VERY Nice Formal Proof of Evolution

[Xelios]

You were clarifying that all animals are descended from their parents?
Was that in doubt at any time?

No, that's not what I was clarifying.

It does prove that you haven't found any evidence.
Since the conclusion is that you haven't found any, the absence of fossils proves that you haven't found those fossils.

Yes, of course it does. At the same time it concurrs with the theory of evolution as well.

For example, look at the excavations of the garbage piles in front of the caves in France.
Some of them are 50 ft. thick with garbage after a claimed 12000 years or so.
If man had been around for 2 millions years as per the ToE, there should be piles of garbage 75,000 ft thick in places.
Since no one is going to climb that high, the garbage should be spread pretty evenly all over the planet.
It isn't there, and neither are the huge mountains of crap from 4.6 billion years of animal life.

That's complete nonsense. Man did not create that much garbage 2 million years ago, not even 50,000 years ago. Garbage of that magnitude is a rather modern thing. At the same time, much of the garbage we have produced in the past is biodegradable. I doubt humans 12,000 years ago had plastics, or much of anything else that isn't biodegradable.

Just repeating "fossil evidence" mindlessly doesn't make it evidence of the ToE.
You don't even know what the fossil evidence IS, let alone what it might mean.

Fossile evidence proves that at one time animals such as dinosaurs existed. It proves these animals were not similar to any mammals we have on Earth today. Are you suggesting God created all these animals millions of years ago, and that by chance a whole swack of them died out leaving only the animals we observe today?

Naturally, you have other universes to compare with, to establish that this is indeed so?

No, but we do have a large amount of evidence pointing toward this conclusion. For example, the supernovae remnant's in the form of large clouds of gas contain many heavy elements, whereas other clouds in which stars are forming contain almost none. In addition, atoms do not spontaneously come together to form heavier elements. For this reason there had to have to be a set of special circumstances (such as high heat and pressure, ie. a star) in order for heavy elements to form.

I thought you said that science was based on observation.
Who observed any of that?

Yes, science is based partly on observation, but also on other factors such as experimental evidence and common sense. If you had a small sphere of heavy elements with it's own gravity field, do you think it would start to "suck in" other heavy elements? And as these were added to the sphere, the sphere's gravity well increased thereby attracting more atoms. We have not been able to test it directly, simply because of the scale involved, but through common sense and logic we can we can accuratly state that this is indeed what would happen.

Everything that is true can be proven in one way or another.
Evolution can't be proven at all, which means that it is not true.

Ah, God cannot be proven, thus He is not true. I get it now, thanks tony.

Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there.

No, evolution is an attempt to explain how we came to exist in the form we hold today. God is a desperate wish that evolution isn't there.

 

[James R]

tony1,

You should realise that <i>ad hominem</i> attacks against the posters here, or against science teachers, or against "dumb evolutionists" do not advance your position in any way. They just make you look childish and support the view that you have no real answers. Similarly, statements claiming that you can refute evidence for evolution without you actually doing so, are worthless.

Let's look at the one or two substantive points you've made in amongst all the obfuscatory personal rubbish.

<i>Of course, how many creatures fossilized last year?
That's fairly recent information, so it should be easy to verify.</i>

Yes.

<i>The reason it is "science" in quotes is that comedy is all that is really required to disprove evolution.</i>

This is an example of one of those claims I mentioned above. You assert that evolution can be refuted, yet you do nothing towards attempting to support your point.

<i>The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any. There is no way that absence of evidence of an animal is proof of absence of the animal.</i>

That is a valid point, and quite true, up to a point. However, in the case where certain organisms are ubiquitous and continually fossilised today, can you explain why some of those organisms are <i>never</i> seen in fossil strata beyond a certain age. Chance of fossilisation alone cannot explain that.

<i>Evolution, after all, is based on two assumptions...
1. Absence of a fossil proves absence of the animal.
2. Absence of fossils proves the presence of undiscovered fossils.</i>

It's funny how your bases for evolution change from thread to thread. You really don't know <i>what</i> assumptions evolution is based on, do you? Time to hit the books, tony1.

