Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

lostkiwi · Mar 19, 2004, 10:40 pm

Well, well. I have spent the last hour trying to catch myself up on this thread (skipping forward a bit I'm afraid) and I'm left wondering one thing. Where is the evidence for intelligent design?

From what I have seen the proof of Evolution through Natural Selection is well founded and quite solid, it is as good as a Scientific Theory gets. But if someone like our friend Bugs comes along and says that God has been standing by, hovering over the planet for the last 4 billion years, waiting for just the right moment to teach chemicals to reproduce, to teach the offspring to be more complex, to teach their offspring how to organize a cell, and how to organize cells into organisms, and so on and so forth until he taught an ape it was o.k. to come out of the tree....... where is the evidence for all of this?

Doesn't it seem like an awful lot to stack up on one idea?

I can see how the thought of evolution can bother people. The mindless plodding of life through generation after generation of reproduction, changing only when dictated by chance, surviving only when the natural selection dictated that that change was beneficial. Where does the meaning of life come from if not from above? What does it mean to be Man if the process that spawned him had no intention in doing so?

shunyadragon · Mar 20, 2004, 02:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)

Well, as I often say, science has no defense against miracles.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The word following miracle and miraculous in most dictionaries is mirage

shunyadragon · Mar 24, 2004, 06:42 pm

Advances in the genetics of evolution

Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science.

Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American.

Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future.

dannyp · Mar 24, 2004, 07:14 pm

i haven't read this entire thing, its quite an undertaking to follow up on all of the topics presented, but i'd like to introduce something i haven't seen in my skimming, if you have already talked about this somewhere please refer to where, thanks!

here are two articles that pretty much sums up the micro/macro evolution as it relates to christian views and the biologist evolutionary views of the discussion:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-094b.htm
"Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking."

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/...q_evo_micro.htm
"Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time."

i don't totally agree with the colorful wording on the second link because thats not exactly how i'd like to come across. although i, in general, agree with the concepts. the part i'd like to emphasize is -long period of time-

the first appearance of genesis according to this site:
http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

1445 B.C. which is approximately 4,000 years ago being very generous. i'm assuming the bible was the first written text that's still around? please correct me if its a wrong assumption. now compare that to what kind of scale 'evolutionists' consider. nearly 10,000,000 years ago the first ramapithacus existed, an ancestor to austrolopithicus, one of the first biped hominids. thats quite a gap. and look in under 4,000 years nearly all languages we have today were developed. 4000 years isn't very many generations for a species and look how much improvement we have made. also look at how many different kind of humans there are.

now some say macroevolution has not been proven. i guess thats true. but we haven't been documenting a species changes for anything close to just 1,000,000 years.. shit we haven't even been documenting for under 5,000.

the next logical course of action is to criticize certain dating methods. and as we know thats really not anything you or i can honestly debate simply because we have no way to prove if it is true without a doubt, but it can be proved to work on a scale that we can observe. until there is a better method its the best we have.

i'd personally would rather leave my options open by considering the possibility of 'mass horizontal genetic changes over long periods of time' than saying it is an impossibility because we haven't seen it.

i realize these may not be the most credible sources, but it shows the standpoint of two groups and my general interperetation of the views therein.

fogus · Mar 25, 2004, 12:08 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Advances in the genetics of evolution

Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science.

Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American.

Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wow, you certainly give the creationists a lot of time to answer. If only the most recent article you can find has been unrequited, then you do not have much of a case. The modern advances you speak of are only extremely modern. Carl Wieland:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

My grandfather was incultraded into accepting evolution and therefore rejecting the truth of the bibles history and thus the good news of the gospel. And the arguments that convinced him were discarded by the time my father came around. And the arguments that convinced him of evolution and to reject the gospel were a different set of arguments. And by the time I got to uni [versity] and became an evolutionist they were a different set of arguments again. The arguments come and go, and what doesn’t change is the underlining faith that evolution has somehow happened.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There are plenty of extremely recent arguments that evolution scientists can't answer that come from the creation scientists. Putting the image of the outdated scientist on creation scientists is unfair, unless you consider all scientists to be outdated, because evolutionists cannot stand up to the test you put to creationists.

