|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Young-earth theories | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RIP Inactive Member |
Hi all,
I stumbled upon this site recently: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/ Which is the site for "Scientists Against Evolution." They make the claim that the earth is in fact not billions of years old, and base it off reasoning such as: Continental erosionSea floor sediments Salinity of the oceans Helium in the atmosphere Carbon 14 in the atmosphere Decay of the Earth's magnetic field Now, I have nothing more than surface-level of knowledge of evolution, so I would like to hear some thoughts and opposing arugments for these theories so I can see two perspectives. thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I've promoted this to allow for others to comment. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-25-2005 01:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17918 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
You'll probably find answers here
An Index to Creationist Claims Rather than just posting a bare link I decided to look into the (less common) atmospheric C14 claim. This is what I found:http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.htm quote:Wrong, wrong, wrong. C14 is created by cosmic rays which do not come from the sun. We do not have to assume that the rate of creation is constant because we can test samples of known age (as has been done - and the article later admits). Worse, from the industrial revolution we have been pumping increasing amounts of old carbon into the atmosphere (Significant effects start to appear ~1890) by burning fossil fuels - but against that nuclear detonations have since created extra C14. See radiocarbon WEB-info Unfortunately there is no explanation of how the C14 ratio "proves" that the Earth is young. We do however find this:
quote: How exactly a Flood would change the atmosphere in this respect is not explained. It is hardly an obvious effect - and we would want the existence of the effect confirmed by "before" and "after" samples. Except there are no such samples and therefore no direct evidence of the supposed effect at all. Moreover the absence of clear evidence for such a flood and the major problems such an idea faces make it a less than pluasible explanation even if there was a clear link. Especially where there are other reasons why the ratio could be changing (ongoing industrial activity, changes cosmic ray flux and the fading after-effects of nuclear detonations) Yet they call actual scientific explanations based on real measurements and known mechanisms "fanciful and imaginative" The author, by the way, is not a scientist - having a degree in Electrical Engineering with experience in circuit design and programming. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/index.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
The author of that site writes:
Does this sound like the words of a scientist to you, even if we ignore the fact that abiogenesis is a completely different discipline than the theory of evolution? According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)
ABE All 4 of my brothers and sisters are engineers and I can tell you that they make lousy biologists. ABE Ok, a more thorough analysis is in order.
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.
Where the hell does it say in the theory of evolution that dead things can come to life?
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.
This post made by Pinky a long time ago in a thread far far away.
quote:Pinky gave a specific reference. Did that guy give any reference at all? Another thing is that this guy has a gross misconception of the theory of evolution. Individuals don't evolve. The smallest unit that can evolve is a population. In fact, this well known fact is written in just about every biology text book for middle school, high school, and college students. Even my electrical engineer sister knows that, and she has admitted many times that she's a biology dummy.
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.
This paragraph makes me want to punch someone. If there is a hell and liars go to hell, this guy will undoubtedly go to hell. If you want to compare evolution with coin tossing, you have to put natural selection into account. If you want 100 heads in a row, all you have to do is ignore the tails. This is how natural selection work. It ensures that only advantageous mutations are passed on. This guy has an evolutionary knowledge of a 10 year old. I know that my post sounds childish, but so is the author of that site. ABE again http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm That link leads to an article about the moon escaping. It says:
quote:Does this guy actually know how the moon causes the tides? Who wants to take a jab at this? If you already know, chances are you are wrong. If you really really know, then please refrain from telling. Let see how many people who thinks this guy is legit actually know how the moon causes the tides. This message has been edited by Resurrected Hector, 02-25-2005 04:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
RH writes: Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond - thus reproductive isolation. So this might sound like a dumb question, but the 'even if they are sitting next to each other' statment makes me wonder if the the snails are 'incapable' of interbreeding because of some physical or preferential impediment; and if they could still interbreed if snail A was artificially inseminated by genetic material from snail B. The distinction might seem trivial, but here's my point: is inability to breed due to some physical mutation - say the snail ejaculates in the wrong spot, whatever- really speciation if the two organisms could reproduce with help - i.e. the sperm from snail A can still create a viable zygote when introduced to the egg of snail B?