The Theory of Evolution

Started by: Delphinus19 | Replies: 275 | Views: 9,674

OGrilla
2

Posts: 602
Joined: Apr 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 28, 2008 8:28 PM #104313
Quote from Doomdooer
But somehow, scientists still manage to be wrong.

"Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old."

"A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"

There also seem to be huge assumptions that scientists make when conducting Radiocarbon dating that have some extreme problems.

Better put: "Arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions, each link in the chain being an assumption."






Even the Evolutionists admit that this method sucks.


Link to above quotes: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-radioactive.html


So yes, your argument was...?


Please, leave your arrogance out of debates. I don't care how intelligent you think you are, everyone can be wrong.

This is the first time I've ever been exposed to this data, so I'm thinking it's not common knowledge. I'll do some more research in this area for sure. If it turns out that the Earth is younger than the textbooks say, that just means evolution works more quickly than we previously thought.

I'll see what other sources can back up your claims, but until then, I trust in the validity of our current dating methods.
Doomdooer
Banned

Posts: 1,404
Joined: Mar 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 28, 2008 8:39 PM #104324
Quote from OGrilla
Please, leave your arrogance out of debates. I don't care how intelligent you think you are, everyone can be wrong.

I got a little annoyed at pagan. Sorry. I took that out on you.


This is the first time I've ever been exposed to this data, so I'm thinking it's not common knowledge. I'll do some more research in this area for sure. If it turns out that the Earth is younger than the textbooks say, that just means evolution works more quickly than we previously thought.

I just want to make a little point here. Just some food for thought. If the earth is indeed much younger than most current dating methods say, wouldn't that increase the chances of us actually seeing evolution continuing today?

Like I said, just something to ponder.


I'll see what other sources can back up your claims, but until then, I trust in the validity of our current dating methods.

Replies in bold.

Also, If you look in the article, they provide footnotes on their sources. I left out those numbers that were imbedded in the text to avoid confusion.

Quote from Jeremy
Eh, I think you should check your sources.

That was an umgloljk, for you without joke detectors.


I was like "OMG BASTARD" at first.
;]
OGrilla
2

Posts: 602
Joined: Apr 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 28, 2008 8:52 PM #104345
Yes, I was actually just thinking about how evolution might be happening more quickly than we currently think if your article is even somewhat right in saying the Earth is younger than our current model says it is. If it's even half as young, evolution wouldn't be visible much more than it is now. We see adaptations taking places often and they lead to greater differences. If the evolutionary time-line is half as long as we think it is, it means the large stagnant periods we see in the records are actually nearly as restless as the Cambrian explosion and similar "moments" of vast expansion in variety.

But we're off track now. Do you have any real evidence to show that the theory of evolution (adaptations leading to new species) is incorrect?
Doomdooer
Banned

Posts: 1,404
Joined: Mar 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 28, 2008 9:16 PM #104363
Quote from OGrilla
Yes, I was actually just thinking about how evolution might be happening more quickly than we currently think if your article is even somewhat right in saying the Earth is younger than our current model says it is. If it's even half as young, evolution wouldn't be visible much more than it is now. We see adaptations taking places often and they lead to greater differences. If the evolutionary time-line is half as long as we think it is, it means the large stagnant periods we see in the records are actually nearly as restless as the Cambrian explosion and similar "moments" of vast expansion in variety.

But we're off track now. Do you have any real evidence to show that the theory of evolution (adaptations leading to new species) is incorrect?

Here's a quicky.

"According to evolutionary teaching, the "Geologic Column" is a map of evolutionary history. Supposedly all fossils fit into a specific order, simple to complex. However, some flaws are to be found. Recently, fish scales were found in the "Cambrian layer" when according to the "column", fish did not appear until much later.

All over the world can be found layer-transversing fossils. A typical specimen is a tree running vertical through thousands of layers. Possible explanation: Those layers weren't laid down over billions of years, unless ancient trees had the capability to grow through solid rock, void of all sunlight. Lest the reader even consider such a wild notion, or one like it, some of these trees are found up-side-down. Indeed, they spell nothing but sudden catastrophe.

The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ."

There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere."

"Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' " Does evolution have enough time? No."

Link: http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm


Now, you may have heard that most resounding quote by Stephen Hawkings about the Monkeys and Typewriters spelling out Shakespeare's sonnets.
This has been a large proof for Evolutionists who say "The odds are for it, given enough time".

However, this isn't the case.
Quote from "Wikipedia"
A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:

RUMOUR. Open your ears;

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem



Hmmmm, interesting.




I'll get some more, later.
Jeremy
2

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 28, 2008 9:20 PM #104367
I wouldn't call that a quickie. >;C
pagan
2

Posts: 402
Joined: Aug 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 29, 2008 12:11 AM #104503
Quote from Doomdooer
haha please suck my dick.


haha, you said that since the half life of carbon is ~5000 years it can't be used to measure anything older than 10,000 years
Steyene

Posts: 2,060
Joined: Apr 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 29, 2008 3:04 AM #104613
THE **** PAGAN I SAID THAT IT WAS 40-50000 years, but no. You said it was longer. But when you are wrong you say that doomdooer is wrong when it could be a typo.

