Questions for evolutionists...

[nycflasher]

I am just going to agree to disagree
I don't think you can just toss out the field of paleoanthropology.
There is a preponderance of evidence which suggests the evolution of modern day humans from "apes" who lived aprox. 3-4 million years ago.

Frankly, the creation vs. evolution debate has no significant relevance to my life as it is now and how i live it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by deciophobic
also, it's not just in school, go look at any kids storybook about dino's...the first sentence will say something like this: "millions of years ago...dinosaurs roamed the earth"

what does that tell the kids?

It's a non-specific statement based on the theory based on scientific facts. If the kids are reading a dinosaur book it will most likely be loosely based on the scientific theories regarding dinasaurs as well. To the best of science's knowledge, that fact is true.

"how do i know there are limitations? hmmm, well as i've said for what seems like the billionth time, has a dog ever produced a non dog, has a cow ever produced a non cow? NO!

rabbits have adapted to live in both negative temperatures and in desserts. they can no longer interbread, cuz their genetic makeup is too different. But guess what, they're still rabbits."

The theory of evolution is based on gradual changes. Each successive change may be small, but the future changes are without limit.

Your view on species adaptation and breeding is what is called "evolutionary divergence". The theory being that the farther removed a population becomes the less likely is its ability to inter-breed. This is the basis of evolutionary branching. The idea is that once a common species diverges from itself, the more independant the evolutionary adaptation will occur between the two species. At some point the changes become enough that they cannot interbreed, we then say that the animals groups have become seperate species.

So those rabbits were once the same, but now they are no longer the same species.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Bern80
so humans and dinos lived together? Why then haven't fossiles from say apes been found in the same time period as dinos. BTW things aren't dated by what layer they are found or anything like that. Most fossils are carbon dated which happens things become fossilized and happens regardless of layer.

yes

because the flood scrambled everything up...btw, footprints with stiches in them(sandle probably) have been found stepping on presumably 100 million year old mollusks(still alive today)

what do these index fossils have in common? :graptolites (505 to 440 mil. years old), the coelacanth, the lepidocaris crustacean (70 million yrs old), neopilina mollusk (extinct for over 280 mil years)

you guessed it, they are all still alive today. index fossils indeed!

Right most fossils are carbon dated(which i pointed out eralier as faulty), but if the resukts don't fit with what they expected they are thrown out.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
It's a non-specific statement based on the theory based on scientific facts. If the kids are reading a dinosaur book it will most likely be loosely based on the scientific theories regarding dinasaurs as well. To the best of science's knowledge, that fact is true.



The theory of evolution is based on gradual changes. Each successive change may be small, but the future changes are without limit.

Your view on species adaptation and breeding is what is called "evolutionary divergence". The theory being that the farther removed a population becomes the less likely is its ability to inter-breed. This is the basis of evolutionary branching. The idea is that once a common species diverges from itself, the more independant the evolutionary adaptation will occur between the two species. At some point the changes become enough that they cannot interbreed, we then say that the animals groups have become seperate species.

So those rabbits were once the same, but now they are no longer the same species.

1) they aren't facts as you will see if you just check out one of those sites for just one second.

2) once again, rabbits are rabbits, not a new species...it's a variation/adaption, not evolution(they lost genetic material).

3) "evolutionary divergence" is disproved on the sites as well if you will just check them out!

 

[mattskramer]

I'm far from being a Christian but I used to be an Agnostic. I seem to be developing into a Theist. The more I read and think and reason about Creationism/Evolution, I think more and more that God existed or exists. It may be just due to a process of elimination. (If you discount evolution, what is left to take its place?) If God created that which is, does God still exist? Assuming he exists, does he know me? Assuming that he knows me, does he have preferable plans for me when I die? Assuming that he has plans for me, does he want me to live by a particular standard in order to receive those goods? One step at a time, but if God exists, it opens the door to many possibilities to consider. This would have an influence on my day-to-day living.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Bern80
BTW things aren't dated by what layer they are found or anything like that.

They are, Stephen Jay Gould, leading evolution scientist admits it. along with others.

Please, please, please go to those sights and look for yourself!! all questions shall be answered.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by deciophobic
yes

because the flood scrambled everything up...btw, footprints with stiches in them(sandle probably) have been found stepping on presumably 100 million year old mollusks(still alive today)

I don't think you claim that a way of dating is innaccurate and then use it to support your theory.

If this is true shouldn't there be a lot more evidence of it?

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Bern80
I don't think you claim that a way of dating is innaccurate and then use it to support your theory.

