ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Christianity - Christian
 How did we come to be?
 How old is the earth really?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 27 Jul 2009 :  15:04:31  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
ahh! this is a big one some say millions of years others say less than 10,000 years.

Whats your take on this?

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  12:06:11  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
There is a huge amount of evidence of the age of the earth, where is all the evidence that is is under 10,000 years old?

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 28 Jul 2009 :  18:44:52  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Creationism cannot be falsified. Something is falsifiable if it is capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation. Science has this as a base requirement. If you cannot test it, cannot prove it true OR false, it is not science.

The Great Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away, and other galaxies are further away. How did the light from there reach us in just 10,000 years? take into account all the other stars and systems so very far away, how can all these be seen?

The Great Barrier Reef, the growth of coral is incredibly slow, and observable. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states that the coral has been growing for around 25 million years to reach it's current state.

Continental drift .. satellite data has shown that the two continents South American and Africa are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year, which means that for these two continents to have been together at some point, as all the evidence shows that they were, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.

Ice layering, the layers of ice form differently each year in the polar regions. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000.

Impact craters over the earth, if these all happened within 10,000 years we would still be under a world of resulting fire, literally. In antarctica for example just one crater 500 km in diameter, which would have wiped out nearly all species from the asteroid (around 48kms in diameter). The earth would not have recovered in just 10,000 years. scientists estimate it at around 250 million years ago.

I could go on and on and on, the evidence is massive.

I would ask for some evidence for creation, other than faith.

I would also like to understand how believers that deny all these things, and more, justify that? Many believers do not, but obviously folk here take the literaly interpretation formats of the bible and Qur'an they do.

Is this your god/s tricking you? I don't understand how you come to terms with these things. I find these things absolutely wonderful, expansive, and awe inspiring. The biblical/scriptural literal sense of the universe is so small and limited compared to the vastness and immensity that we are seeing ... are you putting forward that all these things are constructs of your god, to create an illusion? for us to follow paths that have no real merit? to use the brains he has given us, as you say, to spend our time following evidence that this god has laid before us, to trick us?

I don't get it :(



Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 28 Jul 2009 18:47:10
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 29 Jul 2009 :  21:31:06  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
I am not ready for facts yet - but they are coming Davo

quote:

Impact craters over the earth, if these all happened within 10,000 years we would still be under a world of resulting fire, literally. In Antarctica for example just one crater 500 km in diameter, which would have wiped out nearly all species from the asteroid (around 48kms in diameter). The earth would not have recovered in just 10,000 years. scientists estimate it at around 250 million years ago.

I could go on and on and on, the evidence is massive.



I will just think these things through unstudied and unprepared and just see where it goes logically for me - like i said above - when i get some time I will study and present some facts.

Its amazing they said that the Philippines eruption about 15 - 20 years ago - that the ash would circle the earth 3 times and blacken Australia for months etc. we saw a reddish sunset in the north for a brief period, and the ash was great only in the affected area and maybe 500kms in the direction the wind took it.

Us humans have a tendency to exaggerate; it gets attention, headlines, investment and all other kinds of acclaim and self worth. But really most of these major impacts have been fairly quickly healed - I guess the way I look at it is Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the bomb to end a war - total destruction etc - I was told it would take at least 100 years to mend the area for any habitation by a school teacher, and you know what those areas are extremely re-invigorated and it happened years ago - could God of inbuilt a healing mechanism for the earth as well as for us?


quote:

Ice layering, the layers of ice form differently each year in the Polar Regions. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000.



Could it be possible that the way we measure things like carbon dating etc is not correct? 700,000 layers would not be too far out - I would think each layer was formed with a different weather system or change, change can happen from 4 to 50 times a day, like wind direction, wind strength, temperature, snow, ice, rain, sleet, hail, meteors, sun, clouds moving over the area, volcanic action, animal movement, etc. now probably we could say 70 major weather changes per year is very possible to cause these layers - I would expect 100's per year - even as much as an average of 5 per day.

Now the way to test this would be to mark (maybe put a pleat in the ice) and come back 5 years later and measure the layers, maybe use many plates or base points and dig them up individually at certain points in time. The counting of the layers would then give you a really good start to finding the facts on the ice sheeting layers. Hey maybe they already have done this - could it be published somewhere?

