Evolution v. Creation

[StephenColbert]

MarySchuhriemen said:

I would like to see what scientists back up the theories you brought up, and if they are biased towards young earth. Since you will reject carbon dating because it is supported by evolutionary ideas, we could also reject the theories that are supported by young earth ideas.

how about the fact that they carbon dated a frshly dead seal, and it said it was 500 years old? or the LIVE mollusk (sp) that was carbon dated at 1500 years old? how do you need a scientist to bnack that up?

also, evolution supports the idea that everything is going from disorder to order, but creation says that everything is going from order to disorder, if you put a brick in the middle of a feild, it will eventually erode and go away. as ppl get older. they detiriorate and die. your socks get holes in them when you wear them too much. If your socks have holes in them and you wear them, the holes don't get better, they get worse. order>disorder. I have another post to make , but it will be incredibly long, so I need time to write it up.

[MattBeifuss]

Wow, I don't exactly know how, but I had completely forgotton about this thread. I wouldn't even have remembered except that Stephen linked to it in the origins of CHARGE thread. (Well, actually, I forget everything, so this shouldn't exactly be surprising.)

I'll have to catch up before I can respond adequately. One thing I would like to ask, though:

howabout the fact that they carbon dated a frshly dead seal, and it said it was 500 years old? or the LIVE mollusk (sp) that was carbon dated at 1500 years old? how do you need a scientist to bnack that up?

Now, two problems here:
A: no back up. No link. No nothing. You don't even specify who "they" is. Is "they" Duane Gish? Charles Darwin? The Harlem Globetrotters? You gotta be more specific.

B: Carbon dating never has and never will be used to date the newly dead or still living. It's not what its designed to do and its disingenuous to set up tests that ignore this. I think I explained this in more detail earlier. I might not have, though, as I've debated this on at least three different boards and my memory is a little hazy.

Then, there's the issue of your second assertation about chaos v. order.

evolution supports the idea that everything is going from disorder to order

That's just completely dead wrong. Evolution assumes order to begin with.


P.S.
Just out of curiosity, did they carbon date the wee mollusk's body, or its shell??

[MattBeifuss]

In re: Race's post on the age of the earth. I can't respond adequately because responding to each of his points would require about a paragraph, and seeing as his points are each ALREADY a paragraph, I have serious doubts as to whether most people would actually be able to finish the enitre thing, especially as it'd be loaded with jargon. Rather than just say "Race is wrong, trust me" though, I'll post two links which answer (I think) all of his points, if you wanna look it up for yourself.

First: General FAQ/Explanation of the Earth's age and problems with some creationis dating methods, such as Helium and Mineral buildup in the Ocean.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit

Second: A general description of Isochron dating. (Which includes at least five different methods of radiological dating.)
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs

[MattBeifuss]

I have a suggestion on how we should conduct this debate from now on. Rather than bring up humongous posts that list every argument that has ever been brought up about something like the earth's age, or whatnot, we should try limiting ourselves to a few specific points that seem the most compelling. That way the argument will be easier to follow, and the arguments themselves don't get buried by the sheer weight of all the complementary arguments that came before them.

If one point is conceeded to the other side, then we can move from there to somewhere else, either within the issue or to another issue altogether.

[MattBeifuss]

RaceWright said:

If you are to argue that a literal interpretation forces God to be a fool, then I would say that forcing anyother intrepretation forces God to deny himself, and make himself into an undetailed God, a God that doesn't Love personally, and etc etc.

I would really not like to get into this line of thought!!!!

So if we don't insult the God that each case implies (afterall he is the same God, I hope) that would be great

You're absolutely right, and I apologize. I've just rewritten the whole conclusion altogether.

[StephenColbert]

Matt said:

Then, there's the issue of your second assertation about chaos v. order.

That's just completely dead wrong. Evolution assumes order to begin with.

big bang, primordeal soup, mutation...

I don't see any order.
doesn't a human have more order than a a one celled organism? or even a chimp. even if it started with order, it's getting more orderly (which is not reality) . so my argument still stands.

carbon dating www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-116b.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm
these are scientific studies, not assumptions.

[RaceWright]

It appears that the sides have been drawn up, Race and Stephen vs Matt and Mary.

Let me limit the next post to being purely about the answer to one question: What benefit would a pair of wings have to an animal (or insect) that cant fly?