No, I'm not gone yet!

shunyadragon · Mar 25, 2004, 04:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

Advances in the genetics of evolution

Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science.

Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American.

Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)

Wow, you certainly give the creationists a lot of time to answer. If only the most recent article you can find has been unrequited, then you do not have much of a case. The modern advances you speak of are only extremely modern. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This article references a series advances in genetics made over the past fifteen years. This article was provided because it represented a reasonable summary of modern advances in science

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

My grandfather was incultraded into accepting evolution and therefore rejecting the truth of the bibles history and thus the good news of the gospel. And the arguments that convinced him were discarded by the time my father came around. And the arguments that convinced him of evolution and to reject the gospel were a different set of arguments. And by the time I got to uni [versity] and became an evolutionist they were a different set of arguments again. The arguments come and go, and what doesn’t change is the underlining faith that evolution has somehow happened.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The accumulated knowledge that supports evolution comes from all the sciences and changes constantly, but the basic arguements have not. The strategraphy argument proposed by Charles Darwin still remains one of the most important foundations of the theory of evolution. We have collected far more data over the years then was available to Darwin that confirm his original proposals.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are plenty of extremely recent arguments that evolution scientists can't answer that come from the creation scientists. Putting the image of the outdated scientist on creation scientists is unfair, unless you consider all scientists to be outdated, because evolutionists cannot stand up to the test you put to creationists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have not seen on sound arguement from AIG or drdino. The website talk.design.org has responded very throughly to all of AIGs claims. Evolutionists have stood up to the claims and the current progress of the research goes far beyond anything the 'Creation Science' advocates could begin to understand.

There is an important point that must be considered about the assumptions of the 'Crestion Science' advocates. There premise is that they support the literal interpretation of the bible from the 'very first verse', regardless of the evidence provided by science. This position is stated by AIG and many of the scientists and the articles they write for AIG state this.

fogus · Mar 30, 2004, 12:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus:

1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed
2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating
3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years.
4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years)

Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have.

Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.

duane · Mar 30, 2004, 08:21 pm

There is both evolution and creation when you are looking at the human race. The human race has been tampered with and the existance of the bible was mans' first attempt to grasp the difference between us i.e man that has been created through tampering and the animals that are all approximately at the same stage of evolution - but of course I am not talking about slugs and bacteria.

We are evolving mentally and soon we will manipulate life forms through scientific tampering or creation as you call it. (I'm talking to the first/initial poster). I am happy to know that people have got to a stage where we finally know through our own scientific advancements that we are the process of creation after some other race mentally evolved and tampered with us.

Now that I know this - and I/alot of us know it - I am happy to rewrite the bible and mould it on current day perceptions and understanding. However, I would like to get rid of the processes involving scientific global poisoning. That is not creation but destruction and it robs us all of evolving into creators i.e. we war over the unpolluted land that is left. I want to play God, not wait for it.

shunyadragon · Mar 30, 2004, 10:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus)
Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus:

1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed
2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating
3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years.
4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years) <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My specialty in science is geology and strategraphy, sedimentology and environmental geology. My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good so I am checking the net to give you a more specific and detailed answer. The foundation of my basis for an old earth rests strongly in my knowledge of strategraphy and sedimentology.

I believe that the conclusions made by AIG do not reflect a though knowledge of the Geochemistry of the elements in the earth. Helium like Argon in Potassium radiometric dating are the decay products and they are inert gases. They do not react with the surrounding matrix of the rock and thus most of these gases migrate out of the matrix especially under pressure and heat when these rocks are still under the earth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Likewise on this question. I will check the internet and more knowledgable sources for the more detailed answer. I have to check on the nature of these experimental results that show high levels C 14 in diamonds.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I also read from the views of both sides. You must remember that the statements of purpose of AIG, drdino and other 'Creation Science' advocates are very clear. Their primary goal is to defend the literal interpretation of the bible from 'the very first verse'. The independent investigation of truth through the scientific method is not in their statements of purpose. Science must comply with the TRUTH of the bible to be valid.