I wish I had lots of time - I love this subject - and would study and test and write about all the time - but life goes on - I will be back, and thanks Fadi and Davo for wanting to get into these subjects, and please ignore my ignorance (is that allowed?)- you may have to teach me some things.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 29 Jul 2009 :  21:36:47  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:

The Great Andromeda Galaxy is 2 million light years away, and other galaxies are further away. How did the light from there reach us in just 10,000 years? take into account all the other stars and systems so very far away, how can all these be seen?



I thought we were talking about the age of the earth - not the universe. is that correct?

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 29 Jul 2009 :  21:44:25  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:

The Great Barrier Reef, the growth of coral is incredibly slow, and observable. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states that the coral has been growing for around 25 million years to reach it's current state.



And yet a large dam or lake or river system can get a toxic bloom within 3 to 4 weeks that absolutley wrecks it - and then guess what as if by design it cleans and heals itself - with help from the created elements, designed possibly, to do this.

Really, its a guess, there is no real proof to this, if so i would like to see the proof or evidence and logical reasoning - not just a "we state that the reef is doing this for this long".

Why do some people get degrees? the mind boggles - why not actually test things from scratch without taking onboard previous often erronious work or theories.

If they be scientists then hard evidence is a mandate and yet we see so many misses and second guesses - if it cant yet be measured then why not say so - and when we can measure as we learn more in time - then we are ready with facts.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 29 Jul 2009 :  21:54:03  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:

Continental drift.. Satellite data has shown that the two continents South American and Africa are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year, which means that for these two continents to have been together at some point, as all the evidence shows that they were, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.



What evidence???

Can anyone prove that they were together - and even if they were could a major fracture, meteor, flood, explosion or whatever speed the effect?

a fact would require multiple witnesses to be there on the occasion it happened - like the disciples Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in the Bible. So was anyone there? God was there, so God claims, as the bible writers say, God created the earth. --> Then God tells Adam and Eve and some prophets/disciples, and they write it down. Just like a scientist would be instructed by his superiors to --> "write it down" - see things haven’t changed much - except for the point of first reference and a few other things being removed for convenience sake, possibly because someone couldn't explain it at the time.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  10:00:31  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
I thought we were talking about the age of the earth - not the universe. is that correct?


Indeed.

The basis for aging the earth is based on observable and testable fact not just confined to it's surface. The universe itself is factored into the equation. There is nothing wrong with a holistic view.

One of the most fundamental means for calculating the Earth's age exactly as possible is what is called a Pb/Pb isochron age, gained from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This is done via measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). If the solar system was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point. A plot is then made of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus the Pb-207/Pb-204 samples. As these isotopes are decay 'end-products' of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207) the data points seperate from each other on the plot as he higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. Tther measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites.

Over the whole immense scientific bodies, there is agreement on about 4.5 billion years as the age of the earth, combined from an enormous body of evidence of all formats, none of which contradicts this, only re-enforces it.

Are you saying that the universe was created billions of years before earth, all the cellestial bodies, and then earth was created within 10,000 years and all the other evidence placed on it was done so by a higher being to make us believe differently?

Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 30 Jul 2009 10:02:17
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  10:32:16  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev

quote:

The Great Barrier Reef, the growth of coral is incredibly slow, and observable. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states that the coral has been growing for around 25 million years to reach it's current state.



And yet a large dam or lake or river system can get a toxic bloom within 3 to 4 weeks that absolutley wrecks it - and then guess what as if by design it cleans and heals itself - with help from the created elements, designed possibly, to do this.



? Exactly what 'created elements' have magically build coral layers for them so quickly over your timeline, yet have slowed right down now thousands of people are studying them? There is a big difference between for example a 200ft tree, and a clear felled forest. The 200ft tree does not magically regenerate or grow to that size over a week, which is effectively the timeline differences we are talking here. Coral called Porites are one type of coral that has rings just like a tree, that are layered as the coral grows. There's measurement of limestones and old coral rock via drilling done as well. There are a lot of scientists from right around the world that study the reef, we aren't talking about a small team of a few people trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes in some kind of coral consipiracy. Are you saying that open knowledge studied by millions world wide, is a conspiracy?

quote:

Really, its a guess, there is no real proof to this, if so i would like to see the proof or evidence and logical reasoning - not just a "we state that the reef is doing this for this long".


