Why do some people still deny evolution?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

Lol, that is trather simple mathematics.

2^x= 6,000,000,000

X= the amount of times the population has doubled itself. Then you divide 100,000 by that number, if I remember correctly, and that is the amount of years, on average it has taken for mankind to double it's population.

Dark-Sithious

As stated earlier in the thread, mankind is believed to be 100,000 years old, ofc as with any numbers regarding evolution, it variates a lot. Which might I add, is another point in why one could question evolution, as scientist seems to change their estimates faster than most ppl change socks.

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

As stated earlier in the thread, mankind is believed to be 100,000 years old, ofc as with any numbers regarding evolution, it variates a lot. Which might I add, is another point in why one could question evolution, as scientist seems to change their estimates faster than most ppl change socks.

Genetic_Code

I didn't say it destroyed evolution, I am simply answering the question of the thread creator, not arguing if evolution is true or not. Surely such a simple concept is easy to comprehend?

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

As stated earlier in the thread, mankind is believed to be 100,000 years old, ofc as with any numbers regarding evolution, it variates a lot. Which might I add, is another point in why one could question evolution, as scientist seems to change their estimates faster than most ppl change socks.

Dark-Sithious

I didn't say it destroyed evolution, I am simply answering the question of the thread creator, not arguing if evolution is true or not. Surely such a simple concept is easy to comprehend?

Here is something for you to chew on as I leave for the week. This is by Frank Sherwin,

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.

Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.

I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition of Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text.

Bird origin: "In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386). "Of all the ****s of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record" (Colbert, 236).

Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486). "Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

Amphibian origin: "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved" (Stahl, 195).

"This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this" (Colbert, 84-85).

Snake origin: "The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem" (Stahl, 318. "Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution" (Colbert, 154).

Fish origin: "The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms" (Stahl, 126). "Both these groups |bony and cartilaginous| appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this" (Colbert, 53).

Contrast this lack of fossil evidence for evolution with the clear evidence for creation: the sudden appearance of fully formed vertebrates (and invertebrates) in the fossil record.

References

1. Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
2. Colbert, E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the back-boned animals through time, 5th ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Where does the 100,000 come from?Funky_Llama

As stated earlier in the thread, mankind is believed to be 100,000 years old, ofc as with any numbers regarding evolution, it variates a lot. Which might I add, is another point in why one could question evolution, as scientist seems to change their estimates faster than most ppl change socks.

My point was, if we apply these numbers, the doubling rate seems way to sparse, and not very plausible. I'm sure you can figure out why.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

As stated earlier in the thread, mankind is believed to be 100,000 years old, ofc as with any numbers regarding evolution, it variates a lot. Which might I add, is another point in why one could question evolution, as scientist seems to change their estimates faster than most ppl change socks.

Dark-Sithious

My point was, if we apply these numbers, the doubling rate seems way to sparse, and not very plausible. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Here is something for you to chew on as I leave for the week. This is by Frank Sherwin,

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.

Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.

I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition of Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text.

Bird origin: "In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386). "Of all the ****s of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record" (Colbert, 236).

Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486). "Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

Amphibian origin: "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved" (Stahl, 195).

"This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this" (Colbert, 84-85).

Snake origin: "The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem" (Stahl, 318. "Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution" (Colbert, 154).

Fish origin: "The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms" (Stahl, 126). "Both these groups |bony and cartilaginous| appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this" (Colbert, 53).

Contrast this lack of fossil evidence for evolution with the clear evidence for creation: the sudden appearance of fully formed vertebrates (and invertebrates) in the fossil record.

References

1. Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
2. Colbert, E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the back-boned animals through time, 5th ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

maheo30

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Oh, I see. Given that that wasn't derived directly from your calculator, it was reasonable of me to ask for a source. What was your point based on these figures anyway?Mr_sprinkles

My point was, if we apply these numbers, the doubling rate seems way to sparse, and not very plausible. I'm sure you can figure out why.

I can't be bothered to explain right now, as I'm heading for bed. But the doubling rate (not talking about average here, as i did earlier) of a population is usally pretty constant.

k good night

That article doesn't prove that the book is still reliable. It just asserts it.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

My point was, if we apply these numbers, the doubling rate seems way to sparse, and not very plausible. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Dark-Sithious

I can't be bothered to explain right now, as I'm heading for bed. But the doubling rate (not talking about average here, as i did earlier) of a population is usally pretty constant.

k good night

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]That article doesn't prove that the book is still reliable. It just asserts it.-Sun_Tzu-

Here is something for you to chew on as I leave for the week. This is by Frank Sherwin,

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.

Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.

I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition of Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text.

Bird origin: "In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386). "Of all the ****s of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record" (Colbert, 236).

Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486). "Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

Amphibian origin: "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved" (Stahl, 195).

"This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this" (Colbert, 84-85).

Snake origin: "The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem" (Stahl, 318. "Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution" (Colbert, 154).

Fish origin: "The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms" (Stahl, 126). "Both these groups |bony and cartilaginous| appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this" (Colbert, 53).

Contrast this lack of fossil evidence for evolution with the clear evidence for creation: the sudden appearance of fully formed vertebrates (and invertebrates) in the fossil record.maheo30

Fully formed? In what sense? How do you determine "completion"? How could creatures come be created from nothing at sporadic amounts of time, become extinct, to be replaced by additional species? How can something be created out of nothing, or when there is no pre-existing species to have evolved from it?

