Evidence for Evolution?

by LucidSky 97 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  I have done thorough research on the claims at the Answers in Genesis web site and I have found that they are based on agregious misconceptions of scientific finds. There are misquotes and misrepresentations of honest scientist's work.

  Perhaps you would like to explain in your own words how you know the earth is only 6,000 or so years old. Then you can accompany your explanation with solid scientific facts. All I've ever seen you do is mindlessly cut and paste from your favorite Creationist web sites. Maybe if you actually read the sites you cut and paste from you would see the many logical fallacies they contain. Then again, maybe not.

  No qualified scientists in the field of geology support your claim of a young earth. Only Christian fundamentalists with a young earth agenda misinterpret data to support this idea. Sorry, but you've been hoodwinked yet again.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  rem,

  I have done thorough research on the claims at the Talk-Origin web site and I have found that they are based on agregious misconceptions of scientific finds. There are misquotes and misrepresentations of honest scientist's work.

  Perhaps you would like to explain in your own words how you know the earth is 4.6 billion or so years old. Then you can accompany your explanation with solid scientific facts. All I've ever seen you do is mindlessly cut and paste from your favorite Evolutionist web sites. Maybe if you actually read the sites you cut and paste from you would see the many logical fallacies they contain. Then again, maybe not.

  .

  hooberus

  Edited by - hooberus on 12 November 2002 15:49:6
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  rem I do not conclude that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible because " I'm ignorant of how it happened". I Actually rem I am not ignorant of evolutionary "explanations" of the naturalistic origin of life.

  Apparently you don't understand what the 'argument form ingorance' is. The ignorance is on both sides: Evolutionists and Creationists, since no one knows exactly what happened. The difference is that Creationists posit an unproven supernatural entity to explain our origins while scientists say we don't know how it happened, but we are looking into it.

  Learn what the 'argument from ignorance' is before you spout anymore nonsense. Even better, educate yourself on logical fallacies in general so you can learn to recognize them on your favorite Creationist web sites.

  rem
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  How can postings from Talk Origins be misconceptions of scientist's data when the postings are from the scientists themselves? I have read much information on this topic from both sides. I've read many books on the topic. I have also educated myself on identifying logical fallacies so I can discriminate between good arguments and bad ones.

  The onus is on you to prove the earth is young. All of science backs me in that the earth is old. I don't have to prove that the earth is round either... you are the one making an extraordinary claim, not me.

  But for a start, here are some things to get you thinking:

  • Cave paintings and human remains and artifacts that are much older than 6,000 years
  • Ice core drills that show what chemicals were in the atmosphere over 6,000 years ago
  • The fact that we can see stars being born and dying many thousands of millions of light years away, which means the universe is billions of years old, or at least much older than 6,000 years
  • Rocks have been measured with independent isotope dating methods and have been shown to be much older than 6,000 years
  • The abundance of fossils that show that there has been way too much life on earth to be supported in the short time span of 6,000 years
  • Too many species of animals to have evolved from 200 or so kinds since the alleged Noah's flood 4,000 years ago

  rem
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  Even if you dont believe in Evolution, to think that the world is only 6,000 years old is just plain stupid.
• 

  hooberus

  First of all I have never stated that I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. I belive that the majority of fossil bearing strata from the Cambrian and up was laid down in a global flood 6 to 12 thousand years ago.

  • Cave paintings and human remains and artifacts that are much older than 6,000 years

  Since actual historical records only go back about 5,000 years these cave paintings, human remains and artifacts cannot be proven historically to be "35,000 or whatever years old". Many of these dates are generated from a comparison of C14 in them to modern amounts of C14. However, since according to the creation/flood model there was less C14 in the atmosphere in the relatively recent past such dating does not invalidate a recent creation.

  • Ice core drills that show what chemicals were in the atmosphere over 6,000 years ago

  These Ice core drills are based on evolutionary assumptions. Ice core data can also be interpreted according to various creation models.

  • The fact that we can see stars being born and dying many thousands of millions of light years away, which means the universe is billions of years old, or at least much older than 6,000 years

  The we can see stars being born and dying many thousands of millions of light years away does not necessarily prove that our earth is older than the creation model states. There are also creationist theories as to star-light and time, these are of course speculative, just as evolutionary cosmologies are.

  • Rocks have been measured with independent isotope dating methods and have been shown to be much older than 6,000 years

  Yes and many of these independent isotope dating methods give widely discordant ages even for the same rock. Also newly formed rocks which should give a hypothetical zero age, do by isotope dating methods give "ages" in the "millions" and even "billions" of years.