Have you got proof of gravity? Light? There is plenty of proof, I suggest contacting http://www.coralcoe.org.au and asking them for all the geologists, coral experts, oceanic surveyors and others that you could be put in touch with regarding getting access to the scientific journals in their speciality.

quote:

Why do some people get degrees? the mind boggles - why not actually test things from scratch without taking onboard previous often erronious work or theories.


That's how things ARE done. That's how science works. You do not base any findings on others hypothesis, you must build your proof from scratch. First you come up with a hypothesis. You study it and write about it, and submit it to open inquery by others in the field. It must be faslifiable, in other words, must also be able to be proven false, not just 'true'. This process takes on average around 5 years, and if not demolished in that time, it would be published in a scientific journal, where other scientists will then try and REPLICATE and DISSPROVE your initial findings. It takes about 15-20 years for a hypothesis to become a valid Theory.

quote:

If they be scientists then hard evidence is a mandate and yet we see so many misses and second guesses - if it cant yet be measured then why not say so - and when we can measure as we learn more in time - then we are ready with facts.


They can measure with great accuracy. There is evidence that has been in the public domain. When you talk about hit and misses .. that's how science WORKS. It's how knowledge increases by wiping out false information and leaving us with solid irrefutable evidence. It's not black and white.

Now rather than have me explain all these concepts of coral and the like, what would satisfy you in the discussion, that statements such as this are referenced properly so that I am not in the position where you just stand there talking about how little evidence there is for plate tectonics or coral age, whilst you have this massive black hole of not a single shred of evidence for your god? If you are too hold me to a level of reference of evidence that you do not accept for yourself, that is hypocrisy.

Where is your evidence that the earth is under 10,000 years old?

Saying that, I am happy to help all the way along with pointing you to the evidence, or how to obtain it, as it is all totally accessible, and millions of people are trying to disprove and take apart all this evidence continually, what we have left is our global knowledge.

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  11:01:48  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kevtherev
Its amazing they said that the Philippines eruption about 15 - 20 years ago - that the ash would circle the earth 3 times and blacken Australia for months etc. we saw a reddish sunset in the north for a brief period, and the ash was great only in the affected area and maybe 500kms in the direction the wind took it.


Who said that? I never heard about it at all. I'm sure we would have heard about it blackening Australia for months, something like that the media would have a field day with. They would put it forward as armageddon.

I never even heard about it, and this kind of stuff intrigues me. Sure I heard about the eruption, there is always eruptions there, but never this ash cloud theory

quote:

Us humans have a tendency to exaggerate; it gets attention, headlines, investment and all other kinds of acclaim and self worth.



Maybe in the media and at a personal level, but try and do that in science and you will never be taken seriously again. It's not just people coming up with ideas, there has to be falsifiable evidence. The first thing other scientists do when a hypothesis is proposed, is try and prove it wrong, with evidence, or discount it as invalid, as it is not falsifiable.

I'll let you go on, and hope you are also thinking about applying the same judgments you are putting on human nature, to the concept of a god ;)

quote:

But really most of these major impacts have been fairly quickly healed - I guess the way I look at it is Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the bomb to end a war - total destruction etc - I was told it would take at least 100 years to mend the area for any habitation by a school teacher, and you know what those areas are extremely re-invigorated and it happened years ago - could God of inbuilt a healing mechanism for the earth as well as for us?


More likely your teacher had no idea of the then early stages of atomic theory. Science is a process of coming to truth through solid evidence and peer review. It is not an assertion of truth and trying to fit everything into that, as you are claiming. You must understand that there is a fundamental difference in your opinion of what science is, with placing it at the same level as assertions of fact, that you are more familiar with.

Science will change it's opinion given evidence. What level of evidence would you accept to change your opinion?

Can you see the difference here? If you are going to make broad statements like the discussion seems to be heading, you have to apply the same evidentiary levels to your OWN statements. I do not want to be in a position where your point of view is never approached, and I am continually having to bring more and more evidence to the table to prove something as fact beyond doubt, when you do not.

quote:
quote:

Ice layering, the layers of ice form differently each year in the Polar Regions. Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000.