I will breakdown one of their articles that reflect this view in a later post. One of the best I saw is the one that addresses the problem of the size and age of the universe based on the problem of the vaste times and distances demonstrated by the speed of light. The bottom line of this article was that the literal interpretation of the bible must be accepted above all, because the very foundations of belief in Christianity depended on this.

fogus · Mar 31, 2004, 01:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yet you radiometric dating as one of your main evidence to disprove a young earth? The ice cores are also not in your area specialty either. Ice cores have now been found to be created quickly. More on that later, after we discuss radiometric dating. (remind me, I’ll forget)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

most of these gases migrate out of the matrix
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, this is the evidence I gave. the dates they arrived at reflect the amount of helium left in the rocks. Helium is a noble gas, so you are right it doesn’t react. The question is why is there this much helium in the rocks when it should have leaked out "billions" of years ago. The results of the speed of helium escape came from a non-creationist source (and my, they must be embarrassed now).

shunyadragon · Mar 31, 2004, 07:21 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yet you radiometric dating as one of your main evidence to disprove a young earth? The ice cores are also not in your area specialty either. Ice cores have now been found to be created quickly. More on that later, after we discuss radiometric dating. (remind me, I’ll forget)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

most of these gases migrate out of the matrix
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, this is the evidence I gave. the dates they arrived at reflect the amount of helium left in the rocks. Helium is a noble gas, so you are right it doesn’t react. The question is why is there this much helium in the rocks when it should have leaked out "billions" of years ago. The results of the speed of helium escape came from a non-creationist source (and my, they must be embarrassed now).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No they are not embarrassed. I do not think Helium is an issue. As I said radiometric dating is not may specialty. I feel the strategraphic evidence is more than enough to prove an old earth even if we did mot have radiometric dating.

I also feel the ice cores are cyclic in their deposition showing ages much older than that, but I will check.

Mar 31, 2004, 05:37 pm

I was once handed a booklet by a creationism advocate who's primary arguament against evolution was the unreliability of the C14 dating process. The pamphlet was dated 1960. Creationist are arguing stories told by our ancient world ancestors, eg. the Sumarian tales in the Bible, vs. hard evidence generated by todays science. One whould think hard evidence trumps 6,000 year old folklore, but I guess not.

Mozart1220 · Mar 31, 2004, 06:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
How 'bout this: Why doesn't someone take a shot at proving evolution. I'd like to see this done. I'm really asking for it because I know in all likelihood I won't be able to resist replying. Maybe I am a fool afterall!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

OK here goes:
A biology teacher in highschool asked this question...

Why do we have goosebumps?

I will provide the answer after I see some replies. I'd like to see how many of you give the same answer he did.

Mar 31, 2004, 07:50 pm

WE get goosebumps as our skin's pores close in order to maintain our body temperature in response to a colder environment.

shunyadragon · Apr 2, 2004, 07:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus:

1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed
2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating
3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years.
4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years)

Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have.

Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I live in China and I have had problemsaccessing some web sites as sources of radiometric dating methods, therefore there will be some delay responding to this from the point of view of an authority on the subject. The following are some thoughts from the point of view of geochemistry.

(1) Helium has never been a serious issue in radiometric dating of Uranium and the associated isotopes and elements that are the degradation products over time. It is the unstable elements and the major degradation products that are most important in measuring age. Scientists never use just one radioactive element and the resulting products to date rocks. Potassium - Argon is just one other very reliable dating method. Scientist are cautious because of contamination and the intrusin of other age materials into the rocks over time so the always use mutiple isotope datingmethods.

