[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

[cubedbee]

Cubedbee wrote:

No, let's try a "my experts" game. How many experts can you come up with to support a young Earth? A handful? A dozen? Whatever the exact number, it is really small? OTOH, I personally know dozens of qualified scientists with degrees who will attest to an ancient Earth, and I can find you literally millions of more. In the absense of an impossible conspiracy the numbers simply don't lie. The small miniscule percentage of scientists who disagree with the majority all have extreme biased views already believing in a young earth, and none can provide scientific evidence publishable in a journal to support their theory. The experts, those who actually know how the methods work, are overwhelmingly on my side.

An army of robotic genius clones programmed with the same error wouldn’t impress me, would it you?

Nope. Good thing that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a million independent thinking, highly educated, individuals.

The thing that should impress you is that there are qualified intelligent experts in the field who against all ridicule and pressure to conform, have the faith to stand firm in what they know to be truth.

No, it doesn't impress me. There aren't experts in the field who are YEC. There are fringe scientists who just barely got a degree from not impressive universities in fields and who never published in journals our gained a reputation for which to endure ridicule. I see PHDs writing books promoting all sorts of alternative medicine and mystical healing, but I don't think they are right and the rest of medicine is wrong just because they are so brave to stand against the majority.

Remember the flat earth theory? It was believed and taught and to disbelieve was heresy. This multitude of respected leaders of the day were wrong.

Actually, that's a myth. People have known the Earth wasn't flat for millenia--it's not that difficult to figure out. http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUS ... Earth.html

Now you think the majority of self proclaimed experts have arrived at the pinnacle of knowledge and we can cast off the minority based on their numbers? This is your weakest defense but it may actually be your most compelling reason for believing as you do.

No, it's not a week defense. Science is repeatable, and the science behind an old earth and evolutionary theory has been repeated millions of times by millions of different people, with the same results affirming the theories. The defense of saying that all these people are wrong, that a few fringe scientists with a religious agenda and no real science of their own--just attacks on legitamate science--that is the weak defense.

 

[unred typo]

Cubedbee wrote:

No, it doesn't impress me. There aren't experts in the field who are YEC. There are fringe scientists who just barely got a degree from not impressive universities in fields and who never published in journals our gained a reputation for which to endure ridicule. I see PHDs writing books promoting all sorts of alternative medicine and mystical healing, but I don't think they are right and the rest of medicine is wrong just because they are so brave to stand against the majority.

Well, when the inmates run the asylum, the sane will be locked up. Where do think a creationist is going to get recognition? Evolutionists are as notably intolerant as some religious fanatics.
When I see PHDs writing books on alternative medicine, I judge the book based on the results of the method and the logic of the arguments. Just because the medical establishment denies it’s truth, doesn’t make it wrong. The medical profession doesn’t own truth any more than the scientific community does. Truth is where you find it.


Cubedbee wrote:

Actually, that's a myth. People have known the Earth wasn't flat for millenia--it's not that difficult to figure out. http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUS ... Earth.html

Thanks for the link. It’s a good site to remember the next time an evolutionists jeers some similar disparaging remark towards creationist’s views. The point was that the majority are often wrong.

Cubedbee wrote:

No, it's not a week defense. Science is repeatable, and the science behind an old earth and evolutionary theory has been repeated millions of times by millions of different people, with the same results affirming the theories. The defense of saying that all these people are wrong, that a few fringe scientists with a religious agenda and no real science of their own--just attacks on legitamate science--that is the weak defense.

Science may be repeatable but history isn’t. Especially ancient history. The further back you go, the more likely you are to encounter errors in the knowledge of the events. As for your evolutionary dream sequence, it isn’t even based in reality. Just because you have imagined missing links and recreated past lives for all your semi human ancestors, doesn’t mean it happened, no matter how often you repeat the story or how much you embellish it with bones and rocks.

 

[reznwerks]

where

Cubedbee wrote:

No, it doesn't impress me. There aren't experts in the field who are YEC. There are fringe scientists who just barely got a degree from not impressive universities in fields and who never published in journals our gained a reputation for which to endure ridicule. I see PHDs writing books promoting all sorts of alternative medicine and mystical healing, but I don't think they are right and the rest of medicine is wrong just because they are so brave to stand against the majority.

Well, when the inmates run the asylum, the sane will be locked up. Where do think a creationist is going to get recognition?
Where? Everywhere! All they have to do is show some evidence. It shoudn't be that hard if what they say is true. Believing because it's possible is one thing believing when you know it's not is another.


Evolutionists are as notably intolerant as some religious fanatics.
Not when they have been proved wrong. Thats the difference between science and religion. Science calls a spade a spade when it has too. When creationists don't have the evidence they just say it's just around the corner.


When I see PHDs writing books on alternative medicine, I judge the book based on the results of the method and the logic of the arguments. Just because the medical establishment denies it’s truth, doesn’t make it wrong. The medical profession doesn’t own truth any more than the scientific community does. Truth is where you find it.
Thats why there is so much evidence that "alternative medicine" is better than that which is tried and true. That is why all the mass media including television stations, libraries, radio stations and all those that are sick and dying some how have not heard of nor tried alternative medicine for some relief or cure.


[/i]

Science may be repeatable but history isn’t. Especially ancient history. The further back you go, the more likely you are to encounter errors in the knowledge of the events.
Perhaps you should look at that quote again and perhaps take it to heart.

As for your evolutionary dream sequence, it isn’t even based in reality. Just because you have imagined missing links and recreated past lives for all your semi human ancestors, doesn’t mean it happened, no matter how often you repeat the story or how much you embellish it with bones and rocks.
Remember that evolution may not have all the evidence but religion has none.

[/quote]

 

[Solo]

There are those on this fine planet that require proofs and signs before believing that which they refuse to believe, but the faith that it takes to believe that which allows them to continue in their preferred way of life is easy to defend with words, true or false.

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

 

[army_of_juan]

There are those on this fine planet that require proofs and signs before believing that which they refuse to believe, but the faith that it takes to believe that which allows them to continue in their preferred way of life is easy to defend with words, true or false.

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

It doesn't take any faith to accept evolution since it is supported by evidence and has been observed (your personal denial notwithstanding). To believe the world was created in 6 days is akin to believing in magic and I'm not a superstitious person, I deal with reality.

I find it ironic that you won't believe the word of man yet you follow a book written by man and was told it was "inspired by God" or whatever by other men. Whether you accept it or not, you are following the words of man.

 

[cubedbee]

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days.

That's simply false--I used to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, and that took a lot of faith. I currently believe in evolution, and it takes zero faith. My belief in evolution is not based on faith, is not essential, and is only based on my general acceptance of science as a tool to understand God's creation.

I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

Hmmm...except most scientists have been Christians throughout history, and science has a self-enforcing mechanisms to keep dishonesty out

 

[PHIL121]

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

Well, since no man truly knows a a "day" is to God, the same could be argued for those who believe in a 6 day creation.

I just have problems with a God who would put false signs in the heavens (light from stars) simply to trick men into believing the Earth is much older that 6000 years.

 

[Solo]

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

Well, since no man truly knows a a "day" is to God, the same could be argued for those who believe in a 6 day creation.

I just have problems with a God who would put false signs in the heavens (light from stars) simply to trick men into believing the Earth is much older that 6000 years.

God defined what a day is in Genesis 1. Read it sometime after you have prayed to God for guidence into the truth of his word. It will surprise you at the amount of truth you will find in just one verse of scripture with his leading.

 

[Solo]

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days.

That's simply false--I used to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, and that took a lot of faith. I currently believe in evolution, and it takes zero faith. My belief in evolution is not based on faith, is not essential, and is only based on my general acceptance of science as a tool to understand God's creation.

I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

Hmmm...except most scientists have been Christians throughout history, and science has a self-enforcing mechanisms to keep dishonesty out

There is absolutely no evidence of one celled life forms evolving into anything other than one celled life forms. There is also no evidence of salamanders turning into anything other than salamanders. There is no evidence of the earth being billions of years old. Science began from Christian "scientists" observing the creation. Non-Christians began the evolution theory to excuse their unbelief of God.

Science can be used as a tool to understand God through his creation, but when it leaps off on a tangent that contradicts God's word it is no longer a tool to understand God, but a tool of the enemy to cast doubt on God's Word.

Science was my favorite subject in high school and college. I participated in a creation science seminar where thousands of books dealing with the various sciences (anthropology, biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, etc) and there is no way that you will ever convince me that evolution is true science. Perhaps you ought to consider that you and I are able to be duped with our finite understanding of God's creation, and look to the Word of God for truth and the science that aligns with his Word. It takes faith to believe in the missing links when not a single one has been found. All of the missing links that were touted as fact when I was in high school has been found to lies and hoaxes.

But you are welcome to believe a lie, a truth, a combination of both, whatever satisfies your flesh.

Do not get too upset when God opens your eyes to all that you have missed in placing the "science" of evolution over truth. (Jesus said that he was truth)

 

[Solo]

There are those on this fine planet that require proofs and signs before believing that which they refuse to believe, but the faith that it takes to believe that which allows them to continue in their preferred way of life is easy to defend with words, true or false.

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

It doesn't take any faith to accept evolution since it is supported by evidence and has been observed (your personal denial notwithstanding). To believe the world was created in 6 days is akin to believing in magic and I'm not a superstitious person, I deal with reality.

I find it ironic that you won't believe the word of man yet you follow a book written by man and was told it was "inspired by God" or whatever by other men. Whether you accept it or not, you are following the words of man.

Do you have faith in God's word? Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe that God could create the heaven and earth and all that is in it in six days?

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Where (do you think a creationist is going to get recognition) ? Everywhere! All they have to do is show some evidence. It shoudn't be that hard if what they say is true. Believing because it's possible is one thing believing when you know it's not is another.

It would be nice if it were true. That’s about as accessible as Hovind’s $200,000 challenge. There’s a catch-22 to that hard evidence. Would you like a link to a few Creationist encounters with the biased Evolutionary establishment?
“Believing because it's possible is one thing believing when you know it's not is another� You lost me there. What do I believe that I know is not possible?


Reznwerks wrote:

Not when they have been proved wrong. Thats the difference between science and religion. Science calls a spade a spade when it has too. When creationists don't have the evidence they just say it's just around the corner.

I’m glad you qualified that evolutionary scientists call a spade a spade when they have to. If it weren’t for the greed and pride of the ones holding the cards, the only way any truth would be dealt in some frauds is when confronted with creationists exposing the marked cards and sleight of hand (I.e. pulling fossils out of recent graves and artificially aging them). Creationists have all the evidence they need right in the geological column and the multitude of flood evidence around the world. Some of their models need adjusting but it is a minor problem compared with stretching the layers into millions of years.


Reznwerks wrote:

Thats why there is so much evidence that "alternative medicine" is better than that which is tried and true. That is why all the mass media including television stations, libraries, radio stations and all those that are sick and dying some how have not heard of nor tried alternative medicine for some relief or cure

That which is tried and true once was alternative medicine. I’m sure almost everyone knows of a least one person who was given x weeks to live and is still kicking 20 years later thanks to some alternative medicine. Your misinformation is not going to fly with them.




Reznwerks wrote:

Perhaps you should look at that quote again and perhaps take it to heart.

