And this is how Tiktaalik was thrown on the rubbish heap of failed transitional fossils less than five years after the time it was found.
This is the problem with looking for the missing links. There aren’t any or there are a lot, depending on if you want links between kinds or just different versions of the same kind.
I see a claim with no facts, too:
What straw man or men? Maybe you meant red herring(s)? 
Actually, your second example is a rejection of reason, not science. I see that commonly where I debate Leftists and Progressives. I am more open to new facts than most evolutionists, because they only believe what can be crammed under the label of evolution.
Not really. Adaptation is scientific. Darwinism is not, which is why there are so many anti-Darwinists who are scientists. Most scientists have nothing to do with evolution in their own work, so they are as badly deceived as non-scientists.
Actually, the first is wrong and the second is an unwarranted assumption.
Simply adding energy to a system doesn’t decrease entropy. It increases it unless you have a mechanism to convert that energy into something useful.
There are competing theories on how the tektonic plates work, including the hydroplate theory. How can you go back and prove what the flood could have done?
I get it now. goddidit. The end.
Yes, how could you prove that? What you call “real science” brings us to these clues found in God’s creation among all scientific disciplines that point to an ancient earth and evolution. You’ve been shown those lines of evidence, you’ve been offered the connections to their applicability.
Your argument seems just as reasonable as you think the other side is.
Science is not just observe and repeat. Especially on the time scale of eons. There is nothing for us to repeat. We can’t force evolve animals lol.
But what we can do is observe evolution through a few things.
We can look at the different geological layers. In each of these layers we see speciation. We see different groups of flora and fauna with various overlaps. But we see these in order. Such as we see gymnosperms prior to angiosperms. We see tetrapods prior bipedalism. We see these different clades of the same genus, order and family of plants and animals. We can then look at living species of the same genus and do genetics on them and see their relationship in genetics. We can then go back to different genera within the same family and see less mutations in common. We can see their basal and divergent traits as well.
So when we look at primates, including humans we can see a few things. We can see the similarities and the differences. We can do genetics and see the similarities and differences. We can see genetically how we are more similar to a chimp than a pig and we can then look at our anatomy and see the similarities and differences. Then we can begin to work backwards through the geological layers and see our earlier and earlier forms. Evolution is solid. The science is all there.
How about you show me the science for a young earth filled with fully formed animals all at the same time.
Can you show me the geological layer where humans and T. rex overlapped? Can you show me any rex with weapon damage from things like spears that struck their bones?
Since you also presumably believe in a literal world wide flood can you answer a few questions for me using science?
Can you tell me how high above sea level the water rose?
Can you tell where where the water came from? Did it come from subterranean layers or was it all falling out of the sky?
If it all fell out of the sky was it from ice rings, was it miles worth of clouds wrapping the entire globe? From how deep did the water come from and what would have been the pressure and temperature of that water? Would it have been above the boiling point like the geysers of yellow stone or would
It have been water somehow kept cool despite coming from deep within the earth and if so how was it kept cooled?
Maybe for you. For most Christians, that is just the beginning.
Why are you posting something that pretends to say something true about the past (‘hydroplate theory’)? It cannot be ‘real science’, according to you. Of course, you did not respond to my comment about forensics.
It’s too bad you reject big bang cosmology. It points to a true beginning that science cannot get before, since it demonstrates that time itself had a beginning, as well as space. Spacetime did not preexist the ‘big bang’, and good numbers of real scientists have become Christians through that very fact.
Didn’t we go through this one time already? Maybe it was someone else. Close to 40% of all crimes in NYC go unsolved, even though we have the worlds best in equipment, processes and probably people.
Weather forecasters are rarely as accurate as old folk who tell the weather by their gout and back pain and watching the critters. Long term forecasters, like those advocating global warming, cooling or change in general, are about zero for whatever number they have predicted. Yet these are all ‘proven’ sciences, are they not? Far from counting them out, I’m saying that science is not nearly infallible. It has severe limitations, and bias is one reason. You tend to find what you want to find. Facts are malleable to a point.
Again, facts are malleable to a point, and you generally find what you want to find. Bias and circular reasoning are tough mental blocks to overcome when you’re looking for reality. To see old age in these things, you have to begin with old age as fact and then look for proof. That is not science. Science tries to falsify, not prove. When have you ever heard an evolutionist try to falsify the theory?
You will find that there are many who don’t believe that, despite the science. Multiple universes, aliens, universes that bang, expand, contract and bang again… Anything to get around the need for God. Some have even come to the basically irrational thought that something can come from nothing. Like Christianity, its a matter of belief and faith.
Exactly. The point is, it is a true beginning, and those who are honest recognize there is no honest getting around the fact we have no scientific explanations, just wishful thinking (not unlike YECism).
Please respond to this, above, before you go any further. Then we can look at the other ones you have avoided.
And what will you bet there is an article to refute this one?
Well, you successfully avoided responding to the article about the Hawaiian islands chain.
Looking at the article highlights:
Basically, “we know that the earth is young because there are things that we don’t know.” I’m sorry, but science doesn’t work that way. Neither does anything else, for that matter.
The article also contains repeated shenanigans about “secular science.” I’m sorry, but if you’re dismissing any and every scientific finding that you don’t like as “secular science,” then you are anti-science. It’s as simple as that.
