Name them? Come on you know very well some yourself. Whatever... Dr William Arion, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Thomas Barnes, Dr Bryan Dawson...

I did not bring that point about carbon 14 still being around. You're confusing me with someone else. I did say something about carbon 14 though. As carbon 14 is being made in the atmosphere and decaying there should come a point of equilibrium. Scientists say it should take about 50,000 years for this to happen so we defiantly should be there. The problem however is we aren't. The amount of carbon 14 is increasing. That is what I said in this thread or another. I believe it was Undecieved who brought that other point up. If you're trying to make fun of someone, keep track of who you're talking to.

(21st February 2012 12:32)chipan Wrote:  Name them? Come on you know very well some yourself. Whatever... Dr William Arion, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Thomas Barnes, Dr Bryan Dawson...

Quote:Yep, and they are ALL AIG cretinists who have to sign a statement of faith putting scripture before evidence, very scientific indeed.

I did not bring that point about carbon 14 still being around. You're confusing me with someone else. I did say something about carbon 14 though. As carbon 14 is being made in the atmosphere and decaying there should come a point of equilibrium. Scientists say it should take about 50,000 years for this to happen so we defiantly should be there. The problem however is we aren't. The amount of carbon 14 is increasing. That is what I said in this thread or another. I believe it was Undecieved who brought that other point up. If you're trying to make fun of someone, keep track of who you're talking to.

Why should there be a point of equilibrium?

C14 just decays until there is only C12 left.

That is all.

Sorry about the confusion but you know how it is, sheep are hard to tell apart

Quote:Again an absolute statement can easily be proven wrong with a single exception. Many scientists with a PHD in the field reject those theories and they know more about it that you do. Im sure you already know of some examples. Be careful when using words like all, any, and every.

Be careful when using words like many. Especially when phrasing in context to be deceptive. You're now using a vague term like "Many" to indicate a large number, when in fact the word Many is only relevant if you put them all in the same room without reference to the total number.

Its a very small proportion. Are you proposing that because a small minority do not support the theory, it is therefore false?

A variety of studies, including Gallup polls, puts scientists (in general, not biologists, so some ignorance can be forgiven) as 95% behind evolution through natural selection. A study by CSI (a skeptical organisation admittedly) puts biologists at around 97.3% based on a survey (perfectly open to criticism of course, only 73 out of 160 or so responded, small sample size really). These are actually lower than most people would expect all things considered, but these are the reasons that nobody cares that a very small proportion do not support the theory.

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995)"
More interestingly, in the interests of fairness, I tried to find some creationist polls, but they seem curiously absent. Plenty of lists naming some scientists who do not believe in it. Couldn't find one that would post some numbers.. you know.

So the statement, is not "many scientists with a Phd reject those theories", but rather "the vast majority of scientists with a Phd support these theories".
Its all in the wording isn't it. Your way made it seem kinder to the vast minority.

Now, thats not to say the minority can't be right. Far from it. Science is always willing to admit when they have it wrong. However, it is down to personal opinion, rather than science that views differ, creationism has produced very little evidence for its case (I'm being kind by saying it has any btw), so it cannot be termed a science. Its main source for peer-reviewed articles consist far more frequently in faith journals than in science journals. I can't even think of many that even exist in the science journal.
Maybe its a conspiracy. We love that. Scientists have found evidence we don't like, or won't publish our views, so clearly its a conspiracy against me. Of course.

Creationist pseudo-science isn't willing to admit it is wrong, because it is caught up with religion, which cannot exist by being wrong.

Also to be fair, I couldn't find many cases of scientists rejecting both creationism and evolution. Maybe you'll have better luck.

So, the one question at the end of this;
"Many scientists with a PHD in the field reject those theories"
Is this phrase of yours intentionally misleading or unintentionally ignorant.

That may come across as a little offensive, so if you want to suggest an alternative name, feel free.

(21st February 2012 13:06)Zen Badger Wrote:  

(21st February 2012 12:32)chipan Wrote:  Name them? Come on you know very well some yourself. Whatever... Dr William Arion, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Thomas Barnes, Dr Bryan Dawson...

Quote:Yep, and they are ALL AIG cretinists who have to sign a statement of faith putting scripture before evidence, very scientific indeed.

I did not bring that point about carbon 14 still being around. You're confusing me with someone else. I did say something about carbon 14 though. As carbon 14 is being made in the atmosphere and decaying there should come a point of equilibrium. Scientists say it should take about 50,000 years for this to happen so we defiantly should be there. The problem however is we aren't. The amount of carbon 14 is increasing. That is what I said in this thread or another. I believe it was Undecieved who brought that other point up. If you're trying to make fun of someone, keep track of who you're talking to.

Why should there be a point of equilibrium?

C14 just decays until there is only C12 left.

That is all.

Sorry about the confusion but you know how it is, sheep are hard to tell apart

They don't sign such a statement. You asked for an example and I gave a few. That's it.

You obviously don't understand how the carbon 14 cycle works. You are contradicting yourself. If it just decayed until it was gone it would be all gone in 50,000 years. Scientists don't worry about this because there's a cycle that produces the carbon 14 but that goes to my last point about equalibrium. Oh and one more thing, carbon 14 does not decay to carbon 12. It decays to nitrogen. The process is called beta decay. It's what happens when an element has too many neutrons and also how they make bigger elements that aren't natural.

You are correct that it returns to nitrogen(sorry my bad) but how can it run out if it is being constantly renewed?

(20th February 2012 21:15)Undeceived Wrote:  

---

(19th February 2012 19:51)RaphielDrake Wrote:  Hi, I'm RaphielDrake. Pleased to meet you.

Bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolutions workings easily,
bacteria leads short lives and so reproduce, live, die and evolve at an accelerated rate. When bacteria adapts to be immune to an anti-biotic thats micro-evolution. Bacteria that does not adapt to a mass vaccination would quickly die out as proven by the near eradication of small-pox. They will also develop different adaptations to cope with the immune system yielding many different types of bacteria. Some will survive, some will not. No species of bacteria as a whole becomes an entirely different one. Most of the older generation would simply die out because they didn't adapt.

Or if you want a larger diagram of natural diversity and natural selection then look no further than the dinosaurs. All of them reptilian creatures but look how many forms they took. Masters of the sea, land and air. Most of which died out thanks to a massive calamity yet we are left with their reptilian descendants that thrive today. Note how all of these descendants are either water-fairing or small.
If you want a more modern diagram of diversity look at the 30000 different *known* species of spider.

Now we've established natural diversity is a fact as is natural selection we must look at the theory of spontaneous genetic mutation, also known as evolution. We all have different genetic code, within that genetic code are various mutations that have been passed down from generation to generation. This is, to a very slight extent, evolution.The mutations passed down from many parents over the course of 10000 years would undoubtedly produce a noticeably different human-being than seen today. What mutations are passed down are dependent on who survives to pass down their mutations, this is dependent on circumstance and the suitability of the individuals genes to cope with it. i.e. A human born with extremely poor swimming skills and a tendency toward low technical aptitude who hadn't yet mated would find it very difficult to pass down his genes in the event that the worlds surface became almost completely engulfed by the sea. Of course factors like him being born on an island with a ship or others who were capable of swimming or building sea-craft would improve these odds.

To answer some of your other queries:
This process is constant so *every* form is a transitional form, also I suggest you look up homo habilis. Ignoring the fact that fossils are very rare occurances and we're lucky to get the ones we do, there are many examples of transitional forms. To clarify an example of a transitional form is *not* one creature merged with another. It is an example of a creature who has developed an adaptation.

Many different species evolving in similar conditions would yield multiple species with similar traits, this isn't to say they are the same species or even of the same tree. This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment.

Genetic code changes to varying conditions over the course of a very long period of time, while we do lose some through natural selection we also gain some through adaptation over a long period of time.
Remember, the numbers of a species aren't made up in thousands or even tens of thousands. We're talking hundreds of thousands and more. Yes, many die in a species and sometimes all of a species die out but sometimes just enough make it through to continue its survival. Considering how many species have lived on this planet it is no surprise that some made it despite the odds.

Science is not dogmatic, it alters its theory based on evidence, Creationism alters its belief *because* of evidence. The difference being that one pursues truth through evidence and the other insists it knows the truth in-spite of evidence and occasionally being forced to give ground begrudgingly. Rest assured, if scientists one day examine DNA through a microscope and it shifts to form a picture of Jesus then they'll closely research that and alter their perception.

All of this combined outlines a very good case for evolution. If I were in your position I would probably fall back to a position of "God created the process of evolution and thus sparked all of this off", no-one would be able to come up with proof that wasn't the case. Evolution has been proven by looking at what came before and what we see now and although open to debunking you're not doing your faith any favors by trying to undermine it with nothing but circular reasoning and easily countered points.

Hope this has helped clear things up.

---

Hi RaphielDrake, thanks for your response.
Apart from viruses (small-pox), you gave no examples of long-term adaptation. Creationists agree that viruses mutate and change, but that's because they are entirely different from living organisms. They adapt as they leap from creature to creature. Simple organisms at evolution's beginning would not have had the luxury of reproducing using the host's machinery, nor do viruses explain anything in the fossil tree. Living organisms must self-reproduce, they require a single species into split into several, and they have to develop new structures and tissues--like lungs or ears. I'd like some sources for your 'adapted transitional forms.' What are some models? I appeal to the evidence we have currently, not what we hope to find. Currently, species are converging and becoming more like one another. We've had just under 1000 large-animal extinctions in the last 100 years, but how many new species? Only a handful, and those are only technically their own species because they won't readily breed with the supposed mother species. The fossil record shows which organisms die, not when they came about. If you appeal to our few number of fossils as the reason why we don't see any transitionals, how can you be so certain the first dead member in the fossil record betrays the time it became its own species? That, I believe, is interpreting the evidence in whatever way fits the theory. It's being selective, and science is not supposed to be selective.

I agree with your explanation of bacteria. Yet the fact remains, it's only microevolution. The vast majority of 'evolved' bacteria never actually received a mutation. A few members of the species already had the ability. For example, there is a 'new' strand of bacteria able to digest oil. Scientists found that all that happened was the hardiest bacteria survived and the weakest died. Eventually all we had were the ones able to digest the oil. These bacteria did not gain any new tissues, they were simply pushing boundaries of what had already been possible. The genes haven't changed and no new info has been added to the genetic code. For another analogy, you don't see many seven-foot people. If you didn't have TV you might think they didn't exist. But say there was some change in climate that allowed only the tallest to survive. Soon everyone would be over 6 feet, and then 6.5 and upwards. Did we always have this gene for tallness? Yes, it just wasn't evident. The same goes for bacteria. We're looking for qualitative adaptations, not quantitative. Everything to do with resistance or better ability to do something already possible (like eat and grow) is quantitative. If the bacteria started jumping for its food, that would be qualitative. Qualitative adaptations require mutations. If you have evidence of a mutation leading to a qualitative change like a new tissue I'd love to see it, because I haven't found any yet.

"This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment."
Exactly my point. But your claiming this while maintaining that similarities imply relationship is, once again, being a selective scientist. You're selective with dating fossils by the organisms death and you're selective with similarities. Those, RaphielDrake, are the only two basis for the fossil record. And you've destroyed the scientific honesty of both.

I'll reiterate: macroevolution is not microevolution in the long run. The new species must cease being able to breed with the source species. It must receive random mutations. And there must be a tendency to survive based on these mutations. But if you examined the evidence, you’d find that the majority of mutated organisms die. Scientists test with mice, and most mutations are neutral, but of the remainder the odds are 100 to 1 that the mouse will live with a mutation. A mutation, by tested science, is more likely to kill an organism than help it survive. So the inner-generational tendency is to die, not live. Scientists make a leap of faith here when they assume (and hope like crazy) that the badly-mutated organisms will not pass their genes on while the beneficially-mutated organisms will. Let’s suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Look at mice experiments. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

If a mutation doesn’t make a species implode, it struggles when introduced to ‘irreducible complexity.’ The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ. Take away one of the 20+ pieces of the eye and it either is severely handicapped or blind altogether. How did evolution achieve this incredible organ? Either there are thousands of organisms in the fossil record, each with a slightly less-developed eye that somehow employs the parts in useful ways, or organisms collect ‘dormant mutations’ until all the pieces have arrived. One could come slightly earlier, but why would natural selection keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? So scientists like Richard Dawkins lauded the dormant mutation theory. This theory, however, has since been debunked because we see no dormant mutations in any current genetic code. Instead, there are only a couple genes scientists consider to be defunct. One would think, given our current evidence, that evolution stopped when humans arrived. How convenient would that be for someone wanting to fabricate a theory about it.

