Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Yes, the subject came up again while we were talking over your ideas on that thread, because the idea of a creator came up.

Also on that thread, I asked GrayMouser if he had seen my analysis of his objection to the incorrect dating of the Mt. St. Helens rock, and that should be on this thread, too. Instead of posting a link, I think I'll just move the whole post over here, since it's easier than going to a link. The original point that I brought up was that a scientist had taken a rock with a known age and sent it to a dating lab, and the lab said the rock was from between 250,000 and 1 million years old. The rock was actually 16 years old (it came from the Mt. St. Helens eruption.) We talked a bit, then it came to this part. First I quoted GrayMouser, then I answered his question.

by GrayMouser
If he was trying to challenge the dating method, then why didn't he send it to a lab that claimed to be able to date it more accurately, rather than one that had already informed him that they couldn't?

A few weeks ago I helped a friend take a truckload of scrap metal to a junkyard- after we had weighed the load, I happened to be standing on the truck scale, which showed me to be weighing 400 lbs. ( not true, I hasten to add), because the scale was not geared for such light weights.

Should I have sent them an air-mail to weigh, and then claim their scales were worthless because they couldn't give me an accurate reading?

There is one (at least) difference here, GM - and it's a HUGE one - your weight CAN be measured accurately. The correct procedure would be to find a small enough scale range so that you will "top out", then go up one range until you find one that you are somewhere at the middle. That will be your weight. You can also cross-verify it several ways that are ALSO not dependant upon an INITIAL ESTIMATE being correct. There IS a scientific way to find out your weight - and the correct procedure is NOT to stand on a truck scale, and the correct answer, given the correct procedure, does NOT depend upon a correct estimate. I"m a terrible estimator - say that I look at you and say I think you're 250 pounds. Then if we follow the correct procedure, we will find out your real weight, and it doesn't matter if my initial estimate was right or not! All it means is that I would use a few more scales until I found one that you "topped out" with. It will have NO influence on the final answer.

However, the standard procedure for dating rocks DOES utterly and completely depend upon an initially correct estimate, which may very well be WRONG. This was clearly shown in the Mt. St. Helens rock case.

Do you still have no problem with this? Not in the least? GM, you've always seemed intellectually honest. Can you honestly say that you still have no intellectual problem with this dependence upon an initial estimate being correct?

[Rían]

Here's where I originally brought the point up: here.

[brownjenkins]

in another thread i brought up the following:

the practice of science involves formulating theories about what may or may not be the true state of things... one of the foundations of science is that anything which is not a fact, but just a theory, must always remain in question... even if the theory is a very widely accepted one

it's been said that creationism is just as much a scientific theory as evolutionism is

the reason this is not true, i said, is that true scientists are willing to question the very foundation of evolutionism (i.e. it may be completely wrong... and if a better theory comes along... evolutionism will be modified or tossed out)

creationism, on the other hand, is unwilling to question the existance of god, which is admittedly just a theory (i.e. it can not be proven)... so creationism is not a science, just a belief

then it was said that evolutionism is just a belief too, because many scientists treat it as a fact

fair enough, i would call them pseudo-scientists, and to them, evolutionism is a belief

but the fact remains, that there are true evolutionary scientists who are willing to question each and every part of their theories

my ***YES/NO*** question... are there any true creationist scientists who are willing to completely question their theories... the existance of god, for instance?

[Rían]

Brownie asked for my opinion on this, so here it is ...

Brownie, first of all I hope you know me well enough by now to believe me when I say that my interest is in communication and understanding, and when I can't answer what you think is a yes/no question with a yes or a no, it's because I think that it would be a disservice to communication and to both of us to answer it that way. IOW, I trust that when you ask me a question, that you're TRULY interested in my answer, and you're not just trying to "score" a point in a debate by "forcing" a yes/no answer. I'm not into those games, and I don't think you are, either (altho I DO think that there are many questions which ARE proper yes/no questions, and hopefully we can agree on a reworked form of your question which is a proper yes/no question in both of our opinions). And because of some underlying assumptions that I think you've made that IMO are incorrect, I really think that your particular question is NOT a proper yes/no question. I'll try to explain now - let me know how I do!

