yeah good point doc. The reason insects are found so often in amber is that they did eat tree sap

Arg, I don't have time to write an organized response here. But damned if I won't rip your points apart dundaine. You're using pseudo science. That "source" you posted about the rock record is rife with double speak, half truths, and conjecture.

quote:

Why do you think we finds them in amber that is "millions" of years old?

What? Are the bodies in Pompeii fossilied in ash because they were eating the volcano?

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
still got nothing on bugs man

what can I say? They are the desendents of aquatic arachnids. They are lobed, like all arachnids. Their fourth set of legs has been stretched to become a flying agent. Their diversity is due to the fact that they have wedged themselves into the most obscure little niches that the mammals and other worm-desendent amimals have looked over.

still go nothing on bugs man

quote:

Insects are animals to doctor EG a hole in your theory appears the size of how many millioons of bug species again?

that's because he is confused.

But we can tell that all animals come from a common ansestor because we share broad characteristics, such as a head facing forward, lobed bodies, an anus in the back or bottom, basic senses, ex.

Now, of course, some have evolved away from this prefrense, such as sea stars and urchins, whose major organs are surrounded by rays, but this is an exception to a broad rule.

quote:

Uuu... Are you saying the earth isn't round, or that the Bible is wrong cause it says it is round?

dude I believe that the bible never says the Earth is round or at least not in any verse I've ever seen/heard

quote:

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years

again guys the "fish story" phenomenon I believe that when ever some one lived a while the writers paraphrased in to may hundreds of years most likely adam lived to his sixtys

quote:

If I said all of the Quran goes against science

same book, diffrent name EG

quote:

Proof all Earth animals, including humans, came from a common ancestor: We all have the same basic body parts. Head, trunk, arms, legs. All mammals, reptiles, and birds have two eyes, a nose beginning in the middle of the face, two nostrils, a mouth below the nose, two ear holes or ear-like structures, two brain hemispheres, all the same basic internal organs, and all the same basic bodily functions. Hmmmmmm.....

Insects are animals to doctor EG a hole in your theory appears the size of how many millioons of bug species again?

quote:

Yeah, but a flood that big isn't possible. The Earth has gone through floods for billions of years. But lot of fossilized creatures have been found to be buried by simple mudslides or collapsing sand dunes.

Fish Story phenomenon once more the great flood was most likely the massive flood of the Medd/Black Sea area

quote:

Don't take the bible literally. It makes you sound like a fool.

It's called fundamentalism or as I call it "The Blinders of Humanity" you'll never win an argument with a fundamentalist as they are to blind to accept the slightest diffrence from the bible no matter how much evidence you show them.

quote:

You (or talkorigins) say that the laws of thermodynamics might not have been in place at the "birth" of earth.

No. I said the physics we know now probably didn't exist at the birth of the Universe. If there was a big bang, it could've been too hot and chaotic for gravity or the electromagnetic spectrum to exist the way we know it does now.

quote:

Do you think that these laws put themselves in place?

No. The Universe doesn't know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are, humans do. The universe does what works. We gave it's functions names.

quote:

And how do we know that this method is accurate? We don't know how old the earth is in the first place, so we have nothing accurate to compare this method to.
Maybe now you'll see talkorigins in a new light, but probably not.

Nope, they're pretty much right about everything. They're well trained scientists. Using accurate scientific facts and providing plenty of sources. They know what they're talking about. But of course a 14 year old kid knows way more about science than some fancy scientist with his fancy college education.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Isochron Dating

Radiometric Dating

K-Ar Dating

quote:

Uuu... Are you saying the earth isn't round, or that the Bible is wrong cause it says it is round?

Like I said, logic eludes you. I'm done arguing with you. I'm not giving up, I just don't feel as if you're at my level of rational thought. It's like talkng to a brick wall. There are a million facts that support Evolution and support it well, you just have to be willing to look for them. But you're not, so why waste my time?

Sorry, I forgot you other question,EG so here it is. You (or talkorigins) say that the laws of thermodynamics might not have been in place at the "birth" of earth. Do you think that these laws put themselves in place? Doesn't that hint that something else putting those laws in place for the preservation of the universe? Maybe you don't think so. That's your opinion. As for the rock dating fossils and fossil dating rocks...

quote:

Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others

Here we arrive again and hang our believes on the accuracy and uniformity of Steno's Law.(see my earlier post.)

quote:

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata.

Is that so? Here again, the fossils determine the strata, but some fossils are only in certain strata. How would they know what fossils were in what strata save again that the fossils determined the strata?

quote:

Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating.

And how do we know that this method is accurate? We don't know how old the earth is in the first place, so we have nothing accurate to compare this method to.
Maybe now you'll see talkorigins in a new light, but probably not.

quote:

No, although the idea that the Earth was round was just a theory once. Therefore, it's wrong.

Uuu... Are you saying the earth isn't round, or that the Bible is wrong cause it says it is round?

Another thing, which plagues me, you say that it isn't logical, but still squeeze onto talkorogins. If you don't think it's logical why do you defend them so strictly. Strange, on the other hand, says it is logical, but, of course, his defence relies entirely on the accuracy of Steno and uniformity.(see my earlier post)

quote:

The fossil record supports Evolution in many other places. Whale evolution is one of the weaker sections, HOWEVER, using the logical theory of evolution we can take very sparse amounts of data and infer an evolutionary path.

Hmmm... Because fossil record supports (though fossils are very rare and we daren't ask why there are gaps) we can use very sparse amounts of data to infer a path. This is still dependant on it self. Don't bore me.

quote:

if there is a Supreme Being He could make the humans live as long as he liked, and, after the fall humanity degressed for a while and lived much, much shorter lives.

Nope. The human heart beating at normal speed can't survive that long. Besides back when the bible was written, you were lucky to live past 50. Lifespans have gone up since then. If anything, we're progressing. Don't take the bible literally. It makes you sound like a fool.

Don't ask where the bible contradicts science if you're going to be stupid and say "Uhhhh... God it". You don't see me replying with "Raven did it." or "Aakuluujjusi did it." You wouldn't want to listen to anything I say would you? I don't believe in the Christian God or the bible. It is null and void to me. I don't believe in miracles or magic. In order to live that long, our hearts would have to slow down to almost nothing, our metabolisms would slow to the point where we probably wouldn't be able to move very much. It's silly and illogical to think that observations today didn't apply back then. Although, that would be a very good example of human Evolution if it were true (which it isn't).

I'm not trying to diss Christianity in any way, I'm just trying to discredit Creation Science. The christian creation myth is no more correct than that of the Celts or the ancient Japanese. It's just a myth, created by people who didn't even know what an diatomic molecule was. Or a photon. Or Hydrostatic Equilibrium. They couldn't explain their existance or the existance of everything else, so they made up their own explaination just like every friggin culture on the friggin planet. There is a verse in the bible that describes men with donkey sized penises and horse-sized amounts of their "issue" poured from them (Ezekiel 23:20). That would kill somebody. The bible is a book of myths that are supposed to teach morals and whatnot with examples, like Aesop's fables or Monkey. They're not literal. You're a fool to think that. And by doing that, you're implying your religion is the ultimate truth and is supreme above all others. I do not appreciate that at all...

quote:

Why do you think we finds them in amber that is "millions" of years old?

Well, that made no sense. Anyhoo...

quote:

Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html

quote:

Every animal that existed at that time. Genus, you know.

Including the millions of other kinds of animals that ever existed? If the Earth is 6,000 years old, all the different fossilized animals that we've found would've lived at the same time with all the modern animals of today (impossible). I can't imagine any human being with the capacity to name all those animals and remember them and not get eaten.

quote:

Again, it is self dependant because if there is a Supreme Being He could rain down however much water he wanted.

That amount of water in the atomosphere coming down for forty days and forty nights, and covering the mountians would've destroyed all life, including Noah and his family because the air would have been completely saturated with water. Unless they were fish people. Yes, fish people that lived 900 years and had giant donkey dongs. That's logical.

quote:

And, as EG's source said below, the making of a fossil requires(1 a quick burial (2 a rather muddy resting place so that the as the soil dries the animal would be preserved. A large scale flood might very well do that.

Yeah, but a flood that big isn't possible. The Earth has gone through floods for billions of years. But lot of fossilized creatures have been found to be buried by simple mudslides or collapsing sand dunes.

Proof all Earth animals, including humans, came from a common ancestor: We all have the same basic body parts. Head, trunk, arms, legs. All mammals, reptiles, and birds have two eyes, a nose beginning in the middle of the face, two nostrils, a mouth below the nose, two ear holes or ear-like structures, two brain hemispheres, all the same basic internal organs, and all the same basic bodily functions. Hmmmmmm.....

quote:

Before a discussion of the use of the column can be profitable, a distinction must be drawn between the “rock record” and the “geologic column.” Many treat them as synonyms, when in fact they are not. “Rock record” is a descriptive term for those portions of the earth’s crust open to human perception. Even the term carries historiographic baggage. Embedded within is the assumption that historical truth can be derived from examination of the rocks. Creationists and Naturalists agree that this is possible, but the methods and conclusions differ, because Naturalists 1) reject revelation, 2) do not manage uncertainty well, and 3) do little to distinguish between the perceptual rock record and the conceptual geologic column. Most geologists are so accustomed to overlaying the construct on local data, that little thought is given to its testing. It is simply applied.

However, the geologic column is more than just a descriptive compilation; it is an idealized representation of the crust as it would be absent erosion and nondeposition. It includes a historical framework not found in the physical description of the rocks themselves; a definite, linear historical sequence, absolute ages, tectonic history, paleoenvironmental interpretation, and even an account of geomagnetic fluctuations through time. The distinction between the rock record and the column is crucial for creationists parsing the uniformitarian literature. Any statement that contains historical propositions is by definition interpretive to some degree (Reed, 2001).

So, you see strange, if there was nothing but organic matter decomposing that acted upon the SC, Steno's Law would be infallable, but, as you said before, earth has had a very active geography. If we didn't have things like tectonic plates, erosion, floods, earhtquakes and the like, it would be perfect.

quote:

However, lithostratigraphy depends on the assumption of superposition (i.e., one layer stacked over another) and continuity to define age relations between strata. Recent work has shown that even those assumptions can be questioned empirically (Berthault, 2000). Lithostratigraphy cannot provide accurate or widespread age relations between rocks.

As for the Grand Canyon, the evolutionists must have revised their interpretation of the RR, because the ev'ist graph I'm looking at is missing about 13 billion years...

quote:

No way in hell.

Sadly, both of our theories are enter dependant.
If potassium/argon is accurate, then of course radiometric is accurate(they correlate some of the time). And on the other hand, if there is a Supreme Being He could make the humans live as long as he liked, and, after the fall humanity degressed for a while and lived much, much shorter lives.

quote:

they were all herbavores?

Why do you think we finds them in amber that is "millions" of years old?

quote:

So Adam named EVERY animal?

Every animal that existed at that time. Genus, you know.

quote:

And how about the great flood?

Again, it is self dependant because if there is a Supreme Being He could rain down however much water he wanted. And, as EG's source said below, the making of a fossil requires(1 a quick burial (2 a rather muddy resting place so that the as the soil dries the animal would be preserved. A large scale flood might very well do that. Birds knocked out of the air, trees falling.

quote:

We have clear evidence

Oh? Tell me why it is so clear. In fact tell me what it is. And, strange, don't confuse Babylon with Babel.
Babel: before Babylon.
Babylon: built on the foundations of old Babel, the capital city of an empire that went by the same name

quote:

And when logic fails us, we resort to insults.

That wasn't an insult, that was a factual observation.

quote:

Since you did not answer my simple question the first time, I will ask it again: Do you think it is logical to base an entire period of whale evolution on a single, incomplete skull?

No, I don't. But that's just whale evolution. We don't know about the evolution of every single animal. Especially the evolution of marine animals. I bet if we had the technology to explore the very bottom of the ocean for longer periods of time, we'd find lots of anicent whale fossils. I don't think its very logical to assume the theory Evolution falls apart simply because whale evolution isn't very well documented. You obviously didn't read anything I gave you. If you did, I feel so bad for you.

quote:

You could make yourself look very foolish that way.

If I said all of the Quran goes against science, you wouldn't say that would you?

quote:

Read the Bible and tell me specifically what you find that is so against science.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

No way in Hell.

I have more. But I'm being a lazy bastard today. Do it yourself http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

quote:

And what "creationist claims" are you talking about?

These: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Like I said, you used some of them. But you're not defending them very well.

Speaking of unanswered questions, how is TalkOrigins manipulating scientific facts? I'm really curious, since you know everything there ever is to know about science. I guess people should just save their money and go to you if they ever wanted to earn PhDs in science.

If you figure that the highest mountain was a molehill in a valley, than perhaps the 15 cubits bit is accurate.

well no matter what any one says God gave the word to man but then man messed it up by bringing it to man's perspective then it was translated 100s of times after all that you bet it'll be half trash

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
yes true so nothing can be found exactly to the bible but remeber how a minnow can become jaws after a few tellings of a fish story? I would not be suprised if the smaething happened with some portions fo the bible

Oh that's exactly what I think happened. But if that's the case with Noahs flood, then that could be the case with everything else in the Bible, making it totally useless as a guide for the nature of the divine, or the nature of our world for that matter.

yes true so nothing can be found exactly to the bible but remeber how a minnow can become jaws after a few tellings of a fish story? I would not be suprised if the smaething happened with some portions fo the bible

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:

quote:

And how about the Great Flood? There is nowhere near the volume of water required. There is also NO evidence of such a massive flood in the rock record AT ALL. It simply didn't happen.

actually there was a massive flood of the medd/black sea area which is belived to be Noah's flood

Yes yes, however it was not a global event, and was nothing like what was described in the Bible. There was also a massive flood in Mesopotamia and into the Persian Gulf. Again, these are local events. The Bible states that the "tallest mountain" was covered by water by 15 cubits or something like that.

quote:

And how about the Great Flood? There is nowhere near the volume of water required. There is also NO evidence of such a massive flood in the rock record AT ALL. It simply didn't happen.

actually there was a massive flood of the medd/black sea area which is belived to be Noah's flood

quote:

Do you think it is logical to base an entire period of whale evolution on a single, incomplete skull? Do you think it wise, earth, to propose that the whale evolved from a dog-like creature based on only six partial skeletons?

Yes it is wise and logical. Here is why:
The fossil record supports Evolution in many other places. Whale evolution is one of the weaker sections, HOWEVER, using the logical theory of evolution we can take very sparse amounts of data and infer an evolutionary path. It may not be an exact path, but nobody ever said it was. Instead is a general approximation that makes sense.

For example, we were able to study and measure gravity long, long before we actually discovered the atomic forces that actually cause the gravity effect. The same is true for DNA. We knew that certain traits were passed down along bloodlines, but did not know of the actual DNA particle that transfers the information.

Likewise, we can see the general trend of evolution, and chart and measure it. We can then make logical conclusions based upon observed evidence and propose theories upon those observations. We don't need to know exactly which fossils were at what steps in the chain of events.

quote:

Read the Bible and tell me specifically what you find that is so against science.

Genesis 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

So every animal, including parasites and spiders and whatnot, they were apparently all herbivores?