Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[racrguy]

Ok, so I can say several of evolutionists calculations have questions in validity as well. That doesn't necessarily make it true, correct? What part of the calculations have questions? That blanket statement with nothing to back it up is worthless. As far as the universe being a closed system it's funny how it MAY be a closed system, but it would still allow for billions of years of evolution continually going towards a higher, more complex system (Completely opposite of 2LOT) You can't have it both ways.

1LOT- Energy cannot be created or destroyed
- Energy was not created by natural (physical) means.
- Yet, the universe exists as energy.
- If the energy of the universe was not created naturally, then it must have been created supernaturally.
So what do you say? Probably that energy always existed. The second law of thermodynamics prevents this from being a valid explanation. It states that there is no natural means to increase the net usable energy in a closed (isolated) system.
Hmmmmm no natural means in a closed system....so we are left with....???

http://mbbc.us/creation/creation/universe.htm

What about the other evidence I mentioned?
1. Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."
2. Comets disintegrate rapidly as they approach the sun, most surviving less "than 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years." (Science says the age of cometary material is similar to the 5 billion year age of the solar system.)
3. At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," depositing it into the ocean. (Science says the age of continents is hundreds of millions of years old)
4. At the current rate of sedimentation, the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." Fossil evidence supports the current rate of sedimentation. (Science says the age of the ocean floors is around 200 million years old).
5. Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. Using the most generous allowances for evolutionary scenarios, still gives a maximum possible age for the oceans of only 62 million years. (Science says the age of the oceans are around 3 billion years old)
6. The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. (Science says the age of the earth is around 5 billion years old)
7. Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years." (Science says layers were deposited over millions of years)
8. "Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic timescale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition."
9. Radiohalos are spheres (rings in cross section) "of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay." "'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates."
10. All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate Helium (in the form of an alpha particle) as they decay. Taking into account the amount of helium flowing into and out of the atmosphere, "it would take less than 2 million years to accumulate the small amount of helium in the air today."
11. "Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, their helium retention suggest an age much less than millions of years."
12. There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people that evolutionary anthropologists say lived during the 100,000 years of the stone age. "Yet only a few thousand skeletons have been found implying that the stone age was much shorter, a few hundred years in many areas."

Yet you don't count any of this as evidence enough to be considered a theory for public schools?

http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/evidence.htm

In the "Evidence for a young universe" section


Do you have a single solitary thought in your head, or do you continually copy/paste stuff from other creationist websites? You've been called out on it once, you should stop going "well what about this" when your other arguments are shot all to hell. All you're doing is further proving your ignorance by trying to find stuff that sounds scientific. At this point you're just shotgunning any bullshit you can find and ignoring everything when someone proves you wrong.

I'll tell you what. Bring forth your best argument, the absolute best one you can find and it will be addressed. If it can be shown to be untrue, there is no reason to assume any of your other arguments will be true because your best argument should be the hardest to show to be untrue. Any argument aside from that one would only get easier to show as untrue.

[Hobie]

Edit: Unfortunately, I got this far into the post before I realized the following:

I'm sure you could, but you're copy and pasting www.earthage.org. This is an extremely biased site, not one I would exactly trust in an honest debate. I'd prefer if you cite peer reviewed journals if anything. I'm no astrophysicist so I can't argue it as well as some. I stick more to the Earth bound arguments.

I don't really see a point in arguing against the website unless you have some conclusions of your own. I'd prefer a discussion with someone who truly understands the topics. But I digress, I'll leave it at this: my knowledge is more strictly Biology, Evolution, and Earth bound arguments.

FWIW, all my words have been my own. Not that I'm against references, but c'mon...

I found your quote, foot notes and all, here:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev...oung_earth.htm

Sorry man, I figured he was copy/pasting quite a while ago. I should've spoken up and saved you some time.

PRO-TIP of the internet - Whenever someone posts up a wall of text that seems above their paygrade always copy/paste it into google.

copy/paste of psuedo-science from multiple creationists websites with no attribution! blah blah blah

I googled some of "your" statements from that post, they come up on multiple creationists sites word for word.

FAKE SCIENCE FROM SITES WITH EXTREME BIAS - SEEMS LEGIT! lulz
It's like getting a civil rights argument from stormfront.org (white supremacist site for those who don't know) LOL

Dude, you've been busted, just stop, lol.

