1. If the geologic column were indeed correct, then how do you explain the petrified trees, going throughout the layers?
2. How about the human shoe print and the trilobite?
3. What about the dinosaur blood, in the t-rex bone?
4. How do you explain the fact that you use circular reasoning in the geoligic column?
5. If the geologic column wasn%26#039;t true then doesn%26#039;t that mean the carbon dating and all of the others can%26#039;t be trusted since they are basically based on this column?
6. And how do you explain the fact that the trilobite had the most complicated eye ever?
Question about Evolution?
cannot answer any of these questions because evolution is a myth.
Reply:Chris, you are brilliant and insightful. Remind me to tell all of those experts in their respective scientific fields that someone who can%26#039;t tie his own shoes thinks that they have got it all wrong, despite the years of education, research, and work in their fields of expertice.
You are a gem. Report It
Reply:You were also wise to choose the best answer (to you) before people with a brain have a chance to vote.
You have shown your ignorance. You even shined a spotlight on it. Report It
Reply:Everything you asked was answered with sources and references. The only thing you have proven is that literal creationists are stubborn, intellectually dishonest, ignorant dorks.
Congrats! Report It
Reply:By the way, Genius, what do you say about the other half of the links that were given to you? Report It
Reply:Michael Angelo:
You quote that evolution is a myth?????? What exactly are your academic credentials? And, please cite your scientific evidence that lead you to such conclusion.
Jason P:
What planet are you from??????????????????
Reply:michael da man has most of his stuff on the ball what do you mean he didn%26#039;t answer? you have not cited any facts or used any data to back up your point on these questions. take a good look at some REAL science journals.
Reply:Every one of your points is a distortion or flat out wrong. You can%26#039;t base a reasonable argument on this drivel. No intelligent, reasonable person doubts evolution, just religious fringies who will believe absurd religious crap but not a valid theory like evolution that is backed by good science....
1.If the geologic column were indeed correct, then how do you explain the petrified trees, going throughout the layers?
There are no petrified trees standing tall - they are all fragments of logs. They fell and sediments piled around them.
2. How about the human shoe print and the trilobite?
I read science articles every day and this has never appeared so it no doubt is some doubter who saw something that looked like a footprint and started a myth like the supposed face on Mars.I
3. What about the dinosaur blood, in the t-rex bone?
I have no idea what this means. All dino bones are not even bones, they are minerals that replaced th bones millions of years ago.. Did a scientist cut himself and get blood on a fossil??
4. How do you explain the fact that you use circular reasoning in the geoligic column?
Again, this means nothing - please explain.
5. If the geologic column wasn%26#039;t true then doesn%26#039;t that mean the carbon dating and all of the others can%26#039;t be trusted since they are basically based on this column?
It IS true but is just a small part of the huge body of evidence that suppports evolution. Carbon dating is NOT done for anything older that 40,000 years or so and has little to do with most geological evidence which is much, much older than that.
6. And how do you explain the fact that the trilobite had the most complicated eye ever?
Determining the detailed structure of eyes is impossible with fossils which, as I said above, are mineralized replicas of the original so I have no idea where you could have found such information because it doesn%26#039;t exist in science..
Reply:5 and 6 are easy-
The %26quot;geoligic column%26quot; is NOT the basis of carbon dating. Carbon dating is based on radioactive decay, which is a constant. They can even see evidence of radiations consistency through telescopes. You%26#039;ve heard of it in context of fossils, but that%26#039;s not the only context that carbon dating is used. Further, carbon dating is one of like a dozen different ways to chemically date things. The only reason you hear anything about refuting carbon dating is because christians need it to be wrong in order to refute evolution. It%26#039;s caught in the crossfire of the evolution vs creationism non-debate.
There%26#039;s a lot of explanations on how an eye forms. %26quot;The most complicated eye ever%26quot; is just that. The most complicated eye to evolve. Ever. Check the video in the first link in my sources for how eyes evolve.
And by the way you should have put sources in your question.
Reply:1. Only someone incredibly ignorant about Geology would think that that is somehow a point. Ever seen the amount of river sand shifted in a storm? The deposition of a few layers before a tree trunk decays is perfectly consistent with Geology. Who says it isn%26#039;t... oh some immoral propagandist who preys on ignorance and unthinking peoples wish to believe.
2-3 See response above.
4. It doesn%26#039;t. Unlike you, I actually know how the geological column works. You obviously don%26#039;t have a clue. By the way, you take advantage of this science every time you use petroleum products.
5. No. Radiometric dating is self-consistent and based on experimentally determined decay rates. All the different methods (which have different LOGARITHMIC decay curves), when used correctly on closed systems, always converge on the same answers. A mathematical impossibility if they were wrong. The geological column has nothing to do with it. Radiometric dates put absolute ages on the geological column NOT the other way around. What a moron.
6. Even if true, this is a complete non-point. Only someone incredibly ignorant about evolution could think it is a point.
How about you have the integrity to ask one question at a time so people can respond to it in full, instead of immorally attempting to overwhelm them in BS. Anyone can %26#039;win%26#039; a debate that way.
Reply:1. Geological columns are never out of order in places that were not disturbed. More creationist nit- picking and quite inconsistent with the findings.
