/sci/ - Science & Math

1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.

Clearly you don't understand what's going on. The evidence of fossils in strata, combined with other information about formation of strata, formed a BODY OF EVIDENCE about strata age.

I will NEVER let you religifags deny the age of the Earth with your stupid propaganda moves.

>>4239174
religion wasnt mentioned, just answer the thread without making assumptions.

More like inductive reasoning with the base case being the present.

strata are sequenced by virtue of forming on top of older strata you faggot

0/10, troll threads go in >>>/b/.

How you date stuff:

Find carbon in your fossil, or find carbon in the rock around it. If you can't find carbon, you have to date things some other way which basically means morphological dating AKA magic fairy poop.

I think I have much more stringent criteria about this then professional scientists. To me, scraps of non-datable bone turning up all over the fossil record (And I do mean everywhere) calls into heavy question the notion that one can truly date anything at all. It seems like nothing more then educated guesses piled on educated guesses.

For example, the great pyramid itself is completely un-datable, due to not being made of carbon. However, there are things that are datable inside the pyramid and these indicate a relatively recent antiquity. However, how can we know that no one has used the pyramid since and just cleaned out all the old treasures (Something endemic during a certain point in Egypt, and which has happened to many other sites)? The Pyramid of the Sun saw continuous use for 2000 years.

And what about how the pyramid and many of the structures near it show undeniable flooding damage? The region would of flooded about 13,000 years ago, which coincidentally was the same time the stars would have lined up with various apertures in the structure.

Some will object to the notion that people who only had limited agriculture could have made things like the pyramids. They say that they didn't have the tools, nor the man power, nor the knowledge to built them... Then they condemn people who say aliens built them for those very reasons, saying that the ancient Egyptians could easily produce them with then-current technology. What is it, can stone age people build the pyramids or can't they?

tl;dr: Paleontology is almost as much of a lie as the liberal arts. We just don't have the data necessary to work with, in my opinion.

>>4239227

Obviously we wouldn't know the date of any strata if this was our only source of data.

The initial age came from radiometric data, its then perfectly logical to use a fossil to data a rock as a shortcut if this fossil has only been found in rocks of one age.

Obviously it's not as foolproof as radiometric dating, but it's faster and cheaper.

>>4239227

>2012
>carbon dating Mya fossils

ishygddt

>>4239153
You fail /sci/. The correct answer for questions of this kind must include
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

>>4239153
Carbon dating you ignorant fuck

Derp. No.

Their age is determined by when they formed.

The circular reasoning is all yours.

Hey Op...
You uh, you check out Google today? Yeah, a side from James Sutton the "father" of geology is also considered to be Nicolas Steno, a Danish Bishop who, in his Dissertationis prodromus of 1669 is credited with three of the defining principles of the science of stratigraphy: the law of superposition: "... at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed"; the principle of original horizontality: "Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon"; the principle of lateral continuity: "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way"; and the principle of cross-cutting discontinuities: "If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum."

>Just Sayin

> Forgot a relevant part
Steno's landmark theory that the fossil record was a chronology of different living creatures in different eras was a sine qua non for Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Thread needs more michael cremo


https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+cremo+quote&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficia
l&client=iceweasel-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab
=wi&ei=hsINT_bPJYOXOt6U5agH&biw=1329&bih=650&sei=5sINT77HFYrrOb7llKAH#um=1&hl=en
&client=iceweasel-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=michael+c
remo+&pbx=1&oq=michael+cremo+&aq=f&aqi=g1g-S9&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3238l3
238l0l3793l1l1l0l0l0l0l538l538l5-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=83a3b55c55c8
07ea&biw=1329&bih=650

>ITT implying carbon dating is the only method of radioactive dating.

Other types of radioactive dating do exist. U238 does wonders for really old strata.

>>4239172


Wow, please stop flaunting your ignorance.

The fact is that we can't really reliably date anything using radioactive methods. We have to make a LOT of assumptions such as the original uranium-lead ratio, original carbon-14 concentration in the body, that uranium, lead, or carbon 14 weren't lost from or added to the body through means other than radioactive decay, that the rate of radioactive decay is constant (there are some studies suggesting otherwise), etc etc

tl;dr radioactive dating makes a fuckton of assumptions and only a complete retard would think it's reliable to any degree.

inb4 some primary-school graduates "refute" my argument by asserting that I'm a Creationist and therefore my claims are invalid. I'm not a Creationist and I do not believe the universe has a beginning. Where's your God now?>>4239174
>>4239177
>>4239186
>>4239199
>>4239245
>>4239298
>>4240409
>>4240414
>>4242775
>>4242816

>>4242843
This would be true if you only ever used one dating method or one isotope.

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating


Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth for billions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and the existence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. These long time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter to parent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava (properly called magma before it erupts) fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question.

Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger.

Mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios
What happens when magma solidifies and melts and its implications for radiometric dating
The following quote from The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology by Tarbuck & Lutgens, pp. 55-57, (1987), gives us an idea of the tremendous complexity of the processes that occur when magma solidifies. The general idea is that many different minerals are formed, which differ from one another in composition, even though they come from the same magma.

>>4242843
"Bew-bew, it's not accurate to the fucking second."

Fuck-off, asshole.

