Christianity Vs. Evolution
Yes I agree with you Bahleda, it was going nowhere.I criticized the evidence for evolution and stu just falls silent, he asks for evidence for creationism, so I provide it, and he just ignores it. He just doesnÃÂt want to play ball.
Your right in saying that spontaneous generation is not as simple as I stated, it gets worse: The early earth had very little, if any, atmosphere, this means that the earth had no protection from the suns lethal rays, so if any life, or even amino acid chains were to form, they would be annihilated immediately. In regard to organic compounds being manufactured, a couple of small amino acid compounds is a far cry to the essential large and numerous protein chains needed to form the most simple life. IÃÂm not sure what you are talking about in regard to lipids and coacervates, but the clear and simple fact is that life had to spontaneously arise into an extremely complex organism from nothing more than relatively simple chemicals. There was no slow and gradual change, half an organism is useless, it can not function, it has to be a whole organism or nothing. IÃÂm not sure why people bother defending spontaneous generation, it is so obviously impossible that even the experts themselves admit it is impossible.
Helium is a bi-product of radio-isotopic decay, when this decay occurs in zircon crystals it accumulates and diffuses out at a certain rate. If the zircon crystals are billions of years old, then all the helium would have all diffused out, but recent experiments show that almost all of the helium is still retained in the crystals, this shows that the crystals that are thought to have formed near the beginning of the earth are in reality only a couple of thousand years old. The crystals contain proof that millions of years WORTH of isotopic decay has occurred, but it has occurred in a SHORT amount of time.
Radio-isotopic dating is full of many assumptions, the greatest of which is that it is assumed that the decay rates have remained the same in the past, this of course is impossible to prove because no one was there to check, this may sound silly and petty but this violates a basic principle of scientific procedure. Furthermore the helium diffusion experiment shows that millions of years worth of decay occurred in a short amount of time, in other words, this is direct evidence that the decay rate was markedly different in the past.
The fossil evidence shows virtually no change. Every species that has lived on earth enters the fossil record morphologically the same as it exits. Some honest experts admit that. The fossil record of humans is one of the best evidences AGAINST evolution. If you do a small study (I can recommend some great books if you are truly interested) you will find that the picture you are shown of hominid evolution is amazingly misleading. What you see is only a tenth of the whole picture, evolutionists just show you the fossils that make a morphological sequence, and they fail to show you the rest of the fossils that FLATLY refute the picture of hominid evolution. There are many fully modern human fossils that exist back before the human/ape trunk braches off, in other words the human fossil record is a scrambled mess. Neanderthals were once dogmatically taught as THE human/ape link. Now it is know that they were a human ÃÂraceÃÂ suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Australopithecus afarensis is thought to be the human/ape link despite the lack of evidence for it and the mountain of evidence against it.
When a palaeontologist digs down into the ground he does not find a sequence of complex organisms on top of ÃÂprimitiveÃÂ organisms. When he digs down he finds a fossil or fossils in one stratum. There may not be any other fossils in any other strata above or below the fossil. These fossils are ÃÂmixed and matchedÃÂ with other fossils in other strata in different areas. The dating of strata is often done by ÃÂindex fossilsÃÂ, so if a fossil is thought to be 100 million years old, then any other fossil found in the same stratum is considered to be 100 million years old, this is called circular reasoning.
Genetic change is not evolution, I can not stress this enough. Numerous small changes donÃÂt turn a single-celled organism into a homo-sapien. Species such as cattle and dogs, corn and sugar cane have been selectively bred (artificial/accelerated evolution) for thousands of years but they are still the same animals/plants that they started as. Not only that, they are running into a genetic brick wall, that is, they can not breed any other changes. Sugar for example has been selectively bred so much that it can not get any sweeter, this is not evolution, it is de-evolution. Evolution requires an INCREASE in genetic information, the change that we see (eg; a medium haired dog giving birth to a long haired dog) is a decrease in information, the gene for the regulation of the length of hair has been lost so that the hair grows much longer, this is a crude example but it gives you the general idea.