Science may be repeatable but history isn’t. Especially ancient history. The further back you go, the more likely you are to encounter errors in the knowledge of the events. So if you are basing your knowledge of ancient history on ancient documents, you won’t find any reliable ones dating back further than 6000 years or so. If you are basing your history on stories made up about bone fragments, you can fabricate just about anything as long as it fits the current evolutionary model. Paleontologists seem pretty desperate for any shred of ‘evidence.’ Toss them a bone, they’ll fit it in. Unless you happen to be a Creationist. Then everything you do will pale in significance to their pile of dirt.


Unred wrote previously: As for your evolutionary dream sequence, it isn’t even based in reality. Just because you have imagined missing links and re created past lives for all your semi human ancestors, doesn’t mean it happened, no matter how often you repeat the story or how much you embellish it with bones and rocks.
Reznwerks answered:

Remember that evolution may not have all the evidence but religion has none.

So you would have us to believe. We all have web browsers and we’re not afraid to use them. :wink:

 

[PHIL121]

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

Well, since no man truly knows a a "day" is to God, the same could be argued for those who believe in a 6 day creation.

I just have problems with a God who would put false signs in the heavens (light from stars) simply to trick men into believing the Earth is much older that 6000 years.

God defined what a day is in Genesis 1. Read it sometime after you have prayed to God for guidence into the truth of his word. It will surprise you at the amount of truth you will find in just one verse of scripture with his leading.

I've read Genesis 1 many times. I just don't read into it all that you seem to.

As I said before, I have trouble believing a God who would be so decietful as to put false signs in the heavens to trick reasonable men into beleiving the Earth was older than it really was.

There is a vast wealth of astronomical data that there are stars more than 6000 light years away. If the universe is only 600 years old, that means God had the 'start' their light already in transit to Earth.

 

[cubedbee]

There is absolutely no evidence of one celled life forms evolving into anything other than one celled life forms. There is also no evidence of salamanders turning into anything other than salamanders. There is no evidence of the earth being billions of years old.

False, false, false.

Science began from Christian "scientists" observing the creation.

True.

Non-Christians began the evolution theory to excuse their unbelief of God.

False. Christians began evolutionary theory, and Christians have carried on the work over the last couple hundred years.

Science can be used as a tool to understand God through his creation, but when it leaps off on a tangent that contradicts God's word it is no longer a tool to understand God, but a tool of the enemy to cast doubt on God's Word.

Well, luckily science doesn't make leaping tangents, nor can it contradict God's Word. Both provide us truth about the universe. If you see a seeming contradiction between science and the Bible, either science is wrong or your reading of the Bible is. Since Bible interpretation is subjective, and varies from person to person, but science is objective, and does not vary from person to person, we must conclude that science is correct and your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Science was my favorite subject in high school and college. I participated in a creation science seminar where thousands of books dealing with the various sciences (anthropology, biology, genetics, physics, chemistry, etc) and there is no way that you will ever convince me that evolution is true science.

Wonderful. Then you don't know what science is, regardless of how many books you might have had available.

Perhaps you ought to consider that you and I are able to be duped with our finite understanding of God's creation, and look to the Word of God for truth and the science that aligns with his Word.

Perhaps you ought to consider that you and I are able to be duped with our finite understanding of God's Word, and look to the Creation for truth and an interpretation of God's word that aligns with God's Creation.

It takes faith to believe in the missing links when not a single one has been found.

It takes faith to repeat falsehoods like this.

All of the missing links that were touted as fact when I was in high school has been found to lies and hoaxes.

Well, this is quite the lie. Read some posts of Barbarian, a biologist, who has shown extensive references to missing links.

But you are welcome to believe a lie, a truth, a combination of both, whatever satisfies your flesh.

Ditto to you.

Do not get too upset when God opens your eyes to all that you have missed in placing the "science" of evolution over truth. (Jesus said that he was truth)

Don't get too upset when God opens your eyes to the lies you have spread in the name of defending your false "truth" regarding God's creation.

 

[sheseala]

Creationism would be able to gain some credibility if it makes predictions.

It needs to have something that is positive evidence.

Most I have seen are just "It must be true because evolution isn't."


I mean, even if it shows evolution to be wrong, that doesn't show that creationism is right. Science doesn't quite work that way.

 

[unred typo]

Creationism would be able to gain some credibility if it makes predictions.

It needs to have something that is positive evidence.

Most I have seen are just "It must be true because evolution isn't."


I mean, even if it shows evolution to be wrong, that doesn't show that creationism is right. Science doesn't quite work that way.

No, science doesn't but some evolutionists think it does:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/archa ... .html#rev4
Notes & References
[0500] William G. Dever, Archaeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution in BA, Winter 1980, p. 40-48.
[0700] Naturalisms religious statements corroberate that. D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." [Quoted in Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, [1983] 1993), 144-145.] C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson's frank admission and responded: "Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" [C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 163.] Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that 'The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.' [Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, 'Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,' in Paleobiology 3 (1977), 145.] Gould adds: "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method", with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."[Gould, Stephen Jay, 'In the Mind of the Beholder,' Natural History (February 1994), 103:14.]
[1000] On scholarly bias see also D.N. Freedman & J.C. Geoghean, House of David - Is There in BAR, Mar 1005, p. 78-79.

Here's a couple of predictions for you:
2Pe 3:3-6 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[unred typo]

There are those on this fine planet that require proofs and signs before believing that which they refuse to believe, but the faith that it takes to believe that which allows them to continue in their preferred way of life is easy to defend with words, true or false.

It takes as much or more faith to believe in the unseen world of evolution over millions and millions of years, as it does to believe in a created world of six thousand years old created in six days. I will believe the Word of God confirmed in my soul by the Holy Spirit before I will believe the words of man which is nothing more than a school of subjective thought introduced by unsaved men of unscrupulous values.

It doesn't take any faith to accept evolution since it is supported by evidence and has been observed (your personal denial notwithstanding). To believe the world was created in 6 days is akin to believing in magic and I'm not a superstitious person, I deal with reality.

I find it ironic that you won't believe the word of man yet you follow a book written by man and was told it was "inspired by God" or whatever by other men. Whether you accept it or not, you are following the words of man.

LOL. I love your name! Thanks for a good laugh. It’s perfect.

Would you mind coughing up that ‘observed evidence’ though? Except for a legion of ill informed zealots, I don’t think even the Evolution experts are making those claims. They are big on inferences that are easily misinterpreted to be those types of assertions but when the evidence is challenged and examined, the statement is downplayed.

There is a big difference in accepting written testimony of actual events and following the admitted fabrications of theories that have not produced the mountains of evidence that was supposed to back them up as soon as it was unearthed. Do a web search for ‘fossil fakes’ and you will see some of the problems that have been unearthed instead.

 

[army_of_juan]

LOL. I love your name! Thanks for a good laugh. It’s perfect.

Thanks, it's my Battlefield 2 nick and I have a very limited imagination so I use it for other things too.

Would you mind coughing up that ‘observed evidence’ though? Except for a legion of ill informed zealots, I don’t think even the Evolution experts are making those claims. They are big on inferences that are easily misinterpreted to be those types of assertions but when the evidence is challenged and examined, the statement is downplayed.

Sure, it wouldn't be much of a scientific theory if it didn't have anything to back it up with now would it. Not really sure would you are looking for specifically so I'll just throw out the most popular link.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Is there anything specifically that you would like evidence for? There's an ungodly amount of material out there and stupid me didn't save a lot of my favorite examples.

There is a big difference in accepting written testimony of actual events and following the admitted fabrications of theories that have not produced the mountains of evidence that was supposed to back them up as soon as it was unearthed. Do a web search for ‘fossil fakes’ and you will see some of the problems that have been unearthed instead.

You'll also notice that these "fakes" are extremely rare and all of them were exposed by other scientist, not creationist. Most weren't even taken seriously and this does nothing to discount the tons of other fossils out there. Mistakes are made but luckily science is self-correcting so these type are problems are exposed and dealt with eventually.

