Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3

[theshredator]

fail 1 of 3

[eckyhen]

I gave up on this guy after about 2 minutes. He misrepresents the title of "Origin of Species" to mean "origin of life". Either he is dishonhest or stupid

[StevePinto3]

Ok...so if I can make Darwin look bad...evolution is false! That's how logic works.

[DAKGOD4EVER]

he had the idea darwin proved it

[MrScienceandReason]

03:00 and I always thought DNA wasn't discovered until 1953 by Watson and Crick???!!! Boy do I feel stupid....

[evidenceonly]

Groan. How long? How long before humanity has the COURAGE to crawl away from self-delusion, towards TRUTH ? C'mon humanity. This is so, b-o-r-i-n-g. Religious people ,please just disapear. Lets party . Forget the delusional, religious conformists. We can build a beautiful world anyway.

[ClamCrunchy]

I'm sorry for anyone who believes what is said in this program, but it's all totally wrong.

[chipalike]

I am hoping that no one believes this... 

[MrShane2369]

"We are caught up in the global propaganda.." I love irony.

Creationism is such a dead end when you finally get past all of the verbal gymnastics these people go through. It has no place in a classroom, nor is it on the other end of some sort of evolution controversy. It's nothing but Absolute nonsense.

[ThisIDig]

@MrShane2369 Yours is a typical response to (yet another) thorough intellectual rebuke of evolution theory. 

[MrShane2369]

@ThisIDig Creationism failed to prove itself in a court of law to be scientific. If you believe creationism is true, I challenge you to prove it. I also challenge you to prove it was the Abrahamic God of the bible who created everything and not Thor or Zeus. Evolution is a fact, and you denying it has no bearing on the matter.

[ThisIDig]

@MrShane2369 "Creationism" is an improper term, just as "Evolutionism" would be. What Creation Science offers, aside from cutting edge research (see Genome Project, Hyperbaric Biosphere, etc.), is compiling and experimenting with scientific data, whether it be geological, anthropological, astrologocal, etc. based on an alternative scientific theory from that of evolution. Topics such as stem cell research and climate change are a few examples where creation science has shed new light.

[tafftastic]

@ThisIDig Creation 'science' is an oxymoron.

[ThisIDig]

@tafftastic No, I would think "creative evolution" to be more of an oxymoron. Creation Science is, in fact, quite observable. Let the naysayers read the scholarly research and judge it by its own merits. I could point to more than a few articles from well-known evolutionists who have used more than a little of their imagination, not to mention the wonderfully crafted artwork. Imagination indeed!

[tafftastic]

@ThisIDig Creation science is observable?! There has never been a single piece of evidence put forward to the international scientific community that had stood up to scrutiny by independent authorities. Fact.

And I've likely read and discounted most of your 'scholarly' paper’s claims, none of which can be proven to be fact . Oh, and then there was the Dover trial.

Your sort (ICR etc) have yet to present any hard evidence to back up your hidden agenda to substantiate claims made in Genesis.

[ThisIDig]

@tafftastic You are not well-informed. Here are a few articles and research topics citing original creation-based research: Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism (Steven Austin), Global Warming and Solar Activity (Larry Vardiman), Polystrate Fossils (John D. Morris), Genome Project (Jean Lightner, Georgia Purdom). Here are highly conclusive evidences regarding several topics to which evolutionists have no explanation. Evolution theory is severely flawed & outdated yet many continue to grasp at straws

[venomfanex]

@ThisIDig

Please substantiate your claim that creation science (not that creation and science should be used in the same sentence) has shed new light on stem cell research and climate change. INDEPENDENTLY TESTED AND VERIFIED evidence and facts please. Which I very much doubt you're able to provide

[ThisIDig]

@venomfanex From the standpoint of a theory of creation from an intelligent source, one can ascertain that the information we are created with is complex and platform-specific. This is why fatal biological abnormalities (tumors, erratic and dysfunctional behavior of organs, etc.) continue to plague the test subjects involved with embryonic stem cell research. The truth is: There is no such thing as "junk DNA", that is a myth of evolution. Your DNA will only properly operate in you.

[tafftastic]

@ThisIDig

Apart from your statement that our DNA contains important data the rest of your claims are without merit.

Our DNA most definately is not 'platform' specific. We have been swapping DNA between animal and human species since the early 1970s, with some notable benefits, including the development of insulin and hundreds of other life saving drugs.