Abiogenesis - I will admit first of all that when I made my first post, I remembered very little about this subject. It is true that there is anything but a scientific consensus on spontaneous generation, but this does not mean it was impossible. There are many plausible theories and I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the origin of life. As far as lipids and coacervates go, that was part of Oparin's theory, under the history section of the article. There would of course not be a jump from amino acids to complex organisms. There would have to be many steps in between. The theory is a little out of date, but coacervates are a good example of an intermediary step between organic molecules and simple cells. You can read about them in the Wikipedia article under the history section. Also, amino acid chains wouldnÃÂt be ÃÂannihilated immediately.ÃÂ Some UV rays can do a lot of damage to DNA and this is certainly a factor to be taken into consideration, but immediate annihilation is pretty big exaggeration.
The EarthÃÂs Age - I looked up zircon on (you guessed it) Wikipedia and found that zircon crystals from Jack Hills in Australia is notable for being the oldest minerals on Earth and are dated to be about 4.4 billion years old. A google search told me that your contention on helium diffusion originates from a scientist named Russell Humphreys, who has received extensive criticism from others in the field. At best, this dating method is debatable.
Radiometric Dating ÃÂ Radiometric dating is actually very accurate. Decay rates are not affected by external factors such as temperature. Radioactive bombardment can affect it, but this leaves behind evidence. IÃÂm not sure what you mean about the (debatable) helium diffusion experiment providing evidence for the contrary. If this dating method works, how would they know that the ÃÂmillions of years worth of decayÃÂ took place in ÃÂa short amount of time?ÃÂ Also, didnÃÂt you say that helium decay showed the Earth couldnÃÂt be more than 6,000 (give or take a couple thousand) years old? Besides, helium diffusion is not radiometric dating. If helium diffusion is unreliable, thatÃÂs a whole other story.
The Fossil Record ÃÂ You made a lot of hefty claims regarding the fossil record, and IÃÂm afraid IÃÂm going to need to seem some reputable sources backing them up (preferably online; I donÃÂt have the time to go hunting down books at the library). You definitely need to back up the claim that ÃÂthe fossil evidence shows virtually no change.ÃÂ Also, I wouldnÃÂt mind learning some more about these fossils that ÃÂFLATLY refute the picture of hominid evolution.ÃÂ IÃÂm afraid IÃÂm not sure what your point is about the strata fossils are found in. These strata are carefully dated. There is no circular reasoning. Fossils at the same depth in the same area must have similar ages. Remains have to be buried deep under ground relatively quickly (thus all about the same time in an area) or they will be lost. Again, how do you account for the fact that the oldest fossil records of some species are much younger than the oldest fossil records of other species?
I wanted to go over theoretical aspect most of all, but already put off my homework too long. IÃÂll try to address that part later. One more point, though. One trap a lot of creationists fall into is the ÃÂGod of the gapsÃÂ idea: interpreting gaps in scientific theory (such as abiogenesis) as insurmountable evidence against it. As these gaps close, they run out of ground to stand on.
Abiogenesis- I guess the question is ÃÂat what point do you define something to be impossible?ÃÂ I will freely admit that nothing is impossible, but at what point do you say that the chances of something happening is so remote that it might as well be impossible. As I said in a previous post; the chances of abiogenesis/spontaneous generation occurring is the same as lining up blind men, shoulder-to-shoulder, across our solar system, all with rubix cubes and hoping that they will ALL finish the puzzle at the same time, and this is no exaggeration, IÃÂm sure youÃÂd agree that this is impossible wouldnÃÂt you? DonÃÂt you find it strange that there are many theories of abiogenesis? When I here that there are many theories for a subject I immediately know that none of them are even close to the truth. If one theory was close to the truth then there would be no need for other theories. Coacervates, as far as I can gather, they are not considered to be involved in the origin of life. I canÃÂt see in wikipedia any small steps prior to the first life form/organism. Half an organism is not an organism, it is all or nothing. Immediate annihilation of any early life form is a BIG consideration. Even if it wasnÃÂt, the odd solar flare is sure to finish the job. There is absolutely no working model to support abiogenesis. My main point I guess, is that abiogenesis is far from science, it has no working model, no evidence and no creditability. If you want to believe in spontaneous generation I will accept that, but it amazes me what non-believers will believe in order to remain non-believers.
Helium diffusion- I have read some of the criticisms and they amount to nothing. If you feel there is something substantial, feel free to show me.