  • The abundance of fossils that show that there has been way too much life on earth to be supported in the short time span of 6,000 years

  These "too many fossils" calculations are often based on calculations generated from fossil graveyards, and are hense very innacurate. Also the creation model proposes different living conditions before the flood which would have supported a great deal more life than what we see today.

  • Too many species of animals to have evolved from 200 or so kinds since the alleged Noah's flood 4,000 years ago

  Who believes that todays species evolved from ONLY 200 or so kinds since Noah's flood? Most figures that I've seen show about 6,000 kinds on the ark.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  I would love to see how creationist's would try to explain physics. Please post some figures where they can prove that the current calculated speed of light is wrong and while they are at it they can show how Einstien is incorrect. Thats the only way they are going to somehow 'prove' that the age of the universe is not BILLIONS of years old and not 6,000.....

  Even if Noah had 6,000 Species of Animals on his Ark, there is no way that could account for the BILLIONS of different animals on earth.

  And 6,000 doesnt allow the formation of coal and peat bogs, diamonds, the carving of the grand canyon...etc...etc...etc...etc... lets not even get into Fossils.....
• 

  hooberus

  Crazy said:"I would love to see how creationist's would try to explain physics. Please post some figures where they can prove that the current calculated speed of light is wrong and while they are at it they can show how Einstien is incorrect. Thats the only way they are going to somehow 'prove' that the age of the universe is not BILLIONS of years old and not 6,000..... "

  Well Crazy many creationitsts have degrees in physics. Also I belive that Einstein may have been a believer in creation.

  Crazy said:"Even if Noah had 6,000 Species of Animals on his Ark, there is no way that could account for the BILLIONS of different animals on earth."

  6,000 basic kinds with the proper genetic information could have diversified through genetic recombination into the many species we see today.

  Crazy said:

  "And 6,000 doesnt allow the formation of coal and peat bogs, diamonds, the carving of the grand canyon...etc...etc...etc...etc... lets not even get into Fossils....."

  Crazy if you scroll-up to my earlier post on this page and click you will find explanations for coal, grand canyon, diamonds, etc.

  Edited by - hooberus on 12 November 2002 18:36:17
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  Since actual historical records only go back about 5,000 years these cave paintings, human remains and artifacts cannot be proven historically to be "35,000 or whatever years old". Many of these dates are generated from a comparison of C14 in them to modern amounts of C14. However, since according to the creation/flood model there was less C14 in the atmosphere in the relatively recent past such dating does not invalidate a recent creation.

  You first have to show evidence of a global flood before you can argue that it would change C14 levels. There is no geological evidence of a global flood and atmospheric data from ice core samples do not show the change in C14 that you wish for.

  C14 dating is accurate to about 50,000 years. This has been beaten to death. Scientists did have problems with carbon dating in the past, but now it has been calibrated with independent dating methods (ice core samples, dendrochronology) and it is very accurate.

  Yes and many of these independent isotope dating methods give widely discordant ages even for the same rock. Also newly formed rocks which should give a hypothetical zero age, do by isotope dating methods give "ages" in the "millions" and even "billions" of years.

  Wow, still quoting old material? The problems with isotope dating of newly formed rock is now well understood by scientists. Only Creationists seem to continue to misunderstand the implications of using the wrong dating method for a specific type of sample. Would you use a yard stick to accurately measure the width of a hair? No, and you don't use K-AR dating methods to measure the date of new rock. The margin of error is too great for young samples. Either you are ignorant of this because you have not done the research, or you are just as dishonest as the Creationists who keep touting this 'problem' when the problem has been solved a long time ago.

  Also the creation model proposes different living conditions before the flood which would have supported a great deal more life than what we see today

  You first have to show evidence of a global flood before you can argue that living conditions before the flood supported more life. There is no geological evidence of a global flood.

  Who believes that todays species evolved from ONLY 200 or so kinds since Noah's flood? Most figures that I've seen show about 6,000 kinds on the ark.

  Your Creationist friend Zechariah:

  One thing that needs to be clarified is that Noah did not take two of every species. He took two of every kind or classification. Cats, Dogs, Marsupials, horses, etc. covers thousands of species. There are only about 200 such classifications that represent the entire animal kingdom.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=40361&site=3&page=1

  In any event you seem to be ignorant of the sheer numbers involved. There are millions of species on this planet. Even if there were 6,000 'kinds' (which would still be cramped on a boat) it would take an amazing amount of mutation to create the diversity we have today. That's more evolution than even Evolutionists can accept!

  rem
• 

  rem

  Well Crazy many creationitsts have degrees in physics. Also I belive that Einstein may have been a believer in creation.

  Well, I elect this as the brain-dead comment of the day. Einstien stated many times that he did not believe in creation. It's quite evident that you really have not done your homework, Hooberus.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 12 November 2002 18:46:51