Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"

[konradv]

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

How many times must i post the evidence ?

Look i showed where they took objects such as trees that they positively knew the age of and got conflicting ages from several different parts of the same tree. None were even close to the actual age of the tree.

There was the rock that they tested ten different pieces of the same rock once again conflicting ages of the same rock.

Is it a coincedence that many years evolutionist were makling the argument for many millions of years without the modern day dating methods ? THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE SO CALLED ERRORLESS METHODS OF DATING THINGS SAYING SEE IT WORKS AND ARE VERY ACCURATE. They were guessing when they first said millions of years and they are still doing so.

The reason evolutionist are so against creationist is because their opinions of the evidence differs a great deal and they point out the flaws on the other side. Many well known evolutionist have spoken out against the many theories of the theory that have been created by other evolutionist and when they do they're quickly reminded they are only hurting their future employment opportunities.

The reason why your evidence isn't accepted is that you only post the times when there were problems. Most of the time the methods are dead on and when they're not, it's because of some assay, sampling or contamination problem, NOT because there's anything wrong with evolutionary theory. People don't get fired for questioning aspects of the theory, that's expected in science. They get fired for sloppy science and thinking, like your posts and the people you cite. If there's anyone with a preconcieved notion of how things should be, it's the creationists, NOT the evolutionists, as the discussion concerning the smooth-transition vs punctuated-equilibrium models proves.

 

[konradv]

If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.

The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods. It's amazing how we have these intricate brains. Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled. Misled by whom? Are you saying God lies to us. If everything was created, so was the fossil record. Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!

No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.

How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.

No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.

Of course we have a good idea of past environments. It's called scientific inquiry. If you think it's "the other way around", are you saying the fossil record was not created by God. Who's messing with our minds? Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?! If God didn't do it, then who?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods. It's amazing how we have these intricate brains. Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled. Misled by whom? Are you saying God lies to us. If everything was created, so was the fossil record. Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!

No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.

How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.

No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.

Of course we have a good idea of past environments. It's called scientific inquiry. If you think it's "the other way around", are you saying the fossil record was not created by God. Who's messing with our minds? Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?! If God didn't do it, then who?

Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?

 

[konradv]

No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.

How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.

No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.

Of course we have a good idea of past environments. It's called scientific inquiry. If you think it's "the other way around", are you saying the fossil record was not created by God. Who's messing with our minds? Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?! If God didn't do it, then who?

Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?

Not necessarily, we're humans. Humans make mistakes. The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.

I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!! You ARE considering as a Creator!!! Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there. Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

The result of "macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution" being the retaining of beneficial mutations over time. We've already established this is the result of microevolution, and you have yet to show any barrier whatsoever to macroevolution from there, being multiple microevolutionary events in combination.

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Sure, tell me what a "kind" is at the genetic level. The question in the above quote is the one I've been asking you, and you've been COMPLETELY unable to define. Tell me what KIND means in genetic terms, and I'll show you the genetic proof. Apples to apples. Otherwise, you're still talking widgets.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations or are they a product of cross breeding.

This is actually completely false. First off, the word KIND is not scientific, so no one on "my side" is using it to claim anything. Secondly, differences in breed by definition are NOT different species. Again, you exhibit an overall lack of knowledge on the basoc vocabulary of this topic.

The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information.

Except we've already established this as false. The very microevolution that you acknowledge as acceptable demonstrates that newly gained information and function drive it, as witnessed by every single biology major in the country in their basic education. As mentioned previously, this is an easily reproducible experiment that shows bacteria acquiring new information and abilities to escape antibiotics.

We've already gone over this. I've already proved you wrong on this topic, and you've already admitted you were previously wrong on it. Why are you backtracking to it now?

Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.

All of the above is unsupported drivel, better known as guessword without evidence. Organs DO work together. How does that preclude evolution? The parts of a bacteria work together, yet you have no problem acknowledging "microevolution" in them. How can you actually resolve such double standards?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things. That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.

What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case. When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course we have a good idea of past environments. It's called scientific inquiry. If you think it's "the other way around", are you saying the fossil record was not created by God. Who's messing with our minds? Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?! If God didn't do it, then who?

Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?

Not necessarily, we're humans. Humans make mistakes. The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.

I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!! You ARE considering as a Creator!!! Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there. Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!

