Why would God create Evolution?

[Gordian Knot]

All of these arguments, in the end, are opinions. Specifically chosen to support what you desire to believe.

Not a one is evidence.

Which is fine. I do not have a problem with that. I DO have a problem with the pretense that any of this should be considered science.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Lots of people are, so I guess that's just something that you and I simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye on.

I guess so. It isn't as if I am just talking. Gen 1:24 states "Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind". Fast forward to present day, and that is what we see, animals producing after their kind. That seems to contradict the evolutionary account of common ancestry.

I'll use an example that presumably you'll accept. Tame chihuahuas and wild wolves are recognizably different, right?

They sure are, but so are African humans and Chinese humans.

There are definite characters that separate one from the other. Yet everyone agrees that chihuahuas resulted from the taming and selective breeding of wolves. Therefore, we know that wolves changed over time gradually to become chihuahuas and other breeds of dog. However, there was no one generation that anyone can point to and say that what was once a wolf has definitely become a chihuahua. No clear-cut line.

But everyone will know that they are the same KIND OF ANIMAL though. No new kind of animal is being produced. This is micro-level stuff. It happens. I am talking about the macro-stuff. The reptile to birds kind of stuff.

In order for such limits to exist, there would have to be genes that can't mutate. No such mutation-proof genes have yet been found.

It must be limited because no one has ever seen the macro-effect.

Yeah, just like a mindless process can cause the Universe to expand yet intelligent humans with all our knowledge and technology can't do it.

But that is different. We can at least see the expansion of the universe. Why or what causes it to expand is a different question, but we know that it is expanding based on direct observation. We've NEVER seen a macro-effect live and in action. So as far as I am concerned, there is just no reason to believe it.

There's got to be a name for that fallacy. I see it used too much. Assuming that humans must be able to do something just because nature can do it.

This is local stuff we are talking about here, Kryp. We aren't talking about things that happened beyond our scope (at least regarding evolution). We are talking about stuff that happened right here on earth....and we have all the right ingredients with nothing but space, and time. So why can't we do it?

If you want to turn a reptile into a bird using genetic engineering, you'd have to turn off/cut out a lot of genes and insert/turn on a lot of other genes.

Nature did it...going from flaky scales to feathered wings is one hellava jump, don't you think?

You and I know that doing such a thing would not represent Darwinian evolution in the slightest. There are no selection pressures, no reproduction, no mutation; it's all just direct human meddling with the genetic code. If genetic engineering turned a reptile into a bird no one, myself included, would count that as evidence for evolution. The process is not the same.

Then that would mean we would get the same result, but for different reasons. I see no problem with that. You are saying that humans can't do it, and I am saying that nature can't do it either.

Seeing as how I haven't said anything about life coming from non-life or consciousness coming from non-consciousness I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

Well if you aren't a naturalist, then it wouldn't apply.

I'd be plenty happy to answer any questions you may have about radiological dating techniques. Those dating techniques are very important because they establish eras where we see fossils of certain types of animals but not of others.

Look, the locations of fossils means absolutely nothing. ABSOLUTELY nothing.

There was an era where we find plenty of reptile fossils, but no mammals. A little later, we find plenty of reptile fossils, mammal-like reptile fossils, and still no mammals. Later still, we find reptiles and mammals.

The good ole Cambrian explosion, right? This presupposes the accuracy of certain dating methods, and as I've said, not everyone accepts these method. If you start off with the presupposition that these dating methods are true, then you are molding the evidence to fit your presupposition. According to the ToE, macroevolution is true, and if it is true, then obviously all animals weren't roaming the earth at the exact same time...so you use various dating methods to determine which animals were here first, which animals were here second, and so on and so forth.

Second, you are assuming that these "mammal-like" reptile fossils is proof of fossils in a transitional form...but you have to presuppose evolution in order to believe this, which is begging the question.

Unless God poofed mammal-like reptiles into existence after He already made reptiles, and then poofed mammals into existence after He made the mammal-like reptiles, then the most logical conclusions is that mammals evolved from mammal-like reptiles which evolved from reptiles. If all three types coexisted from the beginning, then we could not use this as evidence for evolution. However, dating techniques tell us that they did not all coexist from the beginning and instead came into existence one after the other in the order that evolution predicts that they would.

You need a viable complete chain of transitions. You can dig up any fossil and merely claim this fossil to be the evolutionary predecessor to anything. That isn't science...that is speculation. You can't prove whether that fossil had any children, and you certainly can't prove it had "different" children.

You don't know whether these "mammal-like" reptiles were its own individual "type" of animal that went extinct. Can you rule that out, or are you just going to assume evolution every time you find bones in the dirt?

If there are certain genes which make a cat a cat, and all of those genes are subject to mutation and selection, then it's only logical that with sufficient time all of those genes can change to make the distant descendants of modern cats something other than cats.

There is no reason to think that the cat will produce a non-cat. They may produce different varieties of cats, but the end result will always be a cat. Now you just made the hypothesis, now it is time for the testing. What experiment can you conduct that will either confirm or falsify your hypothesis? If you can't conduct an experiment, then the hypothesis is meaningless in science.

How about I make a hypothesis? My hypothesis is, if you take two cats...male and female, and allow them to reproduce, over time you will have many different varieties of cats. Many different. My hypothesis has been confirmed for thousands of years....because based on observation and experiment, all we've seen is cats produce cats. We've never seen anything to the contrary, and if one wants to additionally believe that a cat will eventually produce a non-cat, then this hypothesis needs to be subjected to the scientific method, and if it can't, then it isn't a viable scientific theory.

If you change a bit of computer code one line at a time, you can eventually end up with something very different from the original program.

Yeah but are you going to get a code that is programmed for a non-computer?

If cats cannot become non-cats, then there must be some part of their DNA that simultaneously makes them cats and is not subject to change. Nothing of the sort has ever been found.

Ok so a cat can become a human?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All of these arguments, in the end, are opinions. Specifically chosen to support what you desire to believe.

Not a one is evidence.

Which is fine. I do not have a problem with that. I DO have a problem with the pretense that any of this should be considered science.

Then instead of giving me babble, refute the arguments.

 

[Gordian Knot]

You just do not get it. There is no need to refute the arguments. It would just be my opinions versus their opinions.

Opinions is not evidence. You want to debate science? Then give me some evidence of your beliefs!

 

[Parsimony]

I guess so. It isn't as if I am just talking. Gen 1:24 states "Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind". Fast forward to present day, and that is what we see, animals producing after their kind. That seems to contradict the evolutionary account of common ancestry.

I interpret it as metaphorical and you interpret it as literal. That's just going to have to be the difference between us.

They sure are, but so are African humans and Chinese humans.

But everyone will know that they are the same KIND OF ANIMAL though. No new kind of animal is being produced. This is micro-level stuff. It happens. I am talking about the macro-stuff. The reptile to birds kind of stuff.

That isn't the point of that particular example. The point is that there can be gradation between two different things without any hard lines. There was no one exact point when you definitely stopped having a wild wolf and started having a tame dog.

It must be limited because no one has ever seen the macro-effect.

Humans must not be able to go to Mars because we have never been. Please do tell me what the mechanism is that prevents macro-evolution? If it can't happen, there has to be a mechanism. Something must be keeping certain genes from mutating. What is the mechanism?

But that is different. We can at least see the expansion of the universe. Why or what causes it to expand is a different question, but we know that it is expanding based on direct observation. We've NEVER seen a macro-effect live and in action. So as far as I am concerned, there is just no reason to believe it.

This is local stuff we are talking about here, Kryp. We aren't talking about things that happened beyond our scope (at least regarding evolution). We are talking about stuff that happened right here on earth....and we have all the right ingredients with nothing but space, and time. So why can't we do it?

I've already explained why we can't do it: we can't make generation times speed up arbitrarily quickly. If you can find a way to do that, let me know. Just because humans are smart doesn't mean we can break the laws of physics and biology and do whatever we want to.

Nature did it...going from flaky scales to feathered wings is one hellava jump, don't you think?

It would have taken many, many steps and not just one jump.

Then that would mean we would get the same result, but for different reasons. I see no problem with that. You are saying that humans can't do it, and I am saying that nature can't do it either.

We can't do it because we don't have the genetic engineering expertise yet. We can already swap genes around. Given time, we'll likely figure out how to completely change organisms on the genetic scale. That still would not be evolution.

