evidence" already partly in use and published.

They will continue to destroy and to deceive as many people as they can. (the whole world is deceived according to Ephesians, Galatians and Revelation, et al)

As Jesus declared to His Own disciples:
John 16:4 I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will ...
biblehub.com/john/16-4.htm
But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may ... I am saying this to you now, so that when the time comes, you will remember what I have .... John 16:3; John 16:1, and John 15:21) refers to the full account He has given .... 16:1-6 Our Lord Jesus, by giving his disciples notice of trouble, designed that ...

John 15:11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that ...
biblehub.com/john/15-11.htm
I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. ... These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. ... You, and I am saying these things while I am in the world, so that they may have My joy ... The joy thought of is that which Christ Himself possessed in the ...

There are true scientists (some) who do their research and studies unbiased and who honestly evaluate their results (see people like Francis Collins who I don't entirely agree with, he's Theistic Evolutionist) but they cannot get dna off the old "things" which they have certainly tried (I wonder why). This whole business is for the most part of trying to attempt to move people away from God (the enemy's intent) and to disprove the Bible. Fortunately we have the Holy Spirit to combat that.