By 'junk DNA' I presume you're referring to dormant genes? They're dormant as far as we know. Provide evidence to the contrary please.

[Omnitrix12]

@tafftastic Testing has proven that "junk" DNA is as vital as active DNA. HAve you seen the pictures of what happened when they removed those "non-essential" genes from lab mice? Not pretty.

[tafftastic]

@Omnitrix12 Ok, you stick with slang terms I'll stick with dormant DNA or noncoding DNA. And yes, I know plenty about the mess removing any DNA, dormant ot otherwise, has on its host.

Interestingly enough there is some great work being undertaken by a colleague of mine in exploring ways to re-activate dormant DNA. Watch this space....

[ThisIDig]

@tafftastic You either misunderstood my statement, or you have not researched much about genetics. There is no other creature on earth that shares the same genetic information with another. Sure, there are similar proteins and constructs within the genetic code, but you must remember (or discover): Order is everything. One misplaced protein, or even a duplicate of the same, carries drastic consequences. Evidence to the contrary: Junk DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God's Tools? -L. Walkup

[tafftastic]

@ThisIDig Would you like to compare qualifications in relation to genetics? I fancy my chances.

The Catholic church acknowledges that many creatures can share the same genetic information (pseudogenes and retroposons) as does anyone with a basic understanding of genetics, which you clearly don't.

Let's just say for a moment you're correct - how on earth can you then take the leap from acknowledging this fact to 'God did it'? That requires faith. Which is outside of science.

[ThisIDig]

@venomfanex Note, in my previous response I alluded to embryonic stem cell research - not adult stem cell research. Initially, embryonic stem cells were attractive for their pluripotency. As biologists have continued to discover, adult stem cells have more pluripotential than first realized. On the other hand, embryonic stem cell research has born little fruit, or at least nothing on the grounds of a pure, regenerative nature. I do encourage you to look into this matter yourself. Cheers.

[Omnitrix12]

This appened to someone I know quite well recently. He was out doing some street evangelism in New York City and got hit by a pickpocket, but instead of grabbing money, the guy got a handful of tracts! He read one, and realized his need for Jesus. He came back, returned the stolen literature, and accepted Christ!

Not only is God awesome, but He's got a great sense of humor.

[Omnitrix12]

XD I love the note story.

[Omnitrix12]

tyrannosaurus --> Not at all. Many evidences, and an increasing number, dispute evolution. And most of the evidence Darwin built his work on has been irrevocably debunked.

[ashraghil]

This is SO wrong and not the truth.

I request a list of all the debunked evidence Darwin built his work on. And I really MEAN evidence Darwin built his work on. And I request literature references.

[Omnitrix12]

The list would be too long to post here, but to give one example, finches. He claimed that the diversity of beaks, and the fact that a certain species' beak tends to enlarge on an overall population-wide basis in times of drought, proves evolution as a producer of new species. There are myriad blunders in this. To begin with, he ignored the fact that when the drought ends, the beaks will go back to their normal size. Also, beak size does not a different species make...

[Omnitrix12]

Beak size may be different because of it being a different species, but it's not a different species because of beak size. This also applies to breeds. For example, a bloodhound has a big nose because it's a bloodhound. The nose does not make it a bloodhound, the bloodhound makes the nose. Also, an evolutionist who had never seen dogs before would look at a bloodhound and, let's say, a retriever, and say they were different species. But they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

[Omnitrix12]

Therefore, a retriever and a bloodhound are the same species, and nose size doesn't mean a thing in regard to it. Nor does beak size among finches prove a thing, because the different species, studies have shown, can interbreed and produce offspring stronger than the "originals," just as mixed-breed dogs tend to be healthier than purebreds. And that's only one of Darwin's blunders.

[ashraghil]

You are mixing up natural selection with human aided selection when switching from finches to dogs and backwards.

I am afraid Darwin never took the enlargement of beaks as PROVE for evolution being the producer of new species. I would be GLAD if there was any PROVE for evolution, but there is none and never will be - there is just evidence.

Why would beaks grow back to normal size when the drought ends?????

[Omnitrix12]

The principle is the same; DNA is weeded out by circumstance, albeit controlled circumstance in the case of the dog. Which is actually a point in the favor of intelligent design. None of the things these evolutionists like to postulate has ever actually worked even in the lab, so how can they work in real life?

Also, last I checked, Darwin's entire notion was that natural selection produced new species. But at least you're honest enough to admit there's no proof.