Originally posted by brownjenkins
in another thread i brought up the following:

the practice of science involves formulating theories about what may or may not be the true state of things... one of the foundations of science is that anything which is not a fact, but just a theory, must always remain in question... even if the theory is a very widely accepted one

I totally agree with you on this one

it's been said that creationism is just as much a scientific theory as evolutionism is

I totally agree with you on this one (and the key is "just as much" .... )

the reason this is not true, i said, is that true scientists are willing to question the very foundation of evolutionism (i.e. it may be completely wrong... and if a better theory comes along... evolutionism will be modified or tossed out)

creationism, on the other hand, is unwilling to question the existance of god, which is admittedly just a theory (i.e. it can not be proven)... so creationism is not a science, just a belief

Here is the important area where I truly think that you have a misunderstanding. The very foundation of evolutionism (and I'm always talking about non-theistic evolutionism, unless I specifically state otherwise, because that's the main one out there) - the very foundation of evolutionism, IMO, is that it is naturalistic. IOW, there is NO superior being behind it acting with intention. And this is a belief, just as it is a belief that God exists. And evolutionary scientists are unwilling to drop their foundational belief/assumption, just as creationist scientists are unwilling to drop their foundational belief/assumption that God acted with intention and designed the world.

And to me, this is FINE on BOTH sides - both have unproven (and unproveable) foundational beliefs, and both should be willing to drop ANY (I repeat - ANY) aspect of the differing parts of the theories that were based on these foundational beliefs and re-formulate them if they are disproven. They should be willing to toss EVERYHING and go all the way back to the bare-bones of their assumption, if the different elements are proved wrong, and start over. But it's their choice to stick with whatever bare-bones assumption they truly think is right - either God or naturalistic forces.

For example, evolutionists dropped gradualism as the MAIN source of macroevolution, because it was NOT supported strongly in the fossil record, and replaced it with punctuated equilibrium. And this is fine and good and right. Just because gradualism was dropped is NOT a compelling reason to drop their basic bare-bones assumption of naturalism, if they really still think it's right. If they really think that there is NO superior being behind things, then I don't blame them for not dropping that assumption. As long as they're willing to drop the parts that don't match up with the data, let them reformulate as much as they want to.

And creationists act the same way.

I can't really address the rest of your post until this area is cleared up, so I'll wait for your reply

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Do you still have no problem with this? Not in the least? GM, you've always seemed intellectually honest. Can you honestly say that you still have no intellectual problem with this dependence upon an initial estimate being correct?

I the case of your St. Helen's rock, the wrong "scale" was chosen intentionally to make that scale appear invalid. It is not the scale that is defective. It is the logic of the choice to use the wrong scale that is defective.

Compare the half-life of Uranium and the variation of GM's weight on the truck scale and compare the deviation as a percentage of the possible range of the two scales. Not much different.

If the precision of the Ur test is say +/- 1 My then a sample that tests 10 MY is really 9-11 My. A sample that tests 1 My is 0-2 My. The accuracy is acceptable for older samples but the precision obscures the accuracy at low valuews.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
It is the logic of the choice to use the wrong scale that is defective.

I disagree. The defective area is that the dating is based on a subjective estimate as to the age of the rock, and this estimate COULD BE WRONG.

You are not addressing what is the important point - that the answer given by the lab is ENTIRELY dependent upon the initial GUESS/ESTIMATE being correct. And this initial guess is subjective, based upon things like index fossils.

If a scientist sees a rock like the Mt. St. Helens rock (which is 16 years old) and sincerely thinks it is about 1.5 M years old, based on a subjective estimate, and sends it to this lab, HIS ERRONEOUS ESTIMATE WILL BE "CONFIRMED", and a 16-year-old rock will be wrongly thought to have a confirmed age of 250,000 to 1M years old.

This is a serious problem, IMO. And if a scientist can show that there is a serious underlying error in the rock-dating procedure, then everyone should be cheering him - after all, science is a search for truth. And if the truth is that it can be SHOWN that a rock with a known age can be erroneously dated, then people should be grateful to find this out, and should strive to fix the problem - they should NOT be trying to cover their, um, position on the subject.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Here is the important area where I truly think that you have a misunderstanding. The very foundation of evolutionism (and I'm always talking about non-theistic evolutionism, unless I specifically state otherwise, because that's the main one out there) - the very foundation of evolutionism, IMO, is that it is naturalistic. IOW, there is NO superior being behind it acting with intention. And this is a belief, just as it is a belief that God exists. And evolutionary scientists are unwilling to drop their foundational belief/assumption, just as creationist scientists are unwilling to drop their foundational belief/assumption that God acted with intention and designed the world.

this is not really true... most true evolutionary scientists think the existance of god is irrelavent... and some even believe there is a god, but place him at a different point in history (i.e. the big bang)... some theorize that he started the process and then left it alone... others, that he guided the process along the way

the key here is flexibility... are you willing to at least consider every possibility?

these are all possibilities... no assumption is set in stone... a flexibility that does not exist in creationism

and without flexibility, one can never approach objectivity when observing results

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
this is not really true... most true evolutionary scientists think the existance of god is irrelavent...

