[_ Old Earth _] Plants?

[Pard]

How the heck did plants come into existence?

I mean through the evolutionary model. I know the real way, with God and all, but I am curious about the evolutionary way.

 

[lordkalvan]

How the heck did plants come into existence?

I mean through the evolutionary model. I know the real way, with God and all, but I am curious about the fairy tale way.

Well, you need to start with prokaryotes before you move onto eukaryotes. You need to consider the important role played by the evolutionary development of stromatolites and other cyanobacteria. However, it seems to me that what you are really asking about is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Insofar as all the chemical precursors to life are all known to occur quite naturally (Stage 1) and insofar as life can be observed to have evolved quite naturalistically after its original appearance (Stage 3), it rather behooves the advocates of supernaturalist intervention to offer an explanation as to why the process between Stage 1 and Stage 3 could not have also occurred entirely naturalistically.

 

[Pard]

Well, you need to start with prokaryotes before you move onto eukaryotes. You need to consider the important role played by the evolutionary development of stromatolites and other cyanobacteria. However, it seems to me that what you are really asking about is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Insofar as all the chemical precursors to life are all known to occur quite naturally (Stage 1) and insofar as life can be observed to have evolved quite naturalistically after its original appearance (Stage 3), it rather behooves the advocates of supernaturalist intervention to offer an explanation as to why the process between Stage 1 and Stage 3 could not have also occurred entirely naturalistically.

I was a bit more interested in the migration of water-born plant life to the far less hospitable land. The most basic plant life today is algae and from what I can gather evolutionary thought believes that algae migrated to the land. I'm just having a difficult time understanding how such a thing could ever happen. The algae is missing things that would ever let it thrive on land, most notably a means of constructing a root system.

Also, I am not sure if you have ever played with algae. I live on the coast have the year and I have done some experiments with it. If you set it out of water it will quickly dry out. From what I have gathered it stops working, much like death, though I imagine it is something closer to a hibernation. When it is re-hydrated algae comes back into itself, if you will. Basically, out of water algae quickly dries out and stops functioning like proper algae should.

I have no intent to make an argument of this topic. I am genuinely curious about the presence of land-based plants and how they arrived there.

Oh and another thing that I cannot understand. Algae does not beget offspring in the same means of any plant, and out of water, I am not sure how they could beget offspring at all, or how their means of making offspring could evolve into pollination and seeds.

 

[jasoncran]

werent the first plant roots similar to the grass, and ferns root systems?

 

[Barbarian]

The real key to plants was endosymbiosis with blue-green algae. The chlorplasts of cells are actually endosymbiotic blue-green algae. They retain their own cyanobacterial DNA, and reproduce on their own, within the cell.

God produces new kinds of living things, by modification of old kinds.

 

[Barbarian]

I was a bit more interested in the migration of water-born plant life to the far less hospitable land. The most basic plant life today is algae and from what I can gather evolutionary thought believes that algae migrated to the land. I'm just having a difficult time understanding how such a thing could ever happen. The algae is missing things that would ever let it thrive on land, most notably a means of constructing a root system.

Multicellular algae evolved in the ocean first, and only later did land plants appear. The first land plants were pretty simple things, pretty much like multicellular algae.

 

[lordkalvan]

I was a bit more interested in the migration of water-born plant life to the far less hospitable land.

Okay. I maybe misunderstood the thrust of your OP.

The most basic plant life today is algae and from what I can gather evolutionary thought believes that algae migrated to the land.

This is true enough for general discussion, but technically while many algae are treated phylogenetically as being included with terrestrial plants, terrestrial plants are themselves a separate and unique evolutionary lineage. A significant amount of evidence underlines the belief as to terrestrial plant origins that you refer to.

I'm just having a difficult time understanding how such a thing could ever happen. The algae is missing things that would ever let it thrive on land, most notably a means of constructing a root system.

I think you need to start with basics and to consider similarities between terrestrial plants and algae and then to take on board the understanding tat these plants evolved from algae, which latter observation means that the absence or otherwise of a root system from algae does not preclude such a root system developing later as a result of evolutionary change.

Terrestrial plants and algae have at least three shared characteristics: they are eukaryotes, they take energy from the Sun through photosynthesis, and they contain chloroplast cells. It is also the case that there are other characteristics that terrestrial plants and some algae share, namely: starch is used as a carbohydrate storage material, their cell-walls are cellulose-based, and the chloroplasts referred to above include caretonids and chlorophylls a and b.