Again you people are saying that I am ignorant and ignore you valid points, and then say that my parents are the ones who made me think that evolution is wrong, have I said that at all? No. I am asking question about you hypotheses which is more then you are doing, as you are all blindly following the information that has been given to you.

Evolution is a very good way of explaining change, but it does have lots of holes, which you ignore and make it a fact.

Edit:

Fucking typo, thanks bonk.
pagan
2

Posts: 402
Joined: Aug 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 29, 2008 3:47 AM #104678
Quote from Steiner
THE **** PAGAN I SAID THAT IT WAS 40-50000 years, but no. You said it was longer. But when you are wrong you say that doomdooer is wrong when it could be a typo.


wow, calm down. i never "said it was longer" i never replied to anything you said. it was doomdooer's reasoning i was criticizing, he was misunderstanding half-life. if it was a typo it was a really unfortunate one because it definitely sounded like he was saying "carbon's half-life is 5000 years so after 10000 years there's no carbon and it's impossible to use it!"
Doomdooer
Banned

Posts: 1,404
Joined: Mar 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 31, 2008 5:17 PM #106651
Quote from pagan
definitely sounded like he was saying "carbon's half-life is 5000 years so after 10000 years there's no carbon and it's impossible to use it!"


Yeah, it was a typo.
Wierd that it happened on both numbers, but that's the way things go.

It probably would have helped if I had fixed it when I first noticed, but I was in "heated debate" (lol) with Ogrilla.

Quote from Jerms
I wouldn't call that a quickie. >;C

I have mad skills at finding quotes.
Bonk
2

Posts: 2,778
Joined: Mar 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 1, 2008 3:02 AM #107037
Quote from Steiner

Evolution is a very good way of explaining change, but it does have lots of wholes


I find your typo ironic.

Evolution has less holes than its competitors.
Doomdooer
Banned

Posts: 1,404
Joined: Mar 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 1, 2008 11:33 AM #107286
Quote from bonk
I find your typo ironic.

Evolution has less holes than its competitors.


Hm, that could be, but it still has a hell of a lot of holes.
Hella Bigguns.
Bonk
2

Posts: 2,778
Joined: Mar 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 1, 2008 12:18 PM #107296
Quote from Doomdooer
Hm, that could be, but it still has a hell of a lot of holes.
Hella Bigguns.


Make a list.
Doomdooer
Banned

Posts: 1,404
Joined: Mar 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 1, 2008 12:25 PM #107299
I did. Twice.
Check back a few pages:
http://www.stickpageportal.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1206049&postcount=105


http://www.stickpageportal.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1206118&postcount=110
pagan
2

Posts: 402
Joined: Aug 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 1, 2008 11:53 PM #107619
Quote from Doomdooer
"According to evolutionary teaching, the "Geologic Column" is a map of evolutionary history. Supposedly all fossils fit into a specific order, simple to complex. However, some flaws are to be found. Recently, fish scales were found in the "Cambrian layer" when according to the "column", fish did not appear until much later.

All over the world can be found layer-transversing fossils. A typical specimen is a tree running vertical through thousands of layers. Possible explanation: Those layers weren't laid down over billions of years, unless ancient trees had the capability to grow through solid rock, void of all sunlight. Lest the reader even consider such a wild notion, or one like it, some of these trees are found up-side-down. Indeed, they spell nothing but sudden catastrophe.


uhhh earthquakes and tectonic plate shifting pretty simply account for this. how old is this article? we were presented this exact problem and our science teacher explained it in a few minutes last school year. if a section of earth with certain fossils shifts up over another portion, the order can get mixxed up. the earth doesn't just stay in its exact position throughout time, letting all fossils stay in a perfect chronological arrangement.

The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ."


what? so some species of trilobites have eyes, how does this contradict evolution at all... in their environments, more advanced sensory organs must have been selected for, so that's what happened.

There are no transitional forms found, only the end product. David Kitz said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts is an evolutionist. Even if one or two were found, they are suspect even among evolutionists and in order to prove evolution, you would need hundreds of thousands everywhere."


transitional forms aren't the only evidence for evolution, so saying that because we can't find something contradicts a theory is meaningless. we haven't "found" the little 'strings' but that doesn't negate string theory. besides, in some cases evolution can occur (relatively) rapidly and not leave a significant fossil record.

"Unfortunately for those convinced of evolution, the theory contradicts many laws of science. The second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly violated as evolution says that everything began as simple forms and gradually evolved into more complex ones. But as that law states, everything tends to disorder.

haha this is dumb. completely unrelated. this is like saying it's impossible to sit still because of kinetic theory or something, it's totally out of context.

Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' " Does evolution have enough time? No."


yeah no one is ****ing saying that the origin of life was "random chemicals came from various places and formed a chimpanzee" or even a cell. how old is this article? my biology textbook cites studies where scientists formed lipid membranes by putting various organic molecules (which naturally have a tendency to form due to their atomic structure), iirc, in a wavey water environment.

there are plenty of other studies that show it really isn't so inconceivably anomalous that a simple cell would be formed from the chemical environment of the earth all those years ago.
The Pirate
2

Posts: 563
Joined: May 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 2, 2008 12:40 AM #107669
Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' " Does evolution have enough time? No."


This sounds suspiciously similar to the idea debunked in this video, especially that last analogy about a tornado and a junkyard.