Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gigantals said:
Given that they’ve found soft tissue in an Archaeopteryx, I don’t think it’s more than a few thousand years old. Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil | New Scientist
Click to expand...
Then why argue the details? It can’t be used for anything connected with evolution if it’s a few thousand years old?

It’s like someone who states quite categorically that we have never been visited by aliens and then gets into long and tedius discussion about the aerodynamics of their spacecraft.

And you have the same problem as Buffalo. You can rarely link to any information except that found on creationist sites. Because every other source of information generally includes references to the accurate age of the planet.

To prove that, you can link to any non creationist site that covers the soft tissue discovery that doesn’t have some inication of it’s true age.
 
Last edited:
You want me to find a site that doesn’t have a secular date? Or did I read that wrong?

To be honest, I’m more concerned about the militant atheists trying to remove God from society than the Protestants worshipping Him in another building from us.
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
You want me to find a site that doesn’t have a secular date?
Click to expand...
No. I want you to find any site that isn’t specifically a creationist site re archaeoptrix and the soft tissue. Simple enough. There are literally dozens. And enough with the ‘secular’ nonsense. There isn’t religious science and secular science. Please don’t insult my intelligence.
 
Gigantals said:
Forgive me, I’m not trying to insult you. Should I refer to the dates as ‘young’ and ‘old’ then?

Will this site do? Ultraviolet light illuminates the avian nature of the Berlin Archaeopteryx skeleton | Scientific Reports
Click to expand...
That’ll do. So we have a site that you could reference to a reputable group of scientists that discuss the matter. At one point in the article they say:

“The large cavities within pneumatic vertebrae of dinosaurs have been descriptively separated according to their architecture into larger and rounded camerae, and smaller and more angular-walled camellae”.

The highlight is mine. They are talkng about pneumatic vertebrae. Now to make sure that we all know they are not just making this us, they reference another paper so we can check their comments for veracity. And in the reference paper we find this:

“Pneumatic (air‐filled) postcranial bones are unique to birds among extant tetrapods. Unambiguous skeletal correlates of postcranial pneumaticity first appeared in the Late Triassic (approximately 210 million years ago)…”

So within that link you have given us, you don’t need to search too far to find that the authors (and those they reference) accept without question that the type of bird we are looking at appeared around 210 million years ago.

And you think the planet is 6 thousand years old. There really couldn’t be a bigger variance.

Now do you understand your problem? You could have picked any one of what must be dozens if not hundreds of articles and papers that discuss this. You picked that one and it took me about 3 or 4 minutes to find information associated with that paper that emphatically denies your position.

You are going to find that you have this problem all the time. You are either going to have to rely on creationist sites for your information or else there will be something in whatever you link to that denies your young earth beliefs.

How you deal with that…well, I have no idea…
 
Last edited:
hahaha… Methinks some of thee protest too much… 🙂

MeanWhile, God Created the Universe and Life on Earth

Darwinists are completely stumped by DNA along with the Origin of the Universe…
 
EndTimes said:
Darwinists are completely stumped by DNA along with the Origin of the Universe…
Click to expand...
False and false. Your creationist sources are misinforming you again. Do you not know that there is a difference between a biologist and a cosmologist?
 
Freddy said:
Now you can’t be serious here. There are only two or three regular posters on these threads that don’t support evolution. Buff, Ed on ocassions and you. We can toss in the newly arrived Gigantals if you like and that’s about it.

And everyone except you has given us their alternative views. Still waiting for yours…
Click to expand...
And there is only one advocate of macroevolution that argues the claim and that one is not you. Still waiting for Fred’s argument that macro is a valid scientific hypothesis.

Rational minds look at evidence. The evidence is that your many non-responsive posts allow me to predict with high probability that you have no argument to refute the claim that macro, having no solid factual foundation, is a merely speculation based on faith that micro + time = macro. As macro is not science, the alternative to macro need not be science as well.

Banter on, if you like. But if you do decide to make a case, highlight it for us.
EndTimes said:
Darwinists are completely stumped by DNA along with the Origin of the Universe…
Click to expand...
rossum said:
Do you not know that there is a difference between a biologist and a cosmologist?
Click to expand...
The neo-Darwinists continue to speculate that microevolution in time causes macroevolution. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” speculated (but never observed) that “infinitesimally small” micro variations inherited over enough time generated new species. This macro speculation depended on sufficient time and plenty of it. Enter the geologists.

Arguments on the age of the earth have followed since. It should be remembered that the age of the earth is but an outlier as to the available time for macro. The conditions on earth must also be habitable for the instantiation of DNA.

So, directly dating fossils with methods not subject to interpretation are preferred. Indirectly dating fossils based on methods subject to interpretation are, well, subjective and, therefore, not good science.