The accumulation of Helium in relatively shallow geologic formations may be to
the de gasing of deeper geologic formations deeper in the earth. It is logical that the Helium would accumulate in cooler shallow formation that are under less pressure and have lower permeabilities for the transmission of inert gases. I mentioned this before, but I did not make it clear what I was referring to.

rhod01 · Apr 2, 2004, 08:24 pm

I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god.

Where's the evidence of that?

**Pooeypants** · Apr 3, 2004, 05:58 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Merlov,)
I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god.

Where's the evidence of that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Valid question and I'm sure we're gonna get a definitive answer. :rolleyes:

Let's hope they don't move the goalpost.

shunyadragon · Apr 3, 2004, 07:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Merlov,)
I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god.

Where's the evidence of that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Creationists rarely claim their view is proven. They mainly take the position that both sides are valid theories and not proven so their theories deserve as much consideration as evolution particularly in education.

Apr 3, 2004, 06:22 pm

http://www.drdino.com

shunyadragon · Apr 3, 2004, 07:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,)
http://www.drdino.com<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why?????????

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mar 20, 2004, 02:12 am	#342 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) Well, as I often say, science has no defense against miracles.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The word following miracle and miraculous in most dictionaries is mirage The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 24, 2004, 06:42 pm	#343 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	Advances in the genetics of evolution Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science. Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American. Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 24, 2004, 07:14 pm	#344 (permalink) (top)
dannyp projects himself Posts: 130	i haven't read this entire thing, its quite an undertaking to follow up on all of the topics presented, but i'd like to introduce something i haven't seen in my skimming, if you have already talked about this somewhere please refer to where, thanks! here are two articles that pretty much sums up the micro/macro evolution as it relates to christian views and the biologist evolutionary views of the discussion: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-094b.htm "Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking." http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/...q_evo_micro.htm "Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time." i don't totally agree with the colorful wording on the second link because thats not exactly how i'd like to come across. although i, in general, agree with the concepts. the part i'd like to emphasize is -long period of time- the first appearance of genesis according to this site: http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm 1445 B.C. which is approximately 4,000 years ago being very generous. i'm assuming the bible was the first written text that's still around? please correct me if its a wrong assumption. now compare that to what kind of scale 'evolutionists' consider. nearly 10,000,000 years ago the first ramapithacus existed, an ancestor to austrolopithicus, one of the first biped hominids. thats quite a gap. and look in under 4,000 years nearly all languages we have today were developed. 4000 years isn't very many generations for a species and look how much improvement we have made. also look at how many different kind of humans there are. now some say macroevolution has not been proven. i guess thats true. but we haven't been documenting a species changes for anything close to just 1,000,000 years.. shit we haven't even been documenting for under 5,000. the next logical course of action is to criticize certain dating methods. and as we know thats really not anything you or i can honestly debate simply because we have no way to prove if it is true without a doubt, but it can be proved to work on a scale that we can observe. until there is a better method its the best we have. i'd personally would rather leave my options open by considering the possibility of 'mass horizontal genetic changes over long periods of time' than saying it is an impossibility because we haven't seen it. i realize these may not be the most credible sources, but it shows the standpoint of two groups and my general interperetation of the views therein. projectdp.com :: thinktankforums.com

Mar 25, 2004, 12:08 am	#345 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Advances in the genetics of evolution Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science. Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American. Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wow, you certainly give the creationists a lot of time to answer. If only the most recent article you can find has been unrequited, then you do not have much of a case. The modern advances you speak of are only extremely modern. Carl Wieland: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by My grandfather was incultraded into accepting evolution and therefore rejecting the truth of the bibles history and thus the good news of the gospel. And the arguments that convinced him were discarded by the time my father came around. And the arguments that convinced him of evolution and to reject the gospel were a different set of arguments. And by the time I got to uni [versity] and became an evolutionist they were a different set of arguments again. The arguments come and go, and what doesn’t change is the underlining faith that evolution has somehow happened. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There are plenty of extremely recent arguments that evolution scientists can't answer that come from the creation scientists. Putting the image of the outdated scientist on creation scientists is unfair, unless you consider all scientists to be outdated, because evolutionists cannot stand up to the test you put to creationists. No, I'm not gone yet! ~Fogus