It doesn't particularly matter what they think - what matters is how the theory is actually stated and set up.

The evolutionists have chosen to set up a foundation that things came about by wholly natural (i.e., unguided by intelligence) causes. God bless 'em, if that's what they think is right, then go for it! Start forming your predictions, see if they're true, adjust as necessary. Darwin gets his pigeons together and notices that there are changes in the population; he thinks "now how can what I observe fit into my idea?" and comes up with the, um, (*RÃ*an mightily restrains herself* ) interesting idea that because we see small changes over time, perhaps there could be HUGE changes, of a different type, over a HUGE amount of time, such that a man could eventually result from a single-celled thingy. He breeds more pigeons and looks at breeding all around him and concludes that there just isn't enough time to actually see this happen, but it might happen. And this conclusion is not without foundation, but it isn't proven, either. He also concludes that when we find more fossils, it might show up in the fossil record.

Now the creationists have chosen to set up a foundation that things came about by intent and design and as outlined in the Bible and are also operated on by natural laws set up by design. Ditto - God bless 'em, if that's what they think is right, then go for it! Start forming your predictions, .... etc. Creationists get animals together and notice that there are changes in the population, they think "can we negate our prediction that an animal is actually constrained to remain this animal, no matter what?" and they test and work with genetic info and see that yes, changes do happen, but every time, the changes lead to less adaptability in the species, and less viability, and a greater tendency to illness, etc., and conclude that there are some natural laws that keeps a species true to its kind, and start investigating the natural laws. (and "species" isn't a scientific measurement, btw, such as weight and mass and things like that. It's a description that has some general guidelines, and scientists disagree as to the details in many cases.)

These are just simplistic examples, but again, one theory is based on that things come about by naturalistic means, and another that there is intent and design by God. You can finagle it all you want, but as far as the evolution theory, they would have to answer "No" to the question "Do things come about by the intent and design of God as outlined in the Bible in such a way that it is evident?" So altho God is not explicitly named in the theory, the direct logical deduction one makes from the theory is that God is NOT the cause of how we got here today, unless it's in a disguised form, which is really not saying anything.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... and some even believe there is a god, but place him at a different point in history (i.e. the big bang)... some theorize that he started the process and then left it alone... others, that he guided the process along the way

Yes, and how can these things even be verified? They can't be. That's why I just prefer to talk about the two "purest" forms of the differing theories - non-theistic evolutionism and creationism based on the Bible. Both basic premises are not proveable - what's important is the testable premises that CAN be formed from both of these foundational ideas.

And really, IMO, both are (for lack of a better term) "bastard" forms of science, anyway. Science is "let's explore things and find out how things work, by forming predictions and using repeatable, measureable and observable experiments to check the predictions!" OTOH, both creationism and evolutionism are "I wonder how we got here - what a fascinating question! - well, we can't know for sure, because we can't observe and test the past, but we can form ideas and look at things in the present and at least SOME of the things are testable and we'll just have to do the best we can with whatever data we can get."

the key here is flexibility... are you willing to at least consider every possibility?

I am. And I imagine other creationists also think about the possibility that there is no God. I know that I do. But their chosen theory, based on their best ideas as to what is true, is creationism. And I think that's how most scientists operate - they get a basic idea that they really think is true, and research it, and have set-backs, and all-out failures, so they reform hypotheses and retest and gather more data, but they hang on to their underlying idea. Like with the blood clotting - someone might say "I really think vitamin K has something to do with blood clotting!" Then they throw some vitamin K into some blood and it doesn't clot. They don't immediately say "Oh well, I was wrong! I'll now try vitamin J! No, they think "well, perhaps it has something to do with the FORM of vitamin K involved, or perhaps there's a catalyst that's missing, or perhaps ...." and they go on, but keep their basic assumption that vitamin K is involved until they've exhausted all avenues. But with vitamin K, it's in the present - and the trouble with creationism/evolutionism is that it's in the past ...

these are all possibilities... no assumption is set in stone... a flexibility that does not exist in creationism

Yes, I believe it does, and in the same degree as in evolutionism, as described above.

and without flexibility, one can never approach objectivity when observing results

I agree, and both are flexible in the same manner.