Could it be possible that the way we measure things like carbon dating etc is not correct? 700,000 layers would not be too far out - I would think each layer was formed with a different weather system or change, change can happen from 4 to 50 times a day, like wind direction, wind strength, temperature, snow, ice, rain, sleet, hail, meteors, sun, clouds moving over the area, volcanic action, animal movement, etc. now probably we could say 70 major weather changes per year is very possible to cause these layers - I would expect 100's per year - even as much as an average of 5 per day.


Sigh, could it be possible? no, it's highly accurate. And no, there is very clear understanding of what it takes to build a glacial ice layer. It is not something that happens a few times a day.

quote:

Now the way to test this would be to mark (maybe put a pleat in the ice) and come back 5 years later and measure the layers, maybe use many plates or base points and dig them up individually at certain points in time. The counting of the layers would then give you a really good start to finding the facts on the ice sheeting layers. Hey maybe they already have done this - could it be published somewhere?


Undoubtably it has been done, and more. If you contact any geological organisation they will be able to point you in the direction of the body of scientific knowledge, and you can join with the thousands of others that are trying to study, correct, disprove, and thus build upon the public domain knowledge.

quote:

I wish I had lots of time - I love this subject - and would study and test and write about all the time - but life goes on - I will be back, and thanks Fadi and Davo for wanting to get into these subjects, and please ignore my ignorance (is that allowed?)- you may have to teach me some things.



Not a problem Kevin, I really suggest tho that you have a read around and search on how science actually works. There seems to be a misconception at play here regarding that. It RELIES on peer review. We are not talking something where you just propose something and everyone goes 'Yea! that fits in with what I believe!'. that's not science. Science is when you can study and have a hypothesis for 20 years, then some other scientist comes along and disproves it with hard evidence, and your extremely happy as knowledge has expanded, and your work has contributed to defining truth.

There are no 'sides' Kevin. It's not like religion which is trying to protect an assertion. You talk about finding truth, well there it is. It's the ability to change opinion based on evidence, it's not about finding ways to justify a statement.

that's science. that's why when creationists call themselves scientists, and want it taught in class, but have only assertions with no evidence, no peer review, no scientific method, folk say 'really this should not come under science, it's religion plain and simple. Let's keep science to the high standards it is'

Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page

kevtherev
Forum Admin

Australia
354 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  15:33:59  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
So how come there is so much ambiguation in dating, you cant seriously, think it is all as some people say - what about "Out of Place" Fossils

I found this at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html

There is much more over on that site - But I wont cut and paste anymore - you can all look for yourself.

25. Out-of-Place Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.c A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years.d Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistane and Arizona.f Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.g Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.h Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.

Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later.l Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.



The Picture above is an Insect in Amber. The best-preserved fossils are encased in amber, protected from air and water and buried in the ground. Amber, a golden resin (similar to sap or pitch) usually from conifer trees such as pines, may also contain other preservatives. No transitional forms of life have been found in amber, despite evolutionary-based ages of 1.5–300 million years. Animal behaviors, unchanged from today, are seen in three-dimensional detail. For example, ants in amber show the same social and work patterns as ants today.

Experts bold enough to explain how these fossils formed say that hurricane-force winds must have snapped off trees at their trunks, causing huge amounts of resin to spill out and act like flypaper. Debris and small organisms were blown into the sticky resin, which was later covered by more resin and finally buried. (Part II of this book will show that such conditions arose during the flood.)

In a clean-room laboratory, 30–40 dormant, but living, bacteria species were removed from intestines of bees encased in amber from the Dominican Republic. When cultured, the bacteria grew! [See “Old DNA, Bacteria, and Proteins?” on page 36.] This amber is claimed to be 25–40 million years old, but I suspect it formed at the time of the flood, only thousands of years ago. Is it more likely that bacteria can be kept alive thousands of years or many millions of years? Metabolism rates, even in dormant bacteria, are not zero.