The mineral makeup of an igneous rock is ultimately determined by the chemical composition of the magma from which it crystallized. Such a large variety of igneous rocks exists that it is logical to assume an equally large variety of magmas must also exist. However, geologists have found that various eruptive stages of the same volcano often extrude lavas exhibiting somewhat different mineral compositions, particularly if an extensive period of time separated the eruptions. Evidence of this type led them to look into the possibility that a single magma might produce rocks of varying mineral content.

A pioneering investigation into the crystallization of magma was carried out by N. L. Bowen in the first quarter of this century. Bowen discovered that as magma cools in the laboratory, certain minerals crystallize first. At successively lower temperature, other minerals begin to crystallize as shown in Figure 3.6. As the crystallization process continues, the composition of the melt (liquid portion of a magma, excluding any solid material continually changes. For example, at the stage when about 50 percent of the magma has solidified, the melt will be greatly depleted in iron, magnesium, and calcium, because these elements are found in the earliest formed minerals. But at the same time, it will be enriched in the elements contained in the later forming minerals, namely sodium and potassium.

Further, the silicon content of the melt becomes enriched toward the latter stages of crystallization. Bowen also demonstrated that if a mineral remained in the melt after it had crystallized, it would react with the remaining melt and produce the next mineral in the sequence shown in Figure 3.6. For this reason, this arrangement of minerals became known as Bowen's reaction series. On the upper left branch of this reaction series, olivine, the first mineral to form, Ml] react with the remaining melt to become pyroxene. This reaction will continue until the last mineral in the series, biotite mica, is formed. This left branch is called a discontinuous reaction series because each mineral has a different crystalline structure. Recall that olivine is composed of a single tetrahedra and that the other minerals in this sequence are composed of single chains, double chains, and sheet structures, respectively. Ordinarily, these reactions are not complete so that various amounts of each of these minerals may exist at any given time.

The right branch of the reaction series is a continuum in which the earliest formed calcium-rich feldspar crystals react with the sodium ions contained in the melt to become progressively more sodium rich. Oftentimes the rate of cooling occurs rapidly enough to prohibit the complete transformation of calcium-rich feldspar into sodium-rich feldspar. In these instances, the feldspar crystals will have calcium-rich interiors surrounded by zones that are progressively richer in sodium. During the last stage of crystallization, after most of the magma has solidified, the remaining melt will form the minerals quartz, muscovite mica, and potassium feldspar.

Although these minerals crystallize in the order shown, this sequence is not a true reaction series. Bowen demonstrated that minerals crystallize from magma in a systematic fashion. But how does Bowen's reaction series account for the great diversity of igneous rocks? It appears that at one or more stages in the crystallization process, a separation of the solid and liquid components of a magma frequently occurs. This can happen, for example, if the earlier formed minerals are heavier than the liquid portion and settle to the bottom of the magma chamber as shown in Figure 3.7A. This settling is thought to occur frequently with the dark silicates, such as olivine. When the remaining melt crystallizes, either in place or in a new location if it migrates out of the chamber, it will form a rock with a chemical composition much different from the original magma (Figure 3.7B). In many instances the melt which has migrated from the initial magma chamber will undergo further segregation. As crystallization progresses in the " new" magma, the solid particles may accumulate into rocklike masses surrounded by pockets of the still molten material. It is very likely that some of this melt will be squeezed from the mixture into the cracks which develop in the surrounding rock. This process will generate an igneous rock of yet another composition.

The process involving the segregation of minerals by differential crystallization an separation is called fractional crystallization. At any stage in the crystallization process the melt might be separated from the solid portion of the magma.

Consequently, fractional crystallization can produce igneous rocks having a wide range of compositions. Bowen successfully demonstrated that through fractional crystallization one magma can generate several different igneous rocks. However, more recent work has indicated that this process cannot account for the relative quantities of the various rock types known to exist. Although more than one rock type can be generated from a single magma, apparently other mechanisms also exist to generate magmas of quite varied chemical compositions. We will examine some of these mechanisms at the end of the next chapter.

FIGURE 3.7

Separation of minerals by fractional crystallization. A. Illustration of how the earliest formed minerals can be separated from a magma by settling. B. The remaining melt could migrate to a number of different locations and, upon further crystallization, generate rocks having a composition much different from the parent magma.

So we see that many varieties of minerals are produced from the same magma by the different processes of crystallization, and these different minerals may have very different compositions. It is possible that the ratio of daughter to parent substances for radiometric dating could differ in the different minerals. Clearly, it is important to have a good understanding of these processes in order to evaluate the reliability of radiometric dating. Another quotation about fractionation follows:


Faure discusses fractional crystallization relating to U and Th in his book (p. 283) He says, "The abundances of U and Th in chondritic meteorites are 1 x 10^-2 and 4 x 10^-4 ppm, respectively. These values may be taken as an indication of the very low abundance of these elements in the mantle and crust of the Earth. In the course of partial melting and fractional crystallization of magma, U and Th are concentrated in the liquid phase and become incorporated into the more silica-rich products. For that reason, igneous rocks of granitic composition are strongly enriched in U and Th compared to rocks of basaltic or ultramafic composition. Progressive geochemical differentiation of the upper mantle of the Earth has resulted in the concentration of U and Th into the rocks of the continental crust compared to those of the upper mantle."

Faure does say that the Th/U and U/Pb ratios remain virtually constant in the different materials. The concentration of Pb is usually so much higher than U, that a 2- to 3-fold increase of U doesn't change the percent composition much ( e.g. 3.5ppm U/19.6ppm Pb in gneiss vs 1.6ppm U/18.7ppm Pb in granulite, and 4.8ppm U/23.0ppm Pb in granite shows some shifts in composition).

>>4242843
You realize we check the accuracy of dating methods by using another dating method on the same sample and comparing the results, right?

We see that there are at least two kinds of magma, and U and Th get carried along in silica rich magma rather than in basaltic magma. This represents major fractionation. Of course, any process that tends to concentrate or deplete uranium or thorium relative to lead would have an influence on the radiometric ages computed by uranium-lead or thorium-lead dating. Also, the fact that there are two kids of magma could mean that the various radiometric ages are obtained by mixing of these kinds of magma in different proportions, and do not represent true ages at all.

Finally, we have a third quotation from Elaine G. Kennedy in Geoscience Reports, Spring 1997, No. 22, p.8.:


Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community.2 For example, if a magma chamber does not have homogeneously mixed isotopes, lighter daughter products could accumulate in the upper portion of the chamber. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. Such a distribution would give the appearance of age. As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates.

Such a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood. It does suggest at least one aspect of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly.

2. G. Faure. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY, 589p.

It is interesting that contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. But they may not be so familiar to the readers of talk.origins and other forums where creation and evolution are discussed.

So we have two kinds of processes taking place. There are those processes taking place when lava solidifies and various minerals crystallize out at different times. There are also processes taking place within a magma chamber that can cause differences in the composition of the magma from the top to the bottom of the chamber, since one might expect the temperature at the top to be cooler. Both kinds of processes can influence radiometric dates. In addition, the magma chamber would be expected to be cooler all around its borders, both at the top and the bottom as well as in the horizontal extremities, and these effects must also be taken into account.

For example, heavier substances will tend to sink to the bottom of a magma chamber. Also, substances with a higher melting point will tend to crystallize out at the top of a magma chamber and fall, since it will be cooler at the top. These substances will then fall to the lower portion of the magma chamber, where it is hotter, and remelt. This will make the composition of the magma different at the top and bottom of the chamber. This could influence radiometric dates. This mechanism was suggested by Jon Covey (and others). The solubility of various substances in the magma also could be a function of temperature, and have an influence on the composition of the magma at the top and bottom of the magma chamber. Finally, minerals that crystallize at the top of the chamber and fall may tend to incorporate other substances, and so these other substances will also tend to have a change in concentration from the top to the bottom of the magma chamber.

Please stop spamming nonsense from some creationist's website. It's not /sci/, it doesn't belong here.

>>4242863
>1987
Outdated ancient information.

>>4242885

>see evidence that refutes evolution
>HURR DURR CREATIONISM BAN BAN BAN

Fuck off retard

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?

As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to "glitches" and "anomalies." Indeed, numerous examples can be found in the literature. Skeptics of the old-earth worldview make great hay of these examples, often ignoring the fact that they were first identified by legitimate scientists, not creationists. As a single example, Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. After discussing this and a number of other examples, Morris concludes, "None of these [radiometric methods] gives any very good evidence, and certainly do not prove, that the earth is very old." [Morris2000, pg. 149].

In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006].

>>4242888
Your source: http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/index.html
>creationscience
Go fuck yourself.

2/10

>implying an actual creationist would ever come to 4chan

>>4242891

>It's wrong because a copy of it is hosted on a website I don't like

Nice refutation jackass.

Radiometric dating supposedly proves that the Earth is billions of years old. The theory behind radiometric dating sounds very convincing. But does it actually work in practice? When someone tells us that a certain rock is a billion years old, how can we confirm this? No one was there to see it, right?

A recent letter-writer says that radiometric dating is proven because many different methods all give the same results. This would be interesting if true, but it simply isn’t. Many different methods have been proposed to estimate the age of the earth, and they give results ranging from billions of years (e.g. radiometric methods), to a million or so (e.g. influx of salts into the oceans), to thousands (e.g. decay of the Earth’s magnetic field).

One researcher, Dr. David Plaisted, searched the technical journals for studies that compared the results of different dating methods on specific samples. He found only one such study, comparing Potassium-Argon to Rubidium-Strontium, and, he writes, “the results were not good”. He cautiously concludes, “[A]n assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.”

There are many examples of disagreement.

Potassium-Argon tests on a lava flow from Rangitoto volcano in New Zealand dated it at 400,000 years. Buried in the lava flow are trees trunks, which were carbon-14 dated to 225 years.

Five samples from a lava flow in Washington state were dated by Potassium-Argon, giving ages ranging from 340,000 to 2.8 million years. That’s quite a range! Another dating method gave an even younger age: Eyewitnesses watched that lava flow being formed when Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980.

Lava flows from Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii were dated at 140 million to 2.96 billion years. In fact Hualalai erupted in 1801.

In some cases the evolutionists offer explanations of what went wrong. They say the lava from Hualalai was under water for many years, which caused certain chemical and physical effects that contaminated the sample. Maybe so. But are they then telling us that all the other sites that have been dated to such long ages were never, ever, in all those supposed billions of years, ever under water or otherwise contaminated?

