Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version

Being new here, I do not quite understand why one bothers to throw
reason at such a person. There is no intention to debate or learn. The
fossil record supports creation by design????? Such a viewpoint
requires rejection of entire disciplines, not excluding astonomy. It
requires utter disregard of the painstaking work on comparing and
calibrating different approaches to estimating age. It certainly
requires wearing a bag over the head when walking in a place such as the
Grand Canyon. Why bother?

hersheyh:
On Dec 18, 4:28=A0pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:02:35 -0800 (PST), hersheyh

<hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: On Dec 18, 12:03=A0am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:57:48 -0800, Mark Isaak
: >: > <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: >
: > : On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:50:12 -0500, Gabriel wrote:
: > :
: > : > [...] In fact the fossil record more strongly supports
creation
: > : > by design than their version of evolution.
: > :
: > : So you believe that there were hundreds of thousands (or more)
of
: > : different creation events, scattered somewhat irregularly over
more=
than
: > : a billion years,
: >
: > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 No, the "dating" of those fossils is based on
numerou=
s
: > faulty assumptions.
:
: Yawn. =A0Such as?


www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.aspwww.icr.orgwww.creationo=
ntheweb.com

That is not an answer as these are not competent (and, in fact, are
completely *dishonest*) sources of information. But if *you* think
one or more of their arguments actually represent *real* evidence
that
the assumptions behind "dating" fossils is invalid, please tell me
which one convinces you. I imagine you did not because you swallow
creationist sources hook-line-and-sinker but do not really understand
the arguments even they are making. Let me clue you in. You have to
read *both* creationist and standard scientific sources to see how
bad
and dishonest one of them (hint: the side that starts with the letter
"c", as in corrupt) is.

: The idea that radioactive decay occurs at a constant
: rate? =A0The idea that when strata form, the oldest ones form first
and
: thus are below strata that form later at the time formed?
:
: > It's why they claim something's 5 million
: > years old one day, then tack on another 60 million years the
: > next.
:
: Could you be more specific? =A0And is this the *usual* case or is
it a
: *rare* case, an anomoly?

I notice that you cannot reply to specific questions, but simply
refer
everything back to your favorite sources of misinformation. That
tells me that you do not *even* understand those sources well enough
to argue their position, but are merely hoping they are right.

: > : such that each new "kind" created was never very
: > : different from a kind which already existed.
: >
: > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 No, we know animals adapt - for example that fish
pro=
duce
: > fish that are a little different.
:
: "Fish" is a bit vague as a category. =A0What are the limits to
being a
: "fish"? =A0How many "fish" kinds arose, lived, and left fossils in
a
: particular strata via this "adaptation" in, say, 6 thousand years?
: Exactly how do you explain the fact that fish fossils are not
randomly
: distributed in strata?
:
: > That populations of fish can
: > produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer
: > fish at all is the imagined part they cannot offer observations,
: > cannot offer tests, and cannot offer verifications: only faith
in
: > those beliefs.
:
: So, the fossils like Tiktaalik do not really have a mixture of
both
: tetrapod and "fish" characteristics? =A0And do not exist at the
right
: time in a specific layer of strata that can be dated both
: quantitatively (by radiometric methods) and qualitatively (by
position
: in geological strata identified by strata-specific 'index
fossils').
: Oh, and there are other fossils that show different degrees of
: 'intermediacy' between "fish" and "amphibians" which are also not
: randomly scattered in the fossil record.
:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v1/n1/story-walking-fish

What a weak dishonest argument that is! Filled with distortions,
evasions, and self-contradictory nonsense. Exactly why is Tiktaalik
a
"fossil" species? Why do "fossil" coelocanth relatives include
shallow water species with adaptations for that environment whereas
the modern coelocanths are deep sea fishes with adaptations for that
environment. Rather than look at *all* the fish-like, intermediate,
and tetrapod-like features, AiG, *unlike honest scientists*, picks
and
chooses. For example, it declares Tiktaalik to be a fish and not a
tetrapod because it has gills. So do tadpoles. And ignores the
lungs, rib bones, and mobile neck. And erroneously dismisses the
homology of wrist and finger bones because they do not serve the same
exact purpose in Tiktaalik that they do in later organisms like
Ichthyostega. Same old whining bull***. I notice that all you can
do is cite the source, not even present the argument.

Just a reminder of what an "intermediate" fossil looks like.

* Fish
o fish gills
o fish scales
* "Fishapod"
o half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including
a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of
toes
o half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
* Tetrapod
o tetrapod rib bones
o tetrapod mobile neck
o tetrapod lungs

Ichthyostega has more tetrapod-like features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega

Acanthostega has some tetrapod features but apparently was not suited
for life on land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega

But, you didn't answer the original question. What do you mean by
the
word "fish" wrt "adaptation"? Is "fish" a Biblical "kind"? And are
there all these quite different "fish" (sharks, rays, coelocanths,
tadpoles ;-), whales;-), starfish ;-), manatees ;-)) merely
adaptations within the "fish" "kind"?

: > : Out of curiosity, what religion are you? =A0I have read
hundreds of
: > : creation myths, and never seen any religion with that one.
: >
: > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Because you just fabricated it by lacing it with
your
: > religious beliefs on exactly how old the fossils are.
:
: So, exactly what caused the observed difference in the distribution
of
: chemically identical (but radioactively different) isotopes in
: geological strata? =A0How does, say, a flood generate that pattern?
=A0=
I
: think *you* are the one who is fabricating "exactly how old the
: fossils are" if you think you can claim that they are all the same
age
: and were distributed by a physical process (a flood) in a short
time
: frame.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Notice all they offer are reasons why they have faith
in
their beliefs. What they believe in is still not observable, not
testable and not verifiable, one can only believe they are true.
That's not fact, let alone even science.

Who is they? It is an observable and repeatedly testable fact that
different strata of igneous rock in geologic formations have
different
isotope ratios for radioactive isotopes. And that when the layers
are
undisturbed by folding, the lower layers *consistently* have less of
the radioactive isotope and more of products of its decay. Since
isotopes do not sort by chemistry or in most ordinary physical
processes like that in floods (uranium is uranium regardless of its
isotopic number), there is no explanation *other than* time since the
rocks were solidified to explain this phenomenon. Radioactive decay
rates are certainly measureable and testable and verifiable. The
amounts of isotopes and products are certainly measureable, testable,
and verifiable. And the overwhelming fact is that, using different
isotopes and different products, when appropriate, generally produces
a *consensus* age for such geologic features. That is, there are
generally *several* different (different in chemistry of the
isotopes)
tests that can be applied and they produce results that are generally
consistent. Not *always*, but that usually occurs only when one of
the assumptions of a single one of these *independent* methods of
radiodating do not hold. In contrast, there are NO methods of
estimating age that consistently show that geological strata could be
due to a single year-long event. NONE. There are lots of _ad hoc_
excuses for how this or that feature "could" be due to a flood, but
none that can be consistently used.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In the meantime, even the reasons given for believing
it
have long been refuted by many.

Who has refuted these reasons? You certainly haven't. You haven't
even shown us that you understand the arguments of those who claim to
have refuted it well enough to trust yourself to present that
evidence
in your own words. Much less that you understand the evidence that
supports the views of standard science rather than creationist
pseudoscience.

.

Quantcast