Thanks from Kev - Forum and Site Admin
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  20:15:37  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
ok to start, as mentioned, science is an ongoing process, it is not the complete answer up front, saying that I will confront the claims of creation 'science' as put forward in the article. Let me make a small introduction and observation after reading the article presented, then I will go on with evidence to the contrary.

To answer your question over dating straight up :

Skeptics of conventional geology might think scientists would expect, or at least prefer, every date to be perfectly consistent with the current geological time scale, but realistically, this is not how science works. The age of a particular sample, and a particular geological time scale, only represents the current understanding, and science is a process of refinement of that understanding. In support of this pattern, there is an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the time scale as the dataset gets larger and more precise. If something were seriously wrong with the current geologic time scale, one would expect inconsistencies to grow in number and severity, but they do not.
(reference : Harland, W.B., Cox, A.V.; Llewellyn, P.G.; Pickton, C.A.G.; Smith, A.G.; and Walters, R., 1982. A Geologic Time Scale: 1982 edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 131p.

Radiometric dating has simply made estimates more precise, and extended it into rocks barren of fossils and other stratigraphic tools.

The geological time scale and the techniques used to define it are not circular. They rely on the same scientific principles as are used to refine any scientific concept: testing hypotheses with data. There are innumerable independent tests that can identify and resolve inconsistencies in the data. This makes the geological time scale no different from other aspects of scientific study.

Refuting the conventional geological time scale is not an exercise in collecting examples of the worst samples possible. A critique of conventional geologic time scale should address the best and most consistent data available, and explain it with an alternative interpretation, because that is the data that actually matters to the current understanding of geologic time.

An important point regarding the theory of evolution, is science does not take the fossil record as the major 'proof' as it is incomplete. It is supportive of the theory for sure, but the theory of evolution is not based on the fossil record, which is just the historical pattern of evolution, which as knowledge advances, we are continually refining it.

The problem here from a scientific point of view, is on one hand creationism is pointing at scientific research as not being accurate, where the scientific process is there to accept accuracy, and have that material peer reviewed. MUCH incorrect information is put forward for peer review, and never leaves the ground. Most of these claims, either are not peer reviewed, never made it to scientific Journals do to innacuracy and lack of any evidence, and if they did, were later refuted as being false interpretations of data, or evidence comes along that shows a greater understanding of what is at play. That's how science works. Creationism has just taken elements in that process of working toward truth, and go 'see see' taking rejected hypothesis as fact, without accepting the scientific process that has disregarded the information presented. You will notice also the dates on the references you give. Not quite up to date knowledge from the vast amount that is out there, it's cherry picked.

First line "Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order"

ref is Walter E. Lammerts, who was a leading creationist involved in starting the Creation Research Society over 40 years ago. Not one of his lists of claims in this regard, actually made it past any form of peer review, because, funny enough, he did not submit the claims for peer review.
They were published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
"Our aim is a rather audacious one, namely, the complete re-evaluation of science from the theistic viewpoint." (Lammerts, 1975, p. 2)

One of the well know slight of hands that have come from this fellow is the photo in Whitcomb and Morris's book The Genesis Flood showing the "Lewis Overthrust contact line" .. which is not really a photo of the contact line, but of rocks 200 feet above it. The photographs that Whitcomb and Morris used were taken by Lammerts, on his vacation (ref: Numbers 1992, 216-219)

I also found something interesting. For a man that is so 'hard core evolution in NO form exists', he bred roses : http://www.rirs.org/lammerts.htm

"His discovery and formulation of the principle laws governing inheritance of red/yellow bicolor, bud length and other traits have helped to make these qualities available in my miniatures."

Ironic how he accepts that inheritance of traits, or evolution, can occur with his passion roses, but totally denies that this can happen any other way.

Now the second reference :
"In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory is almost nil." David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record, Science, Vol. 213, 17 July 1981, p. 289.

Yes, that paper was quite interesting, and what he is talking about here is EVIDENCE. The theory does not work on prediction, and looking at something you can always make a plausible interpretations, but he is saying YOU NEED EVIDENCE. That's totally correct. There is no power in postdictive looking back and guessing! And science agrees.

