Lines of Evidence

[lasthero]

So, you asked what evidence was used by both evolutionists and creationists.


Does this pass the requirements?

Seen that video. If memory serves, he just debunks some creationist myths. I don't recall him claiming any of it was evidence for evolution.

 

[Kylie]

So, you asked what evidence was used by both evolutionists and creationists.


Does this pass the requirements?

In the sense that both sides claim that this evidence supports their position, yes, it does.

However, examination of it reveals that it does not actually function as evidence for creationism.

 

[Kylie]

Nice strawman, however, if they find it in 2000 years someone would catch on that there are credits depicting the character and the actor that played the part, producers, directors. All give light to the truth.

Assuming that this part of the film or video file or whatever survives. What if they can only recover small parts from each episode? After all, when we find stuff from 2000 years ago, it's all tattered and torn, isn't it? Bits missing here and there.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.

So, let's chat.

Moving on: Fossil Record

Click to meet the intermediate

'....Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern gray whale — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu3KC4r_hcI

 

[JacksBratt]

Seen that video. If memory serves, he just debunks some creationist myths. I don't recall him claiming any of it was evidence for evolution.

And you believe everything you hear about this "debunking" because it is the gospel truth or because some guy in a video stated it?

I was asked about evidence used by both believers in the TOE and YEC and I produced it.

I have, many times, stated that people more educated than myself and others on this site, use the same data to promote both theories.

I was challenged. I showed evidence of my statement. I was accused of using a "biased" site and refuted that accusation by stating "all sites are biased to whatever camp they back".

In a rebuttle, the poster shows me a video that I am supposed to take as the real truth.....a biased video.

So, on and on the story goes.

In the end, you will not know the real truth until your heart stops and your eyes open to what's next after this world. At that point your destiny is already cast and in two words... too late.

All of us are in the same boat here. I have my views of what God wants and what I do in order to try to live the way He wants. I have my views on what the future of this earth will endure and what events will take place. I have my views of what will happen when my heart stops.

There are hundreds of people out there who have, or profess to have seen the other side. Many are of wonderous things, many are of horrible things. All these people have a marked change in their lives afteward. One is the story of a doctor who strongly refuted such stories with all his medical and scientific explanations of what it was...UNTIL he had one himself....

 

[JacksBratt]

In the sense that both sides claim that this evidence supports their position, yes, it does.

However, examination of it reveals that it does not actually function as evidence for creationism.

According to your biased source.....

Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded. Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.

I could give you the webpage of evidence but it's a "biased" source.

 

[lasthero]

And you believe everything you hear about this "debunking" because it is the gospel truth or because some guy in a video stated it?

What was wrong with his rebuttal?

I was asked about evidence used by both believers in the TOE and YEC and I produced it.

Except he didn't use it as evidence for the TOE, as far as I know. If you feel he did, please give me the time stamp where he says polystrate fossils support TOE.

I have, many times, stated that people more educated than myself and others on this site, use the same data to promote both theories.

Well, let's be accurate, here. Many scientists have data that the feel supports TOE. A small minority think it supports creationism, and they've often been rebutted on this.

In the end, you will not know the real truth until your heart stops and your eyes open to what's next after this world. At that point your destiny is already cast and in two words... too late.

All of us are in the same boat here. I have my views of what God wants and what I do in order to try to live the way He wants. I have my views on what the future of this earth will endure and what events will take place. I have my views of what will happen when my heart stops.

There are hundreds of people out there who have, or profess to have seen the other side.

There are hundreds of people who profess to seeing the Loch Ness Monster, too. Unevidenced claims don't impress me, even when a lot of people make them.

Save it for the Chick tract.

 

[lasthero]

According to your biased source.....

Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded.

And if you dated those layers, they would return the same date.

No one is claiming that certain events can't bury trees quickly. Geologist are quite aware of this. It happens all the time in areas that rapidly change, like swaps.

Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.

No, it doesn't.

I've seen the map of the canyon you're talking about, and it has, among other things, no incsied meanders. The grand canyon does have these, and they're the trademark of a formation created by slow, geologic process. You don't get incised meanders from a quick flow like that. I have a map of them both, and i'll compare them for you if i can find it.

 

[RickG]

According to your biased source.....

Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded. Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.

I could give you the webpage of evidence but it's a "biased" source.

Jack, both sides are biased, one biased with factual evidence and one biased with misrepresentations of that evidence. Let's discuss one of the bias's.

1st - Mount St. Helens has nothing to do with evolution.

2nd - The mud debris with both upright, angled and flat debris was a localized event and in no way related to anything occurring on a global scale.

