Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

The earth has to be old. A young earth wouldn't support life, a
young sun or a young universe wouldn't support life. A young Adam
and Eve would not survive without parents. Young animals would not
survive and a young eco system would not support that newly created
life.

Everything had to be "very good" to support life.

Why does life require specific ratios of isotopes in rocks in order to survive? If there were no rocks with a K/Ar ratio consistent with 1 billion years, would life stop? If so, why?

 

[lasthero]

The earth has to be old. A young earth wouldn't support life, a
young sun or a young universe wouldn't support life. A young Adam
and Eve would not survive without parents. Young animals would not
survive and a young eco system would not support that newly created
life.

Everything had to be "very good" to support life.

Why are things that aren't from Earth old, too?

 

[Split Rock]

The same type of erosion features were formed
in mud (not rock)
just as Creationist groups claim:

"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "

Having been to both, the erosion features look the same in mud, as the rock formations in the grand canyon.
Some geologists have proposed that the grand Canyon was cut in weeks due the draining of an inland sea.

Mud and Rock are not the same. Explain how limestone, sandstone and shale were formed from a flood and how vertical walls (not angled) hundreds of feet tall were dug through them. You cannot do so by pointing at Mt St Helen's, sorry. That doesn't stop this creationist group you cited from deceiving others like yourself into thinking it does.

 

[Split Rock]

The earth has to be old. A young earth wouldn't support life, a
young sun or a young universe wouldn't support life. A young Adam
and Eve would not survive without parents. Young animals would not
survive and a young eco system would not support that newly created
life.

Everything had to be "very good" to support life.

What ecosystem existed in the Garden of Eden? There was no rain, water cycle, decay, predation, death, disease, or anything else requiring a cyclic system.

 

[[serious]]

The same type of erosion features were formed
in mud (not rock)
just as Creationist groups claim:

"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "

Having been to both, the erosion features look the same in mud, as the rock formations in the grand canyon.
Some geologists have proposed that the grand Canyon was cut in weeks due the draining of an inland sea.

Now, the grand canyon has:
1. clearly defined layers of different types of rock
2. stepped sides due to the different erosion rates of those rocks

Can you show us these features in your mud example?

 

[EternalDragon]

What ecosystem existed in the Garden of Eden? There was no rain, water cycle, decay, predation, death, disease, or anything else requiring a cyclic system.

Cue the temptation scene and sin which happened almost right after
creation in 5....4....3.....2....

 

[EternalDragon]

Why are things that aren't from Earth old, too?

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Edit: Let me clarify for you only. If God created a heat producing sun, a cooled and solid
earth, a middle aged man and woman, with built in language and intelligence, plants fully
grown, animals in adulthood and planets fully formed, in six days, why would he then create
the heavens and the stars (rest of the universe) as young? Follow the logical conclusion here.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Now you come to mention it, doesn't all this pseudo-scientific jibber-jabber, have something to do with THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST cult?

Exodus 20:11
the seventh day

Let me see what I can dig up for you, and see if we can make all the mumbo jumbo wash away in a flood of intelligent discussion/not.*

In the meantime, seeing as it's my 57 birthday today, I think I have the right to choose and appropriate tune to celebrate it with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxrXA_BbN-E
I AM AN APEMAN - KINKS

Footnotes:

'....Those of us who are familiar with the history of creationism and have read Ronald Numbers’ classic The Creationists, and learned that the Seventh-Day Adventists were virtually the only fundamentalists who produced major advocates supporting belief in a young earth and global flood in the early 20th century – based on the literalist visions of Adventist founder and prophetess Ellen White. It was only in the 1960s that the young-earth/global view became dominant within American fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism in general, primarily through the efforts of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood. ....'**

--
* Panda's Thumb : Seventh Day Adventist Split Over Evolution?

Additional Reading :

Young-Earth Creationism is a Cult - James F. McGrath

 

[[serious]]

Cue the temptation scene and sin which happened almost right after
creation in 5....4....3.....2....

Does it ever say how old adam was when they got the boot?

 

[lasthero]

Edit: Let me clarify for you only. If God created a heat producing sun, a cooled and solid
earth, a middle aged man and woman, with built in language and intelligence, plants fully
grown, animals in adulthood and planets fully formed, in six days, why would he then create
the heavens and the stars (rest of the universe) as young? Follow the logical conclusio

It does not logically follow that, because God created things on Earth old in order to support life, he had to create EVERYTHING old. Why does a meteor floating out in the middle of space hundreds of light years away from human life have to have old age? And not just any old age - the age scienitsts predicted them to be based on theories about the formation of the solar system. They're not just any old age, they're the age they're supposed to be. If we found metoers that dated, say, 1,000 years old, or 10,000, or a million, or just 1.4 billion, or any random number, we wouldn't be able to explain why that is. But, instead...4.5 billion years.