In any case, it doesn’t take a “secular” worldview to see that the Earth is far older than six thousand years. You have to reject far, far, far, far more science than just the “secular” bits in order to squeeze 4.5 billion years’ worth of evidence into just six thousand. The problems that this article outlines pale into insignificance besides the problems with young-earth models. The young-earth RATE project team themselves admitted that the amount of accelerated nuclear decay they would have needed would have released enough heat to raise the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C. If that isn’t a deal-breaker for LSD young earth timescales, then quite frankly I don’t know what is.
Being open to new facts requires serious consideration of evidence that doesn’t fit one’s ideas, not uncritical acceptance of anything that seems to fit with what one wants. You’ve frequently asserted that plate tectonics is no good, now you’re endorsing a young-earth plate tectonic model, which would not be true if plate tectonics is no good. Of course, the fact that plate tectonics is well-supported does not make the hydroplate model any good. Squeezing the full amount of plate motion documented by the rock record into a one year flood would require plates to be zipping around at highway speeds rather than the current rate of a few cm per year. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the excess energy required to power that would vaporize the earth. Baumgardner’s model has multiple magic heat subtractions, for example. Besides that, the rock evidence clearly tracks a long, gradual movement of the plates, with plenty of time for life to match the conditions of the plates in one location before the plates move enough to change the local environment.
Clear definition of terms is needed. Adaptation is an example of evolution, no matter how resistant young-earth advocates are to admitting it. Whether it is Darwinism or not depends on the definition of Darwinism, which is quite variable and often is just a label for “stuff I don’t accept”. Most scientists do have nothing to do with evolution in their own work, which indeed allows them to be deceived into doubting evolution for bad reasons. Darwin was right that evolution by natural selection works well as a description of a major factor in the creation of new kinds of organism, but he was overly gradualistic in his thinking and he didn’t have genetics to give an understanding of the mechanisms underlying changing features. What part of that (or other things Darwin thought) is “Darwinian” referring to?
The second law of thermodynamics poses no problem for biological evolution. The sun releases huge amounts of energy, producing a net increase in entropy; some energy is also released by radioactive decay inside the earth. Living things can directly or indirectly capture small amounts of energy derived from these sources and put that energy to use to create localized order, but they are producing waste heat in the process and thus also increase the total entropy of the universe. Going from one DNA sequence to multiple variations on it is actually an increase in entropy. So there is no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution; that claim is a lie, though someone making the claim may not be knowingly untruthful. But quickly supplying or removing enough water to flood the globe requires use of a huge amount of energy, and the associated waste heat would quickly steam and then incinerate the ark. Can God deal with such problems miraculously? It’s not beyond His physical ability, but the only purpose of such a miracle is to rescue a flood geology model’s lack of match with observed reality. Thus, such a miracle seems ethically problematic as well as unduly complicated relative to the idea that the flood geology model is wrong.
Proving what the flood could have done is based on observing the behavior of modern floods.
Physics tells us what water can and can’t do. Also, a flood model needs to be internally consistent. For example, it can’t simultaneously be extremely calm to preserve fine detail and extremely violent to account for some other feature. It can’t explain a feature that you elsewhere claim formed before or after the flood. Kurt Wise admitted that hardgrounds (such as reefs) can’t exist during a flood geology-type flood. But that implies that all layers that contain such features must not have formed during the flood, if a flood geology-type flood happened at all.
In principle, one could reject evolution without rejecting science; this was true in the early 1800’s, for example. But in practice, rejection of evolution today is a part of an anti-science package and is based on theological or philosophical confusion rather than on a solid basis.
This reflects misconceptions of transitional forms that are quite popular in bad antievolutionary arguments. Transitional forms are functional organisms that combine features of what we typically think of as separate kinds today. The transition between aquatic and terrestrial life, for example, would not be like a mermaid with one end suited for air and one for in the water, but rather something like an amphibian or mudskipper, suited for living near the water’s edge, either in the water or near it. Because they are functional in the appropriate setting, transitional types can survive long after the transition has happened, just as your parents or maybe even grandparents or great-grandparents can overlap in time with you. Tiktaalik remains a perfectly good transitional fossil, despite the ill-conceived attempts by young-earth advocates to claim that the Polish footprints justify ignoring its clear transitional features. Perhaps the Polish trackways reflect more distinctive amphibians present around the same time as Tiktaalik; perhaps some Tiktaalik-like fish made more amphibian-like footprints than expected (the Pennsylvania fossil of a fin with toes in it, for example, might have made some interesting prints.) Living monotremes preserve some reptile to mammal transitional features, even though they are around more than 200 million years after the line drawn between them. (Yes, I am aware that cladists don’t want synapsids to be called reptiles, but “reptile” accurately conveys the grade of organization of the early synapsids.) Tiktaalik might be more along the lines of a third cousin twice removed than a direct ancestor of modern tetrapods, but it clearly points to a relationship between fish and tetrapods. As such, it is well qualified as a transitional form.
Like most Creationists who show up here, it doesn’t seem that your interest is actually in exploring evidence or understanding how other people have arrived at their conclusions, but in making sure that your “team” can “refute” all the inconvenient facts about the world that challenge your assertions. Maybe this serves you psychologically somehow. But please don’t think that you are holding your own in some kind of debate and making your position compelling to others. All you are doing in justifying the maintenance of your own ignorance. If you don’t actually interact with the evidence other people find very compelling, and just keep firing off creationist resources that most of the rest of us have long ago dismissed as hooey, you are only really talking to yourself and other people in your own choir.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.