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So this might sound like a dumb question, but the 'even if they are sitting next to each other' statment makes me wonder if the the snails are 'incapable' of interbreeding because of some physical or preferential impediment; and if they could still interbreed if snail A was artificially inseminated by genetic material from snail B. The distinction might seem trivial, but here's my point: is inability to breed due to some physical mutation - say the snail ejaculates in the wrong spot, whatever- really speciation if the two organisms could reproduce with help - i.e. the sperm from snail A can still create a viable zygote when introduced to the egg of snail B? Not a dumb question at all. The reproductive isolation in this instance is solelt 'pre-mating'. The differing chirality of the shells leads to the inability to breed, but is not actually dependent on the snail's genotype but that of its mother. Artificial insemination would certainly allow successful fertilisation, as both genotypes can be seen to be interfertile when they share the same shell chirality. Indeed the cited paper suggest that there have been reversions where a left handed population has switched back to right handedness and rejoined its parental population. This is actually a very bad example to give as the subsequent discussion in that thread raised the point that the paper cited does not show speciation being observed (in the interests of frankness I suppose I should say that the discussion was between me and Pink). It certainly shows that the conditions exist that would allow speciation to occur based solely on a single gene locus and provides some strong evidence that this has happened in the case of shell chirality among the water snails, but they do not actually show two distinct non-interbreeding populations arising from a single interbreeding population in their experiments. TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-25-2005 06:44 AM This message has been edited by Wounded King, 02-25-2005 06:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
It certainly shows that the conditions exist that would allow speciation to occur, and provides some strong evidence that this has happened due to shell chirality among the water snails, but they do not actually show two distinct non-interbreeding populations arising from a single interbreeding population in their experiments. Cool. Thanks WK. I agree that conditions exist that allow speciation to occur, but something about this example didn't sit right with me. So which of the following would meet your definition of speciation? 1-Sperm from organism A could not create a viable zygote when introduced to an egg from organism B. 2- A could create a viable zygote with B, but the resulting offspring would be sterile (e.g. mule). 3-A could create a viable zygote with B, but the fertilization success rate between A-B is significantly (noticeably) less than A-A or B-B. This message has been edited by custard, 02-25-2005 06:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I would say that 1 and 2 would classify as distinct species. Number three might be seen as a sign of incipient speciation, I would alos add the category we previously touched on where the organisms are physiologically compatible but do not mate due to morphological differences or differences in timing, location, behaviour etc... All of which might be seen as examples of, or a basis for, incipient speciation, by which I mean that they might well be on the way to becoming distinct species but are not yet and may never be depending on the potential for gene flow between the populations.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
All of which might be seen as examples of, or a basis for, incipient speciation, by which I mean that they might well be on the way to becoming distinct species but are not yet and may never be depending on the potential for gene flow between the populations. Yes, that makes a great deal of sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The correct definition is: "Organism A and Organism B, in the wild, do not have offspring that have offspring of their own, therefore they are different species." Speciation is about genetic isolation which the change in chirality creates. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-25-2005 15:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
quote: hm...lets check [1] No[2] Nope [3] Nu-uh [4] erm.. nope [5] uh. no [6] mmmmk... that'd be a no. "...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
I thought this idea included the idea of "normally, in the wild". In which case anything which causes two populations to not "normally" interbreed makes them separate species.
There is always the problem that species have some fuzz around the edges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
loudmouth writes: The correct definition is: "Organism A and Organism B, in the wild, do not have offspring that have offspring of their own, therefore they are different species." Speciation is about genetic isolation which the change in chirality creates. I see what you mean, but I don't think there really is a 'correct' version - the definition of speciation seems to depend on what type of scientist you are. The strictest definition of BCS does not incorporate the 'in the wild caveat'(from Observed Instances of Speciation):
that stage of evolutionary progress at which the once actually or potentially interbreeding array of forms becomes segregated into two or more separate arrays which are physiologically incapable of interbreeding." It is important to note that this is a highly restrictive definition of species. It emphasizes experimental approaches and ignores what goes on in nature. seems to be held by mainly by 'vertebrate zoologists and entomologists.' Then you have phenetic/morphologic species concept, and I still don't really understand which definition botanists prefer. I think the least fuzzy, albeit most restrictive, definition of speciation is the strictest interpretation of BCS. Sure organism A and B may no longer have any 'interest' in breeding (say Canis Lupus and Canis Domesticus - not the greatest example though), and probably wouldn't or couldn't do so in the wild, but under controlled conditions (artificial insemination say) A-B could still produce viable, reproductive offspring. I think this strict interpretation is necessary when debating very literal minded creationists who would simply argue that even though organisms A & B don't reproduce in nature, the still COULD reproduce and thus aren't really seperate species. This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 00:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
I thought this idea included the idea of "normally, in the wild". In which case anything which causes two populations to not "normally" interbreed makes them separate species. There is always the problem that species have some fuzz around the edges. Well put Ned. That was the succinct version of the explanation I was striving for. The problem (I believe) for creationists is the fuzziness that TOE advocates have no trouble accepting; AND I think that is why we keep seeing these 'but you have to have faith to believe in TOE' declarations by them because they get frustrated with the haziness of the definitions of things like species and speciation. This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 02:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RIP Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks for your answers, very helpful.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024