Creation vs Evolution

[Sparky Paul]

Originally posted by jbourke
...

Fossils are commonly found crossing layer boundaries. In some cases a fossil of a petrified tree might cross over a dozen or more layers. This proves that these layers were laid down at one time and makes it likely, to me, that they remained relatively fluid for some time as well, perhaps several months. During that time, many of the smaller particles found their way to the top of the fluid while the larger particles found their way to the bottom. The hardened result appears stratififed, but the process used to create the strata is rapid.
...


Jim

Is this "tree" vertical?
In the life of a tree, it's concievable in a geologically active area layering on a rapid basis can occur.. Flood plains being a good candidate. Alternating years of deposit and no deposit can quickly add layers.
And it could have laid undisturbed in its formative layer and been shocked into a different orientation for the subsequent layers to form around it (invoking a Richter 6).
Along the 14 Freeway from LA to Palmdale we can see where the Pacfic Plate is overthrusting the North American Plate. Many many such layering events are visible, with riverbed deposits, ocean bottom deposits, deserts, laying one on the other seen in cross due to the uplifting of the Pacific Plate and the cuts made for the freeway. All the layers are hard, not deposited in the recent past. It takes a while to compress sand into sandstone and then granite and decompose again to sand. Time and pressure, which don't act rapidly. If there's nothing on top of a layer to compress it, it won't compress. There's thousands of feet of compressed layers visible.
Similar cuts for roads thru lakebed sites show loose composition layers, due to there being nothing to compress them.

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Soft tissues aren't unknown in fossils, just rare.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. We were discussing how long it takes for fossils to be made.

You said: "Fossils, where stone replaces bone, don't occur...in a few thousand years".

I've shown that to be untrue. Fossils can be created rapidly.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Sparky Paul
Is this "tree" vertical?

Yes.

In the life of a tree, it's concievable in a geologically active area layering on a rapid basis can occur.. Flood plains being a good candidate. Alternating years of deposit and no deposit can quickly add layers.

Layering over several years is not consistent with a fossilized tree that crosses over the layers. The tree cannot be petrified unles covered by sediment and it cannot rotate to a vertical position if the sediment is hardened.

Jim

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally posted by jbourke

The intermediate forms are problematic. A sliver of a wing doesn't provide enough benefit to better the survivability of the mutated gene.

Why not? It depends on the environment at the time. Under certain circumstances this 'sliver' could be just what the organism needs to survive.

Take another example, the tail. Many animals have one, and its length and usefulness varies greatly. For some it is essential, for others it seems redundant. Even humans have a (usually invisibly small) tail!

A sequence of transitions that IN CONCERT and RANDOMLY result from the proper mutations to transfer it's CG to the correct location, develop steering mechanisms, atrophy its fingers/paws, develop feathers, and have it's skeletal structure rearranged to accomodate extra bones and muscles, is impossible to conceive.

Transitions do not occur 'in concert' or 'randomly'. They are created by environmental changes which select the characteristics required to survive at the time. It is a slow process, too rapid change would simply cause extinction.

There are transitional forms, eg. The flying squirrel just has a bit of extra skin to help it glide. I don't find it hard to conceive the development of form from squirrel-like to bat-like.

There are lots of things in this universe that seem impossible. For example, there are about 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Now multiply that figure by the number of observed galaxies, over 3,000. That's a lot of stars! (and presumably there are trillions more out there, that we haven't discovered yet). But just because I can't grasp such a large number, doesn't mean I refuse to accept that those stars exist.

How can an organism pass on such a structure if it doesn't have a mate with a matching gene? There is no genetic mechanism by which new structures can be carried on in a population.

Species are a man-made invention, to help us make sense of a chaotic world. In reality, every individual is different (excepting clones). Every mating creates a new individual, as existing genetic material is rearranged and new mutations are passed on. That individual becomes part of the population of its species, unless it is so different that we decide that it is a new species.

When looking at fossil records, it can be hard to pick out transitional examples, simply because similar fossils are lumped together and called one species. Also, only an estimated 20% of species have been found so far, therefore most of the gaps are due to lack of information.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The page has a few pictures and text, but no evidence. The closest thing you have for evidence on that page is this assertion: "The evidence favors the conclusion that all of this diversity evolved from a single ancestor that colonized Hawaii by way of long-distance dispersal from North America."

