Evolution - Fact or Fiction

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where is the peer reviewed evidence for millions and billions of years? There is only peer reviewed evidence for thousands of years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ5qran1sS4

Where in this video does it mention anything about being peer reviewed? I suffered through the first part of this video, and found out a couple of things. First, it is a talk given at the Seattle Creation Conference, which is not a scientific conference (their own website says the purpose of the conference "is to strengthen faith against the false teachings of naturalistic science, and encourage the Church to trust in the Bible as authoritative on early Earth history." Second, the speaker talks about a book that was not yet published at the time of the talk, so I don't see how it could have possibly been peer reviewed at the time of the talk.

Also, there is of course a mountain of peer reviewed literature for an old Earth. Here are just a few of the countless examples, which I found by searching highwire.stanford.edu, which allows searching for peer reviewed literature.

Lead Isotopes and the Age of the Earth

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/150/3705/1805.abstract?sid=75057194-9f68-47c0-b890-1a53d16db169

The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/190/1/205.abstract?sid=e9770dc1-a359-4d93-9925-900894a2d999

Oceanic Basalt Leads: A New Interpretation and an Independent Age for the Earth

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/158/3798/252.abstract?sid=30157709-4f43-4a95-9e2f-5edd15684b53

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the larger scale is NOT science fact because it has never been tested, observed, and repeated by peer review. I don't believe in millions and billions of years of past history. Case closed.

By this argument, a bicentennial has never occurred, because no one has lived long enough to observe one. If you concede that time occurs, and evolution occurs over time, it is impossible to reasonably argue that it just stops at some arbitrary point in time.

In any event, not only has evolution been tested, observed, and peer reviewed, we have even observed new species arising:

Mimulus peregrinus (Phrymaceae): A new British allopolyploid species

http://www.pensoft.net/journals/phytokeys/article/3305/mimulus-peregrinus-phrymaceae-a-new-british-allopolyploid-species

On the Origins of Species: Does Evolution Repeat Itself in Polyploid Populations of Independent Origin?

http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/74/215.abstract?sid=d5781532-e785-4c0a-9515-ae891ffbd66c

Originally posted by sonhouse
I dare you to read this link. I know you won't but here it is anyway: How old is the Earth? Let me count the ways it has been calculated by many methods:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

Your propaganda article ignores Helium in radioactive rocks as a measuring method for the age of the earth. During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of helium atoms?

While drilling deep Precambrian (pre-Flood) granitic rocks in New Mexico, geologists extracted samples of zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals from different depths. The crystals contained not only uranium but also large amounts of helium. Using the measured rate of helium diffusion, these pre-Flood rocks have an average “diffusion age” of only 6,000 (± 2,000) years.

These experimentally determined and repeatable results, based on the well-understood physical process of diffusion, thus emphatically demonstrate that these zircons are only a few thousand years old. The supposed 1.5-billion-year age is based on the unverifiable assumptions of radioisotope dating that are radically wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/helium-in-rocks

Originally posted by PatNovak
Where in this video does it mention anything about being peer reviewed? I suffered through the first part of this video, and found out a couple of things. First, it is a talk given at the Seattle Creation Conference, which is not a scientific conference (their own website says the purpose of the conference "is to strengthen faith against the false teachings ...[text shortened]... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/158/3798/252.abstract?sid=30157709-4f43-4a95-9e2f-5edd15684b53

Proof The Earth Is Young and Noah's Flood

YouTube

The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences

YouTube&list=PLebLAvrUbivYHG_yunPoSYEnZK67_0U_T

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your propaganda article ignores Helium in radioactive rocks as a measuring method for the age of the earth. During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventual ...[text shortened]... g that are radically wrong.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/helium-in-rocks

And this is your work? You know this from personal experimentation?

Helium is produced constantly from radioactive decay of Thorium and Uranium. That is why there is still helium underground.

You idiot creationists make such a big deal out of nothing, jump on ANYTHING that vaguely suggests there might be something wrong with the calculations of the age of the Earth.

Creationists conveniently just so accidentally refrain from mentioning where helium actually comes from so they THINK they can throw a monkey wrench into the actual age of the Earth, over 4 billion years and counting.

I googled this link:

http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2011/03/where-did-helium-come-from-or-jupiter.html

All the other links were asssholes with their so-called science touting the abundance of helium as if that were some kind of smoking gun.

