Answering Questions about Evolutionism

Well, it's a good start that you agree with everything that I said. However, you are correct that I did not say anything directly contradictory to what you had said. When I started, I expected to say more, and I also meant to suggest that the information on that site seems reasonable, and hopefully you will notice that the sum of everything said there conflicts with your own conclusions on at least some level. Furthermore, what I intended to show was that the methods described are not sufficient, nor perhaps even adequate, to lead to your conclusions.

I am glad that you cleared that up about carbon dating, I had forgotten that distinction. As to the story about the cat, I understand exactly that radiometric dating is imprecise; in fact I tried to say that in my story, however I guess I wasn’t clear. I don’t know the exact numbers, but let’s suppose that radiometric dating is accurate to within 100 thousand years. Since the cat was buried extremely recently, one would expect radiometric dating to place it within at least the last 200 thousand years. However, the results were not that way; say it came to a million or so years. This was the kind of error demonstrated by the example of the cat.

I would also like to respond to some of Nam’s Answers to creationscience.com

QUESTION
Where has macroevolution ever been observed?

ANSWER
[Humans don't live long enough to observe such things.]


Exactly. If you want to tout empiricism as the exclusive standard for measuring truth (not saying that you are, but some might), you are going to have to accept the fact that you cannot empirically prove evolution. Or creation, for that matter. It should still be possible to discern beyond a reasonable doubt, as we do with the study of history, but the way we approach these disciplines are not exactly the same.



QUESTION

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed…

ANSWER

Don't disregard the existence of vestigial structures…

Vestigial structures may not be as “vestigial” as they first appear. It was long believed that the human appendix was a useless organ (hence the name), and was perhaps even a vestigial organ, but last I heard recent studies suspect it may assist with the immune system. Even if we accept that these members are vestigial, it still does not fully answer their question. If a leg is to evolve into a wing, evolution says that this must happen very gradually over many generations. For each of these generations to exist, the previous generation must also be able to be a viable creature and survive to reproduce consistently. Every intermediate step was a viable creature, and so it seems that this relatively smooth continuum should continue to exist along with the end points of legs and wings. At best, we observe some fluctuation around the end points.

You could also argue that the intermediate steps are viable creatures, but the endpoints are more viable than the intermediates, better able to survive, and so the intermediates died out for their inability to compete.

QUESTION

Do you realize how complex living things are? …

ANSWER

[I must accuse the questioner of going off topic here...

If our intention is to focus entirely on the science of evolution or creation, then I would have to agree that this is off topic. It is very much a philosophical question to pose. Nevertheless, I said before that we can’t verify macro-evolution strictly empirically. Intelligent design is fundamentally a philosophical question, however studying biology and the origins of life are probably the best places to notice evidence for or against intelligent design.

You will hear many Christians use intelligent design as an argument in support of creation. It is an important issue that must be dealt with at some point. There are many Christians who acknowledge the existence of God and His role in intelligent design, yet still maintain that the universe evolved. This has other serious philosophical and theological ramifications that also must be dealt with.


QUESTION

3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there?...

ANSWER

[ There are many factors that go into making a fossil and having it survive preserved well enough for us to find today...



This sounds like a reasonable point. I still maintain that, even if the fossil record is broken due to complications in the fossilization process, it still seems that the creatures present today should also exhibit this same continuum in a much smoother way. A theory which I’ve often heard to explain the separation of fossils, which is on creationscience--although I don’t know how convincing it really is--is to say that they settle over time, sorting themselves by relative size. Looking again, I see they have a theory of liquefaction which seems more adequate than the basic understanding I had before.

What I would like to do at this point is raise my own questions or observations for you to consider, rather than always responding to what you have to say. However, I think this is enough for now.