Evolution? How?

Hello RexRed ! I am from Maine...Norridgewock to be exact where R your located?

I thought it happened slowly.

thunder,

we were waiting to hear about the evidence you read in that book.

with all these cutting edge lifeforms in place it's happening just like spring time tothe north.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

Urgh, you chose a horrible article. I hate it when articles don't give the full reference. How am I supposed to find "Organic Geochemistry 6:463-471, 1984" on search engines if I don't have the names of the author or the title of the article?

Even in PNAS, which has IMO horrible referencing techniques, they at least give the author name so you can search for the article and go directly to it, instead of first having to search for the Organic Geochemistry website then searching through a list of their journals to find Volume 6 and then searching through the contents page for page whatever...

Point 4A, coal formation, looks as if they've taken information directly from the abstract without even reading the whole article. I'm not sure myself about what the main article states, because I have to pay for access to it.

All of his other referenced evidence comes from their own website. Walker, for instance, does have a doctorate but not in geological sciences. He only has a bachelors and that doesn't make him much of an expert. Sure, he may have had some experience in coal mines, but he hasn't done much geological research now has he?

The other one, Sarfati, has a PhD in Spectroscopy. According to his helium argument, there is not enough to warrant an old earth age. However, this article (http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp3.html) with reference to a journal that actually appears in Entrez PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) states that in fact, that helium argument is flawed because it does not take into account all the ways helium could escape the Earth's atmosphere altogether.

Stalactites and stalagmites? I'm not a geologist, so I wouldn't know how to argue against that one. Notice, however, that in that article there is no evidence to back up their claim. It doesn't matter that there are many examples in the magazine. The fact that they haven't referenced them is either laziness or them trying to cover up something.

The Opal argument is also taken out of context. What were the conditions of the forming of the opal? What pressure was used? What temperatures? Is it just as hard? Is it softer? Does it decay more easily? They tell us nothing of this.

Oceans not salty enough? I'm not an oceanologist, but apparently, oceanologists are having difficulties measuring the chemical content of the oceans because they're just too big. How the Heck this guy can say the ocean isn't salty enough when no darned scientist can tell how much salt there really is in the ocean, mystifies me.

There! Those are those arguments refuted, albeit in a half-arsed way.

By the way, evolution can happen very quickly in bacteria. I guess it all depends on the lifespan of the organism and how quickly it can procreate.

wolf-all those points in Answers in Genesis have been discussed and pretty well debunked . For example, the stalactite, opal, etc issues. We can, by artificial means , create these natural substances , even diamonds. However, the crystal lattices and chemistry are quite another thing. The "stalactite formations under a highway bridge, are more like helictites that are hollow speleothems that form in a supersaturated condition and dont represent the ages of water containing Ca/Mg Hco3 in ground water sol;utions. Also flowing saturated water within massive limestone deposits in which the pH is adjusted by Sulfitic bacteria can result in the deposition of a mineral called aragonite layered with calcite and magnesite .Those little stalactites under bridges have no dsicernable mineral differences and can form as enucleates just like a kids "Crystal growing kit" The occurence of one means of deposition does not cast doubt on another
We can create a diamond in a lab retort in under a few hours. Nature has taken a totally different route.Natures retort consists of a volcanic pipe or a meteoritite hit in Carbonate terrains.
HOW BOUT SALT. Salt is a big sink for the entire planet. Whenever excess salts build up in salinity basins of the oceqns, the salts begin to deposit and become entrapped in huge salina basins . There are 5 huge basins in the US of massive underground(about 1000km thick) salt that resulted from trapped evaporite deposits from the Ordovician to the JurassicThere are also hundreds of salt domes in the US alone with an estimated volume of 1500 Km ^3. These AIG guys fail to recognize that the ocean can only hold enough salt to supersaturation, then it begins to deposit as the concentration increases. WE haveenough salt to last us forever. Its all from the collection and entrapment of continental salts that occur at amounts over saturation.

Helium forms in rad decay and , in many cases , just like our atmospheric gases, it stratifies through the atmosphere and leaves. the earth is NOT a closed system as the Creationists want to believe

as fAR AS THE EARTH ONLY BEING 6000 YEARS OLD, THE EVIDENCE SEZ OTHERWISE.

