Science vs. Evolution

[Cassiterides]

Not only were his questions completely unintelligent and wrong, what makes in all the more amusing is that the people he questioned can explain more about evolution (even if they have it wrong) than anyone can about creationism.

You mean the evolutionists who replied in the video: ''probably'' ''i don't know'' ''could have'' ''i'm not sure'' repeatedly? Because those are real scientific statements.

 

[Cassiterides]

Wow. I may have to do something to regenerate some lost IQ points after wasting about 9 minutes of my life watching that nonsense.

It's obvious you made up your mind long ago, so whatever evidence i present to you against evolution and for creation you will deny.

Every link or video i give you, you mock, straight away insult or attempt to discredit. People like you aren't here for an honest debate.

 

[Cabal]

It's obvious you made up your mind long ago, so whatever evidence i present to you against evolution and for creation you will deny.

Every link or video i give you, you mock, straight away insult or attempt to discredit. People like you aren't here for an honest debate.

Hey, c'mon, he gave it 9 minutes, hardly straightaway - and that's enough to risk brain damage when Ray Comfort's involved.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's obvious you made up your mind long ago,

It is pretty obvious who has their mind made up and will not consider any evidence.

so whatever evidence i present to you against evolution and for creation you will deny.

Refuting alleged evidence or pointing out that it is not actually evidence is not the same as denying it. You have not presented any actual evidence. I deny the lie about whale fossils in the video you posted because it is a lie and I posted evidence showing it is a lie. I pointed out that the comment about cogs and dats was just plain silly because it is just plain silly.

Every link or video i give you, you mock, straight away insult or attempt to discredit.

The links you gave discredit themselves, all that needs to be done is to show how they discredit themselves and that is pretty easy. All they really do is show how intellectually bankrupt young earth creationism is so thanks for posting links to so many creationist failures.

People like you arn't here for an honest debate.

I think you are projecting. It is clear who is not interested in honest debate but only in calling evolution a fairy tale and posting links to collections of PRATTs and other nonsense.

Posting absurdities like the Comfort video is hardly honest debate and when you post links to such total absurdities you can expect them to be mocked.

I have seen the AiG web page on Tiktaalik before. I pointed to a website from an actual paleontologist showing that AiG fails to refute the transitional nature of the fossil. If you have any actual evidence that AiG is right present it.

One of the websites you pointed to is full of PRATTS that even AiG rejects.

If you want to admit defeat and leave that is fine with me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You mean the evolutionists who replied in the video: ''probably'' ''i don't know'' ''could have'' ''i'm not sure'' repeatedly? Because those are real scientific statements.

Yes, they are. The are counched in uncertainty because science doesn't declare absolute truths. "I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate response if you honestly don't know. It's a much better response than "I don't how rainbows/earthquakes/stars/life formed, so the only possible explanation is God".

 

[Cassiterides]

It is pretty obvious who has their mind made up and will not consider any evidence.

I base my evidence on the facts.

Refuting alleged evidence or pointing out that it is not actually evidence is not the same as denying it. You have not presented any actual evidence. I deny the lie about whale fossils in the video you posted because it is a lie and I posted evidence showing it is a lie. I pointed out that the comment about cogs and dats was just plain silly because it is just plain silly.

Transitional fossils aren't in existance, this is not something creationists make up, but what museum officials themselves agree with.

Those fossils are a problem

''None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.''

Polystrata fossils also fully debunk the whole evolutionists idea of the geologic column deposited over millions of years.

YouTube - polystrata fossils

All they really do is show how intellectually bankrupt young earth creationism is so thanks for posting links to so many creationist failures.

And how long has this thread run on for now? And yet you evolutionists have failed time and time again to provide any evidence for evolution. I would think twice before you go around calling others ''failures''.

I think you are projecting. It is clear who is not interested in honest debate but only in calling evolution a fairy tale and posting links to collections of PRATTs and other nonsense.

If you go back pages, you would see i looked and responded in detail to every evolutionist politely and debunked their alleged evidence for evolution. If there was evidence for evolution, creationists would believe it but since there is none, we still take the YEC view.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I base my evidence on the facts.



