Good point.

With limited knowledge, Darwinism was correctly embraced as the better theory. Now with more knowledge about variation and mutation in the chromosomal patterns , the "stasis" of useful genes observed within each organism makes creation seem more logical. But your point is taken, that this stasis could also be explained by evolution because the large time-frames would make observed change unlikely in the short period we have been analysing DNA. Good point!

Genetics is a major part of the debate.
But if you would like to discuss the fossil record too, I have no problem with that.

Evolutionists explain the missing transitionary forms by saying fossils do not easily form, therefore during a rapid transition phase of earth's environment its unlikely to have many transitional fossils.
Creationists explain that all the animals existed simultaneously, but were fossilised in a different order because of the way the flood covered over the landscape, and the order of submersion of the carcasses.
I have a different explanation, I believe the wetlands environment dominated during the carboniferous , and fossils easily fossilise in a wetlands environment. Mammals were in more dryer environments which scientists agree were not widespread in the Carboniferous age. So do scientists agree that fossilisation does not occur as well in a dryer environment.

So evolution does not beat the creationist viewpoint on the fossil record, all three theories have to be analysed for their empirical accuracy. I really do not like the evolutionist theory on the fossil record, because in those transitional layers I believe you should find at least one transitionary form between the masses of pre-transition extinct forms and the new masses of post-transition proliferate forms during each transition.

Oh my....i've just realised i'm a fossil fan

Edit because i can

Its must be great when you can just make up your own evidence.

No kidding.

Most people who believe in evolution do so mostly out of faith in the opinions of other people. To really understand evolution requires a great deal of study.

The following is not a statement about evolution, its a statement about human beings: There are many intelligent, and comparatively well informed people who do not believe in evolution. There are some who not only lack belief in evolution, they have belief that evolution is wrong. They may be wrong, but they actually have good reason for being wrong.

If Howzit is completely sincere in everything he says here, then I think he is worthy of respect.

He is obviously coming from a creationist standpoint, and gives much indirect evidence for having been steeped in creationist discourse. The quality of that discourse has improved a great deal in the last decade (i think the internet is to thank, in wearing away at subcultural isolation), but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. The cherry picking in that community is pretty strong - and the thing about cherry picking is, when someone else does it for you, its very easy for you to miss it. No matter how smart you are, or how honest you are, it can be very hard to know just how bad the cherry picking is when you are in in community.

Any intelligent, honest person, lacking formal higher education in evolution, steeped in creationist discourse, might reasonable reach a rational, intelligent conclusion that evolution is most likely false.

I don't have the time to explore all of howzit criticisms. Not this month. If he is honest and sincere, he will eventually figure it out for himself.

We are all emotional, and we all have some tendency to prefer evidence that is more emotionally pleasing.

I feel that insulting people who disagree with you increases their emotional incentive to find ways to deny the evidence. If there was any hope of that person engaging in an honest inquiry, and that motive is lessened as a result of impolite dialog, then everyone loses.

And yet, anyone who thinks that homeopathy is valid can go **** themselves.

Well I put forward some basic facts to explain my position, its your chance to respond with facts. Unfortunately sarcasm is not evidence. I really am interested in facts, the only reason i'm not a "creation through evolution" type christian is because when looking into evolution the evidence appears insufficient.

Sarcasm is all anyone ever gets here most of the time. Especially if you don't agree with them.

Well you know the saying "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". The word wit is related to intelligence and humour. Lol!!

Thanks for the conciliatory tone of your post.

Have you ever thought that some evolutionists have the emotional propensity not to believe in God? This could affect their interpretation of the facts.

Maybe if I am honest and sincere I will keep finding more scientific support for creationism? And on the other hand if you are honest and sincere this would require you to be objective too, evolutionists are very confident in their hypothesis, and often this confidence unfortunately leads to "tinted glasses".

I like to look at what the evolutionary scientists themselves are saying and use their own findings, you would be amazed what comes out from , for example, the fossil record. Scientists themselves admit the land surface was smaller during the early Cambrian, and large portions of previous oceans then became land surfaces. And yet they are committed to the view that lower layers are older, therefore oceanic trilobites definitely existed before land animals. The fossil evidence says no such thing concerning trilobites, the fossil evidence just confirms that oceans became land surfaces, therefore of course you would have oceanic sediment below land-based fossils in most cases, because most of the land surface was previously under water. And so the creation of the theoretical geologic column is not based on pure logic, but the propensity towards evolutionism. These same evolutionary assumptions are causing continuous misinterpretations of geologic layers. I prefer just to look at the facts. The facts are that certain extinct types did proliferate during certain past ages, but proliferation does not mean exclusivity as the "living fossils" that are increasingly found do indicate.

Geology is not a science based on evolutionary biology.

True! Evolutionary biology is a science based on geological observations.

Your post makes false statements about geology based on evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists don't set the dates and processes of strata, geologists do and have no bias toward biology.

the issue with some of the scientific details of evolution is the assumption that things have always and will always move at the same pace and in the same 'scientific' manner they do now,,,which is absolutely not provable,,,,

That was more or less the basis used by Darwin. It was discarded largely by the scientific community long ago. The formation of niches and impact of major catastrophes plays a large role. Some aspects, such as the genetic mutation rate being a constant, were only recently discovered.

The advent of molecular biology has redefined the landscape by placing creatures in their actual genetic relationship instead of their "apparent" relationship which was done before gene analysis was available.

The geologic data has proven that a steady state version of evolution isn't true. There were periods of steady evolution broken by events, such as the asteroid that struck mexico 63 million years ago, that allowed major changes to happen quickly... by the human time scale anyway.

Those that support the theory of evolutionist do generally interpret the geological layers according to a progression over time. Their interpretations are based on evolutionary assumptions that are not necessarily the most logical projection of the available data.

Your statement is 100% false. What is your source?

Geological dating is done by material analysis and cross referencing. Biology has absolutely nothing to do with it but is used as a general reference in "ages" or "periods". There are a few instances where biology can "confirm" a dating of strata, but those cases are few and very special.

How dating is actually done.

Circularity?

The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested. An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly. So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims).

WOAH, I was getting all warm and fuzzy after the last post, then you go right ahead and validate my consistent irritation at the nonsense we deal with daily.


But you know, I have to take some umbrage at the whole thing really. Here we are defending advanced genetics, taxonomy, geology, and biology in a forum with maybe 12 people who follow the science forum, where over half are pretty much scientifically illiterate, and the other half specialize in fields which rarely if ever touch on the periphery of this subject matter.

For such people as myself, metal, massage to defend this subject matter takes a lot of remedial reading on a subject while really cool, is not our bread and butter. This explains our frustration, and it explains the quick one off comments. Then we have a person who does not understand science trying to poke holes in what is probably the most well founded theory in science.

I have a challenge for howzityoume, go join the forums over at the JREF, where hundreds of scientists, some of which have lots of time on their hands to walk you through your misunderstandings will be more than happy to help you along the path to understanding.

http://forums.randi.org/

Expecting us few who are not biologists to explore every detail is not really fair, but expecting hundreds of individuals, some of which really are evolutionary biologists to respond is a little more effective.

Go a head and create a thread just like this one in the science forum over at the JREF. Feel free to link back here, I am sure some of us would enjoy to tag along.