Contents
Isn't the dating methods wrong, such as the dating of the KBS tuff?
Why don't you consider Creationism a Science?
Isn't the dating methods wrong, such as the dating of the KBS tuff?
The dating of the KBS Tuff was beset with problems. Creationists just examine the mistakes and comment on them without considering the reasons why there were problems and finding out how the Scientists dealt with it.
1. Before any dates were taken on the KBS Tuff, it was known that the dating of it would be very difficult and could produce poor results.
2. It was decided to do it anyway because of the importance of 1470.
3. The samples that gave the wrong readings have been shown to be contaminated. An expert on radioactive dating was flown to the site in the end to get a reliable sample.
4. The dating should also be considered in context of the other fossils, notably the pig fossils from around that area.
In conclusion, the dating was difficult, so wrong results were expected, but with better samples and considering all the factors a correct date was found.
This is real science in action. Finding out the Truth no matter what the obstacle. It is messy, it isn't like you read in a book. This isn't armchair science, its dirty.
Why do Creationists get accused of misquoting people?
There is a story quoted at the back of 'A Brief History of Time' about a Nazi anti-Einstein physics book called 'One hundred authors against relativity'.
Einsteins comment on hearing about it was 'If I was wrong, they would only need one'.
The use of quotes to support a position is not valid if that is the Evidence itself. If I say that a scientist said X, that does not make 'X' necessarily correct, so I will not accept any quotes by anyone, not even the most learned professor unless it is backed up with why he said it. A quote is acceptable to illustrate a point, but not to make a point.
There will always be someone who can be found who disagrees with any position, so how does one know if Professor X is right? The only way is to examine the evidence. I don't mean field trips, I mean the sources that Professor X uses. A classic example is with my friend Archaeopteryx. In most discussions I have, Fedducia's name crops up. he disagrees with the very large majoriy of paleoarchaeologists, but he is an evolutionist, so Creationists use his quotes. The only way to know is to examine the evidence for oneself. In Archies's case the dino - bird theory is the strongest by far, but it is not above question. This isn't absed on quotes from Ostromor his following, it is based on the features of Archie herself.
I don't use quotes from Jehovah's Witnesses to support my ideas on the Bible, although their interpretation of the Bible is very different to yours. I could easily say "The Trinity is not supported by the Bible, see the JW's say so and they are Christians". Does this really add to the Debate? The only way to tell is to use the actual details of the argument on both sides.
How can you claim that the Bible is false when we have evidence for that than for any other ancient book?
By using the same evidence used to support the Bible, we can come to the following conclusion about The Iliad:
It has been confirmed by Archaeology - Troy has been found
No-one ever argues that the Wooden Horse didn't happen!
Thousands of people were involved in the 10 year war, so there were plenty of witnesses to gainsay it if it was false.
The geographic detail in the book is remarkably accurate.
Confirmed by Ovid's metamorphosis
This means that Zeus and all the other Greek Gods must be true!
Isn't the lack of transitionals a problem for evolution?
This is quite a difficult one to answer, not because there is no answer but it is necessary to describe exactly what a transitional is first. Our knowledge of the fossil record is fragmentary, and there are gaps, often where we would most like to know what is there. In one sense EVERY animal is a transitional. If Evolution is true, then it is happening all the time, just very slowly. If we were to travel forward a few million years, we would be able to see what today's animals evolve into.
The process of new species forming (speciation) is well known. It requires isolation so that the two populations lose the ability to breed with each other. So, for example, imagine a small colony of flies getting blown across a sea onto a newly formed volcanic island. They develop in isolation and "learn" how to cope in their new environment. If the conditions are right, if they get blown back, they could be "superior" to the ones that they used to belong too, and so take over the niche currently enjoyed by the original flies. The original flies will become extinct, but they can be considered transitional between their ancestors and the new flies, and if the new flies hadn't returned they would have survived.
One could also consider that when the colony starts on the island, environmental changes mean that the environment where the originals lived becomes unsuitable for the flies to survive. The 'Transitionals' will become extinct once again, even though they were well adapted previously.
I think that what you mean by a Transitionals is one between Classes and Orders, not Species. Let us take one example of a creature used as an example of a transitional. We can study that and then see how it applies to other cases. I am particularly interested in Archaeopteryx. Now, Creationists claim this isn't a transitional it is a True Bird. Evolutionists would say it is a True Bird, but it is also a transitional. Why? Because the way we define a bird is to say it has asymmetrical feathers. Archie has these feathers, so it is a True Bird. The difference occurs because it has reptilian features. Its skull is the same as a reptile, it has teeth in its beak, claws on its wings.
So, what we have is a creature that by our method of classification we put into the 'Bird' box, but when studying it, we can notice that it has non-bird features.
We can use this to consider another transition. That between reptiles and mammals. All we have, remember, is the fossils, so we must try and work out what the fossils mean. Now what one must consider is this. Did reptiles evolve into mammals? Taking this question, we must consider what is the difference between the two? There is obviously the live birth/fur/milk, but these don't get fossilised, so is there any features in the skeletons that can be studied? There are a number of them, but I will concentrate on two that are directly linked. The jaw and ear of the reptile/mammal.
A reptile has a jaw in three pieces and a single bone in its ear. A mammal has three bones in its ear and a single jawbone. How could bones move? Assuming they did, is there any evidence to back this up? There are examples, from which I will just mention a couple, taken from Talk Origins Transitional page
In this webpage they are all described, and all the different details. It is technical though. If you do read it and have any trouble understanding the technical terms, let me know.
Procynosuchus - (Late Permian) Jaw bones reduced in size and placed right near the hinge of the jaw. No Eardrum (like all reptiles) and so could only hear vibrations from the ground.
Cynognathus (Early Triassic) - Two jaw hinges, reptilian one now tiny near ear, and mammalian one doing most of the jaw work.
Trinaxadon (early Triassic) - Eardrum now appears, in the lower jaw! Could have heard low frequency sound through the air.
Pachygenelus (Early Jurassic) - Jaw bones now tiny and in the middle ear. Could have heard high frequency sounds.
So, you can see that the Transitionals are there, but if one lived in the Triassic, one would have looked at the Cynognathus and Trinaxadon and seen them as the most advanced animals alive, and would have wondered about whether they were transitionals.
Isn't the fact that some planets revolve backwards a problem for evolution?
This has nothing to do with Evolution. It also has nothing to do with the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened roughly 15 Billion years ago, the Solar System was formed 4.5 Billion years ago, from the debris of previous stellar systems. So, it just shows that the person suggesting this does not understand the funadmentals of Cosmology.
Why don't you consider Creationism a Science?
To illustrate the difference between Creationism and Science, I will use a quote.
"Science is a procedure for testing and rejecting hypotheses, not a compendium of certain knowledge. Claims that can be proved incorrect lie within its domain (as false staements to be sure, but as proposals that meet the primary methodological criterion of testability). But theories that cannot be tested in principle are not part of science. Science is doing, not clever cognition."
Stephen Jay Gould - Hens Teeth and Horses Toes 1983
The idea of God cannot be tested in principle. The same is true with Creationism. There is no test that can be done to see if Creationism fails. Evolution could fail. Mendels ideas could have falsified it, and some thought it did at first. The discovery of DNA and Genetics could also have falsified Evolution, and the fossil record could falsify it. The fact that they support the idea of Evolution gives it strength.