So already there are significant shared characteristics amongst plants and algae that indicate a common heritage.

Also, I am not sure if you have ever played with algae. I live on the coast have the year and I have done some experiments with it. If you set it out of water it will quickly dry out. From what I have gathered it stops working, much like death, though I imagine it is something closer to a hibernation. When it is re-hydrated algae comes back into itself, if you will. Basically, out of water algae quickly dries out and stops functioning like proper algae should.

All the best evidence suggests that the first algae to colonize the land did so by evolving resistance to drying out. Four separate types of algae seem to have made efforts to colonize a terrestrial environment, but it was one particular lineage that gave rise to terrestrial plants. All four varities of these colonizing algae continue to be found on land, which is a strong indication that the evolution of resistance to drying out was successful.

I have no intent to make an argument of this topic. I am genuinely curious about the presence of land-based plants and how they arrived there.

Again, the evidence available indicates that plants did not evolve a wholly terrestrial existence directly from their algae roots (sorry for the pun), but were still dependent on the water, particularly for reproduction. I don't think anyone suggests that this transition and the adaptations that were necessary to allow an entirely land-based existence (cuticles to keep water in, stoma to let gases pass through the cuticle, vascularization, root-systems, etc) took place immediately the first algae colonized the land, but there is no obvious evolutionary barrier to preclude any of these systems developing.

Oh and another thing that I cannot understand. Algae does not beget offspring in the same means of any plant, and out of water, I am not sure how they could beget offspring at all, or how their means of making offspring could evolve into pollination and seeds.

Given that some non-aquatic algae are known to survive (terrestrial green algae occur in six major clades), this is a problem that evolution has solved.

This is necessarily a rather simplified summary, but you can find much more useful information at these two sites, as well as from many others:

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/10/1535#SEC4

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol3060.htm

 

[Burke]

werent the first plant roots similar to the grass, and ferns root systems?

Grasses supposedly evolved much later than other plants, and even after dinosaurs, although more recent discoveries has shown fossil grass in sauropod dung, causing macro-evolutionists to have to change their timelines again. Just like with animal life, all fossil evidence shows all major groups of plants appearing suddenly and fully formed. Considering that there is also no fossil evidence of transitional species between major phyla of plants, the size of the leap of logic required by the macro-evoltionists is enormous.

Flowering plants, angiosperms, supposedly required major leaf modification to evolve petals, stamens, pistols, etc. Yet flowering plants appear fully formed in the fossil record. Even today, the monkey-puzzle trees and the relatively recently discovered Wollemi Pine in Australia that is supposedly a holdover from 50 million years ago wollemi pine are evidence of special creation.

I also find interesting the amount of genetic engineering that has occurred on plants over the years has yet to "create" any novel new families of plants. God put an amazing amount of genetic flexibility into plants, which allows for some amazing and beautiful forms to evolve within a plant kind. But the evidence of algae to aspens evolution is simply not found.

 

[lordkalvan]

Grasses supposedly evolved much later than other plants, and even after dinosaurs, although more recent discoveries has shown fossil grass in sauropod dung, causing macro-evolutionists to have to change their timelines again.

Understanding progresses as new evidence is found and knowledge develops on the basis of that evidence. Why do you regard this as a probelm?

Just like with animal life, all fossil evidence shows all major groups of plants appearing suddenly and fully formed.

Absolutely not. One of the earliest known land plants, Cooksonia had neither leaves, flowers nor seeds.

Considering that there is also no fossil evidence of transitional species between major phyla of plants, the size of the leap of logic required by the macro-evoltionists is enormous.

What do you regard as a 'transitional species'? Why would you not regard Cooksonia as a transitional step on the path to plants with leaves, flowers and seeds, just as the land-colonizing algae were transitional steps on the path to Cooksonia?

Flowering plants, angiosperms, supposedly required major leaf modification to evolve petals, stamens, pistols, etc. Yet flowering plants appear fully formed in the fossil record. Even today, the monkey-puzzle trees and the relatively recently discovered Wollemi Pine in Australia that is supposedly a holdover from 50 million years ago wollemi pine are evidence of special creation.

How do you regard a 'holdover from 50 million years ago' as evidence for 'special creation' when the evolutionary history of plants is traced back ten times longer than this? There are many fossils resembling Wollemia throughout Australia and New Zealand that date back to well before 50 million years ago. What conclusion might you draw from this observation?

I also find interesting the amount of genetic engineering that has occurred on plants over the years has yet to "create" any novel new families of plants.

What do you regard as being 'novel' and 'new'. Domesticated bananas are scarcely recognizable as the same plant as the wild variety. Genetic engineering of plants is generally concerned with improving yield, increasing resistance to disease and infestation, creating stronger hybrids, etc. What would you expect to see 'created' that would meet whatever criteria you have for deciding that something is 'new' and 'novel'?

God put an amazing amount of genetic flexibility into plants, which allows for some amazing and beautiful forms to evolve within a plant kind.

What is 'a plant kind'?

But the evidence of algae to aspens evolution is simply not found.

Plenty of evidence and it's increasing all the time.

 

[Burke]

Understanding progresses as new evidence is found and knowledge develops on the basis of that evidence. Why do you regard this as a probelm?

I don't regard that as a problem, I just point out that there is a presupposition regarding long ages that skews the INTERPRETATION of that evidence into a preconceived box of possible results.

Absolutely not. One of the earliest known land plants, Cooksonia had neither leaves, flowers nor seeds.
What do you regard as a 'transitional species'? Why would you not regard Cooksonia as a transitional step on the path to plants with leaves, flowers and seeds, just as the land-colonizing algae were transitional steps on the path to Cooksonia?

Again, a presupposition "earliest known land plants" is based on a preconceived concept of long time frames. I wouldn't regard Cooksonia as a "step" on this presumptuous "path" of plant evolution. We still have algae, and therefore it would stand to reason that an obvious living transition of plantlife would be evident, yet it is not. Neither in our current fauna, nor in the fossil record. Only make-believe stories that evolutionists cling to.

How do you regard a 'holdover from 50 million years ago' as evidence for 'special creation' when the evolutionary history of plants is traced back ten times longer than this? There are many fossils resembling Wollemia throughout Australia and New Zealand that date back to well before 50 million years ago. What conclusion might you draw from this observation?

That again, you assume long ages, and presume the "millions of years" in regards to dating. The fact that there are many Wollembi-like fossils AND living wollembi pines is not "evidence for special creation".. it is merely "evidence against macro-evolution". What conclusion might you draw from soft tissue being found inside supposedly 50 million year old t-rex bones, or carbon-14 being found inside supposedly ancient diamonds?

What do you regard as being 'novel' and 'new'. Domesticated bananas are scarcely recognizable as the same plant as the wild variety. Genetic engineering of plants is generally concerned with improving yield, increasing resistance to disease and infestation, creating stronger hybrids, etc. What would you expect to see 'created' that would meet whatever criteria you have for deciding that something is 'new' and 'novel'?

The fact that there is so much genetic flexibility within a species (we share about half our DNA with bananas, btw... does that mean we evolved from fruit?) is evidence of special creation. Yes, we genetically engineer plants to increase yield, resist disease, and so forth... and as of yet, have not been able to create any novel plant, which, in answer to your question, would likely be along the lines of a new plant family, independent of all known plant families. We MAY be able to genetically engineer and isolate a new species (depending on how one would be defined... "species" is a man-made category... "kind" or baramin is the God-made category) but the macro-evolutionist believes that given enough time entire new PHYLUMS could come into existence! New KINGDOMS evolving solely by natural selection and random mutation....when the best WE can do with the most advanced genetic engineering is merely make a better strawberry.

What is 'a plant kind'?

A plant kind is any of the original created plant kinds. I'd say that we will NEVER see algae become an oak, no matter how many billions of years we try to influence it. Plant kinds are very genetically flexible, allowing for fast speciation due to micro-evolutionary forces, so NO... I don't think that there every species of conifer was a separately created "kind". I think it would be a very good field of botany to look into it, though!

Plenty of evidence and it's increasing all the time.

Evidence is dependent on the interpretation. Just like with a murder, a CSI should not presume to know "the butler did it" beforehand. In the Neo-Evolutionary world, they presume "millions of years" and presume "evolution must have done it", and all evidence is interpreted based on that, or ignored as irrelevant... and ANY interpretation that is NOT based on their presumption is labelled scientific heresy and disregarded carte blanche. They will hear no word against their evolutionary god, and mock with great vigor any who would dare do so, proudly displaying their Darwin-fish on the back of their beat-up Corolla.

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't regard that as a problem, I just point out that there is a presupposition regarding long ages that skews the INTERPRETATION of that evidence into a preconceived box of possible results.

For convenience, I am breaking my reply down into a number of separate posts.