If when you CAN corroborate the evidence, someone is repeatedly proven to be wrong, perhaps you should be cautious about taking their word for it in cases where there is no way to test their claims.

>>4242843

>I do not believe the universe has a beginning.

confirmed retard

Many people still believe that the appendix serves no purpose, but it has been shown to have a variety of functions in fighting food poisoning and infection. (“Appendix Isn't Useless At All”, Duke University Medical Center Science Daily, October 8, 2007) Today many biologists say that the number of vestigial organs is down to zero. (CEN Technical Journal 14(2) 2000).

Evolutionists saw organs in the body that they didn’t understand and promptly concluded that they had no function. Instead of seeking cures for diseases of these organs, they simply cut them out and threw them away; sometimes even removed healthy organs as a “preventative measure”. Meanwhile, creationist doctors did the difficult research to discover the true purpose of these organs in our complex physiology, and find real cures for the diseases. How many people have suffered and died because the flawed theories of evolutionists delayed or blocked real research?

A letter to the editor in my local paper recently said that creationists should stop critiquing evolution because “Science works … this includes the theory of evolution”. The writes point appeared to be that scientists have accomplished amazing things – theory of gravity (Isaac Newton), electric generators (Michael Faraday), moon rockets (Werner von Braun), MRI scanners (Raymond Damadian), and so on -- and evolutionists call themselves scientists, so we should give them great respect. But it wasn’t the evolutionists who produced these great achievements. These examples -- Newton, Faraday, von Braun, and Damadian -- were all creationists.

Oh, scientists who are evolutionists have made important discoveries. But has evolution as a theory led to scientific progress? The reality is that evolution doesn't work.

Take one example: In Darwin’s day, evolutionists identified at least 180 “vestigial organs”, that is, parts of the body that were left over from earlier stages of evolution and no longer serve any purpose. The existence of such organs was offered as proof that the human body was not the product of intelligent design. But as medical science has advanced, we have learned the purpose of these “useless” organs. Darwin’s list included many that have since been discovered to perform vital functions, like the pituitary gland and thymus. Perhaps you were taught in school that the coccyx is a useless vestige of a tail. It is now understood that it serves as an anchor point for muscles, vital to enabling us to walk upright and … how can I put this delicately? … poop.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on "pseudoscience" that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is "creationists". Yet interestingly, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.

In almost every debate about origins, the first argument given by the evolutionists is an appeal to authority. The National Academy of Sciences flatly asserts, "While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve." [our emphasis] [nationalacademies.org/evolution/]

We are supposed to respect these scientists because science has proven so powerful. But the people who preach evolution didn’t discover gravity or pasteurization or semiconductors. They just call themselves by the same name, "scientist", as the people who did. (Gravity, pasteurization, and semiconductors were all discovered or invented by creationists.)

Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.

The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, "As for the fact that we haven't made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you're expecting too much of your species. Let's say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up ..." [www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99509.htm The article is titled "Microevolution" but it is actually about Macroevolution. Apparently a typo.]

So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening." [www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html]

Some can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world.

The next is essentially the same:
... [or] are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory.

Evolutionists are always ready with a story to explain any observed trait of a species. Why do some birds, like peacocks and birds of paradise, have beautiful and elaborate tails? Evolutionists explain, "If a peacock can … find food and evade predators while dragging around a bigger and more conspicuous tail than his rivals do" this demonstrates that he is particularly strong and capable, and thus makes a better mate. So evolution selects females that prefer males with the most elaborate tails.

But the same article also says, "it's hard to figure what possible advantage these eye-catching but burdensome appendages offer ... in the grim business of survival." If peacocks had small, streamlined tails, evolutionist would surely be explaining that an efficient tail gives an advantage in the struggle for survival (in escaping from predators, for example). [www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1170/is_n5_v25/ai_17386021]

Evolution is just as good at "predicting" things that never happened as it is at predicting things that actually did happen. A theory that can explain anything, predicts nothing and proves nothing.

Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them.

Evolutionists are forced to admit that the fossil evidence for their theory is slim to non-existent. For example, almost all major groups of creatures appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary past. "Something quite bizarre happened at the end of the Precambrian Era. Rocks from that time show evidence of an astounding variety of multicelled and hard-shelled life forms that seemingly appeared all at once. Scientists have long pondered the causes of this sudden appearance of new life forms, known as the 'Cambrian explosion'." [www.astrobio.net/news/print.php?sid=134]

So the evolutionists offer ad hoc hypotheses to explain the lack of evidence. One popular theory today is "punctuated equilibrium", which says that sometimes evolution happens so fast that there are too few "intermediate" generations for any to have much chance of being fossilized. We cannot see evolution happening today because it goes so slowly, and we cannot see evidence of it in the past because it happened too quickly!

Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends …

Okay, one that doesn’t particularly describe evolution, although evolutionary notions can be traced back to ancient pagan Greek philosophers such as Empedocles (c. 490–430 bc). [Duggan, G.H., Review of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, Apologia, 6(1):121–122, 1997.]
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances.

