How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, who were these life forms and where did they come from Oz and
the Wizard made them? The first life forms all started at the same time and
their numbers right from the get go was trillions, you base this upon what?
Did you pull that number out of a body part?

So you deny there are literally trillions of radiolarians or diatom fossils in the world? You think maybe those countless trillions of fossils came about only in the last 6000 years? If so they must have overwhelmed the entire planet back 5000 years ago. Wait, they didn't overwhelm the planet back then because the pyramids were built back then and millions of people were around and tens of thousands of people help build them. Hmmm. I guess maybe those radiolarians and diatoms were far older than 6000 years.

But silly me, I HAVE to be wrong because it is in the BIBLE for god's sake, the world therefore HAS to be only 6000 years old.

Wait you say, were you there? My immensely intelligent god could have easily just made all those trillions of diatom fossils just to fool us into thinking the world was billions of years old. Ah. That MUST be it. How stupid I have been to even BEGIN to doubt that fundamental truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no undisputed reproducible evidence to prove an old earth.

RJ, you and your friends disputing the evidence really doesn't cut it. You cannot provide compelling evidence to support your position.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, not only are the changes required to be so
good they over come all the bad ones, the first few million years there
better not be any harsh winters or summers that could kill off all the little
life forms just starting off, and that is just the weather hope nothing gets
introduced didn't sit well with that new life that could kill it all off, or just
as bad hope everything it needs never dries up or floats away.

You are assuming that the climate was good for the organisms.

You goy it badly wrong.

The organisms were adapted for the climate.

The world is not made for us.

We were made for the world, we are a product
of our environment, not the other way around.
Read a book - then argue against Evolution.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You are assuming that the climate was good for the organisms.

You goy it badly [b]wrong.

The organisms were adapted for the climate.

The world is not made for us.

We were made for the world, we are a product
of our environment, not the other way around.
Read a book - then argue against Evolution.[/b]

Evolution from the goo to the zoo can not happen without billions of years of past history.

Originally posted by RJHinds
These scientists were acknowledged as being evolutionists and not creationist so I see no misrepresenting there. How could they be accurate quotes from the scientists and also be misrepresentation of them?

Let me explain the concept of quote mining as simply as I can then. You take a quote out of context to make it seem like your point is supported by the quotee. Muller argued specifically for neo-Darwinism (which means you flat out lie when you use his quotes to support the idea that no mutations are beneficial) and Grasse followed a now disproven idea (so you're dishonest in bringing him up to support your point).

Your only valid quote as far as mutations go was the last one. Margulis did support your idea that no mutations are beneficial. Her ideas on symbiosis evolution are interesting, but they clearly don't rule out natural selection on random mutations (given that we can identify several beneficial mutations already), so to quote her before her claims have been fully tested is disingenious.

Are you saying your god is fine with all this; that you don't feel the least bit in the wrong?

Originally posted by C Hess
Let me explain the concept of quote mining as simply as I can then. You take a quote out of context to make it seem like your point is supported by the quotee. Muller argued specifically for neo-Darwinism (which means you flat out lie when you use his quotes to support the idea that no mutations are beneficial) and Grasse followed a now disproven idea (so you ...[text shortened]...
Are you saying your god is fine with all this; that you don't feel the least bit in the wrong?

That is your opinion. Others, like myself, have a different opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution from the goo to the zoo can not happen without billions of years of past history.

Agreed. Since natural selection has had 4.5 billion years work with it's not clear how this point reinforces your position.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is your opinion. Others, like myself, have a different opinion.

Really!? You surprise me. Are you saying that Muller supported the idea of no beneficial mutations, that neo-Lamarckism is still a valid point of view and that Margulis' ideas completely invalidates natural selection on random mutations? You're wrong. That the debate on what mechanism(s) drive evolution is ongoing should alert you to this fact.

As for you being of a different opinion matters little if you can't account for the evidence collected so far. At least Margulis, being a real scientist, proposed a new explanation that on the surface appear plausible. Creationism doesn't even come close to fit the evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution from the goo to the zoo can not happen without billions of years of past history.

We are making progress slowly but progress nonetheless.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you deny there are literally trillions of radiolarians or diatom fossils in the world? You think maybe those countless trillions of fossils came about only in the last 6000 years? If so they must have overwhelmed the entire planet back 5000 years ago. Wait, they didn't overwhelm the planet back then because the pyramids were built back then and millions ...[text shortened]... old. Ah. That MUST be it. How stupid I have been to even BEGIN to doubt that fundamental truth.

If you want to bring up the Bible that is up to you, I've not asked you
to accept anything written there in this conversation.

I want to know if you believe at the very start of life, you know the day
it all began how much life was started? The day before there was none,
and the day it began there was trillions? It would be helpful if you could
also disclose how you came to believe the number you give too.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to bring up the Bible that is up to you, I've not asked you
to accept anything written there in this conversation.

I want to know if you believe at the very start of life, you know the day
it all began how much life was started? The day before there was none,
and the day it began there was trillions? It would be helpful if you could
also disclose how you came to believe the number you give too.

Why don't you look up diatoms yourself. They are a very tiny animal that when they die, they settle to the bottom of the ocean and the stuff accumulates miles deep. Try THAT in 6000 years. These things have been known for, I don't know, maybe 300 years or more. The microscope was invented in the 1600's and they could clearly see the little beasts even then.

Here is a link to some of the sediment on the bottom of the oceans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment

Note the deposition rate which we can directly measure: 0.33 centimeters per 1000 years.

And the depth of these deposits: MILES. Look at the tables about that.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You are assuming that the climate was good for the organisms.

You goy it badly [b]wrong.

The organisms were adapted for the climate.

The world is not made for us.

We were made for the world, we are a product
of our environment, not the other way around.
Read a book - then argue against Evolution.[/b]

I'm sorry you believe that in the beginning that evolution happen so fast
unlike today that if a bad summer or winter occurred it would adapt? Is
that what your telling me, pow one day its 95 then it goes to 125 or what
ever the top temps were and it would just adapt from say 8AM to 2PM?
That very fast, unless you have something else in mind?

The trouble with reading books on evolution those you like all agree with
your views, those you dismiss do not.

The world was not made for us, well again another assumption.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry you believe that in the beginning that evolution happen so fast
unlike today that if a bad summer or winter occurred it would adapt? Is
that what your telling me, pow one day its 95 then it goes to 125 or what
ever the top temps were and it would just adapt from say 8AM to 2PM?
That very fast, unless you have something else in mind?

The tro ...[text shortened]... hose you dismiss do not.

The world was not made for us, well again another assumption.
Kelly

You need to study microbiology a little. The first forms of life would have been very simple procaryots (bacterial forms). As you no doubt know, bacteria has the ability to adapt to almost any kind of environment fairly quickly. The reason being that they divide so fast, that if only a few survive a sudden change in the environment, soon there will be a lot. I mean a whole lot (literally millions of them). Thus, if only one first cell is produced naturally, soon there will be millions of cells just like it in that same place. Before you know, that first cell will have as many descendents as there are stars in sky, and evolution has begun.

How did that first cell(s) come to be? Well, that's a story for another day. 😴

Originally posted by C Hess
You need to study microbiology a little. The first forms of life would have been very simple procaryots (bacterial forms). As you no doubt know, bacteria has the ability to adapt to almost any kind of environment fairly quickly. The reason being that they divide so fast, that if only a few survive a sudden change in the environment, soon there will be a lot. ...[text shortened]... on has begun.

How did that first cell(s) come to be? Well, that's a story for another day. 😴

Bacteria remain bacteria. That is not an example of the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why don't you look up diatoms yourself. They are a very tiny animal that when they die, they settle to the bottom of the ocean and the stuff accumulates miles deep. Try THAT in 6000 years. These things have been known for, I don't know, maybe 300 years or more. The microscope was invented in the 1600's and they could clearly see the little beasts even then. ...[text shortened]... meters per 1000 years.

And the depth of these deposits: MILES. Look at the tables about that.

I believe that can be explained by exponential growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth