Slashdot Mirror

Until a study can demonstrate, step-by-step, how the bacterial flagella (and the other IC challenges listed) came into existence without divine intervention, the Irreducible Complexity camp will not cower in defeat.

You had me worried for a little bit, so I did some looking around. Modern theories state that it wasn't even RNA that was the original genetic carrier, but self replicating proteins. Turns out it would have statistically taken somewhere around the order of one year for the creation of a self replicating protein to arise on the primordial earth. That gives plenty of time for that self replicating protein to have a couple of chances at being in the right place at the right time in the right conditions to bootstrap the life process..

For the 20 hominids links I gave, they in turn give you names and links to additional articles.

Check out the side views of the skulls- those aren't just people with changed bone structure, unless you're saying that chimps are people. Of course they all are individual species- that's the definition of species. But how would you classify them- human or chimp?

For modern Homo sapiens, there is very little difference in bone structure, and genetically we are all almost identical. You'll find more genetic diversity in *one* troop of chimps than in the *entire* human race.

What do you say to the genetic missing links we have? Human chromosome 2 looks just like chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q fused together. For example, the ends of chromosomes have telomeres- end caps. In human chromosome 2 you can see- literally, you can download the data- that there are broken remnants of telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. To visualize

Chimps' 2 chromosomes: Start-A-B-C-D-E-Stop Start-Q-R-S-T-U-Stop

Humans' chromosome 2: Start-A-B-C-D-E-Stuptart-Q-R-S-T-U-Stop

Where the letters represent identical or nearly identical genes.

Even if we had no fossils in the world, that the genetic data of the 20th century corroborates the physiological data from several earlier centuries is evidence for evolution.

If you are honestly curious about these questions I politely point you to

http://www.talkorigins.org/

I was thinking last night that you get much more accelerated replication in viruses/bacteria, etc, I wonder if anyone has noticed a process of change from one species to another in these cases, and why aren't arguments using fast-replicating cells like these thrown around more?

They are. See here

male and female reproductive systems having do duplicate their changes - then I realised, how do people explain the change from asexual to sexual reproduction in the evolutionary theory?

They do again

Also try readign and posting in the usenet group talk.origins. People *always* come up with these arguments.... saying "well evolution cant be right cause no ones thought of xyz". Problem is we have. Biologist and others have been debating/arguing/exploring the ideas of evolutionary biology for a few hundred years now. I can understand why a biologist would get frustrated and annoyed when someone outside the field come along questioning a evolution based on something that has been long settled. I can only imaging it like being a software developer(which I am) and having to deal with the dreaded "user who thinks they know something about development and IT but in fact causes more trouble than they help".

If you are honestly curious about these questions I politely point you to

http://www.talkorigins.org/

I was thinking last night that you get much more accelerated replication in viruses/bacteria, etc, I wonder if anyone has noticed a process of change from one species to another in these cases, and why aren't arguments using fast-replicating cells like these thrown around more?

They are. See here

male and female reproductive systems having do duplicate their changes - then I realised, how do people explain the change from asexual to sexual reproduction in the evolutionary theory?

They do again

Also try readign and posting in the usenet group talk.origins. People *always* come up with these arguments.... saying "well evolution cant be right cause no ones thought of xyz". Problem is we have. Biologist and others have been debating/arguing/exploring the ideas of evolutionary biology for a few hundred years now. I can understand why a biologist would get frustrated and annoyed when someone outside the field come along questioning a evolution based on something that has been long settled. I can only imaging it like being a software developer(which I am) and having to deal with the dreaded "user who thinks they know something about development and IT but in fact causes more trouble than they help".

If you are honestly curious about these questions I politely point you to

http://www.talkorigins.org/

I was thinking last night that you get much more accelerated replication in viruses/bacteria, etc, I wonder if anyone has noticed a process of change from one species to another in these cases, and why aren't arguments using fast-replicating cells like these thrown around more?