[Omnitrix12]

You aremistaken, however, to say that there is evidence which speaks for evolution in and of itself. There really isn't. What happens is that we humans look at evidence and interpret it according to our own worldviews. For example, an evolutionist will look at the Grand Canyon and interpret the evidence to say that it was formed gradually, whereas a creationist will look at it and say it was formed rapidly by powerful flood waters. The question is, which view best handles the objective facts?

[Omnitrix12]

As for the beak sizes, I'm not exactly clear on the why. At a guess, I would say it's because the finches were designed to have a certain beak size, and while other sizes may occasionally be advantageous, the regular size is, overall, the way to go. So, remove the situation that makes the larger beaks an advantage (the drought) and they will gradually be weeded out. It's like antibiotic-resistant bacteria. They thrive as long as the drug is there.

[Omnitrix12]

But remove the antibiotic, let the original strain come back, and the resistant ones, often toted as evolutionarily "advanced" can't compete with the old ones, and they'll eventually die out. I'd have to do more specific research on the finches to give a definitive answer, but that's what I'd say makes the most sense based on what I know right now (which, really, is the foundation of a scientific mindset).

[ashraghil]

There is a reason why Darwin made a distinction between natural selection and humand aided selection. If you want to see DNA getting "weeded out" you will have to wait for millions of years and experiment with a big population of dogs.

And yes, Darwin said that natural selection produces new species - he did not say that bird beaks are proof for evolution. And by stating it you are misinterpreting Darwin on purpose.

[ashraghil]

The grand canion has nothing to do with the origin of species. If you want to talk about evolution - fine. If you want to talk about the physical circumstances required for the grand canion being formed rapidly, talk to somebody else.

[ashraghil]

Large beaks and and small beaks are not a qualtitative property on their own. Large beaks to get grown need encouragement by a drought, otherwise there is no reason for them to become dominant. Once a population has grown large beaks and the drought ends, small beaks don't promise any benefits. No need for small beaks --> no small beaks.

[ashraghil]

But since we are already exchanging PMs I invite you to continue this discussion there...its just a pain to discuss with 500 characters max per post.

[Omnitrix12]

No, but he based his findings on differences such as beak sizes and shapes. Come on, man, keep up.

[Omnitrix12]

As for my point about dogs, you're missing it. Much of evolution is based on fossil "evidence," most of it vastly overstated. But fossils don't tell us that one animal evolved from another. They just tell us what individual animals looked like, and even that can be sketchy. Within certain boundaries, two fossils could be the same species and look like different ones, as with the example of a bloodhound and a retreiver.

[ashraghil]

There is nothing WRONG on basing findings on such things. My point was that you stated that he declared those things as PROOF. And there is not proof, there is only evidence that leads to conclusions. For you those conclusions are such you don't accept, but that's another cup of coffee.

The interpretation of fossils is not done by "guessing". Age and and geography play big roles here. In sum there is a tree of species / subspecies - errors in detail are not the problem here.

[Omnitrix12]

There is something very wrong with it if one continues doing so when the evidence is found to not lead to said conclusion, or even to lead to a completely different one. In the case of finches, for example, one sees not an increase of diversity but, in fact, quite the opposite; diversity being lost as DNA is weeded out.

And don't get me started on aging fossils. The methods for that are highly unreliable, and it's common for different tests to be done until the "right" results are found.

[ashraghil]

Science is postulating theories based on observations. Even if later evidence proves it wrong it is not "very wrong" to postulate it. For evolution there has not yet been found evidence that contradicts the theory. You might be able to ask 1000 questions it cannot answer yet and there have been many things that needed to be corrected in detail - but still no contradiction

Fossil dating: You stated it yourself - many methods combined together to avoid errors. That's why fossil dating is reliable

[Omnitrix12]

It's not wrong to postulate a mistaken idea, but it is wrong to cling to it. And a lot of evidence has been found tho throw evolution's star witnesses right out the window. For example, have you ever heard of Nebraska Man, the "ancestor" used as evidence in the Scopes trial?

As for fossil dating, it's not reliable at all. They start with an assumption and then keep testing until one fits their assumption, You can get completely different resul;ts within the same bone.

[ashraghil]

You are mistaking temporarily mistaken classifications for evidence against evolution. If it pleases you I am willing to admit that the more detailed you want to classify a fossil, the more likely it is that you will have to correct that classification in the future. But that's what science is based on. And it was scientists who found out that Nebraska Man was not what it initially looked like. So in a way this incident shows you how self critical science is.