[stephen4785]

Ok, so I can say several of evolutionists calculations have questions in validity as well. That doesn't necessarily make it true, correct? What part of the calculations have questions? That blanket statement with nothing to back it up is worthless. As far as the universe being a closed system it's funny how it MAY be a closed system, but it would still allow for billions of years of evolution continually going towards a higher, more complex system (Completely opposite of 2LOT) You can't have it both ways.

1LOT- Energy cannot be created or destroyed
- Energy was not created by natural (physical) means.
- Yet, the universe exists as energy.
- If the energy of the universe was not created naturally, then it must have been created supernaturally.
So what do you say? Probably that energy always existed. The second law of thermodynamics prevents this from being a valid explanation. It states that there is no natural means to increase the net usable energy in a closed (isolated) system.
Hmmmmm no natural means in a closed system....so we are left with....???

What about the other evidence I mentioned?
1. Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."
2. Comets disintegrate rapidly as they approach the sun, most surviving less "than 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years." (Science says the age of cometary material is similar to the 5 billion year age of the solar system.)
3. At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," depositing it into the ocean. (Science says the age of continents is hundreds of millions of years old)
4. At the current rate of sedimentation, the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." Fossil evidence supports the current rate of sedimentation. (Science says the age of the ocean floors is around 200 million years old).
5. Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. Using the most generous allowances for evolutionary scenarios, still gives a maximum possible age for the oceans of only 62 million years. (Science says the age of the oceans are around 3 billion years old)
6. The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. (Science says the age of the earth is around 5 billion years old)
7. Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years." (Science says layers were deposited over millions of years)
8. "Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic timescale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition."
9. Radiohalos are spheres (rings in cross section) "of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay." "'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates."
10. All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate Helium (in the form of an alpha particle) as they decay. Taking into account the amount of helium flowing into and out of the atmosphere, "it would take less than 2 million years to accumulate the small amount of helium in the air today."
11. "Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, their helium retention suggest an age much less than millions of years."
12. There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people that evolutionary anthropologists say lived during the 100,000 years of the stone age. "Yet only a few thousand skeletons have been found implying that the stone age was much shorter, a few hundred years in many areas."

Yet you don't count any of this as evidence enough to be considered a theory for public schools?

[Avery'sDad]

No, exlude was the only one to address my breakdown with out a blanket "nu-uh" statement.

You really don't understand how brainwashed you are. You remind me of Bruce Willis in 6th sense when he couldn't understand why he couldn't open the closet because he ignored it. Madhatter tried to explain things in the simplest of terms. And you still completely ignored facts. Keep homeschooling your kids because your obviously right and the whole world is wrong.

[racrguy]

wow. owned.

[Hobie]

Edit: Unfortunately, I got this far into the post before I realized the following:

I'm sure you could, but you're copy and pasting www.earthage.org.
I found your quote, foot notes and all, here:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev...oung_earth.htm

Sorry man, I figured he was copy/pasting quite a while ago. I should've spoken up and saved you some time.

PRO-TIP of the internet - Whenever someone posts up a wall of text that seems above their paygrade always copy/paste it into google.

[exlude]

Are you more into Gradulism or Punctuated Equilibrium?

"Well, simply, not really. As I mentioned earlier, the Science proposed by the two major contributors to the Geomagnetic Field Decay Theorem had some shady science and conclusions at best. Peer review has shown a wealth of arguments against this. I can't say I'm 100% conclusive either way, but in the timeless words of the magic eightball, "All signs point to no."

What part of my statement is "Shady science"?

Also if the universe as a whole is a closed system...then wouldn't you assume everything is running toward decay in accordance with 2LOT? How is it that everything else is breaking down but the earth is becoming more complex? In the long term there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

Creationist Duane Gish comments:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) How's that for validity MadHater?

Several of their calculations have questions in validity as well as the fact that they started with a conclusion and shape evidence to fit it. This second part doesn't make it incorrect necessarily, but not good science.

Next, just because the universe MAY be a closed system, doesn't mean everything inside of it is going to shit. If it were, we never would have had ANYTHING. Consider the Earth and life a subsystem of its own. Obviously, it won't be around forever and is on its way to higher entropy, but that doesn't prevent it from building up before that. Especially with the energy source (albeit diminishing) that is the sun. This still fits perfectly within the 2LOT. The Sun is giving energy to a lesser energetic body (the Earth and the life on it). When the sun has run out of energy and the delta between the two is equal, you will have achieved the predictions of the 2LOT.