You seemed to imply that because timelines for particular phenomena are refined and modified as new information and better understanding emerges, this in some way casts doubt on the evidence that supports evolutionary theory. If this was not your intention, I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, the 'presupposition' that you refer to is supported by a wide range of consilient evidence from several independent fields of research. Dating the evolutionary history of grasses is not dependent on a 'presupposition', but on an understanding of the evidence that surrounds gathered data.

Again, a presupposition "earliest known land plants" is based on a preconceived concept of long time frames.

Regardless, it remains the case that certain plants, like certain animals and other organisms emerge in the fossil record earlier than do others, i.e. in geologically deposited strata that lies beneath later strata. In other words, plants that appear first in this sequence are, at this point in our understanding, the 'earliest known land plants'.

I wouldn't regard Cooksonia as a "step" on this presumptuous "path" of plant evolution.

Why not? What evidence leads you to suppose that Cooksonia does not display early features that can be considered transitional towards modern plants? Cooksonia does not exist today, disappearing from the fossil record in the early Devonian. What conclusion do you draw from this evidence that does not depend on your very own presumptuous 'path' of Earth's history?

We still have algae, and therefore it would stand to reason that an obvious living transition of plantlife would be evident, yet it is not. Neither in our current fauna, nor in the fossil record. Only make-believe stories that evolutionists cling to.

We still have fish and fish appear in the fossil records long before land-dwelling mammals. Your point is at best a red herring, unless it is your argument that simply because organisms similar to those that appear in the fossil record are still extant, that provides prima facie evidence that evolutionary theory (and the great age of Earth, apparently) are false. That fossil algae superficially resembles modern algae does not mean that the organisms are the same.

That again, you assume long ages, and presume the "millions of years" in regards to dating.

I presume nothing that is not supported by evidence.

The fact that there are many Wollembi-like fossils AND living wollembi pines is not "evidence for special creation".. it is merely "evidence against macro-evolution".

I am puzzled as to how this is 'evidence against macro-evolution'. Your continued careful use of this phrase leads me to suppose that you have no problems with 'micro-evolution'. If this is the case, what mechanism can you identify that precludes ‘micro’ from becoming ‘macro’ and what evidence supports this?

What conclusion might you draw from soft tissue being found inside supposedly 50 million year old t-rex bones….

Well, I’d need o know exactly which T-rex fossil you are referring to and what you mean by ‘soft tissue.’ The fossil discovery which is often quoted by creationist apologists actually has no soft tissue inside the fossilized bones. Have you read the Mary H. Schweizer et al paper that provides the foundational report concerning this discovery identification (Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone in Evolution, Vol. 94, June 1997)? The microscopic material found is described as ‘thin and transparent soft-tissue vessels from some regions of the matrix…which floated freely in the demineralising solution’, in other words not exactly ‘soft tissue’ as you seem to be implying.

…or carbon-14 being found inside supposedly ancient diamonds?

If you are referring to the RATE work which argues that diamonds 14C-dated to 50,000+ years old are evidence for a 6000-years old Earth, then you should be aware that this work is deeply flawed. The limits of measurement at the time the RATE work was carried out was around 50,000 years because of the limitations of the equipment in terms of distinguishing between naturally-occurring 14C in the source material and naturally-occurring background 14C (AMS dating has pushed this back to around 70-80,000 years). In other words, there is no clear indication that RATE are looking at anything other than background radiation, perhaps just random ‘noise’ or even contaminants introduced into the sample during analysis (currently labs anticipate that around one microgram of ‘modern’ carbon will be introduced into a sample in the course of analysis). You should maybe check out this article if you can get hold of it:

Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds by R.E. Taylor and John Southon from June 2007.

In the second place, the RATE study takes no account of natural radioactivity in source rocks. The most frequently occurring natural contaminant of diamonds is nitrogen (including 14N), which decays to 14C, which itself decays into 14N when subject to radiation. This latter phenomenon can give an apparent 14C age that bears no relation to the actual age of the material in question. You should also bear in mind that evidence for a minimum age is not the same as evidence for a maximum age.

More later.

 

[lordkalvan]

The fact that there is so much genetic flexibility within a species (we share about half our DNA with bananas, btw... does that mean we evolved from fruit?) is evidence of special creation.

Second part of my reply herewith.

How is this ‘evidence of special creation’? What predictive consequence of ‘special creation’ postulates that elements of DNA be shared amongst significantly different organisms? How does ‘special creation’ predict the existence of Tiktaalik, for example? Common DNA is demonstrably evidence of common ancestry, an inference supported by quite independent lines of evidence, including the fossil record, biogeography, developmental biology, embryology, atavisms, vestigial structures, homologous structures, nested hierarchies and divergent evolution. Natural selection is observed in action in the evolution of antibiotic and pesticide resistance, the AIDS virus, lactose intolerance and sickle-cell anaemia, amongst many other things. Speciation has been observed occurring in both animals and plants. If you think any evolutionary biologist (which is pretty much all of them) would argue that ‘we evolved from fruit’ any more than they would argue that ‘we evolved from monkeys’, then your understanding of what evolutionary theory proposes is somewhat awry.

Yes, we genetically engineer plants to increase yield, resist disease, and so forth... and as of yet, have not been able to create any novel plant, which, in answer to your question, would likely be along the lines of a new plant family, independent of all known plant families. We MAY be able to genetically engineer and isolate a new species (depending on how one would be defined... "species" is a man-made category... "kind" or baramin is the God-made category) but the macro-evolutionist believes that given enough time entire new PHYLUMS could come into existence! New KINGDOMS evolving solely by natural selection and random mutation....when the best WE can do with the most advanced genetic engineering is merely make a better strawberry.

This is an interesting speculation in futurology, but I see little in it that casts doubt on evolutionary theory. Contrary to your assertion, ‘kind’ and ‘baramin’ are as much man-made categorizations (if they can be credited with such a description) as is ‘species’. At least ‘species’ has a commonly accepted definition that provides a method of classifying organisms and developing and testing biological theories around; after about seventy years of creationist ‘research’, creationists have yet to provide a practical and workable definition of what constitutes a baramin/kind, at least in part because of the difficulty of providing such a definition for primates that excludes Homo sapiens but includes every other species of primate, and at least in part because of the logistical difficulties posed by the Ark legend.

A plant kind is any of the original created plant kinds.

Which are? There are around 12,000 different species of moss identified; did these all micro-evolve from one moss ‘kind’? There are over 30,000 different species of mushrooms; are these micro-evolved from one mushroom ‘kind’ ass well? In both cases, what evidence supports your conclusions?

I'd say that we will NEVER see algae become an oak, no matter how many billions of years we try to influence it.

I doubt you’d find any botanist who would think you could either. How many transitional steps do you imagine are on the evolutionary pathway from algae to oak? How many opportunities for a different evolutionary pathway do you suppose those steps represent?

Plant kinds are very genetically flexible, allowing for fast speciation due to micro-evolutionary forces….

Where is the evidence for this ‘fast speciation’ and genetic flexibility that you refer to?

…so NO... I don't think that there every species of conifer was a separately created "kind". I think it would be a very good field of botany to look into it, though!

So how many conifer ‘kinds’ were there? Around 700 extant species have been identified. This figure rises significantly when extinct species are taken into account. How quickly did conifers micro-evolve and what evidence supports your argument?

Evidence is dependent on the interpretation.

Well, it most certainly shouldn’t be dependent on any interpretation that a priori rules that ‘By definition no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record’ (Answers in Genesis, Statement of Faith, Article 4.6). The scientific method is expressly designed to remove such bias and pre-existing assumptions from the collection, analysis and inferences drawn from evidence. Testability and falsifiability lie at the heart of the process. This does not preclude errors, incompetence or even dishonesty amongst some researchers, but it provides a methodology and framework for limiting such.

Just like with a murder, a CSI should not presume to know "the butler did it" beforehand. In the Neo-Evolutionary world, they presume "millions of years" and presume "evolution must have done it", and all evidence is interpreted based on that, or ignored as irrelevant...

Quite simply, no. Evolutionary theory and ‘millions of years’ are not presumed; they have stood the test of intensive and critical examination over nearly two centuries of investigation. Why do you suppose that creationist clergymen-scientists who went looking for evidence of the biblical flood in the geological and palaeontological records so quickly became persuaded that no such evidence existed? Why do you suppose that so many lines of independent research point to the same conclusion concerning the age of Earth and the Universe?

…and ANY interpretation that is NOT based on their presumption is labelled scientific heresy and disregarded carte blanche.

Again no. Such interpretation is subject to the same critical and rigorous examination as any other. That it fails such examination is not the fault of those who carry it out.

They will hear no word against their evolutionary god, and mock with great vigor any who would dare do so, proudly displaying their Darwin-fish on the back of their beat-up Corolla.

I don’t know what a ‘Darwin-fish’ is. Quite simply, evolutionary theory has become so widely-accepted because it has stood the test of all that rigorous and critical examination that creationist theories and critiques have so desperately failed. I am afraid that the only piece of unroadworthy junk around here that is destined for the scrap-heap of history is Young Earth Creationism.

 

[coffeeelover]

Evolution is as a well established theory as gravity. If one would like to understand what the theory of evolution actually is and says I suggest you watch Nova's two hour episode called what Darwin never knew.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

 

[Burke]

I'll come back for even more in depth replies to some detailed replies, lord, but unfortunately don't have the time to do much this evening, but am glad to come on and see your response, and I'm sure it will be nice to discuss items clearly and thoroughly in an intelligent manner.

The one item I'll address here goes to many comments you made regarding 'fossil record' and "earlier".... First off, we must recognize that evolutionary theory (and by that, I mean the theory that life began somehow, and through a long time frame consisting of mutation and natural selection, that unknown, undocumented life-form "became" all flora and fauna we currently see. I won't go into the "proof" that "evolution" as a definition...that lifeforms change over time... is not 100% true... it is. But the more we discover, the more problems there are in the MACRO-evolutionary pond-scum to philosopher theory)....

But I digress... First off, we must recognize that ET MUST have extremely long ages for it to in any way be possible. The basic idea is merely "Over billions of years..." and then fill in the blank...anything can happen. So recognize that presupposition to ALL interpretation of evidence in regards to origins..... ANY evidence that suggests a young earth is disregarded carte blanche. And there is plenty of evidence that suggests that the earth is NOT the billions of years that ET believers trust as undisputed fact.

So, in your reply, lord, you continuously presume that the earth really is the billions of years old you've come to believe. You presume that "lower" fossils MUST be millions of years older than "higher" fossils.... Of course, if you take into evidence trilobite fossil tracks that actually cut through supposedly millions of years of rock, or the issues of volcanic rock at both the top and bottom of the grand canyon yielding supposedly ancient ages, and actually be open to the idea that ALL evidence should be accounted for, not JUST the pro-ET evidence, it may affect your conclusions.

One thing is positive... we were not THERE to observe ancient history, so we must make hypotheses that the evidence can be interpreted to support..... Since billions of years is NECESSARY to support ET, then ONLY the interpretation that supports the presupposed hypothesis is forwarded by the current scientific establishment.

One piece of evidence you may help overcome to me is the fact of the water cycle... every day rain washes salts and minerals from terrestrial locations into the oceans. Evaporation leaves behind the minerals. If this cycle had been going for billions of years, how can dissolved minerals leave the ocean to the land again at the rate to overcome erosion?

I'll be back later for more, and again, I appreciate your reply. I'm sure it will be educational and we can take our time to have a thorough discussion.

 

[Burke]

Oh, and the "darwin-fish" is the chrome plated Christian fish symbol with the legs sticking out and 'darwin' inside it.

I agree that "a priori" preconceptions should be left at the door....

we'll discuss evidence and interpretation of the evidence. I have much to add to your reply, and look forward to doing so.

 

[coffeeelover]

And there is plenty of evidence that suggests that the earth is NOT the billions of years that ET believers trust as undisputed fact.

The fact that you didn't present any is rather glaring. If there is plenty shouldn't be hard to show some.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll come back for even more in depth replies to some detailed replies, lord, but unfortunately don't have the time to do much this evening, but am glad to come on and see your response, and I'm sure it will be nice to discuss items clearly and thoroughly in an intelligent manner.

Likewise. There's no pressure from me for a reply. As I keep saying, there are more important things in life than discussion boards!

The one item I'll address here goes to many comments you made regarding 'fossil record' and "earlier".... First off, we must recognize that evolutionary theory (and by that, I mean the theory that life began somehow, and through a long time frame consisting of mutation and natural selection, that unknown, undocumented life-form "became" all flora and fauna we currently see. I won't go into the "proof" that "evolution" as a definition...that lifeforms change over time... is not 100% true... it is. But the more we discover, the more problems there are in the MACRO-evolutionary pond-scum to philosopher theory)....

I am unaware of the 'more problems' that you refer to. Some 150 years of research has only reinforced the observed conclusion that evolution occurs. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, i.e. the overarching explanation for the mechanisms and processes that lead to evolution is subject to refinement and modification as new knowledge and understanding becomes available.

But I digress... First off, we must recognize that ET MUST have extremely long ages for it to in any way be possible.

I assume you mean macroevolution, rather than microevolution? What timescales do you suppose that microevolution requires? What evidence supports your supposition?

The basic idea is merely "Over billions of years..." and then fill in the blank...anything can happen.

Well, not exactly, unless evolutionary theory is entirely wrong.

So recognize that presupposition to ALL interpretation of evidence in regards to origins..... ANY evidence that suggests a young earth is disregarded carte blanche. And there is plenty of evidence that suggests that the earth is NOT the billions of years that ET believers trust as undisputed fact.

I disagree. Any evidence is considered on its merits and accepted or rejected on those merits. So far, no alleged evidence suggesting a 'young' Earth has withstood any serious scrutiny at all.

So, in your reply, lord, you continuously presume that the earth really is the billions of years old you've come to believe.

I presume nothing that multiple lines of independent, consilient evidence do not support.

You presume that "lower" fossils MUST be millions of years older than "higher" fossils....

I only pointed out that certain fossils appear in geological strata that was laid earlier than other fossils that appear in geological strata laid later. I did not mention 'millions of years' in this case, although again multiple lines of independent evidence point unequivocally to millions of years being exactly the case.

Of course, if you take into evidence trilobite fossil tracks that actually cut through supposedly millions of years of rock, or the issues of volcanic rock at both the top and bottom of the grand canyon yielding supposedly ancient ages, and actually be open to the idea that ALL evidence should be accounted for, not JUST the pro-ET evidence, it may affect your conclusions.

I would ask for specific references before addressing these claims.

One thing is positive... we were not THERE to observe ancient history, so we must make hypotheses that the evidence can be interpreted to support..... Since billions of years is NECESSARY to support ET, then ONLY the interpretation that supports the presupposed hypothesis is forwarded by the current scientific establishment.

You are mistaken if you think that evolutionary theory drives the inferences drawn from the evidence observed, measured and analysed by every branch of science.

One piece of evidence you may help overcome to me is the fact of the water cycle... every day rain washes salts and minerals from terrestrial locations into the oceans. Evaporation leaves behind the minerals. If this cycle had been going for billions of years, how can dissolved minerals leave the ocean to the land again at the rate to overcome erosion?

I’ll simply quote a reply I gave to Bronzesnake when the same point was raised on another thread:

Quite simply, this argument is based on a series of either misconceptions or, more troublingly, misrepresentations of the mechanisms involved in ocean salinity.

However, let’s begin with the idea that ocean salinity can be used to calculate Earth’s age at all. Halley (of comet fame) proposed this in 1715, but was unable to offer a reasoned conclusion as he had no idea of the original salinity content of the oceans. Later proponents of the idea, however, came up with figures of 25 million years (T. Mellard Reade, 1876), 80-150 million years (John Joly, 1909) and 50-70 million years (George F. Becker, 1910). Obviously none of these estimates fits well with a 6,000-year old creation. Indeed, the figure you quote of 42 million years is equally destructive of YEC claims about Earth’s age, so I am not entirely sure why it is touted as such a powerful tool by the likes of Humphreys.

Anyway, regardless of this, the simple fact is that all these estimates are founded on a series of wrong assumptions:

1. To be used as a clock in this way, the starting point is taken as 0% salinity, an unreliable assumption at best.

2. The ocean is assumed to be an eternal reservoir, i.e. that any salt delivered to the oceans inevitably remains there. This is demonstrably false, as anyone who has observed salt flats caused by either falls in sea-level or rising land can see for themselves.

3. It is impossible to accurately assess the rates of rainfall, erosion, solution, and runoff involved in the salt cycle over long periods of geologic time.

The salt cycle, like most other mineral cycles touted as evidence against an ‘old’ Earth, is at best misleading and at worst deliberately deceitful. Subducting oceanic plates absorb salt, which is ejected in volcanic eruptions and then enters the salt cycle again. Falling sea-levels and rising land-levels return accumulated salt to the land. In effect, the oceans are in rough chemical equilibrium, particularly well-illustrated by the example of chlorine: nearly all Earth’s chlorine is in the ocean, but it is being continually evaporated, falling in rain into rivers and lakes and then being returned to the ocean.

I'll be back later for more, and again, I appreciate your reply. I'm sure it will be educational and we can take our time to have a thorough discussion.

I look forward to continuing the discussion as time permits.

ETA Thanks for the heads-up on the 'Darwin-fish'.

 

[Strangelove]

I'll take over from Burke here if I may::

Some 150 years of research has only reinforced the observed conclusion that evolution occurs.