Mar 25, 2004, 04:59 am	#346 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Advances in the genetics of evolution Creation Science advocates rarely keep current with scientific advances. Many do not realize that the scientific knowledge of the genetics of evolution is only about fifty years old and it was not until very recently that they have been able to understand and break the code of evolution in genes. The following article sheds some light on the recent advances of science. Evolution Encoded by Stephe J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst in the April 2004 Scientific American. Because of recent breakthroughs in science the knowledge of the processes of evolution are rapidely advancing. What the 'CS' advocates do not realize is science may come up with a very detailed understanding in of not only evolution, but abiogenisis in the near future. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) Wow, you certainly give the creationists a lot of time to answer. If only the most recent article you can find has been unrequited, then you do not have much of a case. The modern advances you speak of are only extremely modern. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This article references a series advances in genetics made over the past fifteen years. This article was provided because it represented a reasonable summary of modern advances in science </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by My grandfather was incultraded into accepting evolution and therefore rejecting the truth of the bibles history and thus the good news of the gospel. And the arguments that convinced him were discarded by the time my father came around. And the arguments that convinced him of evolution and to reject the gospel were a different set of arguments. And by the time I got to uni [versity] and became an evolutionist they were a different set of arguments again. The arguments come and go, and what doesn’t change is the underlining faith that evolution has somehow happened. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The accumulated knowledge that supports evolution comes from all the sciences and changes constantly, but the basic arguements have not. The strategraphy argument proposed by Charles Darwin still remains one of the most important foundations of the theory of evolution. We have collected far more data over the years then was available to Darwin that confirm his original proposals. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are plenty of extremely recent arguments that evolution scientists can't answer that come from the creation scientists. Putting the image of the outdated scientist on creation scientists is unfair, unless you consider all scientists to be outdated, because evolutionists cannot stand up to the test you put to creationists. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have not seen on sound arguement from AIG or drdino. The website talk.design.org has responded very throughly to all of AIGs claims. Evolutionists have stood up to the claims and the current progress of the research goes far beyond anything the 'Creation Science' advocates could begin to understand. There is an important point that must be considered about the assumptions of the 'Crestion Science' advocates. There premise is that they support the literal interpretation of the bible from the 'very first verse', regardless of the evidence provided by science. This position is stated by AIG and many of the scientists and the articles they write for AIG state this. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 19, 2004, 10:40 pm	#341 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	Well, well. I have spent the last hour trying to catch myself up on this thread (skipping forward a bit I'm afraid) and I'm left wondering one thing. Where is the evidence for intelligent design? From what I have seen the proof of Evolution through Natural Selection is well founded and quite solid, it is as good as a Scientific Theory gets. But if someone like our friend Bugs comes along and says that God has been standing by, hovering over the planet for the last 4 billion years, waiting for just the right moment to teach chemicals to reproduce, to teach the offspring to be more complex, to teach their offspring how to organize a cell, and how to organize cells into organisms, and so on and so forth until he taught an ape it was o.k. to come out of the tree....... where is the evidence for all of this? Doesn't it seem like an awful lot to stack up on one idea? I can see how the thought of evolution can bother people. The mindless plodding of life through generation after generation of reproduction, changing only when dictated by chance, surviving only when the natural selection dictated that that change was beneficial. Where does the meaning of life come from if not from above? What does it mean to be Man if the process that spawned him had no intention in doing so?