<i>That is just recycled science teacher spit spray.
You've been sitting too close to the teacher.</i>

Example of <i>ad hominem</i> attack on teachers. Just thought I'd point it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Since evolution is imaginary, nothing can agree with it, and nothing actually does.</i>

Assertion with nothing to back it up. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>...all dead bodies are consumed by scavengers.</i>

What about tar pits? What about being buried in volcanic ash? What about mud slides? What about insects trapped in amber?

<i>Claiming that "disappearing" crap proves that evolution is true is exactly the same as claiming that no evidence of any kind proves your side of the issue.</i>

Nobody claimed disappearing crap proves evolution. This is you putting up a straw man to knock down (not even a particularly good one). Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Because you're still in school, you think that "scientists" are very rigorous and always right. In reality, they are wrong more often than right, although they are persistent. </i>

<i>Ad hominem</i> attack on scientists, followed by assertion without support. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there. </i>

Then why do so many evolutionists believe in God?

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yes, of course it does. At the same time it concurrs with the theory of evolution as well.*

Therefore, since the "evidence" is actually lack of evidence, it concurs with the ToE, which in turn must be the absence of evolution.
Or, can you not tell that you have completely lost your train of thought and are now arguing against yourself?

*That's complete nonsense. Man did not create that much garbage 2 million years ago, not even 50,000 years ago.*

Which, of course, is what I'm saying.
However, you're saying that for 2 million years, people lived garbage-free lives.
I say garbage.

*Are you suggesting God created all these animals millions of years ago, and that by chance a whole swack of them died out leaving only the animals we observe today?*

No, you are saying that.
Or, haven't you noticed that there aren't any dinosaurs?
Arguing against yourself again.

*No, but we do have a large amount of evidence pointing toward this conclusion.
...
For this reason there had to have to be a set of special circumstances *

Large amounts of evidence do not equal "special circumstances."
If there really is a "large" amount of evidence, then by definition, that would mean normal circumstances.

You're arguing against yourself again.
You may be starting to notice that you are having difficulty making sense and remembering what your point is.
When that happens, try to remember that you are deluded, if you can.

*science is based partly on ... common sense.*

Famous last words.
When your argument is "common sense," it is well known that you don't have any.

*We have not been able to test it directly, simply because of the scale involved, but through common sense and logic we can we can accuratly state that this is indeed what would happen.*

I'm not as easily fooled as you are.
Just putting the word "accurately" in a sentence does not increase the believability of the sentence.
IOW, when you feel that it is necessary to use the word "accurately," be forewarned that it makes you look stupid and it tells me that you have no clue.

*God cannot be proven, thus He is not true. I get it now, thanks tony.*

OK, he's not true to you.
But, he is to me.

*God is a desperate wish that evolution isn't there. *

You've gone insane.
God was worshipped long before anyone even thought of something as stupid as a rock turning into a fish turning into a frog turning into man.

*Originally posted by James R
Yes.*

OK, how many animals fossilized last year, then?

*You assert that evolution can be refuted*

Yes, with comedy.
Evolution is like the straight man in comedy routines.
The scientist is very serious and intent on whatever, and the comic pokes fun at the straight man.
No one actually takes the straight man as anything other than the butt of jokes in real life.

*You really don't know what assumptions evolution is based on, do you?*

Actually, I do.
As you noted, my statements of what the bases of evolution are, do change from post to post.
That happens because evos have zero clue as to why they, or you, believe in evolution.
Thus, the basis for evolution constantly varies and makes no sense.

Besides, I note that whenever you are faced with an insurmountable argument, you immediately perform either an ad hominem or ad "stylem" attack.

How about dealing with the issues instead of whining about the vagueness of the theory?

*Just thought I'd point it out so you can avoid it in future.*

Not going to avoid it in the future.
Anytime someone states something that is only "true" in the classroom, they can count on getting it pointed out to them.

*Assertion with nothing to back it up. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.*

That's only because the ToE is just assertion with nothing to back it up.
The beauty of the ToE is that, from your perspective, it is like arguing that loud whistling on a bus keeps lions away.
If someone challenges you, you simply say, "Do you see any lions on the bus?"

That is the ToE in a nutshell; if you state long and loud enough that "scientific evidence" keeps God away, your "proof" is "Do you see God anywhere?"

IOW, evolution is the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence.

*What about tar pits? What about being buried in volcanic ash? What about mud slides? What about insects trapped in amber?*

What about them?
Where are all the huge tar pits, ash piles, slides and amber blobs that would allow you to consider them as "normal" events?

*Nobody claimed disappearing crap proves evolution.*

Nobody claims that lions appear on buses when the whistling stops either.
IOW, the argument of the ToE is argument from absence of evidence.

*Ad hominem attack on scientists, followed by assertion without support.*

Unsupported assertion.

*Then why do so many evolutionists believe in God?*

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(James 2:19, KJV).


As you yourself so eloquently put it...
*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."
[snip]
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
James R, 01-06-02 09:16 AM

For a guy who complains about ad hominem attacks so much, why would you perform the mother of all ad hominem attacks like that?
And on yourself, yet?

I stand in awe.

 

[James R]

Just so you know...

tony1,

<i>Evolution is like the straight man in comedy routines.</i>

This is an unsupported assertion.

<i>Thus, the basis for evolution constantly varies and makes no sense.</i>

This is a false statement, also unsupported.

<i>Anytime someone states something that is only "true" in the classroom, they can count on getting it pointed out to them.</i>

Nobody has stated that here.

<i>That's only because the ToE is just assertion with nothing to back it up.</i>

This statement is an unsupported assertion.

<i>IOW, evolution is the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence.</i>

This statement is an attempt at proof by ridicule, which some people might describe as "the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence".

<i>IOW, the argument of the ToE is argument from absence of evidence.</i>

This is patently false since evolutionists attempt to provide evidence for their arguments.

<i>"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."
[snip] ... or perhaps I'm not one of those people</i>

This is an <i>ad hominem</i> attack. Please review the relevant exchange.

 

[Xelios]

Therefore, since the "evidence" is actually lack of evidence, it concurs with the ToE, which in turn must be the absence of evolution.
Or, can you not tell that you have completely lost your train of thought and are now arguing against yourself?

No, but I do know that the fossile record so far concurrs with evolution, and not creation. It does not completely prove evolution, but it does support it.

However, you're saying that for 2 million years, people lived garbage-free lives.
I say garbage.

Basically, yes. The most garbage they would have is some old spears and flint stones. Up until about 50,000 years ago garbage was never really a problem.

No, you are saying that.
Or, haven't you noticed that there aren't any dinosaurs?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying all organisms that have ever existed have come in eras. They did not all suddenly appear on Earth together.

Arguing against yourself again.

It only seems that way because you have no understanding of science at all.

Large amounts of evidence do not equal "special circumstances."
If there really is a "large" amount of evidence, then by definition, that would mean normal circumstances.

Not necessarily.

Famous last words.
When your argument is "common sense," it is well known that you don't have any.

Science is PARTLY based on those things.

OK, he's not true to you.
But, he is to me.

Who's arguing against himself now? I thought you said if something cannot be proven it's not true?

You've gone insane.
God was worshipped long before anyone even thought of something as stupid as a rock turning into a fish turning into a frog turning into man.

Obviously, you have managed to miss my point again. I was simply showing you how stupid that statement you made really is. It is just a bland accusation showing a complete lack of evidence and substance to back it up.

 

[tony1]

Re: Just so you know...

*Originally posted by James R
This is an unsupported assertion.*

Argumentum ad nauseam.
Besides, my statement wasn't an assertion, it was a simile.

*This is a false statement, also unsupported.*

Argumentum ad perperam.
It is supported by the facts.

*Nobody has stated that here.*

Argumentum ad perperam.

*This statement is an unsupported assertion.*

Argumentum ad nauseam.

*This is patently false since evolutionists attempt to provide evidence for their arguments.*

The key word being "attempt," I say they fail.

*This is an ad hominem attack. Please review the relevant exchange. *

Actually it is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Ad hominem takes the form of, "you are ugly, therefore your ideas are invalid."
What I am saying is "You cannot reason, therefore your arguments are unreasonable" which is not ad hominem, but is germane to the topic at hand.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I do know that the fossile record so far concurrs with evolution, and not creation. It does not completely prove evolution, but it does support it.*

Actually, you don't know that, you have merely been told that.
The fossil record does not support evolution for the simple reason that it does not take the form you've been told it takes.

*Basically, yes. The most garbage they would have is some old spears and flint stones. Up until about 50,000 years ago garbage was never really a problem.*

I see that anthropology and paleoanthropology are two more things that you are completely unfamiliar with.
Anthropologists, when they are not studying living people, study garbage almost exclusively.
The reason? Because there is so much of it.

*I'm saying all organisms that have ever existed have come in eras.*

You have merely been told that.
No one has observed that, and you know no one has.
What has happened is that you think that Paleozoic, Triassic and Jurassic sound real cool.

*Not necessarily.*

Do you have any idea at all, what "normal" and "special" even mean??

*I thought you said if something cannot be proven it's not true?*

You can't prove God so he isn't true to you, or do you disagree with that?

*I was simply showing you how stupid that statement you made really is.*

The problem is that evolution really is a desperate wish by foolish men that God isn't real.
Saying the opposite simply isn't true, since God pre-exists any foolish men and their desperate wishes.

You're still young, so you think you're right.
You simply haven't ever seen an atheist die.

 

[Xelios]

No one has observed that, and you know no one has.

No one has observed God, so you don't know he exists right?

You can't prove God so he isn't true to you, or do you disagree with that?

Don't try and turn the question back on me tony. I am asking how you know God exists if there is no evidence for Him. You said yourself if there is no evidence for a thing it cannot be true. Answer the question please.

You're still young, so you think you're right.

Tony, you think you're right too. Therefor by your logic you must also be young. I know, I know, it was just another stupid insult. One day you'll have to learn insults do not substitute support and evidence. It's really surprising that I know more about these things than you.

Tony, your whole arguement is based on the idea that everything evolutionists say is false. To "back that up" you say nothing of it has been proven, and so it cannot be true. What I want to know is how are you so sure it is not true in the first place? There is much less evidence for a God than there is for evolution, and yet you scoff at it just because it does not fit your view of things.

You refuse to accept evidence, you refuse to accept ideas. You refuse even to have a constructive discussion in which you put forth more than one point per thread. You refuse to give support, examples and evidence for your statements. I'm no longer interested in playing along with your little fantasy, where your view is right, and anything different must be false. Show some evidence and support for your points, as they will be the only ones I reply to from now.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xelios
No one has observed God, so you don't know he exists right?*

That is correct, I believe he does.

*Don't try and turn the question back on me tony.*

I'm not.
You simply do not understand the statement.

*I am asking how you know God exists if there is no evidence for Him. You said yourself if there is no evidence for a thing it cannot be true. Answer the question please.*

I answered for my part a long time ago, in this forum.
You simply expressed an inability to understand the evidence.
Thus, all that remains is what you accept for evidence for God, which is nothing since you reject all evidence for God.
Therefore, he is not real for you.

*Tony, you think you're right too. Therefor by your logic you must also be young.*

Your error is called "Affirming The Consequent" which is logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".

*I know, I know, it was just another stupid insult. One day you'll have to learn insults do not substitute support and evidence. It's really surprising that I know more about these things than you.*

You actually know very little, and furthermore your lack of knowledge has actually been categorized, by others, in advance.