Look, the locations of fossils means absolutely nothing. ABSOLUTELY nothing.

The good ole Cambrian explosion, right? This presupposes the accuracy of certain dating methods, and as I've said, not everyone accepts these method. If you start off with the presupposition that these dating methods are true, then you are molding the evidence to fit your presupposition. According to the ToE, macroevolution is true, and if it is true, then obviously all animals weren't roaming the earth at the exact same time...so you use various dating methods to determine which animals were here first, which animals were here second, and so on and so forth.

Second, you are assuming that these "mammal-like" reptile fossils is proof of fossils in a transitional form...but you have to presuppose evolution in order to believe this, which is begging the question.

You need a viable complete chain of transitions. You can dig up any fossil and merely claim this fossil to be the evolutionary predecessor to anything. That isn't science...that is speculation. You can't prove whether that fossil had any children, and you certainly can't prove it had "different" children.

You don't know whether these "mammal-like" reptiles were its own individual "type" of animal that went extinct. Can you rule that out, or are you just going to assume evolution every time you find bones in the dirt?

I can see that all of this hinges on the validity of radiometric dating. Do you understand how it works? Please give me a brief overview of what you think the process involved is. Please also tell me what makes it flawed.

There is no reason to think that the cat will produce a non-cat. They may produce different varieties of cats, but the end result will always be a cat. Now you just made the hypothesis, now it is time for the testing. What experiment can you conduct that will either confirm or falsify your hypothesis? If you can't conduct an experiment, then the hypothesis is meaningless in science.

A lack of any mechanism that will keep cat-specific genes from mutating, for one. Also, the bulk of evidence for macro-evolution comes from radiological dating of the fossil record. I will wait for your response to the dating questions I've posted above. We must get past that before we can proceed further.

How about I make a hypothesis? My hypothesis is, if you take two cats...male and female, and allow them to reproduce, over time you will have many different varieties of cats. Many different. My hypothesis has been confirmed for thousands of years....because based on observation and experiment, all we've seen is cats produce cats. We've never seen anything to the contrary, and if one wants to additionally believe that a cat will eventually produce a non-cat, then this hypothesis needs to be subjected to the scientific method, and if it can't, then it isn't a viable scientific theory.

That is true in the short term, and the existence of micro-evolution is not at odds with macro-evolution.

Yeah but are you going to get a code that is programmed for a non-computer?

Not anymore than you will get a genetic code for a non-life form.

Ok so a cat can become a human?

No, nor does evolutionary theory say that it can. If you think it does, then you don't understand evolution as well as you might think you do.

 

[Bunyip]

Then instead of giving me babble, refute the arguments.

Just as a heads up; Macro evolution means evolutionary transitions at or above the species level.

Dogs becoming 2 species of dogs is macro evolution. A species of drusophila fly evolving into 2 species of drusophila fly is macro evolution.

Macro evolution is NOT when a reptile evolves into a bird, it is when a specific species of reptile diverges into 2 species.

 

[Slapstick]

Why not just plant everything immediately? Why take 13 .82 billion years before putting Humans on Earth?

You either accept Evolution or not. And If you do, saying stuff like God's the force behind Evolution, or God has created evolution is meaningless because when you can create stuff from scratch, why create Evolution? Why not just make the products? To mess with smart people who study science?

I have herd doctors refer to evolution as "The Great Creator." As in scientist realizing there is no greater creator than evolution itself. Evolution is like the foundation needed to "make the products and create stuff from scratch" as you so eloquently put it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I interpret it as metaphorical and you interpret it as literal. That's just going to have to be the difference between us.

Cool cool.

That isn't the point of that particular example. The point is that there can be gradation between two different things without any hard lines. There was no one exact point when you definitely stopped having a wild wolf and started having a tame dog.

Why is a wolf not a dog?

Humans must not be able to go to Mars because we have never been. Please do tell me what the mechanism is that prevents macro-evolution?

As soon as you can can tell me the mechanism which allows it to happen. You speak as if it is a given...I want to see the evidence.

If it can't happen, there has to be a mechanism. Something must be keeping certain genes from mutating. What is the mechanism?

Again, I want to the mechanism which allows it to happen. If you leave little doubt as to whether it can happen then I would certainly be unable to make a case for its prevention.

I've already explained why we can't do it: we can't make generation times speed up arbitrarily quickly. If you can find a way to do that, let me know. Just because humans are smart doesn't mean we can break the laws of physics and biology and do whatever we want to.

So there is no evidence that it occurs. If there is no test that can predict or prove whether or not such changes occurs, then admit that it is speculative at best. You are telling me what we CAN'T do, and what has happened at the same time. Yet all I see is what we can't do and something that hasn't been shown to happen. So you basically have no evidence to support the theory.

It would have taken many, many steps and not just one jump.

Yeah, according to the theory.

We can't do it because we don't have the genetic engineering expertise yet. We can already swap genes around. Given time, we'll likely figure out how to completely change organisms on the genetic scale. That still would not be evolution.

It would be evolution, because the organism evolves, right? Just because it wouldn't have evolved naturally doesn't mean you have to snatch the term from over it.

I can see that all of this hinges on the validity of radiometric dating. Do you understand how it works? Please give me a brief overview of what you think the process involved is. Please also tell me what makes it flawed.

[youtube]ztJ_wmr6IS0[/youtube]
Kent Hovind on Carbon Dating Part 1 - YouTube

A lack of any mechanism that will keep cat-specific genes from mutating, for one. Also, the bulk of evidence for macro-evolution comes from radiological dating of the fossil record. I will wait for your response to the dating questions I've posted above. We must get past that before we can proceed further.

Look at the above video, parts 1 and 2.

That is true in the short term, and the existence of micro-evolution is not at odds with macro-evolution.

As long as we can see one and not the other, I would say that is pretty much at odds.

Not anymore than you will get a genetic code for a non-life form.

So we should only stick to the specific life forms that we can observe.

No, nor does evolutionary theory say that it can. If you think it does, then you don't understand evolution as well as you might think you do.

So what mechanism is stopping it? The same question you asked me...you are the one that believes in these hocus pocus changes, so you tell me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just as a heads up; Macro evolution means evolutionary transitions at or above the species level.

Dogs becoming 2 species of dogs is macro evolution. A species of drusophila fly evolving into 2 species of drusophila fly is macro evolution.

Macro evolution is NOT when a reptile evolves into a bird, it is when a specific species of reptile diverges into 2 species.

Well regardless of what you call it, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

 

[Bunyip]

Well regardless of what you call it, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats.

So what? Of course dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats, there are four distinct species of canines and 42 of cats - what's your point?

 

[Bunyip]

Cool cool.



Why is a wolf not a dog?

Because dogs are Canis familiaris, and wolves are Canis lupus - two different varieties..

As soon as you can can tell me the mechanism which allows it to happen. You speak as if it is a given...I want to see the evidence.

Sure, the mechanisms that allow it to happen are mutation, genetic drift. migration and selection. The evidence of all four of those factors is freely available.

Again, I want to the mechanism which allows it to happen. If you leave little doubt as to whether it can happen then I would certainly be unable to make a case for its
So there is no evidence that it occurs. If there is no test that can predict or prove whether or not such changes occurs, then admit that it is speculative at best. You are telling me what we CAN'T do, and what has happened at the same time. Yet all I see is what we can't do and something that hasn't been shown to happen. So you basically have no evidence to support the theory.

False. The evidence for genetic grift, mutation, variation, selection and so on is abundant.

Yeah, according to the theory.



It would be evolution, because the organism evolves, right? Just because it wouldn't have evolved naturally doesn't mean you have to snatch the term from over it.



[youtube]ztJ_wmr6IS0[/youtube]
Kent Hovind on Carbon Dating Part 1 - YouTube



Look at the above video, parts 1 and 2.

Kent is in jail for fraud mate, he is not a reliable source.

 

[Parsimony]

Why is a wolf not a dog?

It may be a canid, but it is not a domestic dog in the same sense that a chihuahua is.

As soon as you can can tell me the mechanism which allows it to happen. You speak as if it is a given...I want to see the evidence.

Again, I want to the mechanism which allows it to happen. If you leave little doubt as to whether it can happen then I would certainly be unable to make a case for its prevention.

