The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution

Wallbuilders ^ | 2008 | David Barton

[allmendream]

The basics have not changed, our understanding of them has been refined. It is a really simple concept throughout, but the details can get kind of tricky if you are ignorant of the Scientific method.

Sorry, but loss of structures in evolution (which you first attempt to deny was evolution because it wasn't advancement) is just one type of evolution.

At one time there were no mammals with hooves or wings. Where do you think they came from (or do you think they were there from the beginning?)?

At one time there was neither nylon to digest or a bacteria that could digest nylon. Where do you think nylon digesting bacteria came from?

At one time there were no placental mammals. Where did they come from and why are non-placental mammals limited to Australia and the opossum?

[Sopater]

the details can get kind of tricky if you are ignorant of the Scientific method.

I am not ignorant of the scientific method, and acutely aware of the fact that the scientific method cannot be applied to the ToE as it relates to mammals evolving from non-mammals, or even to eukaryotic cells evolving from prokaryotic cells.

At one time there were no mammals with hooves or wings... At one time there were no placental mammals...

Science has not been able to observe the appearance, nor produce in experimentation, any of these things from anything that is not already one of these things. This would be a critical step in the scientific method.

As for the "nylon-eating bacteria", if it started out as bacteria and its still bacteria, then that's not the kind of change that I'm arguing against.

[Coyoteman]

Here are some good links on radiocarbon dating:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

[Coyoteman]

Science has not been able to observe the appearance, nor produce in experimentation, any of these things from anything that is not already one of these things. This would be a critical step in the scientific method.

Sorry, your understanding of the scientific method is incorrect.

[allmendream]

You are absolutely ignorant of the Scientific method AND evolution if you think that the former is non-applicable to the latter. I suggest you review any number of Scientific journals dealing with evolution or phylogeny. Try...

www.mymedline.com

then enter the search term “evolution” and then tell me that of the thousands of Scientific articles cited you cannot find a single one that utilizes the Scientific method.

You think evolution is incapable of ‘adding information’ or ‘increasing complexity’, no?

If so then the mutations in an enzyme that formerly broke down an ester but was incapable of breaking down nylon; such that now it is a rather poor digester of ester but an excellent digester of nylon is certainly ‘adding information’. Formerly it couldn’t break down nylon, now it does little else. Evolution, and an example of increased “information”/”complexity” to boot.

So do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals were there right from the beginning? You can admit it. No need to be embarrassed.

[Soliton]

I presume that you mean a purely naturalistic explanation, regardless of the truth.

I was clear in stating that it would have to be a scientific explanation to affect the current established science-- evolution through natural selection. As to "truth" the only proven methodology for establishing truth is scientific method. Everything else is superstition and wishful thinking.

[Soliton]

Even with all of the advances we've made in science over the last 200 years, none have "scientifically" advanced the ToE.

????????????. How about the discovery of DNA? How about deciphering the human genome? How about the discovery of ring species and intermediate forms in the fossil record? Your ignorance of evolution is profound.

[Soliton]

There are many examples of intermediate stages in eye development in nature from light sensitive “eye spots” to the most complex eyes. Study. Learn.

[Sopater]

enter the search term “evolution” and then tell me that of the thousands of Scientific articles cited you cannot find a single one that utilizes the Scientific method.

I've got a better idea. Show me just one of them that uses the scientific method to support your claim that hoofed and winged mammals came from something other than hoofed and winged mammals.

So do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals were there right from the beginning? You can admit it. No need to be embarrassed.

Sure I do. I'm not embarrassed. Nor am I afraid to admit that my belief is based on faith. The difficult (or impossible) thing for the ToE koolaid drinker to swallow is that their theory is also based on faith.

Now, do you believe that hoofed and winged mammals evolved from bacteria? You can admit it, no need to be embarrassed. At least you have the support of the masses, that should give you some comfort in the absence of verifiable science.

[Soliton]

Carbon dating matches up well with tree ring dating and sedimentary deposition analysis. The earth may be 4 Billion years old, It may be six, but it is billions of years old.

[allmendream]

You made the claim that the Scientific Method wasn't applicable to the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection; and now you refuse to back it up.

So you REALLY believe that all species (or “kinds” if you prefer) that ever existed on earth were created at the same moment? Amazing how much Scientific evidence one must ignore to come to that particular position. T. Rex roamed with Humans and Austrolopithocine the three toed horse and the Dodo! Wow! What a magically ludicrous world you must live in.

And no, eukaryotes evolved from bacteria. Multicellular eukaryotes evolved from single cell eukaryotes. Hoofed and winged mammals evolved from other mammals.