*Tony, your whole arguement is based on the idea that everything evolutionists say is false.*

No, that would be assuming my conclusion as my premise.
You do that; I don't.

*To "back that up" you say nothing of it has been proven, and so it cannot be true.*

You seem to have the idea that, for evolutionists, all they, or you, have to say is anything along with the word "evolution" and everything is true because of that.

Everything that evolutionists say is false because everything that is said turns out to be false.
For example, the crap mountains we discussed earlier.
You said a 4.6 million foot layer of crap "disappeared."
While I agree that it would have decomposed, and been eaten, or what not, it did NOT disappear.
IOW, the volume of crap still has to be accounted for, and saying it "disappeared" is not accounting for it.

*What I want to know is how are you so sure it is not true in the first place? There is much less evidence for a God than there is for evolution, and yet you scoff at it just because it does not fit your view of things.*

I started out as a believer in evolution, until I started to question the statements being made.
I scoff at the "evidence" not because it didn't fit my view, but because it isn't evidence of what it is declared to be evidence of.

*You refuse to accept evidence, you refuse to accept ideas.*

Sorry, dude, you're flat wrong.
I started out believing in evolution, and now I believe in God.

You are the one who refuses to accept alternative ideas, since you hold, and are limited to, just one single idea.

*I'm no longer interested in playing along with your little fantasy, where your view is right, and anything different must be false. Show some evidence and support for your points, as they will be the only ones I reply to from now. *

Account for the "missing" crap and we'll see if your view is right.
My evidence is that there is no missing crap because there is only 6000 years' worth to account for.

You have to explain how animals managed to avoid crapping for 4.6 billion years, OR you have to explain where the missing crap, or the 4.6 million foot deep layer of compost, went.

I'm guessing that you are going to see that you can't answer that and you are going to stick your head in the sand.

 

[James R]

tony1,

Why do you think that your Creationist friends (if you have any) don't put the "mountain of crap" argument as a rebuttal of evolution? Could it be that even they realise how silly it would make them look?

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
...the "mountain of crap" argument as a rebuttal of evolution?*

Just never thought of it before.
There are a large number of issues that evos or creationists have never thought of before.

1. The fact that animals defecate regularly
I've never seen that issue addressed by evolutionary biology books
2. The fact that fish dry out when they are out of the water
3. The fact that fish can jump out of the water in mere fractions of a second as opposed to the millions of years the ToE claims it takes
4. Etc.

The fact that you identify the issue as silly means that you have never been around large groups of animals, or farms, or zoos.
A rough rule of thumb for omnivores is around 2lbs of manure for each 1lb of weight per year.
Herbivores are more, and carnivores somewhat less.

Therefore, if dinosaurs were warm-blooded, a forty-ton dino would have defecated about 100 tons per year.
If they were cold-blooded, the amount would be considerably less.

Of course, since the favored anti-creationist argument is pro warmblooded due to some other creationist point, we'll go with the favored thinking.
Thus, if dinos ruled for 250 million years, and the population of dinos was anything but negligible then you have to account for trillions upon trillions of tons of dino doo-doo.
Even composted, the quantity has to be accounted for.
And of course, one has to account for the total amount accumulated by all creatures, whether composted or not, over 4.6 billion years.

Needless to say, your argument of "silly" is merely the fallacy called "Argument By Emotive Language."
And saying the crap "disappeared" sounds, well, kind of silly as well.

 

[Xelios]

It's an irrelevant point anyway tony. The absence of this crap proves nothing. It's the same as you saying the absence of fossiles proves nothing either. Obviously the world is not buried in tons of crap, so why worry about it?

The point is, there is overwhelming evidence for the age of the Earth being more than 6 thousand or so years, and dating methods prove some fossiles's we've recovered are many hundreds of millions of years old. Just because there is an absence of crap doesn't mean all this evidence is instantly nullified. It really isn't an arguement at all, just an imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture. The absence of crap is not a problem, why make it one?