(when I say "wings" I mean wings that havent fully "evolved" yet, and cannot sustain flight)

[MattBeifuss]

StephenColbert said:

big bang, primordeal soup, mutation...

I don't see any order.

That's cause you aren't looking hard enough. First of all, the Big Bang and Primordial soups were already hashed out earlier in this debate. We're talking about biological evolution, not abiogenesis. The two aren't related.
As to mutations, yes, they are more or less random. HOWEVER, the system by which some are weeded out and some aren't presupposes order, in that weak and harmful mutations usually will be removed, and beneficial mutations will thrive. I can explain this in more depth if you want.

doesn't a human have more order than a a one celled organism? or even a chimp.

No. A human has greater complexity, not greater order.

even if it started with order, it's getting more orderly (which is not reality) . so my argument still stands.

No, it's not getting more orderly, its getting more complex. I'm going to try writing a longer post later on the whole question of order v. complexity and chaos theory.

carbon dating www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-116b.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm
these are scientific studies, not assumptions.

Unfortunately, your links were not scientific studies. They were someone setting up and knocking down a straw man. No responsible scientists use radiocarbon dating as evidence for evolution, pretty much for the reasons given on your site.
I would like to note that the website provided no evidence outside of the author's assertations. No references to experiments or papers, no nothing. No scientific study is gonna be completed in the space of 1 page. It's just not going to happen. Again, I would urge that you look at my first link on the age of the earth for the REAL reasons that scientists have come to these old-earth conclusions.

Lastly, your underlying assumption that order cannot come from disorder is wrong also. More on this later.

[MattBeifuss]

RaceWright said:

It appears that the sides have been drawn up, Race and Stephen vs Matt and Mary.

Well, <G> I don't exactly agree with Mary, either. We agree on the age of the earth, but not on biological evolution, at least, not fully.

Let me limit the next post to being purely about the answer to one question: What benefit would a pair of wings have to an animal (or insect) that cant fly?

(when I say "wings" I mean wings that havent fully "evolved" yet, and cannot sustain flight)

Many.
There are insects today that have rudimentary wings that are incapable of flight. They use them to skim across water. Immature chickens flap their wings in order to get more tractions when trying to ascend a steep slope. Penguins use their wings for swimming, Ostriches use their wings as sails, and some birds and insects use their wings (and winglike appendages) to attract mates or to startle potential predators. Many mammals have winglike flaps of skin between their limbs that help them glide. Other things could be imagined, like a wing that's too weak for flying could still help you jump higher than your legs would allow you to, it might provide camoflage, or, how about this:
Assume that the rudimentary wing IS entirely useless. Devoid of ANY value to the body. But it still sticks out as a place for a predator to grab hold of. When mr. Mantis or whoever does indeed grab this rudimentary wing, it just pops off, leaving its former owner free and none the worse for having lost something it didn't need in the first place.

This is list is by no means exuasitive, and I'm sure I could come up with other uses for a wing in various stages before flight if I thought about it long enough.

[StephenColbert]

birds have light (breakable) bones, short feet, and wings. whatever evolved into a bird at one point would have been incredibly clumsy, not able to fly, and very fragile. it wouldn't have survived long enough to become a bird.

[StephenColbert]

talking about complexity,

if things are getting more COMPLEX then why are the fossils in the bottom of the grand canyon are MORE complex then the ones at the top? if things were getting more complex, then the more complex fossils would be at the top.

[MattBeifuss]

StephenColbert said:

birds have light (breakable) bones, short feet, and wings. whatever evolved into a bird at one point would have been incredibly clumsy, not able to fly, and very fragile. it wouldn't have survived long enough to become a bird.

Says you. You're assuming alot of things. First: You're assuming they started with hollow bones, which makes no sense since hollow bones are an adaption that aids flight, so lighter bones would have developed alongside flight or after limited flight had already been achieved.
As to short legs, all I can say is HUH??? I know ducks have short legs, but what about cranes or storks or flamingos? And even if they did have short legs as a rule now, that doesn't mean they always had short legs. I don't see how this holds any water at all.

if things are getting more COMPLEX then why are the fossils in the bottom of the grand canyon are MORE complex then the ones at the top? if things were getting more complex, then the more complex fossils would be at the top.

Uum, could you explain this better? You didn't give a link or any evidence. I can't argue this when I don't know where it's coming from.

