This means it take LONGER to get to what you want. If you add steps then you need MORE TIME. (capps added for emphasis).
A) "Get to what you want" is a pointless statement considering it isn't about personal choice.
B) It wouldn't take longer. You were talking right from ground zero, and a soup of molecules mingling around trying to combine. This need only occur once, and when it has - it will adapt, change and evolve, but as it's already "life", it is easier to proceed.
Yes, a fascinating irrelevent statistic used by the unlearned.
Sorry, what were your credentials? I know last time I asked you ran for the hills faster than a whippet with a bum full of dynamite, but I figured It was worth another shot.
What they don't bother to quote is that all mammals are within 5% and all animal life is within 10%. You are only 10% different from a slug. I think they call this lieing with statistics.
Maybe they do call it lying, or maybe you're just being wrong unintentionally. The difference is higher than 10%, although if you'd care to provide a decent website that says otherwise, I'll take a look at it.
See, you are totally ignorant of the issues...
Oh, so fast to use that rude little mouth of yours, and yet, (as per the norm), completely without warrant. As I clearly stated, that text came from Talk Origins - So if you'd like to argue the point with them, feel free.
Micro-evolution involves slight changes in genes from one creature to another creature of the same species. Macro-evolution involves creating genes/DNA from scratch and building into the different species. They are vastly different, yet you have no clue as to the subject you are discussing (BTW, this is not PHD genetics, this is Genetics 101 and Organic Chem 101).
Lol, you're a funny boy. Once again, take it up with T.O
Please find me a documented example of a new Phyla arising. Or for that matter, any new Order or Class?
What you want is for a new phyla, order or class to appear suddenly, which would be creation, not evolution.
However, speciation has been observed and documented, and even then, (to quote T.O): "Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution."
There are also transitional fossils that show macro evolution has occured.
Oh, so now, you are going to fall back on the ravings of your atheist cronies?
The ravings? Absolutely not, but as I very clearly stated on my post to you - They have provided more in the way of credentials. I still eagerly await yours, but everytime I even dare mention such a thing you run away like a scared cat, and then ignore it on each subsequent post. I have now asked some 10 times that we have this history challenge you offered, and in each instance, you close your eyes to it. As I said on my last post to you, you're all mouth - no balls.
And now here you are once again, working that mouth of yours - against Talk Origins funnily enough. Can you walk the walk? What are your credentials?
Come on - nothing you quote provides any evidence that this actually happened - this is only an unsubstatiated theory.
According to who?
What does this have to do with PROOF. That's your credo isn't it? Come on now - Prove it!
Well, I tend not to use caps. And no, I never demand proof, just evidence - and in the past.. well.. since forever, none of you religious types have even managed to provide the tiniest little smidging of evidence. If you're asking for evidence, it's all over the place. Buy a science book. Go study something, other than how to work your mouth off 24/7 and never say one thing of worth.
Let's see... Some scientist, who can't even duplicate simple speciation in his lab, claims that he can extrapolate from what he can't do to something bigger for which there is no evidence, fossilize or otherwise? Surely you can do better.
Some scientist? Lol, surely
you can do better. And there is evidence, you're just too set on mouthing it with your eyes closed.
The simple answer is that they date the rocks based upon the age of the fossils in the rocks. How exactly do they know the age of these rocks? The simple answer is that they date the rocks based upon the age of the fossils in the rocks. Makes sense since you can't have a rock younger than the fossilized remains found within the rock. So of course the next question is how do they know how old the fossil is? Well, they know the age of the fossil based upon the age of the rock it is in and the strata it is found in. Wait a minute! This is circular logic. You can't base the date of the rock on the fossil and then base the date of the fossil on the rock! Yet, that is exactly what is done.
"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough. Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:
"The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils.""
Basically, what they're saying is..
you have not studied, but have made an oversimplified statement based upon
your lack of understanding.
How can you try and debunk anything, when it simply comes down to you not knowing the subject?
T.O goes on to say:
"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.
If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."
If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly. The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma."
If you're going to ask why I like T.O, it's because it deals with people like yourself swiftly, and saves me the typing.
What about radioactive dating? Well, so far, all attempts to establish dates with radio-dating techniques have been abismal failures. For instance, when they dating the Shroud of Turin, they dated the cloth to around 1200 AD (supposedly proving it could not be the burial cloth of Christ). However, what they don't tell you is they also dated three other shroud cloths from mummies of known ages. Now the labs did not know the dates of the other three cloths (there were three labs and each lab was sent four samples - one from the Shroud of Turin and three other cloths with known dates - this was an attempt at double blind testing). Not only did the labs not agree on the dates for any of the cloths, but they ALL got the dates wrong for the known cloths. Let me say that again - all three labs got all three known dates WRONG. But this is Carbon-14 dating. What about other radio-dating methods?
How about Uranium or Thorium? The substances decay into common lead (and other things). When using these dating schemes, they measure the amount of lead which has decayed from Uranium and the ratio (given a known half-life) gives us the time since there was pure Uranium based upon the ratio of the remaining Uranium and the resluting Lead. But wait - how do we know there was no lead in the sample to start with, or how much may have mixed in or added since the Uranium started decaying? Uranium is never found in nature in its pure form so why should we assume it was pure to start with? If we don't know the initial conditions, then we have no hope of forming a valid hypothesis.
This is the dilema of radio-dating methods. The basic science is sound, but the dates are highly subject to assumptions made about the initial conditions. There have been cases where living animals have been tested with C-14 techniques and the results show the animal to be dead over 6000 years! These methods have NEVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION (caps added for emphasis) so there is no way to trust their validity. If a scientific method cannot EVER be shown to give a valid, known result, then it certainly cannot be used to give an unknown result.
Little more to say to you, other than: go study. And no, I don't mean "The creationists quick guide to evolution and planetary dating".
And how exactly were these rocks dated? If radio-dating techniques are known to give false evidence for ages on Earth, how much LESS should we trust when used on rocks from the unknown environment of the Moon?
Study, and all your questions shall be answered. Why are you expecting me to do it for you?
But, you are still IGNORING THE PROBLEM. Even if you do manage to prove Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is still just a blink of an eye compared to the vast amounts of time required for Macro-Evolution.
Yeah. What were your credentials again?
According to one of your hissy fits, I failed math. So why this statement?
Do you start to see why random chance cannot be the answer? The numbers are far beyond astronomical. This is just for the very simplist life forms. The number goes up exponentially with complexity.
You're talking probabilities, not absolutes. So it got lucky. Is that out of the question?
Sorry, don't follow. Where did the 1500/1100 number come from?
The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Utnapishtim flood account is dated as being written 1500 years before the biblical account. As such, if Noah was the actual guy, he would have been long dead before the biblical version was even a twinkle in the authors mind.