 

[army_of_juan]

Let me add a few things to explain why evolution is a solid science and is basically a fact of life.

Evolution consist of two things, mutations and Natural Selection. Mutation happen all the time and every person has anywhere from 80 -120 mutations in their DNA. The vast majority are neutral and happen in the "junk" or non-coding part of our DNA so they do nothing. Then there are bad one which we unfortunately happen way too often but then there are "good" mutations. These are usually small and sometimes even go unnoticed.

Natural Selection is pretty much common sense and determines what is a "good" or "bad" mutation. If it allows you to reproduce more and spread you genes better than it's good. If it doesn't let you successfully reproduce (if at all) then it's bad. It really depends on what environment you are in. If you are in a snowy environment and you get white fur then chances are you'll live longer since it's easier to hide then you'll have more opportunities to reproduce. Over a long period of time these small changes add up to be big changes.

That's it in a nut shell. The Theory of Evolution describes the details of evolution and can't make any assertion without first having some type of evidence for it. It also makes predictions and logically explains the evolutionary path of all living things. Contrary to what the non-scientific creationist sources say, there are no issues with the ToE currently on the table and it has been getting even more evidence through genetic analysis.

Off Topic:
There is absolutely no geological evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth, none, nada. Nobody on this planet would even entertain such a notion except YECs and only because of the bible which is not a science book. Even most Christians discount the 6,000 year old Earth assertion since it's easy to falsify which was done about 200 years ago by Christian scientist trying to prove a young Earth and global flood.

 

[PHIL121]

One of the major problems with mutation causing Evolution is that "random" mutation isn't really random.

Only certain parts of a DNA strand tend to mutate ,and when they do, certain Amino acids are much more likely to replace the mutatated strand than others.

 

[unred typo]

Army_of_Juan wrote:

Sure, it wouldn't be much of a scientific theory if it didn't have anything to back it up with now would it. Not really sure would you are looking for specifically so I'll just throw out the most popular link.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Is there anything specifically that you would like evidence for? There's an ungodly amount of material out there and stupid me didn't save a lot of my favorite examples.

Oh no. I don’t discuss evolution with web sites. If you have a compelling piece of evidence where evolution “has been observed,†bring it on. You’re absolutely right that there is an ungodly amount of material out there. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution is a little more than I want to wade through. I do have a life or at least I would like to think I do beyond some petty ante reading assignment. Pick your best one.

Army_of_Juan wrote:

You'll also notice that these "fakes" are extremely rare and all of them were exposed by other scientist, not creationist. Most weren't even taken seriously and this does nothing to discount the tons of other fossils out there. Mistakes are made but luckily science is self-correcting so these type are problems are exposed and dealt with eventually.

German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who within two years time, had published some 90 articles, most of them in leading scientific journals, was heralded as something of a superstar among physicists and about to be nominated for the Nobel prize for his "Breakthrough of the Year" claiming that his team at Bell Labs could turn nonconductors into semiconductors, lasers and light-absorbing devices. This turned out to be fabricated and investigations proved that he had removed data points that disagreed with his predictions and used mathematical functions in place of real data points. In 16 of 24 cases, Schön’s data was found to be manipulated or falsified.

That is just one example but what I found most interesting, however, was a statement made by Ingolf Ruge, director of Systems of Communication at the Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Science.

Speaking in an official statement on the state of science, Ruge criticized the "neglect of ethics in the scientific community" and said that the sharp referee system of peer review prior to publishing was a "mess." The once "highly competent system of rigorous analysis and observation" doesn’t hold up any more under the numerous publications in the field, he said.

I have collected a little file of my own of science fakes. The desire to discover something to make the rest of the scientific community light up seems to be a rather irresistible temptation for many and the deterioration of ethics has made fertile ground for the growth of more phony bones. From something I read recently, even the great Richard Leakey seems to be a little suspiciously guarding his finds from close expert scrutiny. Wut’s up with that? :-?