[RaceWright]

ok, lets assume that birds started out with solid bones before they started flying. I am not sure about this, but wouldn't solid bones inhibit flight, (not just by the extra weight, which is exponetial) but also the bones need to be flexible, in order to sustain flapping around. I seems logical to me that the first "birds" would have tried flight, found that because their bones were so heavy and inflexible that flight was impossible, and given up. If they were to give up, who would pass the idea down the children? It wouldnt be in the genes, as it is a brand new idea. From this angle, evolution requires thousands of generations of very persistant birds to create flight. (until actual flight is achieved, it isnt a characteristic, it is an idea, as it hasnt been achieved)

Furthermore, who put this idea into their heads? You and I dont go about thinking, hhmmm if I flap my arms hard enough maybe I will fly? we are well "adapted" (I believe through God's orginial design) to live here on the ground, a bird that had been living fine on the ground for thousands of years isnt going to want to start flying, it is content to be where it is.

Matt, Sorry about the lack of links for you to check out, as always I recommend AnswersinGenisis.org (or whatever the web site is)

[MattBeifuss]

RaceWright said:

ok, lets assume that birds started out with solid bones before they started flying. I am not sure about this, but wouldn't solid bones inhibit flight, (not just by the extra weight, which is exponetial) but also the bones need to be flexible, in order to sustain flapping around.

Not exactly. The Pterosaurs that birds are beleived to have evolved from show signs of gradually thinning bones, and bats have solid bones. So they don't necessairily have to be hollow in order to permit flight.

I seems logical to me that the first "birds" would have tried flight, found that because their bones were so heavy and inflexible that flight was impossible, and given up. If they were to give up, who would pass the idea down the children? It wouldnt be in the genes, as it is a brand new idea. From this angle, evolution requires thousands of generations of very persistant birds to create flight. (until actual flight is achieved, it isnt a characteristic, it is an idea, as it hasnt been achieved)

Not exactly. You're making the assumption that there are no intermediate steps between being landbound and flight. Getting more traction, aiding movement in swampy conditions, gliding, etc.

Here's an idea: We know that there are insects which use their incomplete wings for hydroplaning, in order to skim over water. Now, imagine that as these wings get more and more adaptable to skimming over heavy water, they eventually beging providing lift and actually allow the insect to "skim," for short periods, on air. This proves to be an advantage and the species slowly develops wings more and more suited to limited, and finally full, flight.
This isn't necessairily how flight evolved in insects, but it's a good example of how there are always intermediate steps between one thing and the other. Very gradual ones.

For birds, we should look at the fossil record. The record pretty plainly shows small dinosaurs developing skin flaps and such that are aids in jumping from cliff to cliff or tree, and then slowly becoming heavier, gliding pterosaurs, who develop larger and larger wings and smaller and smaller body mass as they gradually become more manouverable and closer to true flight. Then there are intermediaries like Archeopteryx, Coelophysis, and Lisboasaurus estesi.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird

In other words, a good approximation might be jumping, longer jumping, even longer jumping, jumping with some gliding, more gliding, even more gliding, gliding with greater lift, gliding with even more lift, even more, better, gliding, some more gliding that starts including more flapping, and on and on in tedium up until flight is achieved.

Furthermore, who put this idea into their heads? You and I dont go about thinking, hhmmm if I flap my arms hard enough maybe I will fly? we are well "adapted" (I believe through God's orginial design) to live here on the ground, a bird that had been living fine on the ground for thousands of years isnt going to want to start flying, it is content to be where it is.

Except it hasn't been on the ground for thousands or millions of years. It's been spending more and more time in the air, and relying more and more on gliding and limited flight as a means of gathering food, escaping predators, and whatnot. This isn't something that just pops into one member of a line's population and then leads to the creature just flying. It's a gradual process.

Matt, Sorry about the lack of links for you to check out, as always I recommend AnswersinGenisis.org (or whatever the web site is)

That's ok, the debate right now is limited more or less to logical discussion. The one problem is that all the actual scientific evidence that hasn't been directly refuted has been in favor of evolution, and the foundation for evolution rests on the evidence, not just logical deductions, so to fully challenge it, you gotta have more evidence.

[StephenColbert]

no matter how gradually birds may heve evolved, at one point (a longer period of time if it was realy gradual) they (the birds) would have been a very very infirior (sp) speicies. they wouldn,t be able to fly, they wouldn't be able to climb or run very well, and they would have brittle breakable bones.