[Omnitrix12]

If science is so self-correcting, why is it that Roger DeHart was fired for even admitting that other opinions existed besides evolution? Why is Neanderthal Man still toted as proof of human evolution when it's been known for years that there is no basis for treating it as anything other than homo sapiens?

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 Roger DeHart was teaching "intelligent design" at a public school - which the Supreme Court had specifically ruled against years earlier, and no, neanderthals were not homo sapiens.

[ashraghil]

Fossil dating is NOT just having a look at the bones. And it is NOT about assumptions.

Let me compare it to dating antique crockery. You are NOT just having a look a the material. You are checking for inscriptions, you are checking the geography, you take into consideration what has been found at the same find spot.

The more specific you want to date it, the less accurate you will be. Telling the century of its fabrication is more accurate than telling the weekday of fabrication.

[ashraghil]

Declaring that fossil dating is done like "keep on testing like it fits our assumption" is simply incorrect. I cannot call it something else. I don't know if you are making it up yourself or if you have been told that lie deliberately, but as long as you are throwing around with it, you cannot earn my respect.

[Omnitrix12]

I am not going based on any lies, I'm going based on documented proof. For example, the University of Arizona was sent some unlabeled bone samples for testing (an unbiased, purely scientific approach). Results came back 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years, on Allosaurus bones supposedly 140 million years.

Science depends on consistent, repeatable results, and also on a test situation unbiased as to the results. Ask any teacher. Carbon dating? Not even close to science.

[ashraghil]

The Neanderthal Man was never been considered as proof for human evolution. I ALREADY stated that there is no proof for evolution, just evidence.

Before you aren't even WILLING to research about fossil dating besides on creationist sites our discussion is over. I don't care if you are deceived or a deceiver, but since you are behaving as if fossil dating and carbon dating were the same, you are definitely not interested in science. You never will be.

[Omnitrix12]

P.S. You admit that Neanderthal Man is not prrof. I KNOW it's not proof. But 90% of your colleagues say otherwise, by their actions if not their words.

[ashraghil]

Roger DeHart loves to introduce ID in science classes. He? shouldn't have just been fired, he should have been sent to jail.

A scientist who introduces a supernatural being in the scientific method stops being a scientist. But he might have a chance as priest.

[Omnitrix12]

Ah, but DeHart didn't introduce intelligent design. He didn't even bring it up. His only "crime" was to acknowledge that there were other beliefs out there; that what the textbooks said was not universally accepted as proof. And it's well-accepted that controversy promotes learning. If elementary school students can be assigned to put Christopher Columbus, who quite objectively is the starting point of United States history one way or the other, on trial, why can they not do the same...

[Omnitrix12]

...for something you yourself have admitted cannot be proven? On what basis should a teacher be jailed for admitting "not everyone believes this"?

Thank you for exposing yourself as an enemy of free speech.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 Where are you getting this information? Carbon dating isn't used on fossils. It's used on organic matter.

[Omnitrix12]

@Leehofooks With the exception of footprints and impressions of that nature, all fossils - bones, copralites, and the rare cases of internal organs like the stomach - originated as organic matter. And in a remarkable number of these fossils, there is still organic matter present, sometimes even blood cells. This itself is a devastating blow to millions of years for any rational person. And as for carbon dating in fossils, it's quite common, as are a number of other provably flawed methods.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 Yes - fossils obviously originated as organic material, but they aren't anymore (or else they wouldn't be fossils). Carbon dating is not commonly used for fossils. Carbon dating is only ever used on material that is still organic (in other words: not a fossil) and only up to about 50,000 years old. The limits of carbon dating are also very well understood. And no, there are not a "remarkable number of fossils" with organic material or ANY fossils with fresh red blood cells.

[Omnitrix12]

@Leehofooks Far more than most "scientists" would like to admit. And yes, there have been red blood cells found. Not fresh, but intact enough to be recognizable as such.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 "Far more than most 'scientists' would like to admit."

So you're privy to some information that "scientists" are keeping under wraps, huh? Care to share this information and tell us how you know it?

"Not fresh, but intact enough to be recognizable as such"

You mean like a fossil? Wow. Who would have thought?

[Omnitrix12]

@Leehofooks A great deal more than I could convey here, and my sources are not without number as well. But sarcasm does not become you. When I say "recognizable as such," I mean that the substances involved are distinct from the minerals of which the fossilized parts consist. In essence, they are the original material.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 Cite a source, please.

[Omnitrix12]

@Leehofooks Answers in Genesis. Of course the guy in this video is quick to discredit them, because they point out him and other charletons for what they really are.

[Omnitrix12]

@Leehofooks Answers in Genesis.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 A real source, please? Like the actual paper.

[Leehofooks]

@Omnitrix12 And more importantly (back to the earlier argument) - Also, please cite an example of carbon dating being used on a specimen thought to be millions of years old.

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 You claim to have used carbon dating to test these bones at the University of Arizona you say. Now that was silly.

Carbon dating is only ever used to provide an estimate to the age of an object no older than 40,000 years. It is terribly inaccurate any further back than 6,000 years.

Any real scientist would have used one of the more than 100 forms of radiometric testing as oppossed to carbon dating, and sent the speciment to be blind tested all over the world.

What a fraud.

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle Okay, then, smarty pants. Tell me, when were those dating methods invented?

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 Radio carbon dating was invented in 1949 I believe. Why don't you research youself instead of simply repeating what the creationist fools claim.

That's an easy question, and the answer is because science and creationism are totally different subjects. One relies on independent, verified, testing and evidence, and the other on an ancient book full of ridiculous claims what your sort tries to prove using pseudo science.

Leave the science to real scientists.

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle When did "Millions of years" come into circulation?

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle And by the way, either learn to read or learn to write with decent grammar. I never said I tested anything.

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 Oooooo how pathetic you sad man. Proven wrong and the best you can do it be condescending about my grammer. Considering English is my 3rd language I think I did well.

Can you speak science?

[venomfanex]

@Omnitrix12 How pathetic!!! BumJungle proved you wrong and all you can do is retort with an attack on her use of incorrect grammar!!

I've just read some of you posts - your spelling and grammar is appalling. Not that spelling or grammer is in anyway an indication as to someones intelligence or knoweldge on a given subject matter.

I believe the correct technical termonololy here is, ' you've been pwwwwwned!!'

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex Uh, did you read the "by the way?" That indicates that the grammar was a side note. You're following the same route every one of your crew inevitably do.

[venomfanex]

@Omnitrix12 Yes - and you're still pathetic.

You're unable to counter scientific fact so you get personal and insult people. I see it from you and your sort on here all the time. You refer back to your creationist book for answers while the scientists on here tear strips out of you because of your school kid understanding of basic scientific principles while you proclaim to be knowledgeable in these matters.

Clever people use Youtube as well as fools.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex Okay, smart guy. I'll give you the chance to show off your brains. Name one, even one example, of one species becoming another in an observable environment.

[venomfanex]

@Omnitrix12

Ahhhhh - the long awaited straw man argument. A sure fire way to demonstrate that he who is asking the question has nowhere else to run.

Please tell me where I claimed or even remotely hinted at the fact that I had personally witnessed one species turning into another?

Perhaps if your version of God allowed me to live for a few million years I could. Other than that if you want an educated answer talk to Tafftastic.

Unlike you I dont pretend to be an evolutionary biologist.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex Straw man nothing. The laboratory is the fundamental basis of science. The reason we know for a fact even that gravity exists is because anyone, anywhere on earth, at any time can drop an object, and it will fall unless effected by a countering force such as relative density. The fact is that even the tests we use in historical science, such as when forensics scientists use chemicals to identify a blood stain, are useless unless they can be repeated in a controlled environment.

[venomfanex]

@Omnitrix12 Now you're getting close to something I do know about. And you're almost correct.

Science does not have to be repeated in a controlled environment. There's also observational and field studies. Providing that the scientific method is employed certain hypothesis can be tested pretty much anywhere. Results are then peer reviewed and verified (or otherwise) by independent and suitably qualified individuals from around the world.

Fancy changing the topic again? Physics is my forte.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex I could trap you there too, but I think I'll deliver the coup de gras in biology first. It will make it so much simpler in the long run.

Now, you are correct; a hypothesis must be tested using the scientific method. It would be nonsense, to cite my earlier example regarding forensics, to say that a procedure would work in the field if it had never once been successfully run in the lab. So tell me, when has evolution (inter-species) ever worked in a repeatable experiment?

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex My mistake; I misread your post. You are incorrect.

For example, I ran into a science teacher who tried to blur the distinction between species by telling me of west-coast salamanders. These salamanders, he said, come in varieties each of which possess a range up and down the west coast of the United States. The kinds can interbreed effectively where they meet, but the ones from the northen and southern ends of the range will not interbreed when brought together. That's field study.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex Oh, I see. I ask a pertinent question and you say it's a straw man. You make a stab at my recreational choices and you're a scientist. How convenient.

I know this well enough: if something cannot be accomplished even once in a laboratory, how can we assume so confidently that it happened by chance out in nature? That's the very opposite of the scientific method, no bones about it (and no pun intended).

[venomfanex]

@Omnitrix12 Riiiight. Best I immediately tell the entire world's scientific community that the many thousands of field and observational studies they’ve undertaken over the centuries are all irrelevant and don’t count as ‘real’ science, and that a High School Musical/Disney fan on Youtube knows better than the greatest minds on this planet?

Give me a break. Please stick with your kids films and games and leave the science to scientists and those who genuinely wish to learn.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex And posting it twice makes it spam, not correct.

[Omnitrix12]

@venomfanex When one has field study in place, it is necessary then to evaluate it based on laboratory study. I asked the man if there was any information, to his knowledge, of whether the salamanders would not interbreed because of a difference in their biology (i.e. genome) or simply their breeding cycle. He said he knew of none, and thus conceded that unless artificial insemination was attempted it was mere assumption that the two were different species. Assumption is not science.

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle The fact is, "millions of years" was being pushed long before any of those forms of dating were even thought of.

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 That's because creationist types and the ill-informed believe that radio carbon dating is the only known way to measure the ages of ancient artifacts, when there are lots of ways to date things (try Google for examples). And one of the ways in which science verifies the results of dating is to test artifacts using lots of different methods blind tested in labs the world over, then comparing the results.

Different tests, different countries, blind tests = Corroborating evidence

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle Yeah, lots of ways. Like the fossils in them, right?

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 You really are ignorant. Do I really need to list the hundreds of other ways science has to date things, or are you unable to research yourself. I mean proper research, not reading from creationist literature.

Google is your friend.

[Omnitrix12]

@BumJungle What I want to know is simple: are the dates based on those methods, or are the methods based on the dates? Which one, historically, came first?

[BumJungle]

@Omnitrix12 Homework for you to research: Keywords to search: - dating techniques - absolute dating - relative dating - talkorigins Search using the above keywords should give you several hundred examples of ways to date objects. Each dating method having its own story to tell and each with history of its own. I genuinely hope you research as much as possible and face facts. Accepting evolution to be fact has nothing to do with whether you believe in God. I'm out of here. Bored now. x

[ThisIDig]

@Leehofooks Thats an easy one - Mt. St. Helens. Freshly formed rocks were dated at millions of years old with the radiometric system.

[Leehofooks]

@ThisIDig Well I'm sure it is easy to spout whatever you read form AnswersInGenesis.

Have you ever heard the term xenolith? They're quite common.

[tyrannosaurusinf14]

...blyth desperately wanted to confirm his creatonist ideas by saying that natural selection is responsible for species to remain fixed in time...

[tyrannosaurusinf14]

wow, i lost track of how many mistakes this poor quack makes. evolutionary theory is an explanation that fits the best with observable evidence of how biodiversity arose in this planet, not of how life originated from inorganic material or how the universe began (?), and tha has made numerous testable predictions about this biodiversity that have been confirmed. darwin did not plagiarize blyth. the idea of natural selection was not new in their time. the brilliance of darwin was that while...

[tyrannosaurusinf14]

...speciation. harvard has become an extremely respected institution precisely because they abandoned bronze age beliefs in favor of hard science that has lead to the improvement of mankind in fields of medicine, engineering, and technology; because science leads to inventions that can improve the quality of life of humankind. what this geneticist points out is that science has to work within the realm of nature and material evidence rather than fairy tales because it needs to add to knowledge.

[tyrannosaurusinf14]

...by eliminating weaker individuals and aberrancies within a species, since he desperately wanted to show species do not change, darwin recognized that natural selection is a driving force for change and speciation. and neither one of these men talked about genetics because it did not belong to their time. when gene theory emerged, it confirmed remarkably well that allele frequency changes over generations with natural selection driving the preference of some alleles over others leading to...