 

[James R]

tony1,

Please review the previous posts. The answer is there. You just missed it.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xelios
The absence of this crap proves nothing.*

It proves that there weren't 4.6 billion years worth of animals.

*Obviously the world is not buried in tons of crap, so why worry about it?*

I'm not worried.
Evolutionists should be, since their next argument will have to be how animals didn't crap for 4.6 billion years.

*The point is, there is overwhelming evidence for the age of the Earth being more than 6 thousand or so years, and dating methods prove some fossiles's we've recovered are many hundreds of millions of years old.*

That's just speculation.
You don't know what a fossil of any particular age should be like since you don't have any fossils of a known age.
Thus measuring the characteristics of a fossil, and saying those characteristics date the fossil, is spurious.
In order to establish that certain characteristics mean a certain age, one would need a fossil of a KNOWN age to compare to.

*Just because there is an absence of crap doesn't mean all this evidence is instantly nullified.*

Actually, it means the evidence needs to be re-evaluated.
If animals in days past didn't crap, and animals today do, then an additional evolutionary mechanism must be described that explains the evolution of the ability to crap.

*It really isn't an arguement at all, just an imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture. The absence of crap is not a problem, why make it one? *

That "imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture" is a major industry on the planet today.
Other people have noticed the need to deal with large-scale volumes of crap.
Attempting to sweep the issue under the carpet does not work.

You either have to explain the absence of crap, or explain how animals didn't crap for 4.6 billion years, or more popularly, try to ignore the issue.
That last one is a little tough since you'll be reminded of the issue on a daily basis for the rest of your life.

 

[Cris]

Here is the answer to your crap issue. These remarkable creatures perform an incredible and continuous task. I saw a TV documentary on these creatures a few months ago and learnt how millions of these creatures are almost entirely responsible for keeping the whole of Africa clear of masses of animal dung.

Dung beetles are found in three families in the order Coleoptera, superfamily Scarabaeoidea. The families, Geotrupidae (900 species), Scarabaeidae (4500 species) and Aphodiidae (2500 species) make up our dung feeders.

The Scarabaeoidea are ecologically important creatures. They are nature’s very own ‘pooper scoopers’. Without these tank-like little insects, there is a good chance that humans and the rest of Earth’s terrestrial organisms would be up to their neck in dung. To date, the only climate in which the dung beetles are absent is the Antarctic (Smithsonian Magazine 1997). This is likely due to the fact that the limited amount dung that is present is probably frozen and difficult to work with. Geographically, the Scarabaeidae tend to occupy the more tropical climates, where cooler climates seem more suitable to the Geotrupidae and Aphodiinae (Halffter and Edmonds 1982:12). Canada is home to mostly Geotrupidae species (Howden 1964).

The full article –

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~ja2macne/412paper.html

There are numerous other interesting and related articles on the web.

Continue crapping.
Cris

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
Here is the answer to your crap issue. These remarkable creatures perform an incredible and continuous task. I saw a TV documentary on these creatures a few months ago and learnt how millions of these creatures are almost entirely responsible for keeping the whole of Africa clear of masses of animal dung.*

I'm going to assume that you are aware that these little creatures aren't magicians, i.e. they don't make crap disappear.

1. What happened prior to the evolution of dung beetles?
2. Are coproliths actually jam-packed with fossilized dung beetles?
3. Since dung beetles don't actually make crap disappear, then presumably the crap goes somewhere.
4. Since crap has volume, this volume has to be accounted for even if dung beetles relocate the volume of crap.
5. Since dung beetles find piles of crap and after the dung beetles are done, these piles of crap are gone, one can assume that dung beetles are primarily leveling the crap, i.e. large volumes of crap will not appear in huge piles, rather the level of the ground will slowly rise.
6. Dung beetles don't deal with anything other than dung, i.e. human garbage will be essentially untouched by them, and will also have to be accounted for.
7. Assuming that the current ground level is where it is due to the dung beetle scenario after 4.6 billion years is circular logic since it assumes the conclusion as one of the premises.
8. If the earth is only 6000 years old, then one would not need to account for huge quantities of crap.
9. If dung beetles really did eliminate 4.6 billion years' worth of crap then it should be easy to find billions upon billions of dung beetle fossils.