So you have an assertion that there is evidence, but no actual evidence. Provide it.
Jim

ok? it was on that site, if you had looked.

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty.../cpDNA_phy.jpg



"Chloroplast DNA nucleotide sequences provided the first molecular evidence bearing on the origin and relationships of the Hawaiian silversword alliance. These data support the conclusion that the Hawaiian silversword alliance is a monophyletic group derived from ancestors very similar to the extant Pacific coast tarweeds Anisocarpus scabridus (Eastwood) B. G. Baldwin [Raillardiopsis scabrida (Eastw.) Rydberg], Kyhosia bolanderi (A. Gray) B. G. Baldwin [Madia bolanderi (A. Gray) A. Gray], and Carlquistia muirii (A. Gray) B. G. Baldwin [Raillardiopsis muirii (A. Gray) Rydberg]."

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Gerald
On the other hand he has asolutely zero evidence for creation.

The evidence in my favor is the sudden appearance of fully-formed species in the fossil record. That is evidence for creation.

I'll argue the genetic aspect once someone backs up the assertion that a change in the frequency of alleles is responsible for inter-species evolution.

Until then, my job is to point out the faulty reasoning of the opposition.

The fundamental point on which creationism depends is the assertion that life is too structured and complex for natural processes to account for it. Therefore it must have been 'created' by a godlike intelligence with the power to set aside the laws of nature and create a thing out of nothing.

And what on earth is wrong with that? Evolution is the best naturalistic explanation we have available to us and it is a fine theory. But the problems with it need to be addressed. Rather than doing so, evolutionists are finding it more fun to blast away at people who believe in a literal flood.

But I'm not here to argue for a literal flood or a 6 day creation. Take your strawman somewhere else. Those aren't scientific arguments. They are theological.

As a scientifically-minded person, I believe that the age of the earth is indeterminable and that evolution is a very poor guess at our origins, which has been made popular primarily because it is the only naturalistic theory available. Defeating it is hopeless because naturalistic assumptions do not allow any competition.

Throught history things that were unexplainable at the time were attibuted to be the works of 'gods'. There was a god responsible for every force in nature. Creationism is yet one more holdout of this type of thinking.

If the only allowable arguments are ones that specifically exclude the possibility of a God, then naturalism can't be falsified.

Jim

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The evidence for creation is the same evidence for evolution, but interpreted differently. Namely, the fossil record and genetics.

incorrect. EVERY peice of data is 'evidence' for creation. This is why it is not scientific.

Originally posted by jbourke
Precisely. "Evolution" has several meanings:

1. The variability within a species
2. The alleged ability of mutation to account for inter-species change.
3. The assertion that life on earth is the result of millions of years of this process.

1. yes.
2. contained within #1.
3. no. life on earth (the actual origins of the first replicators) is covered by the branch of science called abiogenesis. Evolution works on any imperfectly-replicating molecule that has heritable information.

Originally posted by jbourke

Creationists accept the 1st meaning readily and dub it "micro-evolution." They see the genetic evidence as contradicting the second meaning (macro evolution) and the fossil evidence as contradicting the third meaning (what most people call "evolution").

what evidence contradicts macro evolution? be specific, please.

Originally posted by jbourke
First of all, the earth is not 5000 years old according to the bible. Theologically, I am completely flexible on creation. It is a strawman argument to insist that creationists demand a six day creation, a literal flood, etc. Anti-creationists concentrate on those arguments because they are easily targetable as non-scientific. If evolution were believable to me scientifically, there is plenty of room in my Christian beliefs to accomodate for it. I simply see no reason to do so.

no, it is *NOT* a strawman argument. there are MANY people who believe in a literal translation of the bible. Of course, it is much easier to show how a 6 day creation, with 40 day earth-wide flood is totally false.

scientists (anti-creationists?) do not pick on any arguments, they simply say "the current data does not support that hypothesis, sir"

Originally posted by jbourke
But more importantly, you are making a huge assumption that fossils are "known" to be millions of years old. There is no dating method that can be used on a fossil. Evolutionists use inferences from the geologic features of the surrounding area to affix a date.