Transitional fossils aren't in existance, this is not something creationists make up, but what museum officials themselves agree with.

Those fossils are a problem

''None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.''

Polystrata fossils also fully debunk the whole evolutionists idea of the geologic column deposited over millions of years.

YouTube - polystrata fossils

Here's another polystrate fossil for you. Must have been created by the global flood.

And how long has this thread run on for now? And yet you evolutionists have failed time and time again to provide any evidence for evolution. I would think twice before you go around calling others ''failures''.

You have not provided any evidence, only links to lists of PRATTS

If you go back pages, you would see i looked and responded in detail to every evolutionist politely and debunked their alleged evidence for evolution. If there was evidence for evolution, creationists would believe it but since there is none, we still take the YEC view.

Show where you provided any detail. You just point to web pages that fail to do what you claim they do.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You mean the evolutionists who replied in the video: ''probably'' ''i don't know'' ''could have'' ''i'm not sure'' repeatedly? Because those are real scientific statements.

Yes they are. They're what you say when you don't know the answer to something. They may not know everything about evolution, but at least they're being honest. Ray Comfort, on the other hand...

 

[SithDoughnut]

I base my evidence on the facts.

I've never seen a creationist come up with any facts for creationism. Ever. If you have some, please share.

By the way, when I say facts for creationism, I mean actual facts for creationism. Disproving evolution just disproves evolution - you still then have to prove creationism.

Let's assume that evolution is wrong, and no one has any idea how life is how it is now. What do you have that proves creationism? Don't forget, we already know evolution is wrong, so we're at square one here - you need positive evidence.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I base my evidence on the facts.



Transitional fossils aren't in existance, this is not something creationists make up, but what museum officials themselves agree with.

Those fossils are a problem

''None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.''

Polystrata fossils also fully debunk the whole evolutionists idea of the geologic column deposited over millions of years.

YouTube - polystrata fossils

I should have known that when Ray Comfort showed up Dr. Dino couldn't be far behind. A word of advice, if you want to be taken seriously don't quote Hovind.

The polystrate fossil PRATT was actually prefuted in 19th century before creationists even brought it up.
"Polystrate" Tree Fossils
and of course we have discussed it on this board in the past
http://www.christianforums.com/t2953180-6/#post23707615

Bill Birkeland's post on the EvC forum that I linked to are also worth reading
EvC Forum: Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)

Regarding the Joggins fossil forests it is understood how they formed.
tree

I suggest you read these scholarly papers on the subject.

Michael C. Rygel*, Martin R. Gibling* and John H. Calder†. Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures from fossil forests in the Pennsylvanian Joggins Formation, Nova ScotiaSedimentologyVolume 51 Issue 3, Pages 531 – 552 (2004)
and
Falcon-Lang, Howard J.; Gibling, Martin R.; Grey, Melissa, Joggins, Nova Scotia. Geology Today, Vol. 26, Issue: 3, May 2010. pp. 108-114
for some explanation of how these forest formed and how similar forests are forming today
In the Joggins formation after one forest grew and was buried in sediments another grew on top of it. There many forests one atop the other. The fossil trees also show charcol on some of them, the residue of ancient wildfires that burned while the trees were growing. This is hardly evidence of either a young earth or global flood.
I have attached a picture of the Joggins stratigraphy from the Rygel reference.

 

[Cassiterides]

A word of advice, if you want to be taken seriously don't quote Hovind.

What's wrong with Hovind? Also may i ask why should the theory of evolution be taken seriously when Charles Darwin never had a science degree or an education in science? Your beliefs stem from a charlatan.

The polystrate fossil PRATT was actually prefuted in 19th century before creationists even brought it up.
"Polystrate" Tree Fossils
and of course we have discussed it on this board in the past
http://www.christianforums.com/t2953180-6/#post23707615

The TalkOrigin's article has already been replied to:

http://creationwiki.org/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

 

[Cassiterides]

Let's assume that evolution is wrong, and no one has any idea how life is how it is now. What do you have that proves creationism? Don't forget, we already know evolution is wrong, so we're at square one here - you need positive evidence.