So yeah, why would he do that? Why would he make things old that didn't need to be old in order for Earth to support life? The only reason to go to that length would be to give someoen who was studying the universe the impression that it was old when it really wasn't. Which would be deceptive.

Your argument also fails because the Earth and sun aren't as old as they NEED to be - they're much older. If you took a billion years of life off the sun, it would still be able to support life. So why age the sun well past the age it needs to be in order to support life if the only reason you're aging it is to support life?

Come to think of it, why does the asteroid belt exist at all if the universe was made instantly? In cosmology, the asteroid belt is a result of the process that scientists generally accept created the solar system. They're basically leftover junk. If the solar system was made instantly, why is that stuff even there?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Does it ever say how old adam was when they got the boot?

960 - 1 = 959
therefore a duck!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Lines of Evidence : Homologies : Anatomy (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87_shPJxdns

'Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.'

 

[Loudmouth]

Edit: Let me clarify for you only. If God created a heat producing sun, a cooled and solid
earth, a middle aged man and woman, with built in language and intelligence, plants fully
grown, animals in adulthood and planets fully formed, in six days, why would he then create
the heavens and the stars (rest of the universe) as young? Follow the logical conclusion here.

Which of those requires zircons to have a uranium to lead ratio consistent with billions of years of decay history?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Which of those requires zircons to have a uranium to lead ratio consistent with billions of years of decay history?

I think you might not know this, but you are posting on the wrong thread.

This thread is dealing specifically with LINES OF EVIDENCE for EVOLUTION!

You need to go to : DATING METHODS and present your argument, there.

Thanks

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously the question about gaps in the fossil record, always comes up, especially with regard to human evolution.

My response has always been, "Gaps between what?".

The problem with the creationist "fossil gap" argument is that every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps. If we had 1,000 transitional fossils between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, this would create 999 gaps. Given so many gaps, creationists would argue that each and every new transitional fossil makes evolution less and less evidenced. Crazy, isn't it?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

My response has always been, "Gaps between what?".

The problem with the creationist "fossil gap" argument is that every new transitional fossil creates two new gaps. If we had 1,000 transitional fossils between humans and our common ancestor with chimps, this would create 999 gaps. Given so many gaps, creationists would argue that each and every new transitional fossil makes evolution less and less evidenced. Crazy, isn't it?

I've never heard that argument before, but then I don't talk to many Creationists. The only arguments I'd listened to, were those presented by (Dr) Kent Hovind and Jack Chick. (and to be honest, I can't remember that for sure) -- they basically said that there were no transitional forms, and that the bones were all fabrications. Have you ever read Hovind?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think you might not know this, but you are posting on the wrong thread.

This thread is dealing specifically with LINES OF EVIDENCE for EVOLUTION!

You need to go to : DATING METHODS and present your argument, there.

Thanks

In all fairness, since the lines evidences for evolution are interconnected, many YECs think that if they can punch a hole in one -- in this case, the dating methods -- the whole thing would unravel.

They fail -- predictably and yet spectacularly -- but the strategy has some merit to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've never heard that argument before, but then I don't talk to many Creationists. The only arguments I'd listened to, were those presented by (Dr) Kent Hovind and Jack Chick. (and to be honest, I can't remember that for sure) -- they basically said that there were no transitional forms, and that the bones were all fabrications. Have you ever read Hovind?

You are the one who brought up the term "gaps in the fossil record". I would be interested in what you meant by that term.

I have read and listened to Hovind. Obviously, the bones aren't fabrications. There are many, many examples of Australopithecines alone. Relying on a world wide conspiracy to make the evidence go away is one of the weakest arguments creationists have.

The second argument, that there are no transitional fossils, can be laid bare by a simple question that I have yet to see a creationist positively answer. What features would a fossil need in order for you, the creationist, to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps? The truth of the matter is that they don't care what the evidence is or what the fossils look like. Their only play is to try and enforce a dogmatic denial of the evidence.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In all fairness, since the lines evidences for evolution are interconnected, many YECs think that if they can punch a hole in one -- in this case, the dating methods -- the whole thing would unravel.

They fail -- predictably and yet spectacularly -- but the strategy has some merit to it.

It's just very boring, because the dating methods are extremely complex and require at least some basic knowledge of Physics (which I do not have), but Biology I find interesting and exciting.
I might start a thread about the age of the Earth, but for now I'm not doing Physics, I'm trying to do Biological Evolution 101. Well, whenever I get some time to read a bit further into the online course.

 

[NannaNae]

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.

go get that boring lecture at one of their priests of babel AKA the higher education of lowered learning.. do it already .

or go promptly to an evolution site!
do not promote or prostyle that stuff on this site!
everyone has heard their nonsense in school already!
and it does make sense unless you are high on something.