Also, merely suggesting that there is a lack of fossil evidence just shows that there is still more to understand about evolution, but it doesn't imply that evolution doesn't occur. Also, where is this "clear evidence" for creation especially when Mrs. Stahl wasn't a "friend of the creationist" to begin with?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

My point was, if we apply these numbers, the doubling rate seems way to sparse, and not very plausible. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Dark-Sithious

I can't be bothered to explain right now, as I'm heading for bed. But the doubling rate (not talking about average here, as I did earlier) of a population is usally pretty constant.

k good night

[QUOTE="Thanatos1337"]I don't understand it, there's overwhelming evidence for it, wjb428

Here is something for you to chew on as I leave for the week. This is by Frank Sherwin,

Skeptics of Mr. Darwin's strange theory have for years used a truly remarkable book by evolutionist Barbara J. Stahl of Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. It is titled, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, (1974).1 Sadly, this is now out of print. Dr. Stahl, anatomy professor and paleoichthyologist, is clearly no friend of the creationist. She was, however, intellectually honest enough to write this 604-page book documenting the many problems associated with alleged evolution of the vertebrates.

Darwinists were understandably quick to downplay Dr. Stahl's research. In recent years their only "valid" criticism is that the book is dated and anything found in its pages are now (thankfully) passé.

I beg to disagree. In 2001 Edwin H. Colbert and his coauthors published their fifth edition of Colbert's Evolution of the Vertebrates.2 Dr. Stahl's detailed research has held up all these years when compared with Colbert's more recent text.

Bird origin: "In the absence of fossil evidence, paleontologists can say little about the date at which these |sixty-nine living families of Passeri-formes| . . . appeared" (Stahl, 386). "Of all the ****s of vertebrates, the birds are least known from their fossil record" (Colbert, 236).

Whale origin: "As with most tetrapods secondarily modified for aquatic living, ascertaining the terrestrial stock from which the whales came is exceedingly difficult" (Stahl, 486). "Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications" (Colbert, 392).

Amphibian origin: "Since the fossil material provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved" (Stahl, 195).

"This is certainly a logical explanation of the first stages in the change from an aquatic to a terrestrial mode of life. We can only speculate about this" (Colbert, 84-85).

Snake origin: "The origin of the snakes is still an unsolved problem" (Stahl, 318. "Unfortunately, the fossil history of the snakes is very fragmentary, so that it is necessary to infer much of their evolution" (Colbert, 154).

Fish origin: "The higher fishes, when they appear in the Devonian period, have already acquired the characteristics that identify them as belonging to one or another of the major assemblages of bony or cartilaginous forms" (Stahl, 126). "Both these groups |bony and cartilaginous| appeared in the late Silurian period, and it is possible that they may have originated at some earlier time, although there is no fossil evidence to prove this" (Colbert, 53).

Contrast this lack of fossil evidence for evolution with the clear evidence for creation: the sudden appearance of fully formed vertebrates (and invertebrates) in the fossil record.

References

1. Stahl, Barbara. 1974. Vertebrate history: Problems in evolution, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
2. Colbert, E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the back-boned animals through time, 5th ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

maheo30

I find it ironic that "evidence" for creationism is the lack of knowledge in the fossil record. It was clearly stated before why fossils are not used as the sole piece of evidence for evolution. I'm also curious about some of their assertations, as fossils of fish with transitional legs and I believe also transitional whale species have been found.

Also, care to explain how creation accounts for leg/hip bones in "fully formed" snakes and whales?

[QUOTE="wjb428"][QUOTE="Thanatos1337"]I don't understand it, there's overwhelming evidence for it, seabiscuit8686

major assumptions? I am simply calculating the doubling rate on average, there are no assumptions here. How you interpreted the answer however is a totally different story, but I'm simply giving you the math, take it as you like, but instead of trying to falsify correct calculations you could just EXPLAIN the results and why it is plausible in coherence with evolution. Instead you come off as rather childish.

Anyway I took a look at that speciation list, and I wasn't aware of that, well played. Either way, I was just, with my post trying to answer the TC orginal question, something most of you seem to have missed.

Dark-Sithious

Your calculations do not take into account either birth or mortality rates. The former is easily very important due to rising life expectancies due to science/medicine and an increase in offspring potential. The latter also constitutes a significant error in your calculations, as wars, famine, plagues, etc... all contribute to population counts.

Your math may be right, but essentially you've said "Well, for it's entire history humankind has increased its population at a constant exponential rate." That's a completely false assumption, and why your calculations do not constitute proof against evolution.

[QUOTE="Dark-Sithious"]

major assumptions? I am simply calculating the doubling rate on average, there are no assumptions here. How you interpreted the answer however is a totally different story, but I'm simply giving you the math, take it as you like, but instead of trying to falsify correct calculations you could just EXPLAIN the results and why it is plausible in coherence with evolution. Instead you come off as rather childish.

Anyway I took a look at that speciation list, and I wasn't aware of that, well played. Either way, I was just, with my post trying to answer the TC orginal question, something most of you seem to have missed.

metroidfood

Your calculations do not take into account either birth or mortality rates. The former is easily very important due to rising life expectancies due to science/medicine and an increase in offspring potential. The latter also constitutes a significant error in your calculations, as wars, famine, plagues, etc... all contribute to population counts.

Your math may be right, but essentially you've said "Well, for it's entire history humankind has increased its population at a constant exponential rate." That's a completely false assumption, and why your calculations do not constitute proof against evolution.

The Black Plague is enough to prove him his calculations are misguided.