If you want to start this, that's progress, but you have to start with no assumption for the age of the earth either. Will you accept that?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What's wrong with Hovind? Also may i ask why should the theory of evolution be taken seriously when Charles Darwin never had a science degree or an education in science? Your beliefs stem from a charlatan.

Darwin was as well trained as most naturalists of his day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
but I base my acceptance of evolution on data and analysis done by thousands of scientists since then.

Meanwhile Kent Hovind is such a charlatan the even AiG rejects many of his arguments.
A WARNING FROM ANSWERS IN GENESIS
a little more on Hovind
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The TalkOrigin's article has already been replied to:

http://creationwiki.org/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

Replied to but not refuted. In fact the creationwiki page refutes itself.

Here is a quote your link with a little emphasis added

Within the Joggins formation specifically, the polystrate lycopods are sometimes rooted in coal, sometimes rooted in shale, sometimes rooted in sandstone,

Look at the diagram I attached to my last post. These layers of trees grew succesively each layer growing on top of the buried layer below it. Perhaps you would like to explain how they are rooted in the layer they appear to grow in if they were deposited by a global flood.

These deposits contain layers of fossil soils called paleosols that could not have formed in a global flood.
Soils and Paleosols - SkepticWiki
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~pmartini/in_prepa/M_G_SMITH_I_P_MARTINI_micro.htm
The reason that some trees are rooted in sandstones, some in shale and some in coal is that the depositional environment changed during the thousands of years the forests were growing one atop the other.

FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS

Paleosol profiles are distinguished by their organic-rich epipedons, root remains, color mottling, various blocky and platy structures, and a variety of calcite and siderite nodules and root casts.

Coal layers and associated underclays are thought to derive from original polygenetic soils altered by diagenesis associated with coal formation. Four typical paleosol profile types reinforce sedimentological and palaeontological observations and provide new information about well-drained to poorly-drained sites in the floodplain setting and an overall change from humid conditions in successions I and II to more arid climatic conditions in succession III of the exposure.

Here is quote from Bill Birkeland on the EvC forum I linked to above

Papers by Falcon-Lang (1999, 2000, 2001) are also interesting in they provide clear evidence of many of the Joggins polystrate trees had been charred by forest fires before being buried and the presence of abundant of charcoal within fossil soils that formed the former forest floor

The paper I referenced from Geology Today also discusses the evidence of repeated forest fires during the deposition of the Joggins forest.
Perhaps you could tell us how multiple forest fires burned during a global flood.

This is from my previous post:
Bill also addresses Holocene buried forests which could not have been formed by Noah's flood.

My favorite example of a polystrate tree is one that was found in a backhoe trench by archaeologists looking for archaeological sites in the Atchafayala Basin near Indian Bayou. The sediments enclosing this polystrate tree can clearly be demonstrated as having accumulated over the last 150 to 200 years. This makes the sediments enclosing this polystrate tree far too young to have been deposited by the Noachian Flood. As mentioned in a previous post, I discussed the details of this find in "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=105&p=8
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=105&m=8#8
In the cutbanks of the Mississippi River that expose its older natural levee and oxbow lakes deposits, a person, who wanted to look, could have found additional examples of such historic and Holocene polystrate trees. In 1846 while traveling along the Mississippi River, Charles Lyell saw innumerable examples of polystrate trees encased in recent floodplain deposits that were exposed in Mississippi River cutbanks. It was the amazing similarity of these buried polystrate trees, clearly enclosed in unquestionable fluvial deposits of the Mississippi River, with the Joggins polystrate trees that lead him to interpret the Joggins trees as having been buried upright in place. Polystrate trees have not only been found in the rock record, but also in the modern Mississippi floodplain deposits. This proves not only are they are possible, but also can be created by noncatastrophic processes common to large river systems. (NOTE: Lyell's observation of polystrate trees in exposed Mississippi River deposits is discussed by Leonard G. Wilson in his book "Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology 1841-1853".)