Without some evidence of DNA’s origin on earth, the necessary conditions for DNA origination remain in the realm of doubt. But this information is important in verifying their macro speculation. Realizing that speculation on speculation would serve only to move macro advocates farther from a scientific hypothesis, they divorce themselves from the abiogenesis problem and presume it’s yet unproven validity.
 
So the response to all this is going to have to wait a bit. It’s extremely time-consuming to do all this research, and I have something else I need to work on for a while. I’ll get back to you at some point. That ok?
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Arguments on the age of the earth have followed since. It should be remembered that the age of the earth is but an outlier as to the available time for macro. The conditions on earth must also be habitable for the instantiation of DNA.
Click to expand...
The earth is about 5 billion years old. Life started soon after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment, about 4.5 billion years ago. That is the science. So far you have shown no contrary evidence, merely a contrary opinion. I have still not seen your explanation for the existence of rabbits for example.
o_mlly said:
Without some evidence of DNA’s origin on earth, the necessary conditions for DNA origination remain in the realm of doubt.
Click to expand...
You are right here. Abiogenesis is still an open area of research, with different hypotheses for the origin of DNA. That is not relevant to evolution, which only begins when the very first extremely primitive life starts to reproduce.

We do know the DNA originated on earth. Five billion years ago the earth was far too hot for DNA to exist. Today DNA does exist. Hence, DNA has originated on earth some time in the last five billion years. That is sufficient evidence that DNA originated on earth. Scientists are currently working to fill in more details.
 
rossum said:
The earth is about 5 billion years old. Life started soon after the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment, about 4.5 billion years ago. That is the science. So far you have shown no contrary evidence, merely a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...
? I have offered no contrary opinion as to the age of the planet or the beginning of life.

I offer only the fact that you continually misinform readers by elevating as fact that which is, especially in the historical sciences, highly provisional if not merely speculation. Kindly provide us with citations rather than mislead us with declarative statements of fact.
rossum said:
We do know the DNA originated on earth. Five billion years ago the earth was far too hot for DNA to exist. Today DNA does exist. Hence, DNA has originated on earth some time in the last five billion years. That is sufficient evidence that DNA originated on earth.
Click to expand...
That DNA existed on earth at some time immediately follows from simply the observation of DNA now. However, your argument presents no evidence that DNA originated on earth, and, most certainly, not through natural causes.
 
Last edited:
More trouble for evo from my favorite creationsit site. 😀

Scientists often want to make inferences about what the biological past was like, and how that past gave rise to the present, because doing so allows them to understand the processes that drive evolution. But, Louca and Pennell writing in Nature challenge a major aspect of that enterprise.

Louca and Pennell’s conclusions will be dispiriting to evolutionary scientists who are looking for a link between past levels of speciation and extinction and historical climate change or other environmental events, or who want to test ideas about what features of a species — such as diet, mating system or the length of a generation — might be used to predict speciation and extinction rates[4]

and

The supreme irony of this predicament is that Charles Darwin’s idea about the survival of the fittest, the story that we want to understand, by its very nature renders elusive some of the key components needed to study it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01021-4#ref-CR4
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
However, your argument presents no evidence that DNA originated on earth, and, most certainly, not through natural causes.
Click to expand...
However your argument presents no evidence that DNA did not originate on earth and no evidence that it did not originate through natural causes.

On my side I have a great deal of scientific evidence: Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries to post just one.

Science has the evidence to support it. You have personal opinion backed up by zilch. In science that means you lose I’m afraid.
 
buffalo said:
Louca and Pennell’s conclusions will be dispiriting to evolutionary scientists who are looking for a link between past levels of speciation and extinction
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Did you look at the paper referenced?
Evolutionary-tree diagrams, which show the branching relationships between species, are widely used to estimate the rates at which new species arise and existing ones become extinct. New work casts doubt on this approach.
Click to expand...
Yes, buffalo, those evolutionary tree diagrams showing “branching relationships between species” are diagramming macroevolution, which you say does not happen.

Your own source is telling you that you are wrong about macroevolution. I hope that the hole in your foot heals soon.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Science has the evidence to support it. You have personal opinion backed up by zilch. In science that means you lose I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - here is what the authors say - "They should not only try to adapt their findings to current evolutionary theories, but also try to detect possibilities to check the validity of these theories in these findings. As we have seen in this chapter, there is no lack of alternative, and sometimes contradictory, hypotheses."

There you have it. The have been adapting all along to make it fit into the evo paradigm. At least they give a warning…
 
rossum said:
Yes, buffalo, those evolutionary tree diagrams showing “branching relationships between species” are diagramming macroevolution, which you say does not happen.

Your own source is telling you that you are wrong about macroevolution. I hope that the hole in your foot heals soon.
Click to expand...
Indeed, No one argues common descent and lineage splitting which the diagrams clearly show Note where they mark speciation, er um lineage splitting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top