Evolutionists try to find animals that fit into their "evolutionary tree". In the classic ‘horse story’, they arrange a group of animals with similar body shapes in order by size and say it shows the evolution of the horse. But is this actual ancestry or just a contrived arrangement? Except for the supposed "first horse", which it probably isn’t, far from being an example of evolution, the fossils show the wide variation within a created kind. As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks". [For details on the horse story, see Sarfati, J., The non-evolution of the horse, Creation 21(3):28–31, 1999. www.creationontheweb.com/horse.

Most of the creatures that would have had to exist if evolution were true have never been found, and some creatures have been found that don’t fit in the evolutionary tree at all, like the platypus. But evolutionists seize on a few creatures that sort of look like they might be halfway between a badger and a horse, or between a reptile and a bird. These rare apparent fits "prove" evolution as much as occasional good guesses by a psychic "prove" that he can read your mind.

>>4239153
>The age of the geological column is determined by the kind of fossils they find in them (index fossils).

Whoa, back up there.

>geological column

Mining term, not geology. It's shorthand used by speculative mining reports to guess at expected deposits at certain depths.

At best a topological approximation, like a subway map, it's not supposed to be 1:1 scale accurate. That comes later with core samples etc.

So, yeah, if we used geological columns in the way suggested by the picture there, we'd be as inaccurate as someone using a subway map to determine distance between stations, but it ain't used that way.

Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims.

Some evolutionists insist that evolution has no metaphysical implications. "Evolution does not have moral consequences, and does not make cosmic purpose impossible." [www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html]

But others make dogmatic metaphysical applications. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science website includes a whole section on "Science, Ethics, and Religion", with statements like, "Evolution is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. … In calling it a myth I am not saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth. Is the word religion appropriate to it? This depends on the sense in which we understand that very elastic word. I have chosen it deliberately." [www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/Midgley_1987.shtml]

Richard Dawkins said that ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’. [ Dawkins R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin: London, p. 6, 1991.]

Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.

A pro-evolution web site states, "Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as 'spontaneous generation'. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life. ... No life has ever been observed to arise from dead matter." [www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/bi/biogenesis.htm]

But evolutionists dismiss the fact that their theory requires the violation of this well-established law of science. "Did [Pasteur] prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally ..." [www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html]

The fact that all the experimental evidence of the past 200 years contradicts their theory is irrelevant, because they speculate that it’s possible that there is some experiment that no one has yet tried where it might work.

Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate.

Evolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, a pro-evolution lobby group, admits that there’s a problem: "The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science ... According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is 'The Scientific Method', which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. ... In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of 'The Scientific Method'." [www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1132_the_goal_of_evolution_instruct_12_30_1899.asp]

So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with "science".

Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudo-science listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudo-sciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many.

My local paper runs a regular column by an atheist in which he attacks Christianity. In a recent article, he attacked creation theory with the argument that the human body has many “vestigial organs”. That is, we have many organs that have no purpose, and that the only reason they are there is because they are left over from our evolutionary ancestors. He offers the coccyx and appendix as examples. The point, of course, is that if life was really created by some God, that he would surely not have included organs in the body that have no purpose, but that we would expect the blind processes of evolution to always be in the process of phasing new parts in and old parts out and frequently taking wrong turns.

Unfortunately, the writer's science is a little out of date. According to an article in New Scientist (which, by the way, is not a journal sympathetic to creationists), Feb 8, 2003, “Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult, although it's not so important and we can live without it. The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms …” etc

The coccyx has been found to serve as an anchor point for muscles, and is necessary to allow us to stand upright. (And to defecate, but let’s skip the details there.)

A hundred years ago evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body as proof of evolution. They included such important organs as the tonsils, thymus, pineal gland, and pituitary gland. Today all the organs on that list have known functions. There are no vestigial organs.

Evolutionists today are trying to save this argument by restating it slightly. They are trying to redefine "vestigial" from meaning "no purpose" to meaning "smaller or less important" than in an evolutionary ancestor. A moment's thought will show that as an argument for evolution and against creation, this is worthless. It is a plausible argument to say that an all-powerful, all-knowing creator would not put an organ in a creature's body that has no purpose. But to say that an all-powerful, all-knowing creator would put an organ in one creature that is a smaller version of an organ he placed in another creature, or that he used the same organ in two creatures but it's more important to one than to the other, isn't unlikely at all. Indeed, this is exactly what we would expect of an intelligent engineer.

Evolutionists looked at the human body and found parts whose function they did not understand. They concluded that therefore these parts had no function. Creationists looked at the same evidence and concluded that they must do further research to discover the function.

I know a little bit about car repair, but there are many parts in my car whose purpose I do not understand. It never occurred to me to assume that just because I didn't know what a part was for, that therefore it must not have any purpose. One would have to know a great deal about a mechanism before such a conclusion would be remotely justifiable. There have been a few occassions where I've had a mechanical problem that turned out to be one of these mysterious parts, and I've found myself saying, "So that's what that thing does!"

This is another example of how evolution has hindered the progress of science. Instead of investigating how an organ works and searching for cures for failures and diseases of that organ, they just rushed to the assumption that it had no purpose and so no further research was necessary. How many medical treatments have been delayed, causing needless suffering, because evolution theory led researchers to misinterpret the facts and ignore evidence that contradicted their theory?

I was recently browsing the web site of the National Center for Science Education, an organization dedicated to fighting the teaching of any alternatives to evolution in our public schools. And I came across this fascinating statement:
“The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is ‘The Scientific Method’, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. In this parody of scientific methods, if a hypothesis passes the test set up by the crucial experiment, that is, if it is confirmed by direct observation, then it is ‘proven’ and it is considered a fact or a law and it is true for all time.