The Joggins forests were buried in place in a similar fashion to what is happening in the Atchafayala basin today. The literature indicates that they are well rooted in fossil soils contrary to YEC claims and the fact that some were charred by forest fires between the time they grew and the time they were buried makes it pretty hard to image that they are global flood deposits.

The idea that a global flood somehow set forests up one atop the other and buried them with their roots in fossil soils is simply absurd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's obvious you made up your mind long ago, so whatever evidence i present to you against [Creation] and for [evolution] you will deny.

Every link or video i give you, you mock, straight away insult or attempt to discredit. People like you aren't here for an honest debate.

This. The above quote. Re-written and re-directed toward you.
You've made up your mind. You stubornly reject that the evidence presented is even 'evidence', or otherwise misconstrue it in some elaborate way. You mock, insult, and attempt to discredit (note the emphasis on attempt). And we're to take this all to mean that you are here for an honest debate?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

YouTube - Using Common Sense to Debunk Evolution - CBN.com

1. The video interviews people who believe in ToE, but do not fully understand it. The maker of the video is trying to exploit the ignornance of some.

2. 'You can lead a [Creationist] to the evidence, but you can't make him think.' Good title.

3. What point does he think he is making when he talks about there needing to be a female for the dog, or whatever species in question, for it to reproduce? Does he honestly believe, as this seems to suggest, that ToE posits that males and females of a species evolved seperately? The 'missing female', lol. The Vandelay wager - that most Creationists do not actually understanding the theory they are disputing - is supported daily.

4. He suggests that evolution rids away with morality. That if I am animal than I can procreate without any qualms of conscience. There is a problem with this sort of reductionism. No-one says that the human being is "just another ape". If we did we could ultimately say that the human being is just another amoeba, or just another bacteria, or just another single-celled organism! We don't say any of that because we recognise that while we evolved from these creatures, we are not equivalent with them. And that should be obvious. We evolved from them, but that does not make us the same as them.

4a. Evolution does not get 'rid' of morality. Many Christians assume that morality began when religion began and that the two are inseperable. However, moral sensibility pre-dates religion. And while religion may have shaped various moral systems it is not true that morality disappeaers entirely when religion disappears. They share a reciprocal relationship throughout history, but not necessarily a contingent one. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

4b. Psychologists are diligently studying the evolution of morality. Interesting topic.

5. Contrary to the title of the video, nothing was actually debunked, and I mean nothing.

 

[tanzanos]

It's obvious you made up your mind long ago, so whatever evidence i present to you against evolution and for creation you will deny.

Every link or video i give you, you mock, straight away insult or attempt to discredit. People like you aren't here for an honest debate.

Pot calling the kettle black!

 

[tanzanos]

YouTube - Using Common Sense to Debunk Evolution - CBN.com

YouTube - Hahaha

 

[Hespera]

Darwin was as well trained as most naturalists of his day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education
but I base my acceptance of evolution on data and analysis done by thousands of scientists since then.

Meanwhile Kent Hovind is such a charlatan the even AiG rejects many of his arguments.
A WARNING FROM ANSWERS IN GENESIS
a little more on Hovind
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replied to but not refuted. In fact the creationwiki page refutes itself.

Here is a quote your link with a little emphasis added

Look at the diagram I attached to my last post. These layers of trees grew succesively each layer growing on top of the buried layer below it. Perhaps you would like to explain how they are rooted in the layer they appear to grow in if they were deposited by a global flood.

These deposits contain layers of fossil soils called paleosols that could not have formed in a global flood.
Soils and Paleosols - SkepticWiki
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~pmartini/in_prepa/M_G_SMITH_I_P_MARTINI_micro.htm
The reason that some trees are rooted in sandstones, some in shale and some in coal is that the depositional environment changed during the thousands of years the forests were growing one atop the other.

FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS AND PALEOSOL PROFILES OF THE LATE CARBONIFEROUS



Here is quote from Bill Birkeland on the EvC forum I linked to above

The paper I referenced from Geology Today also discusses the evidence of repeated forest fires during the deposition of the Joggins forest.
Perhaps you could tell us how multiple forest fires burned during a global flood.

