[Fyron]

Rags:

Something just popped into my head about this subject. How do you, or I, know that they are accurate in their calculations on how old a star is? They could easily say that this star is 1 Million years old and no one would really know the difference, because no one is going to question it; besides other scientist who are studying the same star. But still, how do the scientists themselves know if they are correct in their calculations? They don't know if their formulae is correct in figuring the age.

I am not sure what exactly goes into calculating the age of a star, but I could easily find it. The age of a star is not accepted until a relatively large number of independant Groups study the star and calculate its age. So, it isn't just one guy doing all the math, it is a lot of people continually doubting each other and triple-checking all the work of others as well as their own work.

Jack:
I notice you have a tendency to not post counter-arguments, just to throw out various latin terms for things you perceive to be fallacies that may in fact not be fallacal (in fact, none of them actually approach being a fallacy, only your misconceptions about what was posted do). If you want to argue against points, you need to start posting more sound counter-arguments.

On what basis do you make this claim?

It isn't a "claim", it is a fact.

There are ancient stone structures that we would have difficulty duplicating today, even with modern equipment.

That just isn't true.

Besides, if you accept the basic Creationist postulate (which, in proper debate, you must unless you first: A: disprove it or B: show that the implications of it do not match the evidence) you must allow for the possiblity of valid divine inspiration.

And what is this "basic Creationist postulate"? You need to define things like that when you reference them...

You are also using an ad hominin fallacy here.

Nice argument technique, throwing around fancy latin terms in the hopes that you look smarter than me and so are automatcially correct. You should stop that.

No, I'm not confused - I'm just not specifying what goes into finding that it is a better fit.

As you used the terms incorrectly, you are obviously confused as to their meanings.

The definitions I was using:Overgeneralization: using the general case that doesn't always apply to attack a specific case. Ad hominin: Latin for "to the man" (although my spelling is probably poor): attacking/supporting an argument based on other people/person who hold it, not on the idea itself - both of which you appear to have been doing.

It is a good thing I didn't do that then. Creationism is not based off of rational argument, but off of divine revelation. This is what I said before. You just misinterpreted my meaning due to the wording of the post.

Ah, but not by the "scientific" community, which was what was under question at the time, as I recall.

Yes it was! It was attacked from many sides by the scientific community.

It says more about the past than the present as it requires large time frames; the place to attack it is in the past.

Yes, the near past, which is closer to the present than the past you are attempting to attack it from, which is the origin of life. His theory most clearly did not address the origin of life.

Not really, as they can't be properly calibrated.

Yes, they can be properly calibrated. Maybe not with 100% accuracy, but with enough accuracy that the relative date is as good as it can get. I guess if you take a literal definition of "properly" to mean 100%, then your statement holds. But if you take a realistic approach to the problem, it does not. All of the calculations take the sources of error into account and minimize their effects quite well. Just because you are not a mathematician and don't understand how they work does not mean that they do not work.

As I recall, ~ 99% of all known fossils are microbes; of the remaining ~1%, ~99% are hard shelled mollusks; of the remaining ~.01%, ~99% are bony fish. The remaining ~.0001% encompasses all land vertabrates and many others. Besides, if the fossil record is that far from complete, then it ought not to be used in support of evolution, either.

The fossil record provides some meagre support for evolution, and it throws out most forms of Creationism completely. Namely, those forms where a deity created all life on the planet as it should be. Extinction does not fit in with Creationism in general. Many Creationists try to compensate for this by saying that their deity created all of the fossils and such, but that is getting into extremely circular logic. Other forms of Creationism that allow for lifeforms to become extinct suffer the problem that eventually all lifeforms will die off, and nothing will be left alive. There is no evolution, after all. So, new species can't come to replace them. It is only when you allow for both a Creation and evolution that you can have a valid use of Creationism. Evolution certainly does not rule out the possibility of divine Creation because it NEVER addresses the origins of life, just how it changes now and in the distant past. I hope people will begin seeing these sentences I keep posting and realize that they are wrong when they try to say evolution is wrong because it doesn't fit in with Creation...

Neither has the evolutionist side. Besides, the better of competing hypothesis/theories are normally/ideally chosen on the basis of which one better predicts or accounts for observable evidence where they differ; these minor inconsistencies that get pointed out are quite valid in that context.

You have not proposed a competing theory, which is the problem. Only pure, literal Creationism is a valid competition with evolution because evolution does not address the origins of life in any way shape or form. That is a whole other branch of biology. Creationism that only says "God created the universe and life" does not rule out the possibility of evolution at all. See above paragraph. So, pointing out some perceived flaws in evolution (some perceptions have been true, others false) does not make it wrong in this context, as you have not proposed any competing theory or hypothesis.

Not necessarily - you just have to demonstrate a case it can't account for.

You just contradicted yourself.

Besides, you haven't specified the details of the Version of Evolution you hold,

There is only one Version of evolution, and it does not address the origins of life at all. There are different implementations of it, different competing theories of what evolved from what, but they all use the same theory of evolution. I have not stated what origin theory I support because I am not going to get into that sort of argument with a Creationist. Arguing about that with a Creationist is like arguing with a wall; the Creationist can't be wrong, so no amount of argument and evidence would possibly have an effect. And, the origin of life is irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways.

That would be a double standard, Fyron.

No, it wouldn't. There is one Version of evolution, and many Versions of Creationism.

I am no longer going to directly respond to arguments that clearly confuse evolution with origin theories. It is very tiring, and very unproductive. If you want to argue against evolution, stop mixing origin theories in with it.