Evolution

I think the author either a) does not understand the science behind the big bang and evolution or b) is deliberately trying to mislead people.

I know a lot of people who have no trouble reconciling the creation myth in the Bible with evolution.

But, is all the information he provides accurate?

No. There is a lot of truth, but very little accuracy.

The geologic and paleontologic information presented in the article is all wet and any basis of information that generated it is just playing with your mind.
I could tear apart every piece of non cosmologic data without drawing a sweat


Evolution is silent on origins of life, but the Miller experiment, which took place in 1952, has been taken to ends that are undeniable, this shows how out of date your source was. Weve made replicating dextro and levo rotatory amino acids and proteins that could only be determined by modern lab equipment. In 1952 they could barely analyze muddy water

The cosmologic data has been added only as one of those ipsidixit argume nts that Creationists use . They quote themselves as a source and then use it as a basis for a silly argument.

Sedimentology shows that there are Sources and sinks of elements in the oceans . The sources include influx and transformation in the alkaline oceans. The sinks include the bottom sediments that suck up and sequester great volumes of salinity. We have beds of seawater that are underlain by salt domes and layers that are 20K ft thick. Salt doesnt stay in solution, and thhe seas rise and lower .

I didn't follow that last paragraph, Farmerman.

I just went to the bottom of your piece. ive found about that aLL the geo and bio information is crap

wE DONT HAVE ANY dinosaur DNA. DNA degrades after about 30K years, so thats bullshit

C14 is only accurate to about 40K years and runs out totally at 52K years
DARWIN had no argument about "irreducable complexity" because Irreducible complexity was a term invented by Michael Behe in his book Darwins B;lack Box. (HE wrote that book in 1995 many years after Darwins death). Whhat Behe never discusses is , what is irreducably complex, an eye? how about the light sensing cells and specialized ganglia that are in earlier animals they have light sensing but not eyes (like a scallop)

How many coal beds do you know that are in conjunction with a volcano? NONE, thats how many, so Steve Austin 9one of my favorite yahoos) is again f. o. s.
As far as coal in ANTARctica, geology has developed the model of seafloor spreading and has mapped the units around the world with geophysics. Such continental drift has split the continents , often at the center of important economic deposits, like Brazil fits nicely with the KAroo beds of Africa , where exact same deposits are found as in Minas Gerais.

please, the article is so loaded with misstatements , incorrect data, and outright lies, that its not worth reading. This sounds like an article that TALKORIGINS, a popular evolution website would have fun with. They routinely take apart some of this self published junk and provide good references of authority so you can explore in depth the research that developed the correct stories.

cheers

One thing that has a modicum of truth is the evolution of birds FROM dinosaurs. Many scientists are now rethinking this and looking at possibly birds yielded dinosaurs. Because many later dinosaurs like raptors , had feather prints in detailed fossils

coates-that one point was about the supposed "lack of sea salt" this is an old argument that , if there were no hydrologic cycle or basins or evaporitic basins, then maybe the argument would be worth considering. Most of the "salt" in the oceans is not sodium chloride, its a mixture of gypsum, potassium salts etc. These salts evaporate at different levels of salinity. The Gulf of Karabougas, or the Gulf of Mexico or even the Med, are actually evaporite beds where salt that precipitates at 75% salinity does occur at vast thicknesses.
The references that this paper give are just attempts at belittling good honest research. The actual story is that, if all these counter arguments were true, we wouldnt e using the present bases of geophysics, geochemistry, isotope chronometry, DNA decay in our studies.
Like , do you really believe that some geologist offered 250000$ for a human footprint on a trilobite body. I dont think so. If there were a scientist who found this , he(or she) would want it reported as an anomoly that needed desparate levels of study. Nobody in the geosciences holds any piece of data as inviolate, we are the most contentious bunch of coots out thyere
The footprint of the human and the dinosaur found together in the Paluxey shales of The Brazos R in Texas , was found to be a fraud. The footprint was aactually chieseled using a rotary carver like a Dremel . It was kind of laughable and was immediately shut up when outed.

Recently setanta and I "outed" a well known Creation imposter who was part of a famous fraud in Pa. He claimed to be the partner of a 'fossil hunter" who found human skeletal poarts in the Permian coal measures. It was just garbage.
Im not sayinganything to klownterfit because K'fit is just posting someone elses stuff. The real fun comes when someone tries toback this junk with 'Creation Resarch"

BTW, its easy to find where this came from by clipping a small section and plopping it into Google. the quotes will show up in the original document. I dont feel like doing this cuz Im baking some apple pies and I gotta check on em

Best as I can tell it was written by Professor Enigma. Mmmhmmm. I found it at a bunch of sites.

It's very poorly written in my opinion. It seems like whoever wrote it thought he was making himself sound really smart/educated. I can picture him beaming at himself.

Look how shoddy this is...
"The fact is, they don't know and it plain and simply doesn't happen. Of course, they don't know where these laws came from either or how they came into effect, but they believe it happened. That is why Evolution is a religion, I think it is a dumb religion. Nobody was there for this "Big Bang" but somehow it happened."

Even the title is laughable.

To say he knows 40 reasons why evolution could not have happened is one thing, but to say he has 40 reasons why it didn't happen bothers me. Just something awful in the wording there.

Sounds like Bush wrote it.....

I realized why it bothers me so. It's as if he feels his intended audience (the gullible/blank slates) will be incapable of equating "Could not have" with "Therefor didn't."

And so he just skips the middle man, so his audience isn't forced resort to any ammount of logic.

the Perfesser Enigma is one of a few of the creationist writers who quote heavily from other sources and cut and paste. You can see the variable writing styles and the sometimes use of other Craeationist literature and even legit tech articles (usually from which the author extracts a statement that, if read in context, doesnt say what the quote states at all.

the interesting things are the actual trained scientists whove given their lives over to religion and that act alone starts Devolving their contributions in their sciences. Steve Austin used to be a mineralogist who, with out much great thought, found that an isotope of Polonium can be used to produce information about granites. He then jumped off the boat by saying that granites were really young, then he just went off the end.

Youre right, the semi techy explanations are done more for "sounding smart" than providing any actual facts that are indesputable. Itd take a real long time to make the arcane arguments clear and then remove the implications of the 'it is impossible that..."

Many times the Craetionist "science camp" tries mere volume and girth of pages than focusing on a good argument.

while looking for a source site for that article I found a good many websites devoted to debunking evolution. It's a pretty scary thing to me.

Expert analysis, Farmer.

Yeah, the main tenet of evolution is the concept that the largest dinosaurs learnt to fly. What a load of drivel! Dinosaurs occupied every possible niche space from tiny little ones to aquatic creatures (there is only one marine reptile left).

Did you know there are 15 species of gliding lizards/dragons? No-one has explained to them yet that their 'short limbs' and heavy 'balancing tails' preclude such activity.

It actually says that, Mr Still? I didn't bother to read it. Holy crap.

But if any animal ever learned how to fly by pure force of will or muscle alone it would be the T-Rex.