3rd - The canyon formed by the Mount St. Helens "Lahar" does not resemble the Grand Canyon in the slightest. Furthermore, the small said canyon grew to a larger size because it was unconsolidated earth that was washed away, not solid rock.

 

[JacksBratt]

What was wrong with his rebuttal?



Except he didn't use it as evidence for the TOE, as far as I know. If you feel he did, please give me the time stamp where he says polystrate fossils support TOE.



Well, let's be accurate, here. Many scientists have data that the feel supports TOE. A small minority think it supports creationism, and they've often been rebutted on this.

In the end, you will not know the real truth until your heart stops and your eyes open to what's next after this world. At that point your destiny is already cast and in two words... too late.

All of us are in the same boat here. I have my views of what God wants and what I do in order to try to live the way He wants. I have my views on what the future of this earth will endure and what events will take place. I have my views of what will happen when my heart stops.



There are hundreds of people who profess to seeing the Loch Ness Monster, too. Unevidenced claims don't impress me, even when a lot of people make them.

Save it for the Chick tract.[/quote]
The rebutal was fine. All I'm saying is people use the evidence to prove or dissprove what they believe. There is no hard cold facts that prove either. All evidence is in. Educated people use it to back or contradict the theories.

The Loch Ness has been debunked. Try to keep up with relavent mysteries.

By the way the "quote" settings on these last posts are wacked.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm a recovering KJO-YEC

I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N

Please choose "one" and help me understand it?

I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.

So, let's chat.

Moving on: Fossil Record

Transitional Forms : Part 2 : Horse Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtX3ir4eWMM

Additional 'light' reading:

'Over 60 million years, the horse evolved from a dog-sized creature that lived in rainforests into an animal adapted to living on the plains and standing up to 2 metres high. ....'

BBC - GSCE: Bitesize Evidence for evolution : Fossils

'The evolution of the horse occurred over a period of 50 million years, transforming the small, dog-sized, forest-dwelling Eohippus into the modern horse. ....'

Wikipedia : Evolution of the horse

'....Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory. ....'

No Answers In Genesis : Horse Evolution

'....In the 1870's, the paleontologist O.C. Marsh published a description of newly discovered horse fossils from North America. At the time, very few transitional fossils were known, apart from Archeopteryx. The sequence of horse fossils that Marsh described (and that T.H. Huxley popularized) was a striking example of evolution taking place in a single lineage. Here, one could see the fossil species "Eohippus" transformed into an almost totally different-looking (and very familiar) descendent, Equus, through a series of clear intermediates. ....'

TALK ORIGINS : Horse Evolution by Kathleen Hunt

 

[PsychoSarah]

And then you get the weird and counterintuitive whale evolution which proves that scientists don't assume evolution timelines to such an extent that they will deny information that seems to deviate from expectations.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And then you get the weird and counterintuitive whale evolution which proves that scientists don't assume evolution timelines to such an extent that they will deny information that seems to deviate from expectations.

Well that's what science is about, right?

 

[RickG]

The bottom line is that if evolution were false we would find fossils of whales and horses in layers of geologic strata.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The bottom line is that if evolution were false we would find fossils of whales and horses in layers of geologic strata.

You say that a lot, RickG. I'd still love you to fully unpack your thoughts in this regard. (perhaps another time?)

 

[PsychoSarah]

You say that a lot, RickG. I'd still love you to fully unpack your thoughts in this regard. (perhaps another time?)

RickG has addressed that topic to death, beat it back to live, and beat it back into the grave again.

 

[RickG]

You say that a lot, RickG. I'd still love you to fully unpack your thoughts in this regard. (perhaps another time?)

It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.

Meh, I'm a Biomedical Sciences student, geology isn't really my specialty nor will it likely be in the future.

 

[RickG]

Meh, I'm a Biomedical Sciences student, geology isn't really my specialty nor will it likely be in the future.

Also a reason I generally avoid discussions specific to biology, definitely not my area of interest.

 

[lasthero]

It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.

If they invoke the flood, they typically go with one of three explanations:

1) Fossils are sorted by the areas they lived in when they died
2) They're sorted by how fast they ran.
3) They're ordered by their ability to float

Each of these have their problems, but NONE of them explain the fact that the higher fossils inevitably return younger dates and lower ones return older dates. I've never seen a real explanation for why that is, if not for them being laid down chronologically. If dating techniques didn't work, you wouldn't expect that to be. And you can't fall back on the whole 'God made the universe old' argument because the flood happened after that.

The Earth is old. I really cannot fathom how much you have to torture you mind not to get that.