I already have. All genes are made of DNA (or RNA, in the sense of some viruses). All DNA/RNA is subject to mutation because the replication process is not perfect. This means that any aspect of the genetic code can be changed by mutation. If any of it can change, then potentially all of it can change. The only way that this can not be true is if there is a perfect replication mechanism somewhere somehow that keeps mutations from happening in specific genes (specifically those genes which make each "kind" unique).

So there is no evidence that it occurs. If there is no test that can predict or prove whether or not such changes occurs, then admit that it is speculative at best. You are telling me what we CAN'T do, and what has happened at the same time. Yet all I see is what we can't do and something that hasn't been shown to happen. So you basically have no evidence to support the theory.

Checking the chronological and geographic order of fossils provides the test. If macro-evolution is true, then we should expect to find certain patterns in the fossil record while other patterns are absent. However, that is part of the dating thing that we are talking about.

It would be evolution, because the organism evolves, right? Just because it wouldn't have evolved naturally doesn't mean you have to snatch the term from over it.

No, because the organism has not evolved in the Darwinian sense. In this genetic engineering example, there is no random mutation, there is no reproduction, there are no selection pressures. Without those, there is no Darwinian evolution. If you think that genetic engineering is the same as evolution, then that simply reinforces the fact that you do not fully understand what evolution is. Darwinian evolution is not the same as the broad definition of evolution (which is simply "change over time"). It is very specific.

[youtube]ztJ_wmr6IS0[/youtube]
Kent Hovind on Carbon Dating Part 1 - YouTube

Look at the above video, parts 1 and 2.

Unfortunately, I cannot watch that video right now due to bandwidth limitations. I can say, however, that the vast majority of the fossil record is not dated using carbon dating. You need something like uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating for things millions of years old. Those processes work slightly differently than carbon dating does. As a matter of fact, potassium-argon dating will not work on a rock unless it is millions of years old. If it is younger, not enough argon will have accumulated to be detectable. If the Earth was only 6,000-10,000 years old, potassum-argon dating would always give back a null result (which it does not in practice).

I find it interesting that the RATE project, which was done by young Earth creationists to prove dating techniques to be unworkable, actually came to the conclusion that large amounts of radioactive decay have in fact occured in rocks. Their way of explaining it was to say that decay rates have been much faster in the past. Actually, their quoted explanation is "God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history". That explanation makes absolutely no sense if God wanted us to believe in a young Earth. Why would He choose to speed up decay and make the Earth look old for no obvious reason? That sounds like active deception to me. Not only that, but it has been calculated that billions of years worth of decay happening in only six thousand years would generate so much heat that it would melt the Earth's crust, boiling the oceans and killing all life: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/adam-eve_toast.htm

At any rate, simply posting a video does not mean that you understand how dating techniques work. So please, tell me what you know of radiological dating. I want to know if you personally understand the workings (isochron dating in particular, since it is one of the strongest and most reliable types). If you don't understand it, then I will not fault you for that. Most people don't understand it. I will simply take the time to explain it. Just ask and I'll tell.

As long as we can see one and not the other, I would say that is pretty much at odds.

Macro-evolution requires micro-evolution. You have to take small steps before you take large ones. One does not disprove the other.

So we should only stick to the specific life forms that we can observe.

Which would include fossil organisms. But, once again, that's back to the dating question.

So what mechanism is stopping it? The same question you asked me...you are the one that believes in these hocus pocus changes, so you tell me.

The problem would be the assumption that a cat can somehow generate all of the exact same genes as a human through mutation and selection. It's the same reason that you can't take a modern wolf and breed it until you get a chihuahua. You might get something like a chihuahua, but it would be genetically different because the mutations are never going to be exactly the same. Likewise, you could potentially get a cat population to evolve into something similar to a human over a massive span of time, but it won't be identical because the mutations will not be identical. You can't expect to roll a die 100 times and then expect a second bout of 100 rolls to give the same numbers as the first round did. Evolution just makes the best of what mutations it is given to work with.

 

[LuisDantas]

It just came to me... aren't the people who find it strange that God would have created evolution also accepting that God made teenagers eager yet unprepared to start their sexual lives?

If you ask me, evolution is much less indicative of the lack of divine planning than teenagers.