"evolutionists" don't use any inferences regarding the fossil record. geologists and palentologists may, however!

isochron and radiometric dating can be used to date fossils.

if you have a problem with how dating is undertaken, be specific, and I'll address that too.

Originally posted by jbourke
Yes, by the third definition it is not scientific. By the other definitions, it may be a scientific theory, but still one that is not probable.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
I could start with poodles and end up with great danes. The genetic information is available in the poodle to do so. But I could not start with a poodle and end up with a giraffe. The laws of genetics make this impossible.

oh? could you tell me some of those 'laws of genetics'?

be specific, please.

you show a common error in understanding how evolution works. The poodle does NOT have the genetic information to become a great dane.

the common ancestor of poodles and great danes were reproductively isolated, and over time, mutation and selective breeding led to the differences in dogs.

if there was enough demand (and time), I could breed poodles that only had long necks with other poodles with long necks.

over time, and careful breeding, I would get very long-necked poodles. sure, they would not be giraffes, but the common ancestor of giraffes and dogs is pretty far down the line, so you are asking a bit much!

[jbourke]

Originally posted by Bruce Abbott
Why not? It depends on the environment at the time. Under certain circumstances this 'sliver' could be just what the organism needs to survive.

For evolution to work in that case, the flap of skin would have to provide an advantage. So not "could be" as you say, but rather "must be". For if the trait is going to be built slowly over thousands and thousands of generations, there would have to be pressure to keep mutations from taking the flap of skin away.

Transitions do not occur 'in concert' or 'randomly'. They are created by environmental changes which select the characteristics required to survive at the time. It is a slow process, too rapid change would simply cause extinction.

Exactly the problem!

At both ends of the process we have two perfectly functional animals that are well represented in the fossil record, and a whole host of missing transitional forms required to make it happen.

There are transitional forms, eg. The flying squirrel just has a bit of extra skin to help it glide. I don't find it hard to conceive the development of form from squirrel-like to bat-like.

I can understand that viewpoint if I consider a few transitions. But if I think of the transitions as fluid and imagine that each minute step has to be viable, I am left stunned at the difficulty. Perhaps it seems easier for you.

There are lots of things in this universe that seem impossible. For example, there are about 200,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Now multiply that figure by the number of observed galaxies, over 3,000. That's a lot of stars! (and presumably there are trillions more out there, that we haven't discovered yet). But just because I can't grasp such a large number, doesn't mean I refuse to accept that those stars exist.

Some things seem hard to grasp but we accept them because they match the evidence.

Other things are hard to grasp because they do not seem to match the evidence.

You see evolution to be in the first group, and I see it to be in the second.

Species are a man-made invention, to help us make sense of a chaotic world.

If species were that fluid then interbreeding them would be child's play. We could cross an elephant with a rabbit and make rabiphants.

Animals of separate species are genetically different in ways far beyond the differences between animals of the same species.

In reality, every individual is different (excepting clones). Every mating creates a new individual, as existing genetic material is rearranged and new mutations are passed on. That individual becomes part of the population of its species, unless it is so different that we decide that it is a new species.

I disagree completely with that concept of species, and my position is easily reproducible by every animal and plant breeder in the world. Corn can be bred to produce taller corn with more produce, but only up to a point. Dogs are bred to a point where the breeding reaches a ceiling. These limitations are obvious within a few generations.

Jim

[Gerald]

...

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke


Some parts of evolution are falsifiable. Others are not. It is impossible to falsify the thought that evolution is what caused a rat to turn into a bat, for example.

no, it is not impossible. for example, a fossil of a bat in strata dated before mammals arrived would be a fatal blow to evolution.

if the genetic evidence of rat --> bat showed that they were less alike than say... a mushroom and a bat, genetics and evolution would be in deep trouble.

Originally posted by jbourke
Explain to me how the following statement can be falsified: invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.

I'll let you think this one up. I did the last one.

Originally posted by jbourke
Nothing can prove it false as a history of origins. Same thing with evolution. Neither viewpoints on earth history are scientific.

history of origins (first replicators) does not concern evolution. You are mistaking it for abiogenesis again.