And do you admit that nylon digesting bacteria is an example of a “gain of information”? You did the typical “it is still a bacteria” dance, but previously you intimated that the loss of information example of a fish in a cave becoming eyeless was the only type of evolution ever observed. Do you revise your remarks such that you do now accept that molecular evolution can take place such that an enzyme can change substrates and thus lead to an entirely new lifestyle for a species?

[Sopater]

Sorry, your understanding of the scientific method is incorrect.

Wow, that's a powerful argument. In one sentence you've clearly demonstrated that your understanding of the scientific method is far superior. Thanks for the education. (/s)

[Soliton]

I am not ignorant of the scientific method, and acutely aware of the fact that the scientific method cannot be applied to the ToE as it relates to mammals evolving from non-mammals, or even to eukaryotic cells evolving from prokaryotic cells.

Science can document mammals evolving from non-mammals in the fossil record and in genetic studies. However, your objection is based on ignorance. Species, genus, family etc. are artificial constructs created by taxonomists to help in understanding how different living things are related. "Species" do not exist in nature. Whales and dolphins mate to produce wholphins. Tigers and lions mate to make ligers. Look at the Platypus if you want to see an intermediate form on the reptile-mammal part of the DNA/ life continuum

[Soliton]

The evolution of powered flight in mammals required specific developmental shifts from an ancestral limb morphology to one adapted for flight. Through studies of comparative morphogenesis, investigators have quantified points and rates of divergence providing important insights into how wings evolved in mammals. Herein I compare growth, development and skeletogenesis of forelimbs between bats and the more ancestral state provided by the rat (Rattus norvegicus) and quantify growth trajectories that illustrate morphological divergence both developmentally and evolutionarily. In addition, I discuss how wing shape is controlled during morphogenesis by applying multivariate analyses of wing bones and wing membranes and discuss how flight dynamics are stabilized during flight ontogeny. Further, I discuss the development of flight in bats in relation to the ontogenetic niche and how juveniles effect populational foraging patterns. In addition, I provide a hypothetical ontogenetic landscape model that predicts how and when selection is most intense during juvenile morphogenesis and test this model with data from a population of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus.

Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

---

Author Contacts

Dr. Rick A. Adams
School of Biological Sciences
University of Northern Colorado
Greeley, CO 80639 (USA)
Tel. +1 970 351 2057, Fax +1 970 351 2335, E-Mail rick.adams@unco.edu

Published online: December 11, 2007
Number of Print Pages : 11
Number of Figures : 13, Number of Tables : 0, Number of References : 67

[Sopater]

Science can document mammals evolving from non-mammals in the fossil record and in genetic studies.

Using the scientific method? I call BS.

However, your objection is based on ignorance.

Sure, keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and hope that they believe it. You have yet to offer a shred of proof.

[nmh]

No, I haven't “withdrawn”.

Casting pearls before swine, gets tiring.

I also notice that no one disproved what I stated.

Instead it is the usual, tiring and juvenile, name calling. I don't need to engage in childish name calling and don't.

[nmh]

I am not impressed with your armature effort.

If you have truly studied this field for over 25 years, you've wasted your time and come up short.

Most people, even ignorant people would acknowledge that there have been extreme weather changes in the past - the ice age, shells from the ocean where it is now a desert and on and on it goes. You don't take ANY of this into account and why you can't sell me junk science.

Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.

While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.

You miss the major point. So again, I hear about all this work you supposedly do and still you can't admit you're wrong. The more you write, the less truthful you are appearing ... You might want to quit and try to maintain some semblance of credibility ... .

[allmendream]

The word is evidence not proof. When speaking of Science there is evidence for and evidence against. Nothing is ever proven. Theories explain evidence and enable one to make predictions. The theory of evolution through natural selection explains why any ERV in both humans and gorillas will also be in chimps; and enables me to predict that any ERV seen in chimps and orangutans will also be in gorillas and humans. The theory of evolution through natural selection explains why we use nonhuman primates (that is what we call them, to differentiate them from human primates) in drug efficacy studies. It also allows me to predict that any drug that acts on a nonhuman primate gene product will be over 95% likely to act on the same gene product in humans.

Wow. A theory that explains evidence and allows one to make predictions! Sure seems like Science to me. But what do I know? I only do Science every day.

[nmh]

“There are many examples of intermediate stages in eye development in nature from light sensitive “eye spots” to the most complex eyes. Study. Learn.”

The problem is I do have knowledge ... .

Odd how no one can tell me how the eye “evolved”.

Or how the heart “evolved”.

Yet you expect me to take junk science seriously.

[nmh]

“There are many examples of intermediate stages in eye development in nature from light sensitive “eye spots” to the most complex eyes. Study. Learn.”

The problem is I do have knowledge ... .

Odd how no one can tell me how the eye “evolved”.

Or how the heart “evolved”.

Yet you expect me to take junk science seriously.