Radiometric dating- Radio-isotopic decay is very accurate, radio-isotopic dating is not. The helium diffusion experiment is not a dating mechanism, it merely measured the diffusion rate of helium out of zircon crystals. IÃÂm not sure if you know how radio-isotopic dating works, so IÃÂll explain using the uranium (U) - lead (Pb) dating method as an example; U decays into the smaller isotope of Pb leaving two bi-products, Pb and He. Isotopic dating works by measuring the amount of ÃÂparentÃÂ U and ÃÂdaughterÃÂ Pb, if there is little amount of U and lots of Pb in a substance then this substance is dated to be very old. If there is more U then Pb the substance is young. If the substance is dated to be very old then lots of He would have been produced as a result of lots of U decay. So if a zircon crystal is billions of years old, then lots of U would have decayed producing lots of He. He diffuses out of zircon crystals at a known rate. If we know the rate of He diffusion we can calculate how much He should be left in the crystal after it was created. This is what the helium diffusion experiment is about. The zircon crystals that were tested were FULL of He. If these crystals were billions of years old then NO He should be left in the crystals. This shows that all of the radio-isotopic decay has occurred in only thousands of years, thus the radio-isotopic decay rate in the past was vastly different then todayÃÂs rate.
Trinil 1 femur- This is a femur bone that is indistinguishable from modern humans, but it is dated to be 750,000 years old. OH8 foot- This is a fossil of a large part of a modern foot, but it is dated at 1.7 million years old. KNM-ER 1481 & KNM-ER 1475- These are fossil femur bones that are completely indistinguishable from modern humans, but are dated at 1.9 million years old. The laetoli foot prints are prints that are exactly the same as modern human feet would make, they are dated at 3.5 million years old. These are some of the fossils that show there is NO morphological sequence in hominid evolution. ItÃÂs just a scrambled mess. Fully human bones are found through out the supposed history of hominid evolution. Every species that is recorded in the fossil record enters the record morphologically the same as it exits. Humans are a good example, there is no transition sequence between ÃÂapesÃÂ and humans, as IÃÂve just shown it is a scrambled mess. This is indicative of the whole fossil record. What you read in the paper, what you see on the TV and what you read on wikipedia is NEVER the whole story, they do not show you the details that IÃÂve just shown you. There is no species in the fossil record that shows a morphological sequence from one species into another. Most, if not all, dinosaur species have absolutely no transitional forms, Triceratops was always Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus Rex was always Tyrannosaurus Rex and Brachiosaurus was always Brachiosaurus.
In regards to fossilization, are you aware that your beliefs are at odds with evolutionists? You actually agree with creationism more evolutionism. Creationists interpret the fossil record and geologic column as having been laid down at once all during the world wide flood about 4500 years ago. Evolutionists/uniformitarians interpret the fossil record and the geologic column as being laid down millimetre by millimetre, year by year, every stratum is separated by an immense amount of time. In other words, what you believe is not what evolutionists believe. So every geologic strata, even if itÃÂs only centimetres thick, was laid down hundreds of thousands or millions of years apart. Creationists interpret these stratum as having been laid down in weeks, days or even hours, this is the only way any things can be fossilized, especially huge creatures such as Brachiosaurus.
IÃÂm not sure what makes you think that the gaps in evolution are getting smaller, this is totally the opposite of what you see when you look at evolution in nature and its history. IÃÂm sure if Darwin knew of all the complexities that makes up life I think he would have dumped evolution as a theory. In his day they thought that an organic cell was just a ÃÂblobÃÂ, he had no idea about how complex life really was. The more we find out about nature the more absurd evolution becomes. Evolution is more untenable now then it ever was.
Abiogenesis - The whole rubix cube example probably is an exaggeration, but the more I think about it, there is a very reasonable doubt in abiogenesis. I'm not sure I agree with all of your reasoning, but I am willing to concede that I don't really know how life started. Keep in mind, however, that 1)abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and 2) a religious explanation is not justified simply by the unreliability of abiogenesis.
Helium Diffusion ÃÂ Search google and the first link has a lengthy criticism of the experiment. I didnÃÂt give it more than a glance, but the 2 important points I saw were that helium diffuses much more quickly in a vacuum and the helium diffusion experiment was never published in a mainstream scientific article. He said that there were a lot of false assumptions and stuff, but I didnÃÂt really have any time to even think about reading more about that.
Radiometric Dating ÃÂ Why isnÃÂt it accurate? You just gave me some remedial science and started talking about helium diffusion. Decay occurs at a known rate, just like diffusion, but, unlike diffusion (assuming a read that article right), it isnÃÂt affected by hardly anything. If these dating systems arenÃÂt reliable, then I donÃÂt understand where any of your dates (like the fossils) come from. Divine revelation?