This quote like many of Marks, is taken totally out of context and is decietful, as anyone understanding his papers and position understand EXACTLY what he is saying.
It's called quote mining. here's another great description from Mark that sums up much of the position on this :

"Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record."
"Some palaeontologists maintain that animals have evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that fossils record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution --- whether evolution occured [sic] at all.
"This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of arguments --- and the present debate within palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution."
(Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, vol.90, 25 June 1981, p.830)

Now lets look at the claims over dinosaur tracks in Turkmenistan and Arizona.

ref : http://paleo.cc/paluxy/russ.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html

There's so much information I am not going to bother trying to repeat it, the short of it is there is no evidence. These are just claims that have been going on for years, and many creationists are also backing right away from them.

then there's other lines, and I look at the references for the claims (phosphate beds in South Carolina, caol deposits strata etc):

Francis S. Holmes, Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the “Great Carolina Marl Bed” (Charleston, South Carolina: Holmes’ Book House, 1870).

Edward J. Nolan, “Remarks on Fossils from the Ashley Phosphate Beds,” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1876, pp. 80–81.

Are these people serious? 1870's ???? Your using 'evidence' and opinion of the 1870's?

There is a fantastic print advertisement for the Ashley Phosphate Company (http://www.chicora.org/pdfs/RC442-5%20Phospate%20Context.pdf) which used the then popular (1870's) misconception that phosphate resulting from fossil deposits was richer and better fertiliser. The advertisement showed the "skull" of a "gigantic baboon" as the source of the Ashley phosphate. The skull was so huge that two men stood on the giant's forehead, and it dwarfed a wagon and team. The ad's text reads, “Fortunate Discovery and Unearthing of the Skeleton Remains of a Prehistoric Race of Stupendous Giant Baboons. A Natural Phosphate for the Benefit of The ASHLEY PHOSPHATE COMPANY, the Great Promoters of Modern Civilization, and of Advanced Agriculture!!!” (The silly misuse of captialization and exclamation marks seems somehow familiar, doesn't it?) Also, the "skull" looks more human than like any baboon.

The geology of the Ashley phosphate beds are part of a series of layered marine and terrestrial deposits reflecting sea level fluctuations on the low coastal plains of South Carolina and Georgia. The "money hole" was the phospates, and the overhead was the terrestrial sediment over burden. When selling mining shares, promoters rarely ever mentioned the overburden and presented the "phosphate" as the total top-to-bottom depth of the mine.

"Actually, the fossils from the Ashley River beds reflect the conditions of a shallow marine/terrestiral plain prefectly; easily fossilzed marine organisms: shark teeth, bat rays, fish, some whales and some sea shells, bedded between terrestrials like; horse, rhinos, tapir and pig. A couple of species of alligators. No humans. No dinosaurs that I could find." (Dr GH off Theology web forums)

http://paleo.amnh.org/search.php?search=Ashley+and+Carolina <-- no human bones, no dinosaur bones.

OK, now the bees and wasps.

This is known stuff, and scientists love the discovery. As I noted above, this is what science does. The fossil records and placements are continually being worked on. Because more discoveries come about that refine it, does not mean evolution or dating methods are incorrect. What is provided, is just more evidence. There is no 'controversy' other than that presented by creationists as being a controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/science/which-came-first-bees-or-flowers-find-points-to-bees.html

Bring on the information that keeps filling in the placements of the fossil records, all great stuff.

How does all this contradict the age of the earth and the vast amount of other evidence that is not confronted in this article you present?

I am answering your questions, I have put forward and happy to debate the growing evidence, however I would appreciate it if you provide some evidence as to an earth less than 10,000 years old.

Godless Heathen

Edited by - davo on 30 Jul 2009 20:26:40
Go to Top of Page

davo
Commander

110 Posts

Posted - 30 Jul 2009 :  22:06:04  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
actually I missed the bacteria bit, but really it's the same answer as the bees :

http://amscicms.eresources.com/issues/pub/rock-of-ages

all interesting stuff, but when you are talking discussions like this, nothing quite falls within the timespan presented of 10,000 years.

How do you explain the fossil record being stratified as it is?


Godless Heathen
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ForumsAU.com - Forums in Australia for all people & subjects © 2005 to 2018 forumsau.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.09 seconds.                        You must Register and Confirm your email, and then log in first before posting! Snitz Forums 2000