[Maddhattter]

How do you know if the science in those books is a from a "Valid source" or not? …

Already had been covered and read by you in an earlier post. Not an outright lie, but defiantly a dishonest question.

… If I can find " proof " Jesus was God then by your admission you would believe. But what level of proof is acceptable to you? …

… If I can prove to your satisfaction that Christ rose from the dead, then all other arguments are won as well. So, I ask again for me to convince you I need evidence that will satisfy your doubt. What level of evidence would do that? …

… I would need enough evidence to show that Jesus existed, and was the son of God, beyond a reasonable doubt. …

… Again "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is too vague. … I want a quantifiable answer...such as " I need writing from 10 different sources from up to 100 years from the birth of Jesus stating they were eye witnesses of said event with no opposing writings from witnesses from the same time frame ". Or whatever suits you. …

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...asonable+Doubt

So, let restate this to put it into the current context:
The standard that must be met by your evidence in this discussion: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the Jesus is the divine son of God, thereby overcoming the presumption that Jesus is not the divine son of God.

Took me about 2 seconds to do that. Sorry, no vagueness here. Simple, defined terms, used in the proper context.

… It is easy to come on here and bash Christians, not give specific answers and just keep saying " I need evidence that can not humanly be provided". …

I gave you exactly what you asked for, then showed you I gave it to you. You then still demanded that I didn’t.

As I said, no evidence I provide will ever be sufficient for you.

For the same reason as above.

… the entire reason I believe the bible (And most Christians) is because we believe Christ rose from the dead. …

You are the one whose presuppositions are clouding your judgement.

.. I’ve already stated that they could be right. There is just no reason to think they are due to the author’s lack of credentials in the subject matter. …

… But since you do not want to even consider the possibility of it being true, you are looking for any other way to explain it except the facts. …

There are a few more instances of your dishonesty. There is also the fact that you just decided to have my part of the argument for me, so that you could knock down the strawman you built.

This is why I no longer give you any respect in any discussion.

All quotes between the liar tags are in the order they were posted.

[Maddhattter]

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley) How's that for validity MadHater?

You’ve finally brought a source that is qualified to speak on the subject. It’s a shame he’s demonstrably ignorant on his statement. The theory of evolution, by definition, does not handle the origin of life. Life has to have started to evolution to occur. No matter how life started, science would support evolution until something else fits all the evidence. You’ve been explained this, in this thread, and in “What makes the bible true”. I’ve even given the definition of evolution in this thread.

-Evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea.

Evolution is not inferred from the fossil record. It is supported by the fossil record, yes. It is also supported by genetics, biochemistry, botany…. You know, science.

Also, theories must be falsifiable, it’s not an option. If there is not a way to show the theory to be false, it cannot be a theory.

-Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is only about heat transfer, but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law.

Considering randomness intersecting randomness would be outside interaction, there is no problem. If you have a system in which things can interact, if you use your definition of entropy, they must interact eventually. Your logic is flawed because it falsifies itself.

-Once again the only answers I get is telling me I'm wrong. Well, PROVE IT. You call me a liar? PROVE ME WRONG. If your ideas could be proved then there would not be this discussion.

I’ve demonstrated how you're wrong, and all you do is ignore it and move on to another topic.

No, my ideas are proven to the extent of science. The reason we’re having this argument is because of you don’t understand the science and ignore that which shows you’re wrong.

As for the liar bit, I’ll hit that up at the end of this post.

I give you evidence and you have no refute except to call me ignorant and a liar (Very scientific). You say I have unsupported assertion's and when I give you them you say they are not valid. It's like arguing with a wall.

You’ve given no evidence. You’ve only provided assertions with invalid sources. If you only have invalid sources, then your assertions are unsupported. You finally brought one quote from someone who is qualified to discuss the topic at hand and that only makes it worse for Dr. Gish, as he should know better.

You’ve been demonstrably ignorant, as you’ve had to have the most simple concepts of this discussion explained to you. That’s ok. We’re all ignorant in a lot of ways.

You’ve been demonstrably a liar as well, but that will be handled at the end of this post.

And of course we know that science is never wrong...

It has been wrong. However, it’s always been science that’s proven it so. Never in recorded history has religion shown science to be wrong.

flat Earth hypothesis,

Perpetuated by the Catholics during the Dark Ages, when Pythagorus knew the earth was round in 500B.C and used math to prove it. This is ultimately kind of funny as Pythagorus was proving religion wrong while the Christians were still Jews.

Phlogiston theory,

Again, science proved science wrong.

Geocentric theory of the solar system

Again, pushed by religion, and if you didn’t agree, you were murdered. Even then, science proved religion wrong.

Newton's corpuscular theory of light.

Newton’s theory was as accurate as it could be with the level of technology there was to test at the time. What you actually demonstrate with this example is good science. As Newton’s theory was not completely incorrect, it has been revised and some parts dropped.

So, defend your position with valid scientific arguments...

Again, from your myriad of assertions with no valid sources, you’ve yet to bring anything to the table. So there is nothing for me to defend against. Especially your quote from Dr. Gish. The fact that he made that statement should be a constant source of embarrassment for the man.

And now, on to the show….

If you want more of a scientific view of Christianity and why we believe, try reading the book by Josh McDowell called "More than a Carpenter" which is an easier read..."Evidence that demands a Verdict" is basically the same book but very scientific/harder read.... or "The Case for Christ," by Lee Stroble. … There is a lot of science in the books.

Stephen I have been enjoying reading your posts. Something I found helped me quite a bit is the book "Case for Christ." Good book.

I have heard of it but haven't read it yet. …

So, there is good science in a book that you’ve not read?

How about reading them before you decide...that's my whole point. ...I said there is a lot of science in the books. … The science is solid, read it and decide for yourself. …

You state later that you never read at least one of the books.

So, what you’re basically saying here is we should take our high level scientific evidence from Josh McDowell, who has a whole Bachelors of Arts as his highest legitimate educational achievement, or from Lee Strobel, a man whose academic accolades include a Bachelors for Journalism and a Masters in Law. These are the scientific experts that are supposed to show us the “educated” scientific view of Christianity?

While I admit, I’ve not touched either of Mr. McDowell’s books, his credentials to discuss the topic of science don’t bode well for the man.

As for Mr. Strobel, you expect a man who converted by citing the Kalam cosmological argument as a reason, to discuss the science that he is not trained in as well? Or perhaps, all the time he spent with Michael Behe, who was shown to be either intentionally dishonest or, at best, incredulous during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. You give some stand up sources for supposed scientific support for Christianity.

… You judge the quality of the evidence from books I mentioned without even looking at them. …

You quoted my statement in the post where you said I’ve not even looked at the books.

[exlude]

OK, punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two very unlikely events. First, a number of mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals. SInce the mutation rate is low the species population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (Most mutations are neutral and the rest detrimental). Next the few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (Species sorting). Without genetic isolation (Usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed. Therefore punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutation in presence of few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast population of the main population. Although it is possible that some of these unlikely events could occur by chance occasionally, punctuated equilibrium requires it happen all the time, as revealed in the fossil record.

A recent study destroys the idea of species sorting...M.E. and L.S. Mills. 1998. No need to isolate genetics.
Also- Wetermeirer, R.L., J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, J.L. Bouzat, and K.N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population

There is a ton I disagree with in this part of the post.

First, the necessity of multiple mutations is false. With such a common occurrence of plieiotropy and polygenecity in almost all genomes...one mutation is plenty to change morphology.

Second, punctuated equilibrium is not limited to a single generation. It can and has taken place of many generations.

Third, where do you get that mutation rate is low? Mutation is actually a fairly common occurrence, it's the expression of a changed gene that is diminished from that due to the complementation (neutral expression) of genes.

Fourth, the population does not need to be large. A dominantly expressed gene among a small population can yield the same reproductive success as is necessary given it is naturally selected for.

Fifth, even if the population is large, all you need is a strong enough force of natural selection to push the population toward the "new" morphological trait.

Sixth, the idea of species selection ignores physical sexual isolation and geographical isolation. So if you want to disprove at as an argument against punctuated equilibrium, you'll have to discredit those other two mechanisms as well.

Seventh, there are many, many, many studies showing species sorting in action. Look on the first two pages of this thread for examples. While I'm not closed to the idea, you'll need to argue against common points in their research to lead me toward species selection being impossible.

Finally, geographical separation is more common than you give it credit for, even more so after mass extinction events due to the availability of new resources. Now that we have mass transit across the world, we see speciation across the world even more often.

What about the sun?
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Do you not believe in this science either?

I agree with the measurements, I don't agree with your conclusion. This argument avoids the fact that the diameter of the sun would decrease much more rapidly now than it would at its largest in its yellow dwarf phase. So if looking at it in the reverse, it would not be 11,200,000 x 5 bigger in size.

Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20 Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added. NO good either?

Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left...but this is no good, right?

I can go on and on and on...

Edit: Unfortunately, I got this far into the post before I realized the following:

I'm sure you could, but you're copy and pasting www.earthage.org. This is an extremely biased site, not one I would exactly trust in an honest debate. I'd prefer if you cite peer reviewed journals if anything. I'm no astrophysicist so I can't argue it as well as some. I stick more to the Earth bound arguments.

I don't really see a point in arguing against the website unless you have some conclusions of your own. I'd prefer a discussion with someone who truly understands the topics. But I digress, I'll leave it at this: my knowledge is more strictly Biology, Evolution, and Earth bound arguments.

FWIW, all my words have been my own. Not that I'm against references, but c'mon...

I found your quote, foot notes and all, here:

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

[racrguy]

This is what sucks about the internet and why I generally avoid threads like this anywhere, but particular this little dark corner of the internet.

On another site you might be interacting with someone who has been invited to speak at the TED talks, here it's someone who thought anyone believed the earth was over half a trillion years old.

I do it for the lulz, and to smack around the retards that believe in Creation with no valid evidence, and those who continually ask for something that they've already been provided with. I know I'm not going to convince them, and I know why I'm not going to. All I can do is beat them about the head and neck with actual valid information and let the people who aren't so unwilling to look at evidence objectively come to their own conclusions.

I do like listening to the TED talks, it often offers points of views that I hadn't thought of before, or sparks an interest and sends me off to research a topic.

[Hobie]

I'd like to point out that I know of noone who thinks the earth is 600 billion years old. It is ~4.3-4.5 billion years old.

This is what sucks about the internet and why I generally avoid threads like this anywhere, but particular this little dark corner of the internet.

On another site you might be interacting with someone who has been invited to speak at the TED talks, here it's someone who thought anyone believed the earth was over half a trillion years old.

[stephen4785]

Well, if you are speaking in terms of all organisms in the history of the Earth: Punctuated Equilibrium

I've got two major problems against Gradualism. First, it assumes that there is some kind of "goal" in evolution. But due to the random chance of mutation and the general plieiotropy of most if not all organisms, it's hard to say there's a goal. It's more a result of natural selection.

Second, it has to assume that the strength of natural selection is constant which simply isn't how the world works. Obviously, natural occurences like drought or flooding or tsunamis, etc. greatly increases the strength of natural selection.

However, I prefer to use the terms as an either/or when speaking about specific species. Some species may experience an evolutionary history that's more gradual while others might go through bouts of punctuated equilibrium.

OK, punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two very unlikely events. First, a number of mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals. SInce the mutation rate is low the species population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (Most mutations are neutral and the rest detrimental). Next the few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (Species sorting). Without genetic isolation (Usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed. Therefore punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutation in presence of few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast population of the main population. Although it is possible that some of these unlikely events could occur by chance occasionally, punctuated equilibrium requires it happen all the time, as revealed in the fossil record.

A recent study destroys the idea of species sorting...M.E. and L.S. Mills. 1998. No need to isolate genetics.
Also- Wetermeirer, R.L., J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, J.L. Bouzat, and K.N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population

What about the sun?
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Do you not believe in this science either?

Short Period Comets:
Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass. After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate. At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.20 Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system. 21 This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added. NO good either?

Oil Pressure:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left...but this is no good, right?

I can go on and on and on...

[exlude]

Are you more into Gradulism or Punctuated Equilibrium?

Well, if you are speaking in terms of all organisms in the history of the Earth: Punctuated Equilibrium

I've got two major problems against Gradualism. First, it assumes that there is some kind of "goal" in evolution. But due to the random chance of mutation and the general plieiotropy of most if not all organisms, it's hard to say there's a goal. It's more a result of natural selection.

Second, it has to assume that the strength of natural selection is constant which simply isn't how the world works. Obviously, natural occurences like drought or flooding or tsunamis, etc. greatly increases the strength of natural selection.

However, I prefer to use the terms as an either/or when speaking about specific species. Some species may experience an evolutionary history that's more gradual while others might go through bouts of punctuated equilibrium.

[stephen4785]

I'd like to point out that I know of noone who thinks the earth is 600 billion years old. It is ~4.3-4.5 billion years old.

Oooops, I stand corrected. 4 billion years old.