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

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is not so hard to imagine tiny little changes in a system breaking it down
in key spots, since there are no controls on when and where they occur.
It is amazing the things you and others here give random changes credit
for.

It's not hard to imagine, and it happens all the time. Nonetheless, successful mutations do occur, and combined with natural selection the conclusion is obvious.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's not hard to imagine, and it happens all the time. Nonetheless, successful mutations do occur, and combined with natural selection the conclusion is obvious.

Out of how many changes does it take to get you to a place you see a good
one? Not denying they occur, but when building something that if the
wrong thing happens it can die or something else negative occurs. What you
and others here suggest that is just okay fine that bad ones out number the
good ones and it doesn't stop the process from getting better and better
and life will away be here. It is another magic trick in my opinion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Out of how many changes does it take to get you to a place you see a good
one? Not denying they occur, but when building something that if the
wrong thing happens it can die or something else negative occurs. What you
and others here suggest that is just okay fine that bad ones out number the
good ones and it doesn't stop the process from getting better and better
and life will away be here. It is another magic trick in my opinion.

One thing you seem to forget is those changes happen to billions of individuals and if a bad change happens, the progeny dies off but there are billions of replacements. Think about how many flies there are on the planet or ash trees or elk, well used to be before man came on the scene.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One thing you seem to forget is those changes happen to billions of individuals and if a bad change happens, the progeny dies off but there are billions of replacements. Think about how many flies there are on the planet or ash trees or elk, well used to be before man came on the scene.

You seem to apply what you see today to the numbers and think it is okay,
but fail to think about how about when those changes were being done
to a very small sample size, in a very harsh environment, with all the things
that need to be there to keep life maintained and thriving on top of all of
those small changes! There could be no room for error, yet you buy it hook
line and sinker without so much as a doubt.

Nothing in the realm of reason in my opinion says that life can start from
non-life, and then can and go from the very first small individuals of life
until what we see today. 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.

In your mind, not a problem, not even something to think about, what could
go wrong!? After all millions or billions of years on a ever changing planet
only good things would occur for life from the time it started till now,
according to you and those that think that is reasonable.

Originally posted by C Hess
It is you that lack information on the subject. While beneficial mutations are rare and far in between, they have been observed to happen:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

While it's hard to imagine tiny changes like that eventually accumulating into larger changes on the level of speciatio ...[text shortened]... ic dictates that they not only can, but should accumulate over time.

Science wins, yet again.

You reference an atheist, secular humanist opinion article that has nothing to do with science. Whereas, I quoted from real scientists that state mutations do not result in any beneficial evolution. So if science wins, then your atheist, secular humanist lose. That means I win, you lose.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem to apply what you see today to the numbers and think it is okay,
but fail to think about how about when those changes were being done
to a very small sample size, in a very harsh environment, with all the things
that need to be there to keep life maintained and thriving on top of all of
those small changes! There could be no room for error, yet ...[text shortened]... fe from the time it started till now,
according to you and those that think that is reasonable.

There never was a time when there was a small sample size, even a billion years ago there were literally trillions of life forms of all kinds floating around the oceans. Maybe even 3 billion years ago. I think it will be found, say in another 200 years of space exploration, assuming we have a civilization that can support such huge efforts for the next 200 years, I think we will find life wherever conditions are even halfway decent for such. Like the oceans of Europa, or hidden inside caves in Mars and such. I think it will be found life will be nearly universal anywhere conditions are suitable and they will find thousands of planets or moons where life can happen. If it can happen, it will.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There never was a time when there was a small sample size, even a billion years ago there were literally trillions of life forms of all kinds floating around the oceans. Maybe even 3 billion years ago. I think it will be found, say in another 200 years of space exploration, assuming we have a civilization that can support such huge efforts for the next 200 ...[text shortened]... d they will find thousands of planets or moons where life can happen. If it can happen, it will.

We don't believe our solar system existed millions or billions of years ago. That is your religion, not ours.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We don't believe our solar system existed millions or billions of years ago. That is your religion, not ours.

You really mean it's our reality, not yours. We aren't blinded and self lobotomized by your obsession with religion and your 10th century ways. You would be very happy in the tenth century, able to put people in prison for daring to suggest the bible is BS. Yes, you would love it back then.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really mean it's our reality, not yours. We aren't blinded and self lobotomized by your obsession with religion and your 10th century ways. You would be very happy in the tenth century, able to put people in prison for daring to suggest the bible is BS. Yes, you would love it back then.

I really mean what I said. I'm not joking. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You reference an atheist, secular humanist opinion article that has nothing to do with science. Whereas, I quoted from real scientists that state mutations do not result in any beneficial evolution.

Fine, I'll pick apart your quotations then. For the record, the examples of beneficial mutations presented in the article I linked to are scientifically legit.

You took your first quote from the book "The Modern Concept of Nature", by Hermann Joseph Muller. As usual with you creationists, you quote mine. He continues with:

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes. That is, on the rare occasions when an accidental mutation did happen to effect an advantageous change, the resultant individual, just because it was aided by that mutation, tended to multiply more than the others.

Your second quote is from Grasse, who was indeed not a fan of natural selection, though he accepted evolution. He was a follower of neo-Lamarckism. While Grasse was a notable and respected scientist, he died in 85 and a lot has happened in the field of evolutionary biology since then, believe it or not.

As for your last quote, it is true that Lynn Margulis (one of the most important biologists in recent times - admired by none other than Richard Dawkins) in the end rejected the idea that natural selection on random mutations could be the driving force behind evolution. Good for you. She did accept evolution however. Her take on it was that species evolve not through natural selection but through symbiotic behaviour. She saw humans as bacteria that got their acts together, essentially. And it's an interesting take on it, given that we are indeed mostly made of bacterial forms of life. I don't completely agree with her absolute dismissal of natural selection, and neither does most scientists today (I think). I don't think she had a good enough argument to completely rule out natural selection (especially given the fact that beneficial mutations have been observed to happen). Of course, that doesn't mean she's completely wrong (in fact, given her brilliance as a scientist, she was probably partially right). It's still open to debate, is what I'm saying. What it does mean is that your creationist beliefs are not supported by her, or any other scientist you quote mine.

By the way, when you do this sort of thing (misrepresenting scientists - lying, essentially), aren't you (as a christian) afraid there'll be consequences? And aren't you (as a normal decent human) ashamed?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is a huge assumption on your part isn't it, formed over created?
You have no clue how it started, none, so was it created with all the parts
in place preforming their function on the whole, or did they form over time?
Since that is the debate simply telling me I'm wrong, because I don't agree
with you is a bit laughable.

Not really. You have this underlying assumption of a creator. I do not. I don't rule out a creator but I'm not going to rule one in either. We have a model which predicts everything we need it to so the assumption of a creator is unnecessary. What is more all the evidence is for an old universe and an old earth. There is no evidence for a young earth whatsoever. We know how the earth formed and how the universe evolved for the last 13 and a half billion years. If you want to deny the evidence then go right ahead, but do not deceive yourself into thinking we have no good reason for our theory.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We don't believe our solar system existed millions or billions of years ago. That is your religion, not ours.

Not a religion RJ. However much you want it to be the case, our confidence in an old universe is in a different category to your belief system. We require reproducible evidence, you require a book.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There never was a time when there was a small sample size, even a billion years ago there were literally trillions of life forms of all kinds floating around the oceans. Maybe even 3 billion years ago. I think it will be found, say in another 200 years of space exploration, assuming we have a civilization that can support such huge efforts for the next 200 ...[text shortened]... d they will find thousands of planets or moons where life can happen. If it can happen, it will.

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?

Originally posted by C Hess
Fine, I'll pick apart your quotations then. For the record, the examples of beneficial mutations presented in the article I linked to are scientifically legit.

You took your first quote from the book "The Modern Concept of Nature", by Hermann Joseph Muller. As usual with you creationists, you quote mine. He continues with:

[quote]
It is nevertheless to ...[text shortened]... a christian) afraid there'll be consequences? And aren't you (as a normal decent human) ashamed?

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?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Not a religion RJ. However much you want it to be the case, our confidence in an old universe is in a different category to your belief system. We require reproducible evidence, you require a book.

There is no undisputed reproducible evidence to prove an old earth.