Originally posted by jbourke
Then the introduction of evidence that contradicts evolutionary assumptions should not cause anyone to get upset. And there should be no argument against bringing it up in a classroom.

creation is not science. don't try and bring it up in the science classroom.

perhaps in a comparative religions class, you can discuss the many creation myths of all the peoples of the world.

if you have SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes evolution, by all means, publish it and receive your nobel prize. When that evidence meets peer-reviewed criteria, and has been studied, it will be in the science textbooks at that point.

Originally posted by jbourke
The entire scientific community, or just the anti-creationist scientific community?

Stop dividing the world into "scientists" and "creationists". There are creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists. Any other terminology is an ad hominem.

your cries of 'ad hominem' here are misplaced. The only time "anti-creationist" would come to light, is where science and religion try to co-exist.

6-day literal genesis account = FALSE by scientific accounts.

your personal views are not relevant, UNTIL science treads on them, it seems. Because you do not 'buy into' that interpretation of the bible, geology and palentology are not a problem for you.

if you believed in a global flood, science will tell you that you are mistaken. Is this the fault of the "anti-creationists"?

Originally posted by jbourke
Ok, let's take the fossil record for example.

I note that the forms found in the fossil record appear suddenly in no easily discernable order and without transitions.
[/b]

I note that you are TOTALLY MISTAKEN.

you have asserted this claim. I want proof. evidence, please.

Originally posted by jbourke
I predict that I will not find transitional forms; that every time I see a fossil of a triceratops it will be just like the other triceratops.

sparky paul has given you ample evidence on just how wrong that viewpoint is. There appears to be many, many species of 'triceratops'

Originally posted by jbourke
Meanwhile, evolutionists are busy doing the same; redefining evolution so that it can be explained despite the lack of evidence from the fossil record.

redefinition is part of the scientific method. Being able to change and tweak theories in the face of new data is the STRENGTH of science, not it's weakness.

however, your assertation that the fossil record has not given evidence FOR evolution is mistaken.

Again, I ask for evidence of your claim that the fossil record poses any problem whatsoever for palentologists, geologists and evolutionists (biologists).

Originally posted by jbourke
Creationists use the same data but reject the a priori assumption that the causes of the universe are naturalistic.

Jim

science has no need for multiplied entities. (ockhams razor).

science as a philosophy assumes naturalistic causes.

thus, creation is not science.

[notoatmeal]

Originally posted by jbourke
The part about "functional intermediates" is very important. For evolution to be true, every intermediate form must be functional and an improvement of the previous form. I can conjure up thousands of examples of difficulties for evolutionists to ponder. Consider the usefulness of half a wing, half an eye, etc. Many components of our bodies are completely useless unless fully formed.

so I guess that those cave lizards that have non-functioning eyes did not undergo evolution, hmmm?

do you know that primates are one of the few classes of mammals that can't synthesize vitamin C? Oh, we have the genes for it, but they are degraded and non-functional.

I guess that can't be evolution, either.

Originally posted by jbourke

The above doesn't have to do with my prediction at all. I made no comments on the number of Ceratopsia. My point is that we find many examples of triceratops which are all easily identifiable. If evolution is the result of millions of years of slow changes then it should be impossible to organize all the different Ceratopsia so nicely.
Jim

how do you come to that conclusion? the many daughter species of ceratopsia show how niches can be filled. Look at crocodiles. They are basically unchanged after millions of years, because they are highly successful organisims in their niches.

triceratops was a very successful daughter species of ceratopsia.

[Lucas in Alaska]

I just got this whole thing read and man is this topic moving.

The question is. Can anyone prove creation instead of just trying to prove evolution wrong? Before the thought of evolution all we had was creation. So with the introduction of evolution I can see where by proving evolution false, creation is all we have.


I was going to use the argument of the fossil record. Well after reading what jbourke posted on that subject I just found myself way in over my head so I'll leave it to JB.

As far a proving creation I wasn't there but the Bible says it happened, but to not run down a side street there are a few things that can be looked at to say the earth is not 100's of millions of years old. And instead of retyping info I'll post a link
Evidence for a young world

Lucas