I assume you mean microevolution, rather than macroevolution?

Well, not exactly, unless evolutionary theory is entirely wrong.

When the theory says that one species turns into another, yes, its entirely wrong and loaded with assumptions with zero evidence to support them.

Any evidence is considered on its merits and accepted or rejected on those merits.

What evidence?

So far, no alleged evidence suggesting a 'young' Earth has withstood any serious scrutiny at all.

Have you seriously scrutunized the Bible? Course not. You prolly never even got near one.

I presume nothing that multiple lines of independent, consilient evidence do not support.

Theres no evidence for macroevolution. you presume everything

I only pointed out that certain fossils appear in geological strata that was laid earlier than other fossils that appear in geological strata laid later. I did not mention 'millions of years' in this case, although again multiple lines of independent evidence point unequivocally to millions of years being exactly the case.

Name these multiple lines plz.

You are mistaken if you think that evolutionary theory drives the inferences drawn from the evidence observed, measured and analysed by every branch of science.

Oh he's not mistaken at all. Evolutionary science is BIG business. You want funding then you better get with the programme. The God hating Pharisaic theory is the programme and the driving force behind all interpretation.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll take over from Burke here if I may.

Gosh, are you following me around? I'm flattered.

I assume you mean microevolution, rather than macroevolution?

Nope, I mean evolution.

When the theory says that one species turns into another, yes, its entirely wrong and loaded with assumptions with zero evidence to support them.

Speciation events have been observed to occur, therefore your slightly simplistic description of evolutionary theory is shown to be supported and your blanket assertions shown to be without obvious merit.

What evidence?

Any evidence. That's what I said.

Have you seriously scrutunized the Bible? Course not. You prolly never even got near one.

'Prolly'? You have elsewhere indicated that you would rather I didn't express my views on the Bible at all. Maybe you should make up your mind whether you want me to or not.

Theres no evidence for macroevolution. you presume everything

Again a blanket assertion. What, exactly, do you mean by 'macroevolution'? Do you mean the definition accepted and used in the biological sciences, i.e. evolutionary change at or above the level of the species, or do you have a different definition that you prefer to use? Creationist-believing palaeontologist Kurt Wise disagrees with you, by the way:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Source: Towards a Creationist Understanding of 'Transitional Forms', Dr Kurt P. Wise (available as a PDF online at http://www.bryancore.org/anniversary/04.pdf)

Name these multiple lines plz.

Did you read all the posts in this thread, or just the one you are replying to?

Oh he's not mistaken at all. Evolutionary science is BIG business. You want funding then you better get with the programme. The God hating Pharisaic theory is the programme and the driving force behind all interpretation.

I'm sure you believe this, but you are quite mistaken if you think that cosmologists, for instance, must embrace evolutionary theory in order to obtain funding.

By the way, you seem to have responded to only some of the points in my post. Why is that?

 

[Strangelove]

Gosh, are you following me around? I'm flattered.

Yes, I'm going to break your theoretical, atheistic stranglehold on the science section. I'm your new shadow.

Speciation events have been observed to occur, therefore your slightly simplistic description of evolutionary theory is shown to be supported and your blanket assertions shown to be without obvious merit.

Ok I would like to observe one please. Can you show me?

Any evidence. That's what I said.

But you dont have any to accept or reject>>>>>>>?

'Prolly'? You have elsewhere indicated that you would rather I didn't express my views on the Bible at all. Maybe you should make up your mind whether you want me to or not.

Ok. Dont.

Again a blanket assertion. What, exactly, do you mean by 'macroevolution'? Do you mean the definition accepted and used in the biological sciences, i.e. evolutionary change at or above the level of the species, or do you have a different definition that you prefer to use? Creationist-believing palaeontologist Kurt Wise disagrees with you, by the way:

Oh Goody! So becasue your beloved Dr,White states it then its immediate truth. If he told you that fossils of sheep with five heads were found would you accept that without seeing the evidence for yourself?

Did you read all the posts in this thread, or just the one you are replying to?

Nope. Its just you and me Kalvan.

I'm sure you believe this, but you are quite mistaken if you think that cosmologists, for instance, must embrace evolutionary theory in order to obtain funding.

Actually cosmologists have to embrace heliocentrism which is the lifeblood of evolution.

By the way, you seem to have responded to only some of the points in my post. Why is that?

Because those are the ones I wanted to address after a cursory glance over your post. You look worried and defensive already. :shocked!