The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

The result of "macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution" being the retaining of beneficial mutations over time. We've already established this is the result of microevolution, and you have yet to show any barrier whatsoever to macroevolution from there, being multiple microevolutionary events in combination.

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Sure, tell me what a "kind" is at the genetic level. The question in the above quote is the one I've been asking you, and you've been COMPLETELY unable to define. Tell me what KIND means in genetic terms, and I'll show you the genetic proof. Apples to apples. Otherwise, you're still talking widgets.


This is actually completely false. First off, the word KIND is not scientific, so no one on "my side" is using it to claim anything. Secondly, differences in breed by definition are NOT different species. Again, you exhibit an overall lack of knowledge on the basoc vocabulary of this topic.

The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information.

Except we've already established this as false. The very microevolution that you acknowledge as acceptable demonstrates that newly gained information and function drive it, as witnessed by every single biology major in the country in their basic education. As mentioned previously, this is an easily reproducible experiment that shows bacteria acquiring new information and abilities to escape antibiotics.

We've already gone over this. I've already proved you wrong on this topic, and you've already admitted you were previously wrong on it. Why are you backtracking to it now?

Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.

All of the above is unsupported drivel, better known as guessword without evidence. Organs DO work together. How does that preclude evolution? The parts of a bacteria work together, yet you have no problem acknowledging "microevolution" in them. How can you actually resolve such double standards?

Why would they need two different terms to name the same process ? Microevolution would happen from mutations over time if it was mutations that cause change over time. Just admit it the only strong evidence for adaptations is at the micro level and since there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution you equate micro as macro. Kind is a group or to be specific on a kind within a group is the name of the breed. Well now, microevolution can be considered to be new information if the ability was not present already. But I believe the ability to adapt has always been present.so I don't think it is really new information I believe the information was already present and does not show up until needed. Now if adaptations were of a natural process with no limits then we should always be able to adapt and not die at all. So you see there is limits to adapting also meaning there would be limits to evolving into another distinct organism. Wishful thinking on your part to suggest that a natural process was the cause for all organs that was needed for any organism to survive and function let alone every living organism. You are entertaining I have to admit. Sorry I am on my smart phone and have not figured out how to space my responses.

 

[Youwerecreated]

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things. That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.

What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case. When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.

It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.

 

[geauxtohell]

So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?

 

[konradv]

Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?

Not necessarily, we're humans. Humans make mistakes. The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.

I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!! You ARE considering as a Creator!!! Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there. Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!

The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?

You seeemed to be considering Satan as a creator of the fossil record, just to fool us. That timeline doesn't seem to jibe with the Bible, as Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam, NOT before the creation of the world. Seems you have some splainin to do!!!

 

[konradv]

They are not reliable? What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods? Where is the science that refutes dating methods?

Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things. That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.

What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case. When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.

It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.

Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not necessarily, we're humans. Humans make mistakes. The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.

I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!! You ARE considering as a Creator!!! Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there. Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!

The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?

You seeemed to be considering Satan as a creator of the fossil record, just to fool us. That timeline doesn't seem to jibe with the Bible, as Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam, NOT before the creation of the world. Seems you have some splainin to do!!!

That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did I just said it could be considered. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?

You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those odontld things. That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.

What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case. When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.

It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.

Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!

don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ? Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?

 

[pinqy]

don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?

Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found. That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.

Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?

But they did show changes. There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths. Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family. There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families. Or it might not be. Nobody has the answers at this time.

 

[konradv]

It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.

Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!

don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ? Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?

The fact that they found coelocanth fossils and tested them to be millions of years old, that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the news of their extinction was wrong. Dates ARE nailed down within the error of the method. When you're talking millions, even a 100,000 years off is within tolerance. BTW, evolutionary theory claims that species CAN change, NOT that they WILL change.

 

[konradv]

That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did I just said it could be considered. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.

Even considering it casts Satan in the Crerator role. Sure you want to be saying that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did I just said it could be considered. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.

Even considering it casts Satan in the Crerator role. Sure you want to be saying that?

I'm not sure what abilities was given to Satan ,because he has such an ability does not put in the same category as the creator of all life. The bible does say Satan keeps transforming himself into the angel of light when he is actually a ravenous wolf. So he does have some special abilities. He is also called in the scriptures the god of this system and is misleading the entire population of the earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?

Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found. That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.

Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?

But they did show changes. There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths. Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family. There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families. Or it might not be. Nobody has the answers at this time.

thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.