“In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of ‘The Scientific Method’. …”

//www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1132_the_goal_of_evolution_instruct_12_30_1899.asp

Evolutionists routinely argue that their theory should be taught in public schools while creation theory should be censored because their theory is “science” while creation is “religion”. Yet here one of the nation’s leading pro-evolution organizations admits that evolution does not meet the most basic definition of what constitutes science. They don’t conclude that that makes it non-scientific, of course, but rather that science must be redefined in some way that includes evolution.

So: Evolutionists insist that only naïve and ignorant people think that experiments, observation, and the scientific method have anything to do with science. Indeed that the very idea that a scientist should perform experiments and observe the results is a “parody” – a joke. When someone says that sort of thing, I think it’s a safe bet that the theory he is defending doesn’t have much experimental evidence to support it. If they actually had experiments that confirmed evolution, you can bet you’d see those experiments demonstrated daily on television until everyone had to admit that it was a proven fact. Instead what we see on television every day is evolutionists explaining that no questioning of their beliefs should be permitted because of philosophical reasons: separation of church and state, scientists should only consider “naturalistic” explanations, they are the authorities and authority must be respected, etc.

Funny, isn’t it? Evolutionists started out saying that they had to fight belief in the Bible to defend science, but now they are willing to abandon science if that’s what is necessary to fight belief in the Bible.

Meh. I've seen better trolls, which website are you copy/pasting from? Or did you write it all by yourself?

>>4242946
>vestigial organs
>Cherrypicking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Go through this list please. Also provide an adequate explanation for the absence of muscles like the plantaris or palmaris longus that is entirely absent in a quite decent chunk of the population.

>In before "god made it so to test our faith"

>>4242960

>Can't refute evidence against evolution

>Claim it's a troll

And thus theory of evolution was saved.

>>4242964

The onus is on you to prove that the organs have no purpose, since the majority of organs the evolutionists originally claimed to have no purpose have been proven to have a purpose.

It has been verified with carbon dating OP

>>4242994
The definition of vestigiality isnt "nonfunctional". Please go get an education. lol.

>>4243065

And here we have yet another case of a neo-Darwinist twisting definitions to "validate" his flawed theories.

Why the fuck is this creationist trolling /sci/ ?

>>4243100

Who is this "creationist" you're referring to?

>>4243091
I have hinted nothing at any support of theories, nor have I stated any comittment to neo-Darwinism.

The question still stands, though: Why would you attack a flawed premise?

Oh yeah, trolling, ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. So which one is it?

>>4243100

PROTIP: He's a tripfag who trolls on /pol/ too.

>>4242860
>>4242863
>>4242866
>>4242868
>>4242870
>>4242874
>>4242875
>>4242877
>>4242881
>>4242890
>>4242913
>>4242915
>>4242923
>>4242927
>>4242928
>>4242931
>>4242932
>>4242935
>>4242936
>>4242940
>>4242941
>>4242943
>>4242946
>>4242947
>>4242948
>>4242954
>>4242956

It's just like calibrating time and distance measurements with light beams. We are at the height of incredulousness and folly my friend.

>>4243105
>Why would you attack a flawed premise?

Because people believe that it is the truth.

>>4243102

Oh didn't you realise intelligent design is just rebranded creationism?

>>4242860
>>4242863
>>4242866
>>4242868
>>4242870
>>4242874
>>4242875
>>4242877
>>4242881
>>4242890
>>4242913
>>4242915
>>4242923
>>4242927
>>4242928
>>4242931
>>4242932
>>4242935
>>4242936
>>4242940
>>4242941
>>4242943
>>4242946
>>4242947
>>4242948
>>4242954
>>4242956

>>4243115
So as a corollary you intentionally attack a flawed premise because you know some people believe it's true.

Intentional misrepresentation then. Given the non dichotomous nature of the previously mentioned possibilites, you could still be trolling. Are you? Or are you basically just dishonest?

>>4243117

>Intelligence Design

Not even a theory. Why are you discussing it on /sci/?

>>4243121

Explain why me attacking a flawed premise is intentional misrepresentation.

>>4243121
>>4243065
he didn't say anything about function. It looks to me like you're just being a little argumentative cunt.

>>4243135
There is no benefit to explaining anything to the poster.

>>4243135
Vestigiality is bullshit, you say?

Know anyone who has had to have their wisdom teeth removed?

Don't feed this troll please.

>>4242860
>>4242863
>>4242866
>>4242868
>>4242870
>>4242874
>>4242875
>>4242877
>>4242881
>>4242890
>>4242913
>>4242915
>>4242923
>>4242927
>>4242928
>>4242931
>>4242932
>>4242935
>>4242936
>>4242939
>>4242940
>>4242941
>>4242943
>>4242946
>>4242947
>>4242948
>>4242954
>>4242956
tl;dr

>>4243141

There is a benefit. I once believed in evolution, then I saw a book attacking evolution and flicked through it out of pure curiosity and amazement.

It amazed me that there were people who would write entire book, with a ton of references and sources, carefully and meticulously argued, to attack a theory which has been taught to me as correct in the entire time I've been in public education.