Brownie, do you see at all what I'm trying to say? I wish I could express it better.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It doesn't particularly matter what they think - what matters is how the theory is actually stated and set up.

The evolutionists have chosen to set up a foundation that things came about by wholly natural (i.e., unguided by intelligence) causes. God bless 'em, if that's what they think is right, then go for it! Start forming your predictions, see if they're true, adjust as necessary. Darwin gets his pigeons together and notices that there are changes in the population; he thinks "now how can what I observe fit into my idea?" and comes up with the, um, (*RÃ*an mightily restrains herself* ) interesting idea that because we see small changes over time, perhaps there could be HUGE changes, of a different type, over a HUGE amount of time, such that a man could eventually result from a single-celled thingy. He breeds more pigeons and looks at breeding all around him and concludes that there just isn't enough time to actually see this happen, but it might happen. And this conclusion is not without foundation, but it isn't proven, either. He also concludes that when we find more fossils, it might show up in the fossil record.

Are you referring to the Galapagos finches? If you are, and making inferences from that example, then:
1. They are finches occuring naturally on the Galapagos islands, but with important differences between each other.
2. Darwin did not breed the finches, he observed them in their natural habitat.
3. Darwin constructed a microevolution theory largely based on his findings, but made no inferences about macroevolution, or the fossil record.

The finches were the same species, but isolated populations developped different types of beaks based on the food they ate. That's why Darwin studied them, and predicted that they would become their own species over time. When Darwin brought examples back to England, before he developped his theories, the birds were classified as different species by different scientists. This is microevolution.

Darwin is not the only scientist contributing to macroevolution theories. Macroevolution started to take shape when Mendelevium genetics theories and Darwinism were merged in the early 1900s. Other scientists contributed later.


I completely acknowledge that Creationism and Evolutionism are valid theories with similar basic design. (We get it! )

The point I'm really going for is Evolutionists are not silly scientists who are set in their ways. There are some, but those few and loud do not invalidate Evolutionism as a whole.

Also, as Brownie pointed out, Evolutionism exists independently of believing in God. IOW, whether or not a scientist believes in God does not affect his views on Evolutionism. (Unless it changes his worldview, but that's something else. The theory of Evolutionism itself is not altered by the presence or lack of God.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I imagine other creationists also think about the possibility that there is no God. I know that I do. But their chosen theory, based on their best ideas as to what is true, is creationism.

as long as there's some level of flexibility i'm willing to listen to any ideas they might propose

are there any theorists who compare the different kinds of creationist theories out there with one another (i.e. hindu, biblical, diestic)?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Are you referring to the Galapagos finches?

No - whoa there! I'm referring to Darwin's pigeons, from his book The Origin of Species. From chpt. 1, Variation under Domestication:

On the Breeds of the Domestic Pigeon. Believing that it is always best to study some special groups, I have, after deliberation, taken up domestic pigeons. ...

I truly meant pigeons - was not trying to make fun of the finch example. He did quite a lot of work with pigeons.

[Rían]

*bump*

(just making sure the people whose posts I answered see my responses to them)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

first time in this thread
couple things:
on one of the first pages, someone said evolutionism is a religion not a science. I encourage that person to buy a dictionary, and look up the meanings of the folowing words; evolution, creationism, religion, science. They also said you cannot witness evolution, I beg to differ.
Let's take it back a few steps, lets say Mr + Mrs A Have a Child.
Mr A has black hair, Mrs A has Brown Hair, there is a 50% probability that child A will have black or brown hair.
Mr and Mrs B have a child, Those parents have both black hair, it is most likely the child will be black haired. now, the two children grow up and have a child, it is 75% likely that grandchild will be black-haired. This is micro evolution on the sense that Black hairs prevail.