If this is true shouldn't there be a lot more evidence of it?

that the dating is inaccurate proves my point!! how could there be a human footprint in a 100 million year old fossil?



"If this is true shouldn't there be a lot more evidence of it?"

yes, go to those sites.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by Bern80


If this is true shouldn't there be a lot more evidence of it?

yes, you just havent been shown it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I'm far from being a Christian but I used to be an Agnostic. I seem to be developing into a Theist. The more I read and think and reason about Creationism/Evolution, I think more and more that God existed or exists. It may be just due to a process of elimination. (If you discount evolution, what is left to take its place?) If God created that which is, does God still exist? Assuming he exists, does he know me? Assuming that he knows me, does he have preferable plans for me when I die? Assuming that he has plans for me, does he want me to live by a particular standard in order to receive those goods? One step at a time, but if God exists, it opens the door to many possibilities to consider. This would have an influence on my day-to-day living.

I don't see why they can't live hand and hand. I'm a theist too, I see nothing wrong having faith in a greater being and evolution. I believe that the scientific belief in evolution has nothing to do with the faith in the Divine! It could be a result of getting the ball rolling, or a pre-destined plan designed by a Greater Spirit. Science makes no conclusions or theories on that. I think that's one of the great beauties of life!

 

[Bern80]

okay i read some of it. It is interesting reading as far as theories go. But i have to tell if they reference it in the bible i don't buy it simply because the bible is just one religion. It was written a few thousand years after the "fact" by some people who were told "this is the way it is and you will believe or else"

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I don't see why they can't live hand and hand. I'm a theist too, I see nothing wrong having faith in a greater being and evolution. I believe that the scientific belief in evolution has nothing to do with the faith in the Divine! It could be a result of getting the ball rolling, or a pre-destined plan designed by a Greater Spirit. Science makes no conclusions or theories on that. I think that's one of the great beauties of life!

I agree with this.
Whether it all started with a bang or it was started by the divine or some combination of both...

Just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean I don't believe in a Higher Power.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I agree with this.
Whether it all started with a bang or it was started by the divine or some combination of both...

Just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean I don't believe in a Higher Power.

And bingo was his name-o. You summed up my idea and avoided my long-windedness. Kudos!

 

[acludem]

Isaac you hit the nail on the proverbial head. Charles Darwin remained silent on the starting point of life. The idea of a divine creator and the idea that living organisms have evolved are not mutually exclusive.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

I think it is pretty funny that most scientists accept a flood most probably covered the Earth at one time.

Then they go and say all fossils are proof of just about anything they want to prove.

UMMMMM......If there was a flood, all the water, sediment, heat, and pressure KINDA FOULS UP THE DATING THING doesn't it?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by deciophobic
http://drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=QuestionsforEvolutionists.jsp

go ahead and aswer these and get back to me.

asked and answered in this thread HERE

by my very intelligent wife. thats right. MY wife

 

[KLSuddeth]

Hold your applause - just throw money.

thank you.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth

Hold your applause - just throw money.

thank you.

They throw money at you, and insults at me. :

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I think it is pretty funny that most scientists accept a flood most probably covered the Earth at one time.

Then they go and say all fossils are proof of just about anything they want to prove.

UMMMMM......If there was a flood, all the water, sediment, heat, and pressure KINDA FOULS UP THE DATING THING doesn't it?

Carbon dating is independant of heat and pressure.

New carbon dating using mass spectrometry is independent on sediment (carbon can be taken directly from the sample in very small quantities), however you are correct that sediment affects batch carbon dating. In older tests, a sample of surroundings was taken at the strata of the desired fossil/sample and measured for overall activity vs carbon mass. New techniques take samples direct from the fossils/samples themselves. Therefore, are not subject to error from sediment

Water is inert and has no effect on carbon dating.

Real sources of error for carbon dating exists in the assumption that the level of carbon and carbon 14 is constant over the sample period. While, not exact, it certainly isn't subject to error over one standard deviation.

However, carbon dating can be verified or more realistically close the confidence interval by supplementing the carbon dating tests with tests from other known isotomes. I believe Zhukov has mentionned those.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Real sources of error for carbon dating exists in the assumption that the level of carbon and carbon 14 is constant over the sample period. While, not exact, it certainly isn't subject to error over one standard deviation.

However, carbon dating can be verified or more realistically close the confidence interval by supplementing the carbon dating tests with tests from other known isotomes. I believe Zhukov has mentionned those.

The other thing not taken into account though is that if there was a flood, the amount of C14 in the biosphere changes and therefore screws up the entire thing.