I'm annoyed now, not because of the questions but how easily you could answer them just by googling them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
This planet at one point would of been swarming with billions upon billions of single celled amoebae that multiply like bacteria in the seas. They fed on each other and the algae in their surroundings, the amoeba that survived adapted to their underwater environment becoming better able to survive it and later becoming more similar to animals. Some of these animals would be able to go on land and adapt to it, some would remain in the sea. The ones on land that survived further adapted to their environment.
You seem to have trouble with the concept of slight changes. When you look at evolution you picture an amoebae suddenly sprouting legs, lung, eyes, a suitcase and all other kinds of extremities. That is not the case. All species face trials from their surroundings, their predators and their need to sustain themselves. Those who have what it takes to succeed spread their DNA and pass whatever advantage they had, if any. You are basing your argument on a false premise, please look up "tetrapod" on wikipedia then we can continue this conversation.

To answer other points:
Survival of the fittest means whatever works. Whatevers still here. The ratio of extinct species and new species you described is inkeeping with that theory and would work over millions of years.
As for similarities between species, just because a scientist says two species are similar and share similar properties doesn't mean that a dolphin mounted a shark at some point, it means that they are similar. That they survive in a similar way. How does this statement translate into being "selective"? The only destruction of scientific honesty going on here is the implication you have anything other than a selective knowledge of science.
The idea that evolution has "stopped", a process that takes millions of years to become radically apparent, because in the last thousand years we haven't developed a significant adaptation is so ridiculous as to be laughable. As is the idea that science goes on "faith".
Micro-evolution happens on a cellular level, we are made of cells. Do I really have to finish that sentence?
Some creatures have the misfortune to die because they're just unlucky. Their adaptations were fine but they found themselves in an inescapable situation, sometimes we have the luck that they are fossilized.
If all mutated creatures just died there would be practically no differences between humans of the male gender because there would be no diversity. The olympics would be mostly pointless.

The rest of your argument is just repetition of the same tired points I have countered in this post and in my last post. You attach your assumptions to legitimate facts that have little to do with your point. Its just pointless. Until you actually look into what you're talking about instead of skimming the surface and trying to attach your own meaning to it I might as well be typing messages to a wall. So some bacteria developed an adaptation without developing extra tissue, so what? Bacteria have scarcely any tissue to begin with and need to be the size they are to survive. How does this prove anything you've said? You think on a scale of tens, hundreds, thousands but you don't think on a scale of billions. Natural selection isn't a will, its whatever works and survives. Its not the process of making a super being.
Oh and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_o...Early_eyes
Go nuts.

I'm sorry if that comes across as harsh but it irritates me no end when someone obviously just wants to prove their point regardless of the facts. The facts you do use have very little relevance to the bold assertion you make that evolution is faith based with little evidence as is science. Claiming that evolution is faith based is ridiculous but science? The pursuit of fact through evidence, reason and logical approach? Thats just batshit crazy and the fact that is your interpretation of a scientific approach is very telling of how you have come to these conclusions or why you think Creationism is an acceptable explanation. Science is a constant progression of our knowledge that pushes back the boundaries of ignorance through logical inquiry and the evidence we have at the time. You've left yourself no method to discern what is true.




'Nough said.

(P.S. Hope you appreciate what I had to wade through to shorten this post summer.)

(21st February 2012 11:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  "The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ."

I wonder what he would say if a trilobite gave him a stony gaze with his calcite eyes? Since trilobites are extinct I guess that will never happen but a Brittlestar can give him the same stony gaze with it's calcite (rock) eyes.

So I ran through Chippy's list of "doctors" and found a geologist, a biochemist, a mathematician and a physicist all of whom are members in good standing of the creation institute except the two who are dead.

So once again, Chippy, creationism is not science...it is religion. Try to come up with an evolutionary biologist who thinks that all life was created 6,000 years ago in the middle east.

And while you're at it blow jesus out your ass.

