|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is my basis sound? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"In order to accept the theory about fossils 'more complicated life appearing before its precursor' you have to believe that there are noticeable 'layers' in the crust, but there are not. Yes there are. Sheesh.
There is no specific layer in which we can see the process of evolution. If you think about it, which clearly you haven't, evolution would show up in the difference between layers, not in a specific layer. Really, what are you thinking? This is like looking at a video and saying: "There is no specific frame in which we can see motion". Well, of course not.
As with dating, we do not see a smooth progression back in time. Quite a lot of the dates we get are erratically different from others. "Quite a lot"? That's rather vague. Could you put that in percentage terms?
Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks. Scientists, many of whom are not complete idiots, date crystals in which it is chemically and/or physically impossible for the daughter isotope to have been included at the time of the crystals' formation.
Also, you're example don't make much sense, as you presume that there would be an unchangeable constant process, with no variable affecting this, but this is not true and is something we just will not ever be able to prove. The constancy of decay rates can be proved the same way every other scientific law can be proved, e.g. "energy is conserved"; "opposite charges attract"; "the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant". It is proved by the absence of exceptions. If you wish to overturn such a law, it's up to you to find an exception, for example finding circumstances under which opposite charges repel. Merely fantasizing that there might be circumstances under which this occurs doesn't cut it.
No, you don't have to accept micro and macro evolution together. You should read a book called 'The Beak of the Finch' by Jonathon Weiner, in which it explores micro evolution causing differences in the beaks of Darwin's finches and at no point does it mention how it proves Macro evolution. No-one claims that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. That would be proved by morphology, genetics, the fossil record, biogeography, etc.
There is nothing wrong with my approach to the dodo questions and I feel you're side stepping the point I tried to make. I'd like it if when you mention 'evidence' you could show me it, as opposed to briefly mentioning it. What evidence is there that the dodo did fly? Your belief allows you to presume that it always lived there and developed in that one island? No, that is obscure. We have animals settling in places all the time, where the surrounding environments suit their needs. This could simply be the case with the dodo. It is an extremely poor example to use. You still never explained how it could have gotten to the island. Who's to say that that island was was always an island as well? Before the flood the world would not have been covered in as much water. Or you can come from the view point that much of the water at that point in time was frozen and at that point the island may not have been an island. Another possibility is that it did fly before hand, but because of micro evolution, it simply lost the need to fly. In the time it would take for the dodo to lose the ability to fly, it would take quite a few years and the landscape could change a lot in that time. So what's to say it didn't just walk? There's no evidence to suggest it didn't. Is there any evidence to suggest that Mauritius, which is a volcanic island rising out of the abyssal plain, could once be reached from the mainland by foot?
Also, you've still not explained how the Bible's hundreds and hundreds of prophesies have come true including ones about cities, nations, individuals etc. They haven't.
In the eleventh month of the twelfth year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’ therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock [...] I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. [...] I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD. Tyre has a population of approximately 117,000, making it the fourth largest city in Lebanon. The Bible said that it would "never be rebuilt" after it was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. The prophecy failed. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 193 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks. Also, you're example don't make much sense, as you presume that there would be an unchangeable constant process, with no variable affecting this, but this is not true and is something we just will not ever be able to prove. I'll have a read through your dating methods list, but I've had a brief look and can already see many problems with some of them which affect how old the earth could be. See Message 4. In the vast majority of applications we are not making any such assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Meaker, and welcome to the fray.
As with dating, we do not see a smooth progression back in time. Quite a lot of the dates we get are erratically different from others. Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks. May I recommend reading the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread for some evidence of the calibration of dating mechanisms, as well as correlations between a variety of methods. Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Also, you've still not explained how the Bible's hundreds and hundreds of prophesies have come true including ones about cities, nations, individuals etc. Remember, these prophesies were made hundreds of years before they happened are are extremely precise. Some were written 700 years before the event actually happened. And there is the answer. Your friend is simply unwilling to actually look at the evidence including the Bible itself. There are not hundreds and hundreds of prophesies that have come true, and in fact he does not even know what "Biblical prophecy" is. Smile at your friend, pat him on the head and then let him go back to the sand box with the other kiddies. Keep an eye on him and try to warn him when he is trying to poke his eye out with the big crayon. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
Sounds like you're debating in writing. In this case you have time to check his (and your) facts. Judicious googling can get you started but you have to look carefully at your sources. Arguing a topic this way can be a fast track to learning and will even show you when you're wrong about details.
It's a good bet that eventually, it will come down to his belief against the evidence. It's up to him from there - either he will see or he won't. Either way, you'll learn a lot about it yourself. Three useful links for you amongst many potential others... An Index to Creationist Claims Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists and The Fine Art of Baloney Detection - RationalWikiIgnorance is a Tragedy Willful Ignorance is a Sin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3263 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'd like to welcome you to this website, and I hope that you stick around even after your current debate is concluded.
As for your friend, is he interested, at all, in joining as well? He might learn a few things, and we can always use more pople with a creationist viewpoint around here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024