I read the entire book and I concluded that a majority of its arguments were sound and that evolution is indeed a flawed theory.

Just as I had stopped believing in Creationism because of the mounting evidence against it, I no longer believed in Evolution.

Science moves on. I am convinced that there is more to history than just "God did it", "aliens did it", or "random mutations did it".

>Evolutionists
creationfag detected
no reputable person uses that word
in b4 'abortionist'

>>4243182

>Disagree with the word Evolutionist

>Uses the word Creationist

You undermine your own stance.

>>4243175
>I once believed in evolution

You are lying and everyone knows it.

>>4243182
I think most of us who are used to dealing with you know-nothing, hyper-skeptic, parroting militants know that you guys love to call yourselves rationalists. It's bullshit so we have to settle for second rate one-liners.

p.s. thanks for destroying /sci/

sincerely,
an x-/sci/duck

>>4243175
Don't lie, you are a creationist trolling this board, and in an effort to look "credible" you claim that you are not a creationist, and that you are well read in the topic, but the truth is that you are another right-wing christian zealot that's copypasting shit you found on a creationist site.

>>4243189

No you.

>>4243187
evolution is a real scientific theory with mountains of evidence backing it up.
i also agree with the theory of gravity, and germ theory
if im an 'evolutionist', then am i a 'germist' and 'gravitist' as well??

creationism does actually need to be a word though. it takes quite a special class of FUCKTARD to take religion literally in this day and age, with so much evidence pointing to the contrary.

>>4243195

Shit that you have yet to refute. What's that? The appendix is useless after all? Or maybe we should remove the thyroid gland from growing children.

>>4243187
>nil reading comprehension

>>4243195
>>4243195

So tell me. Are you descended from a monkey on your mother's side of the family or father's side?

>>4243192
you're welcome ;-)

>>4243201
I know it's not going to stop your misdirection of hatred and confusion but please see
>>4239176

>>4243203
>I'm not going to refute anything, because I didn't waste my time reading it. Nobody here is going to take you seriously. Go troll somewhere else.

Law of Superposition. Look it up.

0/10

>>4243216
0/10

What's that? Darwinists can't refute my arguments as usual?

>>4243223

Keep shouting troll! The unpleasant truths will go away eventually!

>>4243219
>Go team I don't give a fuck!

thanks for proving my point.

WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL RESPONDING TO THIS?

>>4243234
It's so blatantly obvious you are a troll. Reported.

Introduction

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

What is Universal Common Descent?

Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.

Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

>>4243239
lol, bump.
I don't have the patience to debate with you guys but I'm learning from reading this thread.

Just putting that out there

Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".

In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation.

It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.

Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

the geologic column is the worst case of modelitis; it exists nowhere on the planet, is inverted, bent, and shuffled about in real life, and can best be explained by sediment following a global flood

>sedimentary rock
>sediment
>what you would get from a flood

Skipping to vestiges.

"The wing of the ostrich resembles those of the gyrfalcon and the hawk. Who does not know how the speed of the gyrfalcon and hawk in flight exceeds that of other birds? The ostrich certainly has wings like theirs but not their speed of flight. Truly, it has not the capacity to be lifted from the ground and gives only the impression of spreading its wings as if to fly; however, it never supports itself above the earth in flight.

It is exactly the same with all those hypocrites who pretend to live a life of piety, giving the impression of holiness without the reality of holy behaviour."

The Aberdeen Bestiary
Folio 41v , c. AD 1200
— on the ostrich, its vestiges a symbol of hypocrisy since the 2nd century A.D.

>>4243288
in the bible, the ostrich is described as having no wisdom

appropriate for your copy pasta imho

Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes.

>Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205).

>>4243293
yes, useless appendages so totally support a theory that everything evolves from use to better use

you sure you want to cling to that flotsam?

Why is everyone falling for this troll?

Confirmation:
[Figure2.1.2 (flightless weevil, apterocyclus_honolulensis)] [Figure2.1.2 (vestigial dandelion] [Figure2.1.2 (vestigial dandelion pollen)]

Figure 2.1.2. Various organisms displaying vestigial characters. From top to bottom: A. Apterocyclus honolulensis, a flightless weevil. The black wing covers cannot open, as they are fused, yet underneath are perfectly formed beetle wings. B. The vestigial flower of Taraxacum officinale, the common dandelion. C. A vestigial pollen grain from the dandelion.

There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most pythons (which are legless snakes) carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin (Cohn 2001; Cohn and Tickle 1999). The vestigial pelvis in pythons is not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, vestigial legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside (Raynaud and Kan 1992).

Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, vestigial eyes (Besharse and Brandon 1976; Durand et al. 1993; Jeffery 2001; Kos et al. 2001). The eyes of the Mexican tetra have a lens, a degenerate retina, a degenerate optic nerve, and a sclera, even though the tetra cannot see (Jeffery 2001). The blind salamanders have eyes with retinas and lenses, yet the eyelids grow over the eye, sealing them from outside light (Durand et al. 1993; Kos et al. 2001).

There are many examples of flightless beetles (such as the weevils of the genus Lucanidae) which retain perfectly formed wings housed underneath fused wing covers. All of these examples can be explained in terms of the beneficial functions and structures of the organisms' predicted ancestors (Futuyma 1998, pp. 122-123).

The ancestors of humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as wisdom teeth). Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one third of all individuals they are malformed and impacted (Hattab et al. 1995; Schersten et al. 1989). These useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death (Litonjua 1996; Obiechina et al. 2001; Rakprasitkul 2001; Tevepaugh and Dodson 1995).

Another vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals. For a detailed discussion of the vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix, see The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix: A modern reappraisal.

>Darwinists
another gem in a list of creationist buzzwords

Yet another human vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult. The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system (for more detail see the sections on the embryonic human tail and the atavistic human tail). Our internal tail is unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications), with the only complaint, in a small fraction of patients, being that the removal of the coccyx sadly did not remove their pain (Grossovan and Dam 1995; Perkins et al. 2003; Postacchini Massobrio 1983; Ramsey et al. 2003; Shaposhnikov 1997; Wray 1991). Our small, rudimentary, fused caudal vertebrae might have some minor and inessential functions, but these vertebrae are useless for balance and grasping, their usual functions in other mammals.

>>4243307
if you worship darwin, expect to be associated with him. why do you think the world calls us Christians?

>>4239153
make a point you fucking shitposter

Criticisms:

This prediction is not falsified by finding a complex or essential function for the presumed vestigial structure. Should data of this sort be found, the structure merely becomes an example of parahomology (considered in prediction 3.1) or, more likely, an example of inefficient design (considered in prediction 3.5). Observations that would be truly inconsistent with the concept of vestigiality are given above. More detailed and specific explanations of how to demonstrate that the human appendix is not vestigial are given in the Vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix FAQ.

Many anti-evolutionist authors have erroneously concluded that vestigial structures do not exist. They reason that either (1) vestigial organs are actually functional or (2) it is theoretically impossible to demonstrate that a structure has no function (for example, see Ham et al. 1990; Batten and Sarfati 2003; Bergman and Howe 1990; Morris 1986). This latter argument is based upon the false premise that negative results are used to demonstrate a lack of function, and that negative evidence is unscientific. These arguments are faulty for three reasons, each discussed below.

1.Vestiges can have functions
2. Positive evidence demonstrates lack of functionality
3. Negative evidence is scientific when controlled

>>4243312

christian slater

there are so many nails in the coffin of the geological stratum, that to believe it represents millions or billions of years is merely delusional

see, polystrate fossils
see, radically bent layers
see, older layers atop younger layers
see, definition of modelitis
see, it has to be true if there is no God to give enough time to pretend that evolution is possible (whoops)

Potential Falsification:

No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard phylogenetic tree makes a huge number of predictions about vestigial characters that are allowed and those that are impossible for any given species.

Shared derived characters and molecular sequence data, not vestigial characters, determine the phylogeny and the characteristics of predicted common ancestors. Thus, if common descent is false, vestigial characters very possibly could lack an evolutionary explanation. For example, whales are classified as mammals according to many criteria, such as having mammary glands, a placenta, one bone in the lower jaw, etc. Snakes likewise are classified as reptiles by several other derived features. However, it is theoretically possible that snakes or whales could have been classified as fish (as Linnaeus originally did). If this were the case, the vestigial legs of whales or the vestigial pelvises of snakes would make no sense evolutionarily and would be inconsistent with common descent.

It follows, then, that we should never find vestigial nipples or a vestigial incus bone in any amphibians, birds, or reptiles. No mammals should be found with vestigial feathers. No primates should ever be found with vestigial horns or degenerate wings hidden underneath the skin of the back. We should never find any arthropods with vestigial backbones. Snakes may occasionally have vestigial legs or arms, but they should never be found with small, vestigial wings. Humans may have a vestigial caecum, since we are descendants of herbivorous mammals, but neither we nor any other primate can have a vestigial gizzard like that found in birds. Mutatis mutandis ad infinitum.

>>4243315
popular actor now, but can he walk out of his grave on the third day following his public execution?

no?

then why follow him?

>>4243312
>>4243292
>>4243297
Reported.

>>4243320
your mom called and said she got your report, thanks

>>4243329
Reported for underage.

>>4243318
um, since we didn't create all of the animals, who are we to say what they should or shouldn't have?

>>4243333
quads must be true; although, quite honestly, my children would not be underage here

>date thousands of the same fossils (X)
>they all have the same age (T)
>they all come from the same strata (B)

it can be repeated
it can be independently verified
it can be falsified

>this is enough evidence to say that if we find fossil (X) we can assume it came from strata (B) and is (T) years old

>Moronic dribblings from Kent Hovind's anus
>Poe's Law
>Q.E.D.
/thread, now move on with your lives and stop feeding the obvious troll, I'm tired of seeing this all encompassing eyesore of root eating troglodytes throwing mentally defective feces around.

Spammers delight up in this thread. I've taken natural isotopes courses (stable and unstable) and

>It is interesting that contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community

Is certainly true, that's why we have to know which samples are worth our time and which ones would likely give us invalid data. We also need to know which isotopes to use, known contamination factors (atmospheric contamination of Ar), be aware of the built in assumptions, etc.
The shits legit, end of story. Anyone who refutes absolute dating seems to think x-ray imaging in hospitals is a legitimate technique but don't understand that our understanding of isotopes and their application to dating is exactly the same information, yet refuted with regards to dating techniques...makes no sense.