Now, if evolution is wrong, please tell me how we developed, how do we have homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithices, and so on, further and further back in time. As each species developes, and passes certain traits on, the beneficial traits help the species to continue, and those with detrimental traits are preyed upon by predators.
i.e; an animal lives in a grassy area, there are two varieties, brown, and green. eventually, brown ones are preyed upon, and die off. ipso facto: genus=animal, species =animal brown (extinct), and animal green (evolved, new species)

I hope i have proved my point

[Rían]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
They also said you cannot witness evolution, I beg to differ.

Chrys, the theory of evolution has different components. The part that cannot be witnessed is commonly referred to as macroevolution, which includes things like a one-celled thingy changing to a person. It MAY have happened that way, but we do NOT witness it

Let's take it back a few steps, lets say Mr + Mrs A Have a Child.
Mr A has black hair, Mrs A has Brown Hair, there is a 50% probability that child A will have black or brown hair.
Mr and Mrs B have a child, Those parents have both black hair, it is most likely the child will be black haired. now, the two children grow up and have a child, it is 75% likely that grandchild will be black-haired. This is micro evolution on the sense that Black hairs prevail.

I don't see why you call this micro-evolution. I've never heard this called micro-evolution; it's genetics. Micro-evolution would be things like how the finch population on the Galapagos Island switched from mostly one beak type to mostly another.

Now, if evolution is wrong, please tell me how we developed, how do we have homo erectus, homo habilis, australopithices, and so on, further and further back in time.

Neither creationism nor evolutionism can TELL us with certainty how we developed. Biblical Creationism says that man and animals and plants, etc. were produced in an intial creative act by God in basically the forms they are today, and that basic kinds cannot change into other kinds; i.e., fish cannot change into birds. There is also genetic adaptability designed in, and this accounts for the variety we see today, and the ability to breed for characteristics (tho the kind remains the same) and the ability for animals to have adaptation in the wild (again, tho the kind remains the same. Tigers don't turn into rhinos.)

As each species developes, and passes certain traits on, the beneficial traits help the species to continue, and those with detrimental traits are preyed upon by predators.
i.e; an animal lives in a grassy area, there are two varieties, brown, and green. eventually, brown ones are preyed upon, and die off. ipso facto: genus=animal, species =animal brown (extinct), and animal green (evolved, new species)

THis is natural selection, and IS observed today, and creationism has no problem with this. And as you noted yourself, BOTH green and brown existed. BOTH. So it's no problem to creationism that the PRE-EXISTING green one stayed around and the brown one died off And also it does NOT prove evolutionism - the major part of evolutionism, namely macroevolution, is NOT demonstrated by any means in this example.

If you're interested in the top-level summary of creationism that i wrote, then go to the first post in this thread, and go to the link at the bottom of the first post

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Chrys, the theory of evolution has different components. The part that cannot be witnessed is commonly referred to as macroevolution, which includes things like a one-celled thingy changing to a person. It MAY have happened that way, but we do NOT witness it

I don't see why you call this micro-evolution. I've never heard this called micro-evolution; it's genetics. Micro-evolution would be things like how the finch population on the Galapagos Island switched from mostly one beak type to mostly another.

I call this micro-evolution, as that is what any gcse grade science eacher (and anyone above that level) would call it. It is also genetics, geneticism is evolution, on a small scale.

Neither creationism nor evolutionism can TELL us with certainty how we developed. Biblical Creationism says that man and animals and plants, etc. were produced in an intial creative act by God in basically the forms they are today, and that basic kinds cannot change into other kinds; i.e., fish cannot change into birds. There is also genetic adaptability designed in, and this accounts for the variety we see today, and the ability to breed for characteristics (tho the kind remains the same) and the ability for animals to have adaptation in the wild (again, tho the kind remains the same. Tigers don't turn into rhinos.)

i was not advocating such massive leaps in evolution as tiger to rhino, merely such preobserved evolution, such as those ancestral archosaurs into such beings as rauisuchians, phytosaurs etc etc

THis is natural selection, and IS observed today, and creationism has no problem with this. And as you noted yourself, BOTH green and brown existed. BOTH. So it's no problem to creationism that the PRE-EXISTING green one stayed around and the brown one died off And also it does NOT prove evolutionism - the major part of evolutionism, namely macroevolution, is NOT demonstrated by any means in this example.

I am not disputing natural selection, actually nodding my agreements, in that such darwinist theorem is the basis for modern evolutionistic theorisation
my point with animal green/animal brown was that they were descended from one animal, that animal had genetic mutations, resulting in two colours. one colour is not adapted to survive, next permeatation of animal, all are one colour again, but have noticed differences in genetic makeup, therefore, you have a new species, ipso facto: evolution has occurred

If you're interested in the top-level summary of creationism that i wrote, then go to the first post in this thread, and go to the link at the bottom of the first post [/B]

thank you for your time in reading this.
as i say, first time in this thread,
but i am an accomplished biologist, palaeontologist, palaeobiologist and archaeologist
but i have a lesser knowledge of geology

[BeardofPants]

Microevolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which refers to large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).

Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution, for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life (see the Microevolution vs. Macroevolution section in the Creationism article for creationist arguments regarding microevolution and macroevolution).

Macroevolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in the characteristics of life -- in effect, the evolution of species and higher taxa. It is distinct from microevolution, which describes changes that occur within a single population.

...

While microevolution has been demostrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers, macroevolution has to be inferred from the fossil record, and its precise mechanisms are an active topic of discussion amongst scientists. Some critics hold that while microevolution may occur with an existing gene pool, macroevolution requires the introduction of newly-evolved genes. These newly-evolved genes would represent beneficial mutations; it has been argued that such mutations are observed to be almost always detrimental. The recent discovery of extensive genome wide gene duplication in many organisms, however, allows for the preservation of an existing functional gene copy leaving other gene copies free to accumulate mutations, some of which may be beneficial.


Proposed mechanisms


There are two proposed mechanisms for macroevolution. The first way is through the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes. Tiny microevolutions, over sufficient time, add up and accumulate in isolated populations and eventually result in new species. The second way in which "macroevolution" is believed to occur is through sudden and rapid changes. This theory, punctuated equilibrium, put forth by Stephen Jay Gould, is based on the fact that there are critical genes (such as the homeobox) in all living organisms, and a small change in them could cause drastic changes in the organism, resulting in a new species quite rapidly.

Single small mutations are sometimes the main difference between one species and another. Scientists have discovered very important genes, such as the homeobox, which regulate the growth of animals in their embryonic state. Scientists have managed to create new species of fly by irradiating the homeobox gene, causing a radical mutation in the development of the segments of the body. The fly may grow an extra thorax, or grow legs out of its eyestalks, all due to a single base pair alteration. The additional information needed for these structures did not arise from the mutation, of course, but existed elsewhere in the animal's DNA and was replicated at the novel location. It has been proposed that centipedes and millipedes originated from insect precursors, but their homeobox gene mutated and they ended up growing dozens of body segments instead of just one. A very small change, and an entire species is formed.

It must be noted that many mutations are common and unexpressed, particularly when it involves toggling of the third base sequence in a codon. Most deleterious mutations are not seen simply because they do not result in viable reproduction.

Microevolution can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers. Whilst speciation events have been demonstrated in the laboratory and observed in the field, really dramatic differences between species do not usually occur in directly observable timescales (it occurs too quickly for the process to be shown in the fossil record.) It is argued that, since macroevolution can not be confirmed by a controlled experiment, it cannot be considered to be part of a scientific theory. However, evolutionists counter that astronomy, geology, archaeology and the other historical sciences, like macroevolution, have to check hypotheses through natural experiments. They confirm hypotheses by finding out if they conform or fit with the physical or observational evidence and can make valid predictions. In this way, macroevolution is testable and falsifiable.

Most scientists consider large gaps between taxonomic groups to be explainable by ecological/evolutionary factors, such as extinctions, population bottlenecks, and the emergence of unoccupied ecological niches. Macroevolution is simply the result of microevolution over a longer period of time. According to the modern synthesis, no distinction needs to be drawn between different kinds of evolution because all are caused by the same factors.

BoP, who has a degree in anthropology (specialising in archaeology, taphonomical studies, and bioarchaeology). Does that count as accomplished?

[GrayMouser]

As for the Mt.St. Helen's rock- what everybody else already said- it's a question of the margin of error within the overall magnitude of what you're checking.

About the circularity of radioactive dating, Cirdan and BoP have already explained - more than once- in far greater depth than I am capable of, how that is simply not the case.

I would just like to point out that the most serious attempt to explain -explain away?- radiometric dating has been mounted by a group known as RATE

A small group of YECs with legitimate Ph.D.s (including D. Russell Humphreys and John R. Baumgardner) have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee to attack the validity of radiometric dating. Rather than embracing the embarrassing distortions and nonsensical accusations of Woodmorappe or John and Henry Morris, Humphreys and Baumgardner have finally realized that geology and geochemistry are not going to give them the answers that they want. In an Answers in Genesis (AiG) article Carl Wieland had this to say:

"When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle. [new paragraph] Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in "standard" radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves. "

In other words, after decades of YEC failures to undermine radiometric dating with geology and geochemistry, these YEC leaders now recognize that enormous amounts of radioactive decay have occurred. They are now relying on nuclear physics, e.g., Chaffin, 2003 (Adobe Acrobat file) and probably an ample supply of groundless miracles to speed up the decay rates without frying Adam or Noah. Humphreys et al. (2003) (Adobe Acrobat file), although full of errors and bad assumptions, also makes the following candid admission (p. 3), which is a veiled attack on Woodmorappe's "crapshoot" and similar YEC schemes that involve bogus accusations against radiometric dating methods and equipment:

"Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27 and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [Humphreys, 2000, p. 335-337]. WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT BECAUSE MANY CREATIONISTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT "OLD" RADIOISOTOPIC AGES ARE MERELY AN ARTIFACT OF ANALYSIS, NOT REALLY INDICATING THE OCCURRENCE OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR DECAY. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today's rates — of nuclear decay occurred. [my emphasis]"

So what they're saying is that yes, radiometric dating is actually measuring something, and that the relative scale as established by the use of different elements is basically accurate.

All they have to do now is completely rewrite modern physics.

Or....

"It appears that Christ already has direct control of the nuclear (and other) forces, and furthermore that He is intimately involved with them. So even if we cannot follow all the links in the chain of causes back past a certain point, we can be confident that Jesus Christ is not only at the end of it, but at every link along the way. The point I am trying to make is that we should avoid the pitfall of insisting on completely naturalistic explanations for accelerated [radioactive] decay. Instead, my approach is to push the science we think we know as far as is reasonable, but remain ready at every point to see that God has intervened, and is intervening."

quoted in

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/miracle_henke.htm

This is science-NOT.


of

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
As for the Mt.St. Helen's rock- what everybody else already said- it's a question of the margin of error within the overall magnitude of what you're checking.

And if the initial estimate of the age of the rock is incorrect, the lab will return an incorrect age for the rock as a fact. Correct?

About the circularity of radioactive dating, Cirdan and BoP have already explained - more than once- in far greater depth than I am capable of, how that is simply not the case.

"more than once" has nothing to do with the validitiy of the argument. If there is an error in the first telling, there will be an error in the hundredth and first telling.

And I repeat that if the initial estimate is incorrect, the age will very likely be incorrect.

I've mightily restrained myself in this discussion, but I must say, at this point, that you seem quite unscientifically vested in evolutionism, or at least in this particular area. And I can well understand that - any small chink in classic evolutionism increases the chances that there might be a God as described in the Bible - which means that you are dealing with eternity, and that you are accountable for your actions. Evolutionism is just so darn comfortable - no moral accountability, and things just rot away in the end. Eternity and accountability are terribly uncomfortable facts that we'll do just about anything to explain away.

EDIT - I used some poor wording in this paragraph; let me try to rephrase it before someone else misunderstands me

When I said "increases the chances", I meant the perceived probability in a person's mind- not, of course, the actual chance that God exists. God either DOES exists or does NOT exist, and it has nothing to do with chance. But IMO, a person who sees some of the problems in evolutionism is more likely to be open-minded when considering the evidences for the existence of God. A person who thinks classical evolutionism is absolutely proven (which is impossible, given the fact that it's about something that's in the past) will naturally be more close-minded about considering evidence for the existence of God.

Evolution standing or falling upon evidence has NOTHING to do with PROVING God exists. However, IMO it DOES have something to do with how open-minded a person will be when considering the question "does God exist?". That's what I meant - I hope this explained it better.

end EDIT

As for the rest of your post, I'm digging up some quotes from the Bible of Evolutionism , TalkOrigins.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
any small chink in classic evolutionism increases the chances that there might be a God as described in the Bible

unlike evolutionism, there is no physical evidence for creationism to even be debated

you can try to disprove geological evidence all you like, but it does nothing to increase the chances that their is a god