 

[Thief]

It just came to me... aren't the people who find it strange that God would have created evolution also accepting that God made teenagers eager yet unprepared to start their sexual lives?

If you ask me, evolution is much less indicative of the lack of divine planning than teenagers.

Have you considered that most of this life is chaotic and quick?

The chemistry is brief.....so too the opportunity to keep it going.

Jump too soon into things we don't understand?...of course we do.

Move too slow you have no grandchildren.
Move too slow you have no children.
Move too slow.....too bad.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because dogs are Canis familiaris, and wolves are Canis lupus - two different varieties..

Two different varieties within the kind. Get a 6 year old kid and put a siberian husky, coyote, a wolf, and a tiger in front of him and tell him to point out the different "kind" of animal, and I assure you the kid will point to the tiger. It is clear that a husky and a wolf are the same kind of animal.

Sure, the mechanisms that allow it to happen are mutation, genetic drift. migration and selection. The evidence of all four of those factors is freely available.

Right, which is why you have so many varieties within every "kind" of animal. You have many different varieties of dogs, but they are all DOGS.

False. The evidence for genetic grift, mutation, variation, selection and so on is abundant.

And they are all limited to the micro-level.

Kent is in jail for fraud mate, he is not a reliable source.

So if Stephen Hawking was to go to jail, he would not be a reliable source to talk to regarding singularity theorems? Makes no sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It may be a canid, but it is not a domestic dog in the same sense that a chihuahua is.

But it is a dog nevertheless. You are distinguishing between domesticated dogs and tame dogs, which seems quite irrelevant. A dog is a dog whether domesticated or wild.

I already have. All genes are made of DNA (or RNA, in the sense of some viruses). All DNA/RNA is subject to mutation because the replication process is not perfect. This means that any aspect of the genetic code can be changed by mutation. If any of it can change, then potentially all of it can change. The only way that this can not be true is if there is a perfect replication mechanism somewhere somehow that keeps mutations from happening in specific genes (specifically those genes which make each "kind" unique).

Ok??? DNA itself clearly implies intelligent design...but that is another story.

Checking the chronological and geographic order of fossils provides the test. If macro-evolution is true, then we should expect to find certain patterns in the fossil record while other patterns are absent. However, that is part of the dating thing that we are talking about.

We should also expect to find thousands of transitional fossils for every single living and breathing organism that is alive today. Where is the transitional fossil of the modern day elephant......or giraffe?

No, because the organism has not evolved in the Darwinian sense. In this genetic engineering example, there is no random mutation, there is no reproduction, there are no selection pressures. Without those, there is no Darwinian evolution. If you think that genetic engineering is the same as evolution, then that simply reinforces the fact that you do not fully understand what evolution is. Darwinian evolution is not the same as the broad definition of evolution (which is simply "change over time"). It is very specific.

Wait a minute, so what exactly are you saying here? Are you saying it is impossible for man to genetically engineer the process to get a desired result? Or are you saying it is possible, but it will also take time? Which is it? You are saying "it isn't the same as evolution"...so what, I want to see the end result of macroevolution.

But then again, that is the problem. Reptiles evolved into birds, right? So please explain to me what was the "selection pressures" of this change? Why? Reptiles are doing just fine now..so what occurred wayyyy back then that would have allowed for them to suddenly change into a bird? What was the point? So a mindless and blind process created the mechanism for a living organism to evolve wings and start flying? What??

Unfortunately, I cannot watch that video right now due to bandwidth limitations.

What do you have, dial up?

I can say, however, that the vast majority of the fossil record is not dated using carbon dating. You need something like uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating for things millions of years old.

Those processes work slightly differently than carbon dating does. As a matter of fact, potassium-argon dating will not work on a rock unless it is millions of years old. If it is younger, not enough argon will have accumulated to be detectable. If the Earth was only 6,000-10,000 years old, potassum-argon dating would always give back a null result (which it does not in practice).

So you have to spot every single rock a million years from the get-go for the testing to even work? Gotcha.

