Best Evidence for Evolution.

[bob b]

I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

Dates of fossils are not determined by radiometric dating. This can easily be seen by examining material that was published prior to the invention of radiometric dating methods which established dates for the sedimentary layers. One can obviously not date sedimentary layers radiometrically, because one is interested in when a layer was first deposited, not the age of the material (mud) in the layer itself.

There is a possibility of directly dating a fossil by C-14 dating because some fossil bones recently discovered seem to have retained soft tissue, material that has not turned to stone. Evolutionists have carefully kept such material from being carbon dated, probably because if it turned out that some C-14 was still present it would be evidence that the fossil was not millions of years old, but only thousands of years at the most. Such a finding would have the potential of upseting the whole applecartof radiometric dating of sedimentary layers and fossils.

The risk of this happening is too great for any single evolutionist to take, because it would embroil the discoverer in a firestorm of controversy and possible retaliation from the entire dogmatic evolutionary science community, who would vigorously resist any finding that would threaten their carefully worked out beautiful edifice.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

Dates of fossils are not determined by radiometric dating. This can easily be seen by examining material that was published prior to the invention of radiometric dating methods which established dates for the sedimentary layers. One can obviously not date sedimentary layers radiometrically, because one is interested in when a layer was first deposited, not the age of the material (mud) in the layer itself.

There is a possibility of directly dating a fossil by C-14 dating because some fossil bones recently discovered seem to have retained soft tissue, material that has not turned to stone. Evolutionists have carefully kept such material from being carbon dated, probably because if it turned out that some C-14 was still present it would be evidence that the fossil was not millions of years old, but only thousands of years at the most. Such a finding would have the potential of upseting the whole applecartof radiometric dating of sedimentary layers and fossils.

The risk of this happening is too great for any single evolutionist to take, because it would embroil the discoverer in a firestorm of controversy and possible retaliation from the entire dogmatic evolutionary science community, who would vigorously resist any finding that would threaten their carefully worked out beautiful edifice.

C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth. Are you that eager for another nail to be driven into the coffin of creationsim? You make it sound as though this T-Rex is the only biological sample from more than a few thousand years ago and everything is riding on it. Malarkey.

 

[bob b]

C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth. Are you that eager for another nail to be driven into the coffin of creationsim? You make it sound as though this T-Rex is the only biological sample from more than a few thousand years ago and everything is riding on it. Malarkey.

Actually, since the original discovery other fossil samples have been uncovered.

I should also point out that when Libby, the inventor of the C14 dating method, was interviewed a few years ago, he revealed that his original work was done with samples from Egypt. There were two reasons for this. One, there were few samples that went back very far in history and that had fairly well established ages. Egypt seemed to be the best bet for samples meeting these criteria. Second the Egyptian environment was believed to have been arid in ancient times, and there was a fear that long time exposure to moisture could affect the accuracy of the method.

Today people claim that they can accurately date plant samples that have been under water for many years, but there is no effective way to authenticate this claim.

 

[Jehu]

C-14 testing has been carried out on other prehistoric remains, such as preserved plants, showing the great age of the Earth.

So when jurassic coalified wood is C-14 dated by two different labs to an age of ~23,000 years you accept this great age?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So when jurassic coalified wood is C-14 dated by two different labs to an age of ~23,000 years you accept this great age?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp

You'll believe just about line if it confirms your previously held beliefs. The nature of the sample was indeterminate and the samples were likely contaminated. Both labs confirm this, and this has not been taken seriously in years. Stay with the times. They have newer, better bull-puckey out there now.

 

[bob b]

I must remind posters on this thread that it is supposed to be for relating the best evidence for evolution. I note that so far nothing specific and valid has been posted.

It this because there is none?

 

[DoogieTalons]

I said the Whale was best evidence.

How else could it exist if it did not evolve ? Did god create this obviously once land creature in it's present form or did god create it in the forms shown in the fossil record ( See my thread )

If he created it in it's present form... then why at all, there are better suited "Designs" for the sea, and why go to the trouble of it's previousl forms in the fossil record.

If he created it Land based are you seriously telling me it only took 6000 years to evolve into it's current form ?

The very existance of the whale poses unanswerable questions to a 6000 year old universe.

Regarding the fossil record !! why is everything so neatly layerd with very very very few exeptions. I mean why are there no Rabbits with the dinosaur layers, or no men at all in the dinosaur layers ? why are there no whales as they are now in the dinosaur layers, how did "The Flood" get so organised !!

And what about cave systems, animal burrows, and footprints that we find throughout the fossil record? How can a these things occur during a flood ?

If they didn't occur during the flood how come they are buried in prehistoric rock like well over 6000 years old

Animals would'nt be pottering along leaving footprints if a raging flood was going on above them, would they?

And how can a cave possibly get created in the middle of a flood ? With nice drawings in it only then to be coverd again... with layers and layers... of Fossil Filled Sediment each predating the flood ?

Get over it Bob the earth is not 6000 years old. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR A 6000 YEAR OLD EARTH BUT THE BIBLE and if all you need is the bible then why all this pseudo scientific creationist nonsense to try and back it up.

If a global flood caused the sediment layers and fossil record... why are the sediment layers and fossil records so consistant with simple celular organisms in the past leading to complex organisms in the future.. why are they not all mixed up.

 

[Neverfox]

I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. What bob b is really asking about is the theory of abiogenesis.

I'm not saying this means that there is no discussion to be had but simply to make sure everyone is careful with their terms. Evolution often gets a bad rap because it is presented as the direct opposite of creationism when, at its core, it is nothing more than a theory about genetic traits. All sides of the argument about the origin of life often incorrectly use the word "evolution" or ascribe to it more meaning that it has.

With that out of the way, can I ask you a question, bob? Can you put together a short list of what kinds of evidence would be convincing to you that evolution occurs? Or is you wish to focus on abiogensis, that it occured? It would be helpful to me if you gave me some insight as to how you typically come to accept something as having value as a theory. This way I can focus my efforts on gathering information for you.

 

[SUTG]

I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation.

YECs often pretend not to understand the difference between abiogenesis and the ToE.

 

[audioseizure]

I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

how about the simple fact that most people resemble their parents? while it may not be the best evidence, i think it's certainly noteworthy.

 

[bob b]

I'd like to refer back to the original question posed in this thread and remind everyone of an important but often overlooked distinction. Evolution is not a theory related to the origins of life. Evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from generation to generation. What bob b is really asking about is the theory of abiogenesis.

Actually what I asked was:

"For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).
What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?"

If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Actually what I asked was:

"For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).
What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?"

If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?

What about those whales Doogie keeps bringing up? There's great evidence for the change from land mammals to sea-dwelling ones. Pretty compelling evidence, actually.

 

[Johnny]

Bob b,

Can you imagine any evidence which would satisfy you? What would that look like? Suppose evolution were true, what would we find? (Please bear in mind the limits of modern techniques).

 

[Real Sorceror]

Actually what I asked was:

"For those who continually state "Creationists do not understand evolution", please enlighten us dummies who do not agree that "all life has descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell" (i.e. the general theory of evolution).
What is the best evidence you have that this has occurred?"

If you don't like the "primitive protocell" starting point, then what starting point would you like to specify?

I would personally like to keep the starting point as an unknown until such a time as it becomes known.
Abiogenesis has a certian logic to it, but logic alone doesn't prove much of anything.
I personally have no problem with accepting that evolutionary theory does not explain ultimate origins and that abiogenesis is only one of many possibilities.

 

[Evoken]

Abiogenesis has a certian logic to it, but logic alone doesn't prove much of anything.

What logic do you think it has?


Evo

 

[PlastikBuddha]

What logic do you think it has?


Evo

The fact that at some point there was life on this world when previously there had been none.

 

[Jehu]

You'll believe just about line if it confirms your previously held beliefs. The nature of the sample was indeterminate and the samples were likely contaminated. Both labs confirm this, and this has not been taken seriously in years. Stay with the times. They have newer, better bull-puckey out there now.

This is just too good. First you assume that I believe this to be gospel truth, when all I did was post the link to see how you'd respond to creationists using C-14 testing. Second, you automatically believe it to be wrong because it doesn't confirm your previously held beliefs. Third, isn't it strange that every time a radiometric date doesnt confirm the evolution story it's almost always due to contamination? Or is because scientists who believe in creation are just that biased and dishonest as to purposely get phony lab results?

Maybe you could provide a link to a site debunking this? Even if this particular example is questionable, C-14 found in coal is a fact like it or not. So either there's some major worldwide contamination going on (which would debunk your statement I replied to), or it's not nearly as old as you assume it to be.

 

[audioseizure]

I would like to note at this point that evolutionists posting on this thread have not presented any evidence for their speculations, which was what was requested when I initiated this thread.

how about the simple fact that most people resemble their parents? while it may not be the best evidence, i think it's certainly noteworthy.

 

[eveningsky339]

I think microevolution is scientific and observable in nature, but it seems that macroevolution is more of a shot in the dark.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

This is just too good. First you assume that I believe this to be gospel truth, when all I did was post the link to see how you'd respond to creationists using C-14 testing. Second, you automatically believe it to be wrong because it doesn't confirm your previously held beliefs. Third, isn't it strange that every time a radiometric date doesnt confirm the evolution story it's almost always due to contamination? Or is because scientists who believe in creation are just that biased and dishonest as to purposely get phony lab results?

1. Yeah- I do assume that since you bothered to post it, you believed. Call me Mr. Trusting, but I just don't see the ponit in linking to things I think are baloney.
2. Not my previously held beliefs- the evidence thus far. So far C-14 has been proven to be incredibly reliable and yet you think that there is one anomoly the whole system is faulty?
3. No, I don't think its strange at all. Samples don't come from the ground in neatly seperated, hermetically sealed envelopes. Paranoia much?

Maybe you could provide a link to a site debunking this? Even if this particular example is questionable, C-14 found in coal is a fact like it or not. So either there's some major worldwide contamination going on (which would debunk your statement I replied to), or it's not nearly as old as you assume it to be.

OK- here's a quick one.
http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html
Here's one on coal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html