 

[Cris]

Hi tony1,

Matter is consumed producing two products, energy and crap. Energy is used to consume more matter. This cycle appears to result in a net loss of matter. But that balance is restored by the use of energy from the sun that results in more matter (plant and vegetable growth). Excess energy escapes via the atmosphere into space.

Balance is maintained. Matter and energy are exchanged as needed.

Cris

 

[Teg]

Tony1

The absence of this crap proves nothing.*

It proves that there weren't 4.6 billion years worth of animals.

You are still stuck on this subject?!? My explanation was not lacking and neither are the hundreds of more specific versions. I ask this: If plants don't eat crap then where do they come from? I defer you to a wonderful creation called a book. For persons of your limited intelligence, there are also videos and telecasts. That you have not been exposed to this subject in any media can mean only that you are not only uneducated but far worse, unaware.

It is not surprising considering the arguments you make. I know a multitude of children who know the answers to the questions you ask. Have you attended a school? Perhaps the reason that you are so set in your ways can be derived from your use of the word "mark". The grade system has changed since marks were around. Human knowledge has also increased. Please take a second to catch up with the rest of us.

That's just speculation.
You don't know what a fossil of any particular age should be like since you don't have any fossils of a known age.
Thus measuring the characteristics of a fossil, and saying those characteristics date the fossil, is spurious.
In order to establish that certain characteristics mean a certain age, one would need a fossil of a KNOWN age to compare to.

Carbon 14 degrades. For a learned person that should end the argument. For you: human fossils are generally less degraded, having more of a particular isotope. The dating yields a system that grades humans typically in recent terms. Dinosaurs are far more degraded. Other groups of post- dinosaur creatures can form particular stages. Beyond that we have evidence that the universe has existed for 10-20 billion years. Light takes time to arrive here. When we found the farthest star we were able to extrapolate the distance it travelled and thus the time it took. Also we have the date of the moon, somewhat less than the estimated age of the Earth. To doubt this would mean that those impacts on the moon were less than 6,000 years old. Also why does not the moon have a more erratic orbit. If it was recently captured then it would not be tidally locked yet. You also forget the other lackings of your position. It is unlikely that humans could compete with dinosaurs. They occupied some of the same areas as humans. Why is it that we have yet to find a human next to dinosaur inside the Earth?

 

[Xelios]

Cris and Teg have once again outlined where the crap goes for you tony. Digestion is not 100% efficient, when an animal (or plant) ingests matter some of it is used to sustain it's bodily functions, some of it is released as waste heat and some passes through the digestive system and "out the other end". Another organism then ingests this crap in one way or another, and this organism again has a less than 100% efficient digestive system. The futher along the line you go, less and less crap is produced when compared to what was digested by the first animal.

The volume of crap does not have to be accounted for, as it does not all simply pass through the digestive system, but rather some of the energy the crap contains is converted to other forms. Thus, the volume of crap ingested to crap excreted is not the same. Put this into a scale of billions of these little animals all digesting the crap, and it tends to balance out quite nicely, as can be seen when we look out our windows.

If you still don't believe me, consider this. How much crap should we be seeing outside if the Earth was 6000 years old as compared to 4.6 billion? Granted, there would be much less, but I'm pretty sure we'd still notice it. So why isn't it there? The crap problem is not just a problem for evolutionists, but for creationists too. The only difference is evolutionists have already answered it.

 

[Teg]

Xelios

Granted, there would be much less, but I'm pretty sure we'd still notice it. So why isn't it there? The crap problem is not just a problem for evolutionists, but for creationists too. The only difference is evolutionists have already answered it.

A good counter argument. Tony1 needs a huge display of ignorance to argue that point again. The sad detail is that people have short memories. Tony1 and others like him will doubtless try to make this argument for the next generation of programmed christian children. They will eat it with great excitement, as their indoctrination will seem to have evidence.

The PBS series "Evolution" was appalling in its display of the capacity of ignorance that such programming can breed. Highschool students petitioned for introduction of "creation-science". The school board of that school had the sense to deny their wants. A few fringe religious individuals have begun to piece together bible quotes and call it science. Most of their evidence is in the form of counter evidence. All of it is based upon a lack of understanding. Schools teach the facts and the students choose to ignore such facts. One conclusion: the bias of the child is the fault of the parents. These people are able to penetrate areas of power through association. This lack of understanding exists into the presidency.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
But that balance is restored by the use of energy from the sun that results in more matter (plant and vegetable growth).*

True, so where is all that extra matter?

*Excess energy escapes via the atmosphere into space.*

Well, not quite.
There would have to be a LOT of excess energy before it escapes into space in any appreciable amount.

As things stand now, global warming is an issue specifically because enough energy is not escaping into space.

*Balance is maintained. Matter and energy are exchanged as needed.*

Sounds neat, but that isn't borne out by observations.
Since we had an Ice Age only about "10,000" years ago, and now we are struggling with global warming, it is obvious that we are not in a state of balance now, nor at any time since the last Ice Age.

*Originally posted by Teg
My explanation was not lacking and neither are the hundreds of more specific versions.*

Well, they're certainly not lacking in imagination.

*If plants don't eat crap then where do they come from?*

You just end up begging the question with the route you are taking.
If all of the dead plants, humus, crap and compost added only one hundredth of a millimeter to the thickness of the earth's crust per year, then you need to explain where 46,000 meters of missing stuff went, since in theory 4.6 billion years have to be accounted for.

*I know a multitude of children who know the answers to the questions you ask.*

Of course.
They all go to the same schools you do.
I would have been hoping for correct answers, not just any answers.

*The grade system has changed since marks were around.*

Depends on the slang in use where you are.

*Carbon 14 degrades. For a learned person that should end the argument.*

Yes, learned folks are much more gullible, having been trained Pavlov-style to accept anything.

Besides, C14 has problems, mainly the upper limit of about 50,000 years (in theory).
What fossils, according to the theory of evolution, are that new?

*Light takes time to arrive here. When we found the farthest star we were able to extrapolate the distance it travelled and thus the time it took.*

The "extrapolation" would be accurate only if the speed of light is correctly assumed to be constant.
There is no evidence for a constant speed of light.
Besides, you are extrapolating 15 billion years from known data of only about 1000 years' worth.
That is ridiculous.

*Why is it that we have yet to find a human next to dinosaur inside the Earth?*

Why haven't "we" found any transitional fossils, either?
Why haven't "we" found all the fossils yet?

*Originally posted by Xelios
How much crap should we be seeing outside if the Earth was 6000 years old as compared to 4.6 billion?*

Using a hundredth of a millimeter per year as an approximation, I would only need to explain the presence of 0.6 meters of crap, humus, etc.
That's pretty easy, since that's how much there is outside your window, maybe more.
In fact, I might expect about 6 meters of crap, humus, etc.

Of course, if that rate of deposition were true then you would have to explain where 460,000 meters of crap went.
Much harder.

*A good counter argument.*

It's pathetic.

*The PBS series "Evolution" was appalling*

Yes it was.
Especially that graphic of the "tree of life."
That has sucked in many hundreds of thousands of people.
Look at poor tiassa.
He is actually thinking that it takes fish 20 million years to jump out of the water.
Not only that, he thinks that fish can stay out of the water for 20 million years without drying out.
Real fish can jump out of the water in seconds, and they dry out in minutes.

*This lack of understanding exists into the presidency.*

Talk about missing the point.
He's the president, and you are....um, who exactly?