As for the fossil examples, great. They still need sources or theyÃÂre meaningless. Also, every species of course enters the fossil record morphologically the same as it exits. If it was different morphologically, it wouldnÃÂt count as the same species.
If the fossil record was all laid down at once, if the Earth isnÃÂt more than 10,000 years old, then why are there so many fossils, rocks, etc dated to ages far beyond that? Even the fossils you presented are far older than that.
I find it sort of ironic that you accuse nonbelievers of leaps of faith when this is what religion is all about, basically. ItÃÂs not exactly a scientific theory. Speaking of leaps of faith, IÃÂm still not sure what gaps you are talking about in evolution. IÃÂm no longer supporting abiogenesis and we talked about dating methods. The fossil record relates pretty closely to evolution, but we havenÃÂt gotten anywhere with it. You say it refutes evolution and I say it supports it. Other than that, we havenÃÂt really talked about evolution itself.
Helium indeed diffuses quicker in a vacuum then in a pressurised surrounding. This is what is so damning about the experiment. These crystals were formed and are found in a highly pressurised surrounding. If these crystals were billions of years old there should be almost NO helium in the crystals. Physics and logic dictate that the helium will diffuse out of the crystal SLOWER in a pressurised surrounding. It is far harder for helium (or anything) to escape into a pressurized surrounding (like deep in the earth), then a vacuum as a surrounding. So if helium canÃÂt escape zircon crystals in a vacuum, how can it escape into a pressurized surrounding? The paper, to my knowledge, hasnÃÂt been published in a mainstream journal. But so what? The content of the paper is mutually exclusive to what journal it is published in. What matters is the content of the paper. And the paper is good.
Dating systems arenÃÂt reliable, if they were reliable they would all be concordant. But they are NOT! The dates in many cases wildly disagree with each other. These dating systems have been tested on substances of a known age (150, 50 years), and have given extremely old dates! So how can we trust the dates on things of an unknown age if we know these techniques canÃÂt be trusted on substances of a known age? Radioisotope dating assumes that there hasnÃÂt been any contamination of either the parent or daughter isotope. The technique assumes the initial amounts of isotopes and it also assumes that the decay rates have been the same in the past (which the helium diffusion experiments show other wise). ThatÃÂs a lot of assumptions for a technique that is already questionable, donÃÂt you think? I believe that the isotopes used in radio-isotopic dating are merely inherent characteristics of the earth, and in no way should be used for dating purposes, mainly because they donÃÂt work.
If every species evolved from another species, then the fossil record should be full of transitional fossils, but as most honest paleontologists admit, this is not the case. In regards to the dating of fossils and rocks, as I have just stated, the techniques that are used are far from scientific, and do not work. The other technique used to date fossils is the ÃÂindex fossilÃÂ technique that I have previously mentioned. This technique is pure circular reasoning; one fossil is used to date another fossil, again not a very scientific method.
Where is this evidence that the fossil record supports evolution? I can not strongly stress enough that IS DOESNÃÂT. Even the founder of this theory admits this. Evolutionists refer to the supposed ÃÂfamily tree of lifeÃÂ, but this tree has most of itÃÂs trunk missing, as well as most of itÃÂs branches. The only thing the tree seems to have is the leaves on the tips, with no branches connecting them to the tree. Even wikipedia can only muster up a couple dozen of transitional candidates (which, by the way are easily refuted) to account for the millions, if not billions of species that have walked/swum/flied on this earth. It is quite obvious once you actually look at the facts that the fossil record fails evolution abysmally. I know that you havenÃÂt had much more than a glance at the evidence (which is biased toward evolutionism) because you think that it supports evolution. But I am quite happy to discuss the fossils.
If you can not find any information for the fossils I have listed on the internet, then the only other sources is a library or the books that I have. Hominid evolution- I can give you about a dozen more fossils that are anatomically modern that date back further than one million years, and a couple dozen more that are younger. There is no morphological sequence in hominid evolution, what you see in the media is only the fossils that the media wants you to see, they just pick out the ones that suit them and ignore the rest. This is typical of the whole fossil record.
What part of the fossil record do you think supports evolution? We can discuss that if you would like.
In regards to the ÃÂgapsÃÂ in evolution, I can list them in abundance if you wish.