Mar 30, 2004, 12:27 am	#347 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus: 1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed 2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating 3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years. 4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years) Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have. Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views. ~Fogus

Mar 30, 2004, 08:21 pm	#348 (permalink) (top)
duane Molten Ash Posts: 25	There is both evolution and creation when you are looking at the human race. The human race has been tampered with and the existance of the bible was mans' first attempt to grasp the difference between us i.e man that has been created through tampering and the animals that are all approximately at the same stage of evolution - but of course I am not talking about slugs and bacteria. We are evolving mentally and soon we will manipulate life forms through scientific tampering or creation as you call it. (I'm talking to the first/initial poster). I am happy to know that people have got to a stage where we finally know through our own scientific advancements that we are the process of creation after some other race mentally evolved and tampered with us. Now that I know this - and I/alot of us know it - I am happy to rewrite the bible and mould it on current day perceptions and understanding. However, I would like to get rid of the processes involving scientific global poisoning. That is not creation but destruction and it robs us all of evolving into creators i.e. we war over the unpolluted land that is left. I want to play God, not wait for it.

Mar 30, 2004, 10:13 pm	#349 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus) Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus: 1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed 2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating 3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years. 4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My specialty in science is geology and strategraphy, sedimentology and environmental geology. My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good so I am checking the net to give you a more specific and detailed answer. The foundation of my basis for an old earth rests strongly in my knowledge of strategraphy and sedimentology. I believe that the conclusions made by AIG do not reflect a though knowledge of the Geochemistry of the elements in the earth. Helium like Argon in Potassium radiometric dating are the decay products and they are inert gases. They do not react with the surrounding matrix of the rock and thus most of these gases migrate out of the matrix especially under pressure and heat when these rocks are still under the earth. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Likewise on this question. I will check the internet and more knowledgable sources for the more detailed answer. I have to check on the nature of these experimental results that show high levels C 14 in diamonds. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I also read from the views of both sides. You must remember that the statements of purpose of AIG, drdino and other 'Creation Science' advocates are very clear. Their primary goal is to defend the literal interpretation of the bible from 'the very first verse'. The independent investigation of truth through the scientific method is not in their statements of purpose. Science must comply with the TRUTH of the bible to be valid. I will breakdown one of their articles that reflect this view in a later post. One of the best I saw is the one that addresses the problem of the size and age of the universe based on the problem of the vaste times and distances demonstrated by the speed of light. The bottom line of this article was that the literal interpretation of the bible must be accepted above all, because the very foundations of belief in Christianity depended on this. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 31, 2004, 01:36 am	#350 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yet you radiometric dating as one of your main evidence to disprove a young earth? The ice cores are also not in your area specialty either. Ice cores have now been found to be created quickly. More on that later, after we discuss radiometric dating. (remind me, I’ll forget) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by most of these gases migrate out of the matrix <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, this is the evidence I gave. the dates they arrived at reflect the amount of helium left in the rocks. Helium is a noble gas, so you are right it doesn’t react. The question is why is there this much helium in the rocks when it should have leaked out "billions" of years ago. The results of the speed of helium escape came from a non-creationist source (and my, they must be embarrassed now). ~Fogus

Mar 31, 2004, 07:21 am	#351 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by My knowledge of radiometric dating is not real good <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yet you radiometric dating as one of your main evidence to disprove a young earth? The ice cores are also not in your area specialty either. Ice cores have now been found to be created quickly. More on that later, after we discuss radiometric dating. (remind me, I’ll forget) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by most of these gases migrate out of the matrix <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, this is the evidence I gave. the dates they arrived at reflect the amount of helium left in the rocks. Helium is a noble gas, so you are right it doesn’t react. The question is why is there this much helium in the rocks when it should have leaked out "billions" of years ago. The results of the speed of helium escape came from a non-creationist source (and my, they must be embarrassed now).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No they are not embarrassed. I do not think Helium is an issue. As I said radiometric dating is not may specialty. I feel the strategraphic evidence is more than enough to prove an old earth even if we did mot have radiometric dating. I also feel the ice cores are cyclic in their deposition showing ages much older than that, but I will check. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 31, 2004, 05:37 pm	#352 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I was once handed a booklet by a creationism advocate who's primary arguament against evolution was the unreliability of the C14 dating process. The pamphlet was dated 1960. Creationist are arguing stories told by our ancient world ancestors, eg. the Sumarian tales in the Bible, vs. hard evidence generated by todays science. One whould think hard evidence trumps 6,000 year old folklore, but I guess not.