I find it interesting that the RATE project, which was done by young Earth creationists to prove dating techniques to be unworkable, actually came to the conclusion that large amounts of radioactive decay have in fact occured in rocks. Their way of explaining it was to say that decay rates have been much faster in the past. Actually, their quoted explanation is "God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history". That explanation makes absolutely no sense if God wanted us to believe in a young Earth. Why would He choose to speed up decay and make the Earth look old for no obvious reason? That sounds like active deception to me. Not only that, but it has been calculated that billions of years worth of decay happening in only six thousand years would generate so much heat that it would melt the Earth's crust, boiling the oceans and killing all life: Were Adam and Eve Toast

I will have to look into this.

At any rate, simply posting a video does not mean that you understand how dating techniques work. So please, tell me what you know of radiological dating. I want to know if you personally understand the workings (isochron dating in particular, since it is one of the strongest and most reliable types). If you don't understand it, then I will not fault you for that. Most people don't understand it. I will simply take the time to explain it. Just ask and I'll tell.

You are right, I don't completely understand it. Kent Hovind is the William Lane Craig of debating folks that believe in evolution, and in every one of his debate, carbon dating is mentioned and he does an excellent job in proving why this dating method is flawed...and he does this in public debates with people that are evolution advocates. The video was him explaining what carbon dating is and how the method is used.

Macro-evolution requires micro-evolution. You have to take small steps before you take large ones. One does not disprove the other.

That is the theory. My theory is macro-evolution does not occur. Unless one can be observed, then there is no reason to believe either one. The problem for you is, my theory (microevolution) HAS been observed. Yours hasn't.

The problem would be the assumption that a cat can somehow generate all of the exact same genes as a human through mutation and selection.

And it is also an assumption that a reptile can generate all of the exact same genes as a bird through mutation and selection. You believe that this could have occurred, correct?

It's the same reason that you can't take a modern wolf and breed it until you get a chihuahua. You might get something like a chihuahua, but it would be genetically different because the mutations are never going to be exactly the same.

I don't know how many different varieties of the original "kind" that God made. But what I do know is both the chihuahua and the modern wolf are both the same kind of animal.

Likewise, you could potentially get a cat population to evolve into something similar to a human over a massive span of time, but it won't be identical because the mutations will not be identical. You can't expect to roll a die 100 times and then expect a second bout of 100 rolls to give the same numbers as the first round did. Evolution just makes the best of what mutations it is given to work with.

Well, lets see a cat population evolve into something similar to a human. It doesn't have to be fully human...just someting similar to a human...as a matter of fact, i just want to see any kind of animal produce something even remotely different than what it is. Just give me something...show me SOMETHING.

So far, all I see are animals producing their own kind. That is all I see, and until I see otherwise, there is just no reason to think that the animals of yesterday were producing contrary stuff than what we see today.

 

[LuisDantas]

Have you considered that most of this life is chaotic and quick?

The chemistry is brief.....so too the opportunity to keep it going.

Jump too soon into things we don't understand?...of course we do.

Move too slow you have no grandchildren.
Move too slow you have no children.
Move too slow.....too bad.

Sure.

 

[Parsimony]

Call, we really can't proceed until you spell out what it is that you do understand about radiological dating techniques and, more importantly, what particular aspects of it you find problematic. If you doubt it is accurate, then surely there are things about it that you can tell me are flawed. Specifically, I am referencing techniques that are used to determine the age of rocks and fossils (which is usually not carbon dating).

 

[arcanum]

Why not just plant everything immediately? Why take 13 .82 billion years before putting Humans on Earth?

You either accept Evolution or not. And If you do, saying stuff like God's the force behind Evolution, or God has created evolution is meaningless because when you can create stuff from scratch, why create Evolution? Why not just make the products? To mess with smart people who study science?

From a Gnostic perspective, perhaps like the universe itself god is also imperfect and fallible. Maybe just like like his/her/it's creation, it's all a work in progress. Works for me

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call, we really can't proceed until you spell out what it is that you do understand about radiological dating techniques and, more importantly, what particular aspects of it you find problematic. If you doubt it is accurate, then surely there are things about it that you can tell me are flawed. Specifically, I am referencing techniques that are used to determine the age of rocks and fossils (which is usually not carbon dating).

Admittedly, I don't know to much of anything regarding radiological dating methods, but Kent Hovind has another video critiquing even this method in question...

[youtube]efcJEIV2RAk[/youtube]
Evolutionists Date Rocks & Fossils with Circular Reasoning - Dr. Kent Hovind - YouTube