It is not a smoking gun, it is a desperate attempt to gain listeners who have no scientific background and are therefore susceptible to these opinion pieces designed specifically with the idea of gaining political influence and money so they can buy off congressmen and judges.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And this is your work? You know this from personal experimentation?

Helium is produced constantly from radioactive decay of Thorium and Uranium. That is why there is still helium underground.

You idiot creationists make such a big deal out of nothing, jump on ANYTHING that vaguely suggests there might be something wrong with the calculations of the a ...[text shortened]... th the idea of gaining political influence and money so they can buy off congressmen and judges.

I can only lead you to the truth. I can't make you accept it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Proof The Earth Is Young and Noah's Flood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bTLuyCd9G8

The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0&list=PLebLAvrUbivYHG_yunPoSYEnZK67_0U_T

Please see my earlier comments about the intellectual laziness of posting links without explaining your arguments or the arguments made by the links. And if you are going to reply to a post, please address the contents of the post. My post was a response to your assertion that this video (YouTube) was peer reviewed, and your assertion that there isn’t peer reviewed literature for an old Earth. Videos about a worldwide flood do not address either of these topics.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Please see my earlier comments about the intellectual laziness of posting links without explaining your arguments or the arguments made by the links. And if you are going to reply to a post, please address the contents of the post. My post was a response to your assertion that this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ5qran1sS4) was peer reviewed, and y ...[text shortened]... terature for an old Earth. Videos about a worldwide flood do not address either of these topics.

Well, I admit that I am getting to be a lazy guy in my old age. However, the first video in my reply to you does refer to peer-review science on the subject. Also I am not one that buys in to this new definition of evolution. So to me evolution or evilution has never occurred. When a so-called new species is born or hatched that is only a variety and not evolution to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I admit that I am getting to be a lazy guy in my old age. However, the first video in my reply to you does refer to peer-review science on the subject. Also I am not one that buys in to this new definition of evolution. So to me evolution or evilution has never occurred. When a so-called new species is born or hatched that is only a variety and not evolution to me.

What do you mean by "new definition of evolution?" I am pretty confident that the definition of evolution hasn't changed. Please define difference between the "old" and "new" definitions of evolution. Also, please define what "variety" means, and how you think it differs from evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I admit that I am getting to be a lazy guy in my old age. However, the first video in my reply to you does refer to peer-review science on the subject. Also I am not one that buys in to this new definition of evolution. So to me evolution or evilution has never occurred. When a so-called new species is born or hatched that is only a variety and not evolution to me.

As Pat alluded to, you really did show a sub par understanding of evolution in the first place.
So there is no way you can compare an inexact understanding to a new refined view

Originally posted by PatNovak
What do you mean by "new definition of evolution?" I am pretty confident that the definition of evolution hasn't changed. Please define difference between the "old" and "new" definitions of evolution. Also, please define what "variety" means, and how you think it differs from evolution.

It has changed alrighty. Maybe you could google old and new definitions of evolution and you can educate yourself. Don't be lazy. Look them up.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
As Pat alluded to, you really did show a sub par understanding of evolution in the first place.
So there is no way you can compare an inexact understanding to a new refined view

I don't know why I even respond to such ignorant statements.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has changed alrighty. Maybe you could google old and new definitions of evolution and you can educate yourself. Don't be lazy. Look them up.

Before my last response, I actually spent quite a while on google trying to figure out what you were talking about. I googled numerous variations of old vs. new evolution definition, and several variations of evolution vs. variety, and came up empty. I also just googled "old and new definitions of evolution" like you suggested, and again came up empty.

It very clear that you expect the other posters to do all the work in this discussion. You link to videos without comment (so that others have to spend hours watching videos to just figure out what your position might possibly be), respond to posts without addressing anything in the post, and do not answer simple and legitimate requests. I don't know how you expect others to take your comments seriously when you put such extraordinarily little effort into them. It is unfortunate that you want to start a discussion on a controversial topic, but are unwilling to make even a cursory effort to have a discussion or defend your position.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know why I even respond to such ignorant statements.

neither do I

Originally posted by PatNovak
Before my last response, I actually spent quite a while on google trying to figure out what you were talking about. I googled numerous variations of old vs. new evolution definition, and several variations of evolution vs. variety, and came up empty. I also just googled "old and new definitions of evolution" like you suggested, and again came up empty.

I ...[text shortened]... c, but are unwilling to make even a cursory effort to have a discussion or defend your position.

Okay, I will help you out. Read this:

http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution