PROVE EVOLUTION

[lucaspa]

[/font]

hey Justme,
I didnt say it was created after adam and eve sined. i said it was destroyed after they sined. for all we know it Adapted[not evolved] in to a carnivor. because its a carnivore doesnt mean any thing. man didnt eat meat untill after sin either. so what; we were created after they sined?

I submit you have misinterpreted the verses. Plants in the Hebrew are split into two general types: agricultural and wild. Genesis 1:29 says God provides humans with the agricultural plants and 1:30 gives the wild plants to the animals and birds. This justifies humans in killing insects and animals (such as mice) that eat their crops since God didn't give the crops to the animals. Extending this to mean that there are no carnivores or insectivores among the animals and birds is going way beyond the text and making it up.

 

[lucaspa]

how do you know that they werent here before. just because we havent found them doesnt mean that they werent there before, or that theyre new.

In some cases, like mammals, the series of transitionals leading up to them makes it very plain they weren't here before. Others are simply too big or widespread to have been missed. For instance, whales and dolphins are found in all parts of the ocean. Yet thru most of the fossil record we can find large fish or reptiles (ichthyosaurs -- same size as dolphins) but no whales or dolphins. We have searched enough of the search space to be confident that these animals weren't there before. That they are new in the Eocene.

 

[Mirror]

Lucaspa,
how can you be entirerly sure we checked everywhere.maybe we're not digging far enough.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa,
how can you be entirerly sure we checked everywhere.maybe we're not digging far enough.

Look at the statements of Creation Science:

1. All animals lived at the same time and the fossil record is due to the Flood.

2. The Flood was violent.

3. Any sorting of the fossil record for water creatures is due to hydrodynamics.

From this you can make some deductions:

1. The violent Flood would have mixed up plesiosaurs, the huge cartilaginous fishes, ichthyosaurs, whales, and dolphins.
2. Since these animals have the same size and general shape, their hydrodynamic properties are similar and they would have settled together.
3. You would find them in the same layers and actually side by side.

We have sampled enough of the fossil record (the part exposed on the surface; paleontologists don't actually "dig" beneath the surface except in cores) that we have found each of these species at several spots around the globe and in different layers. But we have never found them in the same layers anywhere we have looked. Since whales and dolphins are in all parts of the world, they would have to have settled into the same layers as these other water animals. The sample size is large enough that we know we are not missing them. While we haven't searched the entire search space, we have done enough spot checking that we couldn't have missed them if the statements of YEC were true. Therefore YEC is false because true statements can't have false consequences.

Is that clear?

 

[Mirror]

layers by theory take time to accumalate, right? dont you think that by the time they did there wouldnt be any thing left. the layering would have had to be instantaneus for the fossils to be found the way they were, dont you think?

 

[lucaspa]

layers by theory take time to accumalate, right? dont you think that by the time they did there wouldnt be any thing left. the layering would have had to be instantaneus for the fossils to be found the way they were, dont you think?

I don't follow your logic. Most fossil vertebrates are not found "articulated". That is, with the bones in the position they are in during life. That means that the layering was not instantaneous but that the carcass laid out for scavengers to devour the flesh and scatter the bones in the process.

Many bones do show signs of weathering and erosion that took place before they were buried. You are looking only at the most famous fossils that were best preserved. Most aren't that good.

Now, for smaller fossils, like foraminifera and other shelled invertebrates, they settle to the bottom of the ocean and they are layered over gradually by sediments drifting down to cover them up.

Some fossils are covered up rapidly. The dinos at Dinosaur National Park were caught in a local flood and deposited in an eddy. The Maiasaura nests in Montana were covered in ash and dust from a nearby volcanic eruption.

And most animals and plants don't fossilize, remember? That's why bats are so rare in the fossil record. They live in arid, rocky environments where there is no sediment deposited and the bones do degrade until there is nothing left.

 

[Setheist]

Ok, you want proof of evolution in todays world do ya? The marathon runners from Africa and such whose lungs evolved to help make breathing easier in the mountains.

 

[Mirror]

what im saying is that if you leave a bone out in the middle if nowhere for a million years youl never find it.

 

[lucaspa]

what im saying is that if you leave a bone out in the middle if nowhere for a million years youl never find it.

??? We are not playing a game of hide and seek where I take a particular bone and put it out on the surface somewhere.

An animal dies of natural causes. It's body either 1) lays on the ground or 2) sinks to the bottom of the body of water it inhabits -- swamp, stream, lake, or ocean. Now, several things can happen. Scavengers, either big or small, will eat the flesh and sometimes the bones. Bacteria will eat the flesh. The bones could lay on the surface until they decay -- the organic matrix of the bones eaten by bacteria and then the mineral being worn away to dust.

Or the body or the bones will become fossilized. In this case it is possible that the organic matrix of the bones will itself become replaced by mineral and you have a fossil. Or, if you are really lucky, the body will become frozen and you get the soft tissue too.

here: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_1998/spriggs.htm

Now, the typical fossil is a fossilized bone buried in some type of sediment. The sediment is compressed and the water is squeezed out until the sediment "lithifies" and you have rock. The rock is, of course, buried. But erosion and tectonics will expose part of that rock at the surface, where we can find the fossil.

So yes, we have only found a small part of all the potential fossils, and those fossils represent only a small part of all the organisms that have ever lived. Yet even so, we have found enough of them to show transitional series of individuals transforming from one species to another, often series going from species to species across higher taxa all the way to the Class level. Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Mirror]

yeah thats cool, but lets take CARBON DATING for example. did you know that its been proven wrong. Carbon is affected by temperature, climate,weather, and germs. on the other hand Isotopes are more consistant. now if we use that for dating we find that the fossils arent as old as we are taought that it is.

Dr.Robert v. Gentry(a non- Christian scientist)
> discovered this while working at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
>Coalified wood in the Colorado Plateau
>sacondary polonium halos AKA Radio Halos(dirived from the decaying of uranium)
>for coal to form, exact conditions must be met.
>When wood is buried water infiltrates it.then uranium enters it as well.
>the wood is then compressed(coal doesn't compress. it shaters).this evidence points to a simultaneus event.
>when Uranium entered the wood it left some of its decayed product(lead)
>uranium and lead therfore should decay in uniform.
>the wood has a low lead/uranium ratio
>that same, very low lead/uranium ratio tells that the wood was buried recently and simultaneusly.
> as the lead and uranium decay the ratio down
>In coal gathered in mines in the Colorado Plateau(believed to be of TRIASSIC age).
"the ratio between 238U and 206Pb should be low; instead some such halos have been found with uranium-lead ratios ranging from about 2,200 to over 64,000. meaning that currently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of 10,000, admitting the possibility that the ages of the wood are to be measured in millenia."
source- Geotimes sept.1976
>this information has remained uncllenged and unreputed by the scientific cummunity since it was published in 1976.
>these results pertain to the simultaneus buriul of the Eocene,60 MY ago, the cretaceuos, 110 MY ago, the Jurassic, 160 MY ago and triasic, 225 MY ago.
>this goes for the origin and age of coal wherever it is found.
>as you can see the earth is only a few 1000 years old.

 

[wblastyn]

yeah thats cool, but lets take CARBON DATING for example. did you know that its been proven wrong. Carbon is affected by temperature, climate,weather, and germs. on the other hand Isotopes are more consistant. now if we use that for dating we find that the fossils arent as old as we are taought that it is.

Erm, I thought Carbon-14 (used for Carbon dating) was an isotope?

 

[lucaspa]

yeah thats cool, but lets take CARBON DATING for example. did you know that its been proven wrong. Carbon is affected by temperature, climate,weather, and germs. on the other hand Isotopes are more consistant. now if we use that for dating we find that the fossils arent as old as we are taought that it is.

Carbon dating uses the isotope of carbon --Carbon 14. Most carbon is carbon 12 -- 6 protons and 6 neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. It decays by giving off a beta particle and converting one of the neutrons to a proton, becoming nitrogen in the process.

Now, carbon dating uses the fact that living organism take in carbon during their lifetime --both C12 and C14. When they die, this stops. Thus, they stop taking in C14 and the C14 isotope decays. Half of it decays in 5,750 years, half of what remains decays in another 5,750 years, half of what is left in another 5,750 years, etc. So by 57,500 only 1/2048 is left. At this point the amount of C14 is too low for us to detect. So we do not date fossils by this method. It doesn't go back far enough.

Now, every method has limitations. Within the limitations, C14 dating is accurate. It has been calibrated by comparison to historical events and tree rings.

Now, you quoted Gentry. First, Gentry is a Christian scientist,and a creationist. Why your source would want to lie about that is beyond me. Second, you are talking about polonium halos, not C14.