(19th February 2012 19:51)RaphielDrake Wrote:  I'm annoyed now, not because of the questions but how easily you could answer them just by googling them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

The 20 total 'transitional fossils' listed on wikipedia are given no proof they are actually transitional. There is nothing to show they weren't their own organism created by God and gone extinct. You appear to have a lot of faith in evolutionists. Examine their motives for a second. Their goal is to show how life could develop by natural means (without God). To do this, they know they need to find transitional fossils. But they've only found 20 vaguely close, and those are yet to be confirmed. Scientists can't tell everything about an organism by its fossil. They used to think the platypus was transitional, and it looked that way by its fossils, but testing on the living creature revealed it wasn't even close. In fact, it was so far from everything else they put it on its own branch. I admire evolutionists' effort, but there simply isn't any conclusive evidence. Do we know if these 'adapted' organisms could breed with the source species? Maybe they could, and that would confine the observation back to microevolution. Other previous transitionals were erased too. The Archaeopteryx has recently been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. So I'm shocked (actually I'm not) that wikipedia still has it on its list-- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10288.html
The Tiktaalik, thought to be the first legged-organism, has also been debunked. One year after its pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.

Quote:When you look at evolution you picture an amoebae suddenly sprouting legs, lung, eyes, a suitcase and all other kinds of extremities. That is not the case.

Agreed. My point is that a leg needs hundreds or thousands of mutations all to happen at once to even get an extrusion that is useful in a similar way to a leg. Meanwhile, scientists have yet to find one of the multitude of transitional fossils showing its development. I'm not endeavoring to disprove evolution with this one fact-- I'm only demonstrating what little evolutionists have to go on, how one wouldn't believe on so little unless they were predicated to a naturalistic solution already, and how it is quite possible for the whole theory to have been manufactured. We're not looking for how species could have fit together or how they could have evolved. We're looking for a conclusive proof that they did evolve... over the divine alternative.

Quote:As for similarities between species, just because a scientist says two species are similar and share similar properties doesn't mean that a dolphin mounted a shark at some point, it means that they are similar. That they survive in a similar way. How does this statement translate into being "selective"?

It is selective because scientists are arranging the fossil record based on similarities. They put a group of organisms together because they are similar-- and ignore other similar organisms because they can't have the fossil tree overlap a hundred times. They have to be selective and choose which similar organisms are similar because of relation and which are similar just by their environment. To make that decision they appeal to what makes the most sense for their theory: namely, that lower-complexity organisms go first. But it is circular logic to use your theory to ultimately support your theory. The same goes for dating. You claim we have too few fossils to see 99.9% of all the organisms ever existent, yet at the same time claim that the .1% we do have reveal the dates of their arrival (fossils only showing deaths due to cataclysmic events). If fossils are so scarce, how can you be sure the trilobite didn't live a billion years earlier? You aren't sure, but you hope it didn't because it would destroy the evolution theory.

Evolution has no conclusive facts. It is a theory built in response to the evidence, rather than confirmed by it, and is based on the assumption that life has a naturalistic cause. If you base any theory on an assumption and in response to evidence there is no way you can be proved wrong because your foundations are backward and circular. The source of life has no conclusive evidence from either side, as neither is observable. Both have to be taken on faith. If you have faith that all we can know is in the natural realm, then go ahead and believe that. There are three main parties: atheists or naturalists who believe they can know that a God does not exist; agnostics who believe they cannot know whether God exists; and theists who believe they can know God exists because they were created in his image and he left clues. Most people prefer not to be locked in the first bubble, since it is the more closed and arrogant of the three. But what fewer people understand is that evolution is firmly founded in it, and even uses it as one of its premises. If you use evolution as one of your reasons for atheism, rethink yourself. A premise cannot be both a support and a proof.

---

(21st February 2012 17:27)Phil Wrote:  

(21st February 2012 11:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  "The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ."

I wonder what he would say if a trilobite gave him a stony gaze with his calcite eyes? Since trilobites are extinct I guess that will never happen but a Brittlestar can give him the same stony gaze with it's calcite (rock) eyes.

Trilobite eyes are also examples of irreducible complexity. Much to evolutionists' dismay, they are not simple at all:

http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-d...mechanisms

"By natural methods" seems to exclude a great many things, only one of which is your god. That's not a problem with "natural methods", that's problem for your god and the company it keeps.

Can I sum this bit of your post up as "sometimes science gets it wrong!". Granted, no one is surprised.

A leg, so many mutatations right? Podia. What you mean to say here is that you just can't imagine how your leg came together. Thankfully your imagination isn't the only tool we have for asking such questions.

Gasp, scientists are being selective when they select species for classification...the horror!

Eyes are a bad structure to harp on about. It's been such a favorite for so long that the eye bullshit is easily the most embarrassing claim that has ever been repeatedly debunked.