They are. See here

male and female reproductive systems having do duplicate their changes - then I realised, how do people explain the change from asexual to sexual reproduction in the evolutionary theory?

They do again

Also try readign and posting in the usenet group talk.origins. People *always* come up with these arguments.... saying "well evolution cant be right cause no ones thought of xyz". Problem is we have. Biologist and others have been debating/arguing/exploring the ideas of evolutionary biology for a few hundred years now. I can understand why a biologist would get frustrated and annoyed when someone outside the field come along questioning a evolution based on something that has been long settled. I can only imaging it like being a software developer(which I am) and having to deal with the dreaded "user who thinks they know something about development and IT but in fact causes more trouble than they help".

Actually, speciation does not require millions of years, and we have seen it happen. Here's links to a few references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/S/Speciation.html

I'd also recommend reading the book "The Beak of the Finch", which is a lot more interesting that it sounds. A team of biologists tracked the entire finch population of one of the Galapagos Islands and watched it evolve from one extreme of the group of species of Darwin's finches to the other and back again.

Actually, speciation does not require millions of years, and we have seen it happen. Here's links to a few references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/S/Speciation.html

I'd also recommend reading the book "The Beak of the Finch", which is a lot more interesting that it sounds. A team of biologists tracked the entire finch population of one of the Galapagos Islands and watched it evolve from one extreme of the group of species of Darwin's finches to the other and back again.

Actually, speciation does not require millions of years, and we have seen it happen. Here's links to a few references.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/S/Speciation.html

I'd also recommend reading the book "The Beak of the Finch", which is a lot more interesting that it sounds. A team of biologists tracked the entire finch population of one of the Galapagos Islands and watched it evolve from one extreme of the group of species of Darwin's finches to the other and back again.

'First, a background question: you know that a transitional species- a missing link- will itself be a species? Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species.

'Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.'

'If you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see the excellent and reference-rich essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution for the details) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

So, going back to the post title, here's an analogy: given the existence of you and your brother, then both your mom OR your mom's siblings act as a missing link. They have traits common to both you and your brother. Given the existence of you and your cousin, then your grandmother OR your great aunts and uncles could act as a missing link. They don't have to be direct ancestors to be a link. They don't have to be dead to be a link- just older.

Given the existence of modern chimps (brain size 400cc) and humans (brain size 1200 cc), science expected to find hominids with traits similar to both. (Here the 'relatives' analogy doesn't quite work, because chimps live where fossilization is rare. Be like one side of you family always cremates their dead.) So far we have 20 main hominids. Look at the set of skulls science has. They're all fairly human, and they're all fairly ape-like, and they all are distinct species. Each is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)"

'First, a background question: you know that a transitional species- a missing link- will itself be a species? Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species.

'Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.'

'If you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see the excellent and reference-rich essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution for the details) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

So, going back to the post title, here's an analogy: given the existence of you and your brother, then both your mom OR your mom's siblings act as a missing link. They have traits common to both you and your brother. Given the existence of you and your cousin, then your grandmother OR your great aunts and uncles could act as a missing link. They don't have to be direct ancestors to be a link. They don't have to be dead to be a link- just older.

Given the existence of modern chimps (brain size 400cc) and humans (brain size 1200 cc), science expected to find hominids with traits similar to both. (Here the 'relatives' analogy doesn't quite work, because chimps live where fossilization is rare. Be like one side of you family always cremates their dead.) So far we have 20 main hominids. Look at the set of skulls science has. They're all fairly human, and they're all fairly ape-like, and they all are distinct species. Each is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)"

'First, a background question: you know that a transitional species- a missing link- will itself be a species? Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species.

'Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.'

'If you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see the excellent and reference-rich essay 29 Evidences for Macroevolution for the details) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

So, going back to the post title, here's an analogy: given the existence of you and your brother, then both your mom OR your mom's siblings act as a missing link. They have traits common to both you and your brother. Given the existence of you and your cousin, then your grandmother OR your great aunts and uncles could act as a missing link. They don't have to be direct ancestors to be a link. They don't have to be dead to be a link- just older.

Given the existence of modern chimps (brain size 400cc) and humans (brain size 1200 cc), science expected to find hominids with traits similar to both. (Here the 'relatives' analogy doesn't quite work, because chimps live where fossilization is rare. Be like one side of you family always cremates their dead.) So far we have 20 main hominids. Look at the set of skulls science has. They're all fairly human, and they're all fairly ape-like, and they all are distinct species. Each is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)"

Lest we go without a link -- here's an anonymous post to solve the day.

Read on

You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.

Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.

(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)

In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.

I'm afraid you have the process backward. The theory of biological evolution predicts that there must have lived a creature with features that are morphologically "halfway" between those of a fish and those of a land-living animal. So when precisely such a creature is found, it is of course of immense importance for the theory. Every scientist today is also perfectly aware that this does not "prove" the theory (there is no such thing as proving a theory), it merely "corroborates" it, as Popper called it.

Our evolutionary theory also predicts that whenever you find a fossil, you can be certain that it will not be of an animal that is morphologically halfway between a bird and a mammal (because reptiles are according to the theory the common early ancestor). This prediction has also come true so far, and that is yet more corroborating evidence for the theory.

There is of course a lot more. Biological evolution declares that intermediate forms must be abundant, that in fact every form is intermediate in the long perspective. As far as I know it is the only theory of the development of life on this planet that predicts the existence of intermediate forms, and the kind of relationships that we constantly find in nature. Just look at this:
Transitional forms

how an you prove this animal just didn't go extinct and wasn't transitional to anything at all.

what advantage would an aqua based ear structure provide on land?

no hybrid ears have ever been observed in the fossil record, so far as i have been able to tell.

"I was simply stating that evolution as compared to physics are two different kinds of theories."

Well, it's a good thing that you're simply stating it, because you'd have a hard time defending that statement as any sort of meaningful conclusion. Your assertion is meaningless. Evolution is not equivalent to "physics" in the sense that you mean. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to physics. Both have been exhaustively proven by legitimate scientists, and both offer crucial insights that underlie their overarching fields. Unfortunately, one of the two theories runs counter to the teachings of a narrow strata of religious zealots, and so suffers from the hands of a particularly aggressive strain of ignorance. But there are crackpots in both fields. Antievolutionists are pretty much the biology version of the Timecube guy.

Also, and again, your assertion that predictive power is only meaningful if the event being predicted list in the future is just goofy. See, for instance, an entire FAQ entry expressly dealing with this particularly silly idea.

Yes, beneficial mutations are often observed.

The Talk Origins FAQ I've linked to is comprehensive, easily searched, and quite objective. Even better, it points the way to more in depth books, articles, and sources--you can, if you choose, go from a one-page FAQ summary all the way to the primary evidence. Otherwise, I would recommend a book such as Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is." Much more difficult than the FAQ, and a tiny bit dated, but also much more rewarding.

"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess."

Two serious mistakes in one sentence. Evolution has been observed, and is much, much more than an 'educated guess.'

(And, incidentally, "Evolution on a cosmic level"? What does that even mean?)

"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess."

Two serious mistakes in one sentence. Evolution has been observed, and is much, much more than an 'educated guess.'

(And, incidentally, "Evolution on a cosmic level"? What does that even mean?)

"If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are."

Really? Because the biologists--you know, the guys who actually do the math to figure that sort of thing out--say otherwise. I don't mean to suggest that your casual inference is somehow not as persuasive as the life labors of scientists who waste their time with experiments, observations, professional collaborations, and measly testable predictions. Your unsupported hand-waving is certainly good enough for me. But just in case anyone reading your comment thinks that it in any way represents an educated opinion, you might want to read the FAQ.

I've already said it once in these comments, but it bears repeating. The ignorance required to be a creationist is stunning in its own right. But it's the arrogance that really knocks my socks off. It's one thing to just not know how a complicated science works - very few people do. It's quite another to assume that the well-educated, hard-working specialists who unanimously disagree with you also don't know anything, simply because you don't like the facts they discover.

Since you were too lazy to hit the link yourself try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Ok, that's done... I assume there will be no more questions.

Indeed - but a small minority of them (people like you) give the rest a bad name.

As there is no difference between microevolution & evolution

has anyone ever found a single fossil record of any precursor?

I typed "platypus fossil record" into Google, and the first hit discusses the fossil record of the platypuses. Dude, have you even tried to answer your own questions? Or is is easier to conclude that because you don't know, therefore we don't know?

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two things pretty much dreamed up by creationists to overcome their own cognitive dissonance and idiotic misconceptions about evolution.

On the one hand, they insist that no one has observed evolution. When someone points out that we have, they need to have a retort ready. So they said, "Well that's just micro-evolution! I want to see a fish change into a deer overnight!"

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist.

Not so

By macroevolution, I mean changes that occur between species rather than within species. An example is some primates losing tails, with traces remaining, even in humans. A species getting taller or fatter over time would be an example of microevolution, not macroevolution. A detailed comparison between creatures can show where macroevolution has occurred. Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals. (Their lack of vertabrae makes this clear too, of course.) Dissection, fossils, and examining ebroyos are all experimental tools. One very important thing to look out for is correlation; one discovery or experiment that points to an evolutionary occurance is just fodder for skeptics, but when many different experiments support it, the conclusion becomes clear.

Wikipedia describes it here.

You can find web evidence to pore over here.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand,
that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other
hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a
circular argument?" Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!"
BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714. _In the
Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood_
(7th Edition) by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/on-
linebook/ReferencesandNotes65.html

The article is from pages 712 to 715.

This quote takes the cake for dishonesty. How this one is out
of context is fairly unique though.

Larry Azar at the time of this article was with the Philosopy
Department of Iona College in New Rochell, New York (
http://www.iona.edu/about/description.htm ). He describes
himself as a "philosophy teacher" and in the context of
biology he calls himself an "outsider."

His question, "Isn't this a circular argument?" is not a
rhetorical question, it is a real one. Basically this article
is a philosopher who is _not_ an expert in the sciences asking
a series of questions about biology including evolution in
hopes that biologists would respond and clarify the issues for
him. And they did exactly that. There were a number of letters
to the editor on pages 208 to 209 of the April 1979 issue
which also had an article in response called "Evolution: Help
for the Confused" by Bradley T. Scheer on pages 238 to 241. In
that article the quoted question was answered.

The young-earthers might as well quote questions asked by
students to instructors in freshman classes as "evidence" for
young-earth dogma.

First, I am not for a moment suggesting that the current picture of Neanderthals is wrong. I was talking about one of the early finds. The hunched over image we still see in drawings comes from that. Further Neanderthal finds (and you are right, there are plently) paint a picture of this hominid branch which is distinct from modern humans, but still not like the original image.

Thanks for the reference to the talk origins FAQ (always a good resource). I hadn't been aware until your reaction that creations pretend that the initial correction of Neanderthal posture somehow could be taken to mean Neanderthals aren't distinct from modern humans.

As for your second point, when I said it will take more finds, I was not talking about Neanderthals. As you say, there are plenty of finds. I was talking about the new find.

I keep on forgetting that any normal correction or dispute in these sciences gets blown into ridiculous lies saying that scientists are undermining evolutionary theory. But given that tendency, I should have been more careful in my wording and examples.

If you look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html you'll see that arthritis did not cause distortions on our view of what Neanderthals looked like.

You also say that "it will take more finds...". There are plenty of Neanderthal finds, so archeologists know pretty well what they look like. New finds are always great, but they are unlikely to cause any great reassessment of Neanderthal physiology.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.

(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.

(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?

(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.

(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.

(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.

(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.

Jedidiah.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.

[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.

[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?

[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.

[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.

[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.

[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.

[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.

[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.

[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.

[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.