>sacondary polonium halos AKA Radio Halos(dirived from the decaying of uranium)
>for coal to form, exact conditions must be met.
>When wood is buried water infiltrates it.then uranium enters it as well.
>the wood is then compressed(coal doesn't compress. it shaters).this evidence points to a simultaneus event.
>when Uranium entered the wood it left some of its decayed product(lead)
>uranium and lead therfore should decay in uniform.

This makes no sense. Uranium and the radioactive isotopes decay at different rates.

> as the lead and uranium decay the ratio down
>In coal gathered in mines in the Colorado Plateau(believed to be of TRIASSIC age).
"the ratio between 238U and 206Pb should be low; instead some such halos have been found with uranium-lead ratios ranging from about 2,200 to over 64,000. meaning that currently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of 10,000, admitting the possibility that the ages of the wood are to be measured in millenia."
source- Geotimes sept.1976
>this information has remained uncllenged and unreputed by the scientific cummunity since it was published in 1976.
>these results pertain to the simultaneus buriul of the Eocene,60 MY ago, the cretaceuos, 110 MY ago, the Jurassic, 160 MY ago and triasic, 225 MY ago.
>this goes for the origin and age of coal wherever it is found.
>as you can see the earth is only a few 1000 years old.

Gentry, unfortunately, refuted it himself. He admitted, under oath in the 1982 Arkansas trial, that he falsified his results. It's unfortunate that your source only put out the 1976 claim and not Gentry's 1982 retraction.

We have been discussing C14 dating in another thread. Here, go thru this site -- all the pages -- and you will get an education in carbon dating: http://www.c14dating.com

 

[lucaspa]

Mirror, Gentry has also claimed these polonium halos in granite. Here is a long discussion on refuting those claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Here is a site that refutes the polonium halos in coal:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wood.html

 

[Aduro Amnis]

First of all Mirror, you ignorarntly think that ALL Christians think that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Second, scientist have radiometricly date the oldest known rock to be 4.6 billion years old.
Third, Evolution has been witnessed in the Fruist Fly.
Fourth, Use a spell chekcer.

 

[lucaspa]

First of all Mirror, you ignorarntly think that ALL Christians think that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Second, scientist have radiometricly date the oldest known rock to be 4.6 billion years old.
Third, Evolution has been witnessed in the Fruist Fly.
Fourth, Use a spell chekcer.

Evolution has been witnessed in many species, not just fruit flies.

And, unfortunately, the irony meter pegged when you told Mirror to use a spell checker in the line you spelled 'fruit' and "fruist". You should avoid those kind of comments. We all commit typos from time to time.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Typos aren't as bad as adding 8 diffrent letters to the word 'hi' XD.

 

[Mirror]

First of all Mirror, you ignorarntly think that ALL Christians think that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Second, scientist have radiometricly date the oldest known rock to be 4.6 billion years old.
Third, Evolution has been witnessed in the Fruist Fly.
Fourth, Use a spell chekcer.

Checker!

 

[Mirror]

weeeellll. since im beat at that road, lets talk grand canyon. how old is it and how was it formed?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

weeeellll. since im beat at that road, lets talk grand canyon. how old is it and how was it formed?

Here is a good site on the Grand Canyon put up by the USGS, it is not too technical and pretty easy to understand.

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

What is your problem with the formation of the Grand Canyon as proposed by geologists?

Maybe we can help you understand it better.

 

[lucaspa]

OK, what gives here. Why is the default in italics?

Mirror, the site Lewis posted is pretty good. Now, when you look at creationists sites, remember all the different geological formations in the Grand Canyon. Professional creationists will focus in on one layer at a time and propose how a flood could have formed them. But compare those explanations with each other and you will find that they contradict. IOW, the explanation for the formation of the sandstone won't work for the other layers.

Also, remember a very simple fact: as it sits now, the land around the Grand Canyon should drain to the east and the Gulf of Mexico, not the west, the way the Colorado River flows now. So, if the Grand Canyon were formed by Flood waters receding after all those layers were put down, as the Flood Geologists say, the Colorado River should flow east and not west. Finally, there have been several local floods within the Grand Canyon. Recent research shows that there has been a least one lava dike across the river. This dike served as a dam until it eroded and all the lake water behind it got released. Don't try to mistake that as evidence for a world-wide flood.