Mar 31, 2004, 06:48 pm	#353 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) How 'bout this: Why doesn't someone take a shot at proving evolution. I'd like to see this done. I'm really asking for it because I know in all likelihood I won't be able to resist replying. Maybe I am a fool afterall!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> OK here goes: A biology teacher in highschool asked this question... Why do we have goosebumps? I will provide the answer after I see some replies. I'd like to see how many of you give the same answer he did. Big Jr is watching you!

Mar 31, 2004, 07:50 pm	#354 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	WE get goosebumps as our skin's pores close in order to maintain our body temperature in response to a colder environment.

Apr 2, 2004, 07:34 am	#355 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I have not seen on (sic) sound arguement (sic) from AIG <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, then I will give you one. Just pulling a random article from the AiG Creation magazine, the argument in it goes thus: 1. When uranium decays into lead helium is formed 2. Zircons are candidates for uranium lead dating 3. The age of the zircons obtained by radiometric dating is 1.5 billion years. 4. By analyzing the amount of helium left in the rocks an age of less than 14,000 years is obtained. More accurately the date on these rocks have been set at roughly 5,680 years (+/- 2000 years) Also mentioned in the article is the fact that C14 remains in diamonds (supposed to be billions of years old) (limiting the age of the earth to under 58,000, and also found in other places that it shouldn’t have. Telling me that you haven’t seen any sound arguments from AiG is, bluntly, either deliberate ignorance or willful dishonesty. The arguments abound, and the scientific evidence for them is powerfully convincing. Unless you already subscribe to the AiG TJ and or the Creation magazine, you should, as it is unfair that I can’t give you the full article, while (as I subscribe to the Scientific American) I can read the entire article. Reading from the opposite camp often changes our views.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I live in China and I have had problemsaccessing some web sites as sources of radiometric dating methods, therefore there will be some delay responding to this from the point of view of an authority on the subject. The following are some thoughts from the point of view of geochemistry. (1) Helium has never been a serious issue in radiometric dating of Uranium and the associated isotopes and elements that are the degradation products over time. It is the unstable elements and the major degradation products that are most important in measuring age. Scientists never use just one radioactive element and the resulting products to date rocks. Potassium - Argon is just one other very reliable dating method. Scientist are cautious because of contamination and the intrusin of other age materials into the rocks over time so the always use mutiple isotope datingmethods. The accumulation of Helium in relatively shallow geologic formations may be to the de gasing of deeper geologic formations deeper in the earth. It is logical that the Helium would accumulate in cooler shallow formation that are under less pressure and have lower permeabilities for the transmission of inert gases. I mentioned this before, but I did not make it clear what I was referring to. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Apr 2, 2004, 08:24 pm	#356 (permalink) (top)
rhod01 Socialist Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 226	I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god. Where's the evidence of that? http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1153/gates8lq.jpg Political Compass Position: Economic Left/Right:-9.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:-7.13

Apr 3, 2004, 05:58 am	#357 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Merlov,) I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god. Where's the evidence of that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Valid question and I'm sure we're gonna get a definitive answer. :rolleyes: Let's hope they don't move the goalpost. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 3, 2004, 07:55 am	#358 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Merlov,) I doubt Creationists have proven that the world was constucted and 'made' by god. Where's the evidence of that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Creationists rarely claim their view is proven. They mainly take the position that both sides are valid theories and not proven so their theories deserve as much consideration as evolution particularly in education. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Apr 3, 2004, 06:22 pm	#359 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.drdino.com

Apr 3, 2004, 07:08 pm	#360 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,) http://www.drdino.com<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why????????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .