Destroy This Refutations Of Evolution

[HemlockGrey]

In my continuing quest for enlightnment, I have gathered an anti-evolution tirade and now present it to you folk for dissembling, in the hopes that I will gain knowledge from your lethal disembowlment of these undoubtly flawed arguments.

Have at you.

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. For fossils to form, animals and plant life need to be buried quickly in mud or a similar substance. The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years). The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.


Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )


Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded. Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments, global floods, massive changes in the earth's crusts, climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc. So, while interesting, the meteor crater idea is a bit weak as an argument on many fronts and it is certainly not "evidence" for evolution.


"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress, bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.




When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

The science community is currently very creation science phobic and thus, you will see a lot of claims that one must proceed from an evolutionary world view in order to even be considered a scientist. Honest debate, therefore, is difficult unless you happen to run across the occasional person who doesn't retreat to the "creationism is not science" rubrik. These are rare individuals but when they turn up, even if they are an evolutionist, they are a breath of fresh air.

[Kitsune]

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. For fossils to form, animals and plant life need to be buried quickly in mud or a similar substance. The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years). The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.

He is technically correct but in actually fact wrong. Mst fossils are quickly buried by rapid events. For example, the ceratures of Burgess Shale are believed to have been buried by a mud slide. The problem is that they are not buried by a single event.

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

They determine radioactive decay through experiments on the material its self not though examining the material. If these experiments were invalid, stuff like nuclear reactors and bombs would not work properly.

The rest is garbage hair splitting, the fossil evidence clearly shows that they are false.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Ah macroevolution and microevolution. Completely fake terms invented by Creationists.

[Joe]

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. For fossils to form, animals and plant life need to be buried quickly in mud or a similar substance. The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years). The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.

You don't find perfectly formed skeletons lying around in layers of sediment, you find bits and pieces of them here and there. From those individual bits and pieces, you construct a more comprehensive fossil record. Every once and a while, however, you will find a fossil that has been perfectly preserved.

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

Pseudoscience. Radiometric dating is based on analysis of decay rates of radioactive materials, rates which are set chemical properties and do not change.

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded. Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments, global floods, massive changes in the earth's crusts, climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc. So, while interesting, the meteor crater idea is a bit weak as an argument on many fronts and it is certainly not "evidence" for evolution.

Actually, evolutionists do not claim that the Bible would document such an event. The smart ones don't, anyway. Evolutionists do not expect the Bible to accurately depict history or science anymore than they would expect Native American myths to do so.

Besides, most of these impact craters have been dated outside of the Biblical timeframe, so you have no argument. They are not evidence for evolution, of course (how the hell is a geological event evidence for a biological process), nor do any evolutionists claim that they are. They simply claim them to be evidence debunking the young earth theory.

"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress, bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.

No one is saying that a bacteria can become a different bacteria in a very short period of time. New species are created over millions of years of the evolutionary change that you are referring to here.

When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

OK, what are you talking about?

The science community is currently very creation science phobic and thus, you will see a lot of claims that one must proceed from an evolutionary world view in order to even be considered a scientist. Honest debate, therefore, is difficult unless you happen to run across the occasional person who doesn't retreat to the "creationism is not science" rubrik. These are rare individuals but when they turn up, even if they are an evolutionist, they are a breath of fresh air.

Maybe if creation science was valid it would receive more respect.

[Kuroneko]

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

Eh... the half-life of an element can rather accurately be calculated in the laboratory with; I don't see why geology need enter the equation for the validity of radiometric dating at all.

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution.

No real scientist would be stupid enough to claim that it is. Strawman. Next.

"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress, bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.

Changes, however small, are cumulative. What's so complex about that?

But I have to ask: emotional duress? In bacteria?

...

When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

Again, it confuses only those who fail to comprehend that changes are cumulative.

[Cyborg Stan]

Very well, it's a slow day.

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. For fossils to form, animals and plant life need to be buried quickly in mud or a similar substance. The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years). The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.

This a geology question.

Alot of fossils are buried rather quickly but that's a given. Modern geology does not rely on total uniformitism, given that it also takes into account effects that we can see today. (For some reason, it completely ignores any rock layers that wouldn't have fossils in them. It also ignores that said rocks tend to show signs of localized castrophere rather than global.)

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

Fossil indexes are only used until something better can be found. (How else would we find fossils from eariler or later times?) Other forms of radiometric dating rely on the very well establishes known half-lives of isotopes. Layers with fossils already in them aren't dated directly because they're sendimentary and thus inhernient the age of the parent rocks.

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded. Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments, global floods, massive changes in the earth's crusts, climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc. So, while interesting, the meteor crater idea is a bit weak as an argument on many fronts and it is certainly not "evidence" for evolution.

Like the rest of the paper, it relys on the 'no-math' feature. Somehow the Earth was able to take each day a major asteroid impact each day for at least a year while Noah and the animals survived?

"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress,

'Emotional duress'? Bacteria?

bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.

The bacteria only has to become resistant to the antibiotic in question. They sometimes do this by getting some extra genetic material. Also note that the bacteria are probably destroyed at the end of the experiment - we don't want labortories deliberately breeding super-bugs now.

Note that bacteria are an extremely diverse group - off the top of my head, I'd guess that the variations in bacteria probably outnumber all eurokyoratic organisms by a wide margin. (Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong.) The evolution of eurokyrotes, IIRC took at least a billion years after bacteria became widespread. It requires quite a number of steps that are orders of magnitude removed in terms of differing conditions, time and space of the average laboratory experiment.

When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

Evolution is a change in genetic frequency between generations. The only confusion happens when creationists insist on the mythical boundary between micro-evolution and macro.

The science community is currently very creation science phobic and thus, you will see a lot of claims that one must proceed from an evolutionary world view in order to even be considered a scientist. Honest debate, therefore, is difficult unless you happen to run across the occasional person who doesn't retreat to the "creationism is not science" rubrik. These are rare individuals but when they turn up, even if they are an evolutionist, they are a breath of fresh air.

If there was a Theory of Creation, it might remotely be considered a science. Keep in mind, all of them have been shot down.

[Ted C]

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. For fossils to form, animals and plant life need to be buried quickly in mud or a similar substance. The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years). The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.

What “uniformitarian model” is he talking about? Paleontologists do not assume that earth deposits form at a constant rate. They expect fossils to form in situations where a body is rather suddenly protected from decay, such as a mudslide or tar pit. More layers will pile on top of that over time to form sedimentary rock, but that doesn’t mean that a skeleton has to be slowly covered a millimeter at a time over the course of years. This argument is what we call a “strawman”.

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

Geologists date using the geologic column (among other methods), radiologists date by measuring levels of unstable “parent” elements and their decay “children” in a sample of material and calculating age from measured rates of radioactive decay. The two methods complement each other, they are not dependent on each other.

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded. Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments, global floods, massive changes in the earth's crusts, climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc. So, while interesting, the meteor crater idea is a bit weak as an argument on many fronts and it is certainly not "evidence" for evolution.

Meteor strikes have little to do with evolution theory. The only real involvement is the expectation that a large meteor strike would cause such a large climate change that a mass extinction would follow. Scientific research indicates that such an impact occurred about 65 million years ago, coinciding with the rapid extinction of the dinosaurs.

"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress, bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.

We would never expect a population of bacteria to evolve into anything but a population of “slightly different bacteria” over the course of a laboratory experiment. One need only look at the wide variety of dog breeds (from Chihuahuas to St. Bernards) to see the scale of change that can occur in a population of large mammals just over the course of a few thousand years.

When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

This is just posturing. Creationists invented the distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” so they could admit that the former occurs while denying the latter. The terms have since wormed their way into even the scientific vocabulary, since scientists are forced to deal with arguments involving them all the time.

The science community is currently very creation science phobic and thus, you will see a lot of claims that one must proceed from an evolutionary world view in order to even be considered a scientist. Honest debate, therefore, is difficult unless you happen to run across the occasional person who doesn't retreat to the "creationism is not science" rubrik. These are rare individuals but when they turn up, even if they are an evolutionist, they are a breath of fresh air.

The science community isn’t “creation science phobic”, there simply isn’t any legitimate creation science. Creation “scientists” don’t use the scientific method. Instead of observing evidence and proposing theories to explain the evidence, they have a predetermined conclusion and look for evidence to support it.

[StarshipTitanic]

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded. Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments, global floods, massive changes in the earth's crusts, climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc. So, while interesting, the meteor crater idea is a bit weak as an argument on many fronts and it is certainly not "evidence" for evolution.

Yes, the Bible does. The Bible. The. Bible.

[Ironbeard]

On the subject of the fossil record, can anyone recommend a good paleontology primer? I've wondered for some time how paleontologists can tell so much from the fossil record when fossilisation's such a rare event.

[Darth Servo]

The uniformitarian model upon which evolutionism is based assumes long periods of sedimentation, a process that does not bury animals intact (unless the animal lies verrrry still and doesn't get eaten or decompose for thousands of years).

Most dead animals lie quite still. If your creationist friend doesn't realize this, he is beyond hope.

The fossil record shouts catastrophism, not uniformitarianism upon which traditional evolution is based.

Yet NOWHERE has ANY scientist claimed that ZERO major catastrophies have occured. Its just that they didn't all occur at the same time. He's basing the argument on a strawman that says if evolution is "gradual change" then it must be CONSTANT gradual change with no rapid changes along the way.

Carbon-14 dating IS a form of radiometric dating and is arguably the most reliable (back to about 14K years). Other forms of radiometric dating rely upon presuppositions which are circular in their reasoning (i.e. the "geologic column" shows a given fossil to have been buried 500K years ago according to the radiometric dating. "How" you ask, "did the evolutionist determine that the radiometric dating is correct?" By the location in the geologic column of the fossils, of course. )

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... an-2.shtml

Impact craters are not an evidence for evolution. Some claim they might be considered to be an evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, not because of the existence of the crater itself but rather, because a large impact would cause a world-wide meteorological catastrophe which evolutionists claim the Bible (or other ancient writings) would have recorded.

No, the major impact craters would have wiped out much of the bioshpere in the surrounding area, leaving no one to record it if the impact had occured while advanced life was around.

Of course, the Bible is full of stories of great catastrophes. In fact, it talks of major meteor bombardments

MAJOR? According to whats described in the bible, there were nothign more than shooting stars.

global floods

1) ONE flood, not floods.
2) There is no evidence for this flood.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationis ... te]massive changes in the earth's crusts[/quote]Which would have created tsunamis wiping out coastal life if the continental changes occured over the course of a few years as recorded in the bible.

climactic mountain leveling earthquakes, etc.

All of which are predicated upon ignoring the laws of thermodynamics in order for the biblical version of these events to be true.

"Evolution" in bacteria? I assume you are speaking of micro-evolution here such as when bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics? It is true that micro-evolution happens all around us and can be occasionally observed or even recreated in a lab. But even under major physical and emotional duress, bacteria have not been observed evolving into anything other than a slightly different type of bacteria.

Ah the old micro vs macro evolution argument. This has been shot down how many times now? Does this creationist also differentiate between micro and macro addition?

When we talk "evolution" in a thread like this we are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor. This might be called "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, or "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction.

It requires many SMALL steps over large periods of time. Lots of small steps add up to big steps.

Of course, this has been debated ad nauseum on other threads in this and other boards where evolutionists claim that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution while creationists claim that the former should not even be termed evolution because it confuses the issue.

Who is better equiped to determine what evolution is and is not? The biologists who actually STUDY it or the creationists who insist on distorting it to pursue their religious goals of force feeding religion to everyone?

The science community is currently very creation science phobic and thus, you will see a lot of claims that one must proceed from an evolutionary world view in order to even be considered a scientist.

Because as far as the scientific community is concerned, this case is CLOSED. The debate was won by the scientists several DECADES ago. The creationists insist on selling their ideas to John Q Public because they KNOW that any competant scientists can shoot their pathetic arguments down in their sleep.

Honest debate, therefore, is difficult unless you happen to run across the occasional person who doesn't retreat to the "creationism is not science" rubrik. These are rare individuals but when they turn up, even if they are an evolutionist, they are a breath of fresh air.

Scientits are more that HAPPY to hold debates. Its just that they know that every creationist challenge is NOT really an invitation to debate but rather a trap complete with a stacked audience there to heckle the unbeliever. Thats why professional creationists REFUSE to hold a debate via a forum such as e-mail where its impossible for them to employ their favorite propaganda techniques.

[InnerBrat]

On the subject of the fossil record, can anyone recommend a good paleontology primer? I've wondered for some time how paleontologists can tell so much from the fossil record when fossilisation's such a rare event.

Life: an Unauthorised Biography by Richard Fortey

or, if you think you can handle a collection of essays for the scientist, Palaeobiology by Briggs and Crowther (eds)

Got any specific questions? Ask a palaeontology graduate

now, where can we find a palaeobiolgy graduate? *looks under a rock*

[Drewcifer]

Scientific research indicates that such an impact occurred about 65 million years ago, coinciding with the rapid extinction of the dinosaurs.

I just wanted to add that many of the worldwide subvisions in the geologic time scale (sometimes down to the epoch) signify mass extinctions, often on a planetary scale.