This is from my previous post:
Bill also addresses Holocene buried forests which could not have been formed by Noah's flood.

My favorite example of a polystrate tree is one that was found in a backhoe trench by archaeologists looking for archaeological sites in the Atchafayala Basin near Indian Bayou. The sediments enclosing this polystrate tree can clearly be demonstrated as having accumulated over the last 150 to 200 years. This makes the sediments enclosing this polystrate tree far too young to have been deposited by the Noachian Flood. As mentioned in a previous post, I discussed the details of this find in "Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in Philippines" at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=105&p=8
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=105&m=8#8
In the cutbanks of the Mississippi River that expose its older natural levee and oxbow lakes deposits, a person, who wanted to look, could have found additional examples of such historic and Holocene polystrate trees. In 1846 while traveling along the Mississippi River, Charles Lyell saw innumerable examples of polystrate trees encased in recent floodplain deposits that were exposed in Mississippi River cutbanks. It was the amazing similarity of these buried polystrate trees, clearly enclosed in unquestionable fluvial deposits of the Mississippi River, with the Joggins polystrate trees that lead him to interpret the Joggins trees as having been buried upright in place. Polystrate trees have not only been found in the rock record, but also in the modern Mississippi floodplain deposits. This proves not only are they are possible, but also can be created by noncatastrophic processes common to large river systems. (NOTE: Lyell's observation of polystrate trees in exposed Mississippi River deposits is discussed by Leonard G. Wilson in his book "Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology 1841-1853".)

The Joggins forests were buried in place in a similar fashion to what is happening in the Atchafayala basin today. The literature indicates that they are well rooted in fossil soils contrary to YEC claims and the fact that some were charred by forest fires between the time they grew and the time they were buried makes it pretty hard to image that they are global flood deposits.

The idea that a global flood somehow set forests up one atop the other and buried them with their roots in fossil soils is simply absurd

In cook Inlet near Anchorage alaska, there are upright trees standing out in salt water, from where the land subsided in the '63 earthquake. As the inlet is a big sedimentary basin, looks like some mysterious ploystrate tree fossils getting formed as we speak.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I base my evidence on the facts.



Transitional fossils aren't in existance, this is not something creationists make up, but what museum officials themselves agree with.

Those fossils are a problem

''None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.''

The decepitive out of context quote of Colin Patterson is old news in this debate
Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

It does not mean there are no transitional fossils. Here is partial list from Wikipedia

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Douglas Theobald discusses transitional fossils 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

as part of his 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

As to Niles Elderige I suggest you read The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. I have it around here somewhere.
The Triumph of Evolution: And the ... - Google Books

but as I said before when it comes to fossils young earth creationists complain about gaps in the fossil record while not being able to even explain the existence of a stratified fossil record that shows a succession of different life forms through a succession of geological strata.

If you are going to try please start by telling us which geological layers with their fossils were deposited before the alleged global flood, which were deposited by it, and which after.

To help you here are the various layers as they appear in oil well cores from North Dakota, tell us where the flood starts and stops in this record and then we can start discussing the fossils and and trace fossils and geologic features found in the various allegedly flood deposited strata around the world and whether or not they could be flood deposits.

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm ................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm...................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm...........................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm.........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm......................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.......................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm....................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm...................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm.....9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm.............10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm........................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm.......................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm.......................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm.................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp...............12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm..........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm....................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.........13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp...................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm...............14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm.....................14445 feet
Precambrian.........................................14945 feet

You can find some detail on what is in each layer here
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In cook Inlet near Anchorage alaska, there are upright trees standing out in salt water, from where the land subsided in the '63 earthquake. As the inlet is a big sedimentary basin, looks like some mysterious ploystrate tree fossils getting formed as we speak.

Yes and in some other places as well. The polystrate telephone pole I pictured earlier was buried by a series of lahars from Mt. Pinatubo so it will eventually be a fossil embedded in many layers of rock. No doubt it will be a great mystery for YECs in the far future who will probably claim it was buried by a worldwide flood.