We have evidences of ice layers in THE GreenlandIce cap that go back over 800000 years. WE have seasonal deposits of silts and clays in quiet periglacial lakes(called varves)that go back 200000 years, evidence of cross cut faults that can be dated by tree ringsback to 50000 years, we have geomagnetic reversals that make a good calendar(they go back to 500million years), we have about 35 reasonably robust radioactive decay techniques(wecan date things back to about 3.8 Byears), we have amino acid racemization timing that can go back 45000 years(although its nopt a pefect technique), > Also we have a measurable sea floor spreading rate and glacial deposit superposition(about 2cm a year).All these methods and more structural ones that would take a day to explain can show that the world is waay over 6000 years old, and, besides, even if we didnt have any geologic data we have civilizations and evidences of habitation much older than 6000 years. What? did they have to do their thing and wait in some heavenly line for the earth to be created? No , everything stated in the AIG is just pure unfounded crap and is unscientifically derived.Anybody who can think critically in The Creationists camp, must have a sneaking suspicion that their data is based upon major errors and(in many cases) outright fraud(that is, unless they are just stubbornly deaf to he evidence).

Thats why the Intelligent design school is trying to make as much airspace between themselves and Classic Creationism.Intelligent Designers stipulate that the earth IS 4.5 By old and that all the rules AND THEORIES OF SCIENCE ARE CORRECT, They dont want any thing to do with CreationismBecause the more Creationism tries to sneak into ID teachings, the more that the case in DOver will lose on a summary judgement alone and ID will be DOA even before they reach the Supreme Court. ID wants nothing more than to take the air outta Edwards v AGuillard, and the only way they can do it is by renouncing any connection with Creationist teaching.

I picture Jerry Falwell walking into a room wearing a cheap rubber Albert Einstein mask and saying, "no, really, I'm a scientist, see, I *look* like a scientist, don't I. Wait, I can even sound like a scientist, listen, E=MC2, E=MC2, hey, get your hands off me, what are you doing? I'm Albert Einstein, I'm Albert... huh, no, it's not a mask, no really, hey quit trying to look under there".

Sounds like me on a binge...

Got a link we can read?

Southren Maine

I am very interested in what makes you think that genetics flip flop... Why can't evolution all be one contiguous expansion from rocks to humans?

I grew up in the fog... Jonesport Maine (Moosebec reach) is the foggiest place on the earth... When the fog rolls in and the fog horn blows it is a magical reality... People there take the fog for granted but living there most of my life I learned the things that the fog can teach... It is usually chilly and breezy in Jonesport. Jonesport is a peninsula that sticks out into the Bay of Fundy. So if you drive either way out of town about fifteen minutes it will become warm again and the fog will lift... It is like Brigadoon...

The thing I liked the most was that on a certain very rare days the fog would roll in hard and there would be a heat wave in Jonesport it happens once a summer if that... rarely are the conditions right. But I remember a heat wave where the wind died down completely and the temperature reached over one hundred degrees. I was fortunate to, at the time be down on the beach. The water was perfectly flat and fog was rising profusely up from the waters surface. It was unbelievably bright and sunny. The salt in the air made it medicinal. The fog became so pronounced in the heat that it was like being in a cloud... Like heaven on earth... The large rock bound coast and the fir trees surrounding a sullen cove added to the elevated heat.

I felt so fortunate to have experienced a day like this.. It's memory remains seared and sacred in my mind like a mystical place and experience that comes only once in a lifetime... I moved away from Jonesport years ago but there in not a more beautiful place on the earth to me...

Errmm... Rocks dont reproduce. You do know that right?

Actually rocks do "reproduce"... in the middle of suns... Rocks reproduce by means of fission.

What is your freakin problem?! Are you trying to say that rocks have natural selection? I am in no way even close to a scientist and I know that rocks don't evolve.

They have fallen to squabbling among themselves . . . Thank you, oh my Lord Dog, for sewing confusion in the ranks of mine enemies . . .

Your lord is a dog...

Well, what's your totem?

A cross...

Your Sig seems to favor the scientific method, whereas many of your posts seem to run counter to it.

Are you playing devils advocate on some posts, or pulling our chain? Or do you see the Sig differently somehow?