2 Complete fraud.
3 Complete fraud; a very stupid fraud, as fossils do not have any blood.
4 Google %26quot; circular reasoning %26quot; and you will see who is really using it.
5. You confuse carbon dating with radio-metric dating. Typical creationist mistake.
6 Have you ever seen a trilobite eye? Neither has anyone else.
I suggest you go here for the truth, then you will not make such a big fool of your self.
http://www.talkorigins.org
Reply:1. If the geologic column were indeed correct, then how do you explain the petrified trees, going throughout the layers?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visi...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystra...
2. How about the human shoe print and the trilobite?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC...
%26quot;The trilobites are real (Elrathia kingii), but the %26quot;sandal print%26quot; is a spall pattern. The heel of the Meister print is not worn down but is caused by a long crack running across the rock. It lacks the diagnostic features that a real sandal print has. There are many other weathering features in the area identical in character to the so-called sandal prints but in a variety of shapes. They do not occur in a trail but as isolated prints (Conrad 1981).
Geochemical processes, such as solution penetrations, spalling, and other weathering, have been well documented to produce such features on the shales of the Wheeler Formation, where the prints were found (Stokes 1986).%26quot;
3. What about the dinosaur blood, in the t-rex bone?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC...
%26quot;The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.%26quot;
Also, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur... and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur...
4. How do you explain the fact that you use circular reasoning in the geoligic column?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visi...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/h...
And the most applicable response...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC...
-The claim-
%26quot;Fossils are used to determine the order and dates of the strata in which they are found. But the fossil order itself is based on the order of strata and the assumption of evolution. Therefore, using fossil progression as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning.%26quot;
-The refutation-
%26quot;Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.
The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.%26quot;
5. If the geologic column wasn%26#039;t true then doesn%26#039;t that mean the carbon dating and all of the others can%26#039;t be trusted since they are basically based on this column?
You are showing your scientific illiteracy, now. Carbon 14 is not used to date fossils that are older than 40 or 50 thousand years old, due to its short half life. Other isotopes, however, can be, and are, used. There are also other independent, non-radiometric methods of dating rocks and sediment, such as magnetite orientation analysis, and all of these methods point to deeper strata in the geological column being older than the ones on top. If radiological dating of rocks was really so imprecise as creationists wish to believe, then when this method is used to date igneous rocks throughout the geological column, the dates would be scattered for both older and younger rocks. This is not what we see. What we do see is that the independent methods of dating rocks and the earth itself all agree with each other, and they all agree that the earth is billions, not thousands of years old.
The geological column IS true, which renders this question irrelevant, and unworthy of further elaboration.
6. And how do you explain the fact that the trilobite had the most complicated eye ever?
This statement is untrue. If you disagree, then please state exactly how it is so, and list your sources. That should keep you hunting for a while.
Further, you might be surprized to know that when trilobites first appeared in the Cambrian geological column, there wre no land animals, plants, or vertebrates. In fact, there weren%26#039;t even fishes. They came millions of years later, and they didn%26#039;t have jaws yet. jawed fishes came millions of years after that.
Last, there were very few species of trilobites found in the early Cambrian. In later strata up to the Devonian, they diversified greatly.
Considering that it is impossible to study the structure of eyes in petrified fossils, I don%26#039;t understand how anyone can even begin to state that the eyes of trilobites were more advanced than the mamalian eye. Rods, cones, retinas, lenses, pupils, etc, are all lost in the fossilization process. One can gather some inferences based on the location of the eyes in regard to the rest of the body, but that%26#039;s about it.
I know that creationists have a particular disdain for TalkOrigins. Perhaps you gathered these questions off of a YEC website, and are honestly looking for answers. If so, try not to be too angry when you find out that these hoaxsters are lying to you.
Or perhaps you are a YEC and actually believe the stuff they are preaching. In that case, you will not even bother to look at the sources I gave you, nor the information within. All I can tell you is that TalkOrigins lists all of their sources and the sources list other sources. Most of these are hyperlinked and a simple left click from your mouse will enable you to verify if what they are putting out is accurate or not. Simpy writing TalkOrigins off as %26quot;God haters%26quot; (which they are not), is a rather dishonest way of saying, %26quot;They%26#039;re right, I can%26#039;t prove it, and I am going to plug my ears, tightly close my eyes, and close my mind to free thought.%26quot;
Good luck with that.
You might ask yourself, if you are a hardcore YEC, and not just some guy looking for truthful answers to seemingly immense evolutionary problems, why do I bother responding if you won%26#039;t allow it to convince you, or even investigate it for yourself?
Good question!
A) I want the points.
B) I enjoy exposing creationists for what they are.
C) Other people read these things, and they may really want to know the truth, having asked themselves these same questions.
Those people need to know that they don%26#039;t have to be antagonistic towards science to believe in God and the bible. YEC%26#039;s don%26#039;t give them that choice. According to YEC%26#039;s, you must believe as they do, or you cannot be a christian.
I think that is far more dangerous than science could ever be.
Reply:I am only in 9th grade and take biology honors, we finished evolution but I have no idea what the geographic column is... Oh well I suck...
Anyway to the other answerer, evolution is not a MYTH it is a THEORY. a theory is generally accepted by the scientific community, so you can say it is true until further notice...
Reply:Chris, people believe in evolution because they have allowed Satan to blind them from the obvious truths. It%26#039;s sad really.
reliable web hosting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment