Creationism being banned?

[Acumen]

Vern,

I generally try to stay away from politics, but this global warming thing is sort of interesting.

According to those that specialize in that area, there's a 95% certainty that global warming is indeed taking place.  

Indeed, global warming can be proven based upon climate records, but the real question is, are we causing it?  Can something like that have a 95% certainty?

-Acumen

[metis]

Indeed, global warming can be proven based upon climate records, but the real question is, are we causing it?  Can something like that have a 95% certainty?

Yes, by all indications according to information that was released last week.  Based on previous models, we actually should be in a cooling stage, but we're clearly not.  The only explanation that seems to fit is the doubling of the CO2 levels, which we know would have a warming effect according to the researchers.  However, the 95% doesn't relate to that latter find but only to the fact that global warming is taking place.  I don't know what the level of certainty is for human causation, but they have said it seems to be the most important factor.

Shalom & have a Happy Thanksgiving anyway   ,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

To a certain extent, yes.  But logic and reason need evidence for their foundation otherwise they merely become speculation.  For example, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  No matter how much logic or reason we may attempt to use, what evidence are they going to be based on?  

Exactly!  I remember my logic professor using this analogy: Logic is like a refrigerator -- the refrigerator may be top of the line and work excellently, but it can't make rotten food unrotten.  The rotten food is an elusion to information/facts.  One can be Dr. Spock, but without the right information, the logic won't yield the right results.  However, science does depend upon both, and it's difficult to say that it depends upon one more than another.

Logic and reason don't always relate to "objective truths".  For example, most half-way decent philosophers use logic and reason, and yet we may disagree with their philosophy. 

Refer to my statement above.  The philosophers may make mistakes, but often times it's not the logic that's mistaken, but rather the assumptions they are forced to make due to lack of knowledge or information.  Have you ever used a spread sheet in excel?  It's really quite neat.  You can make formulas in excel to compute basic math problems.  The formula may be flawless, but if you put a + d (and "a" and "d" have no value), then the computation will show an error.  The logic is perfect, but the information you plugged in is wrong.  Logic is exactly like that.  In that sense, it is objective and true by definition.

And what about theology?  In all religions we find logic and reason used extensively, and yet most theists will tend to reject all religions but their own. 

Again, a matter of information and presumptions.  Wrong presumptions will lead to a wrong conclusion even when perfect logic is used.

-Acumen

[Acumen]

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.   

[metis]

However, science does depend upon both, and it's difficult to say that it depends upon one more than another.

Since science relies on both, I don't think we ignore the other.  However, my point was that we need reason and logic with evidence, and that's why i.d. cannot at this time be considered science.  There may be some logic and reason behind it, but there's no verifiable evidence.  If there was, theologians would have long supplied it.  I.d. is a faith based concept, which was pretty much verified in the Dover hearings.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

If there was, theologians would have long supplied it.  I.d. is a faith based concept, which was pretty much verified in the Dover hearings.

Don't get me started on the role of faith within science.   

[metis]

Don't get me started on the role of faith within science.   

Go for it.

But you really are still not dealing with the main thrust here, namely that i.d. is a religious concept-- period.  It is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.  It does not use the scientific method, nor does is it based on any kind of empirical evidence-- it's religion.

Shalom & enjoy the holiday,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

But you really are still not dealing with the main thrust here, namely that i.d. is a religious concept-- period.  

I don't think there is a definite line of demarcation between religion and science as many suppose.  I think that intelligent design is religious in the sense that they postulate a Christian God.  However, I don't have difficulties with the concept that intricate design exhibits an intelligent source.  I think we have too much evidence that supports that sort of reasoning.

It is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.  It does not use the scientific method, nor does is it based on any kind of empirical evidence-- it's religion.

I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know much about the arguments of intelligent design.  On the face of it, it sounds like a teleological argument, which I think is reasonable thinking.  Now, whether teleological thinking is science is another story.  Oftentimes, when it comes down to the careful consideration of whether something is truly science, people are reluctant to lay out a golden standard of what qualifies as science.  The reason being is that if the standard is too high, even the theory of evolution would be disqualified as a true scientific theory.

Now, you talk about a scientific method.  Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think it is?  Is it the true way of determining whether something is a true science?

-Acumen

[metis]

However, I don't have difficulties with the concept that intricate design exhibits an intelligent source.  I think we have too much evidence that supports that sort of reasoning.

Such as?  Please remember that hypotheticals are not evidence.  The first step with somehow finding evidence for i.d. would be to supply verifiable evidence that there is a deity or deities.  Since most would agree that such a belief is based on faith, it cannot at this time be considered evidence.  However, please note that I am not saying that such evidence could not be ascertained or show up some day. 

Now, you talk about a scientific method.  Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think it is?

 
Here it is in brief:

"I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments" (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html.)

The main purpose of the scientific method is an attempt to remove bias.  This process is what is used by scientists throughout the world and in various disciplines.  The only thing lacking with the above is how historical evidence is attained and utilized.  That becomes sometimes more difficult since historical writings often tend to be at least somewhat subjective. 

Is it the true way of determining whether something is a true science?

Well, it's quite apparently the best that's been found thus far since it's been used for over a century, if my memory is correct.  Whether it's the "best" I guess could be debated, but unless someone comes up with something better, I think we're likely to stick with it.



Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

Acumen:  However, I don't have difficulties with the concept that intricate design exhibits an intelligent source.  I think we have too much evidence that supports that sort of reasoning.

Vern:  Such as?  Please remember that hypotheticals are not evidence.  The first step with somehow finding evidence for i.d. would be to supply verifiable evidence that there is a deity or deities.  

The fact that a computer exists demonstrates that intracacy of design points to an intelligent source.  And the same goes for cameras, x-ray machines, heart monitors, medications, cell-phones, I-pods, cars, spaceships, guns, explosives, and anthing else.  We know that really intricate things point to intelligence.  THAT is the evidence I'm referring to.  I don't need to prove the existence of a deity IF such intracacy already points to one.

Vern:  Here it is in brief:

"I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments"

Concerning observation, can we observe the evolution of the species?  Or do we settle for dating methods and fossil remains, and call it observation as we slowly piece it together in the order we think it happened?  If it's not true observation, then it's not science.

Concerning prediction, can we predict what new species will emerge from the forces of natural selection and random mutation?  If not, then does this qualify as science?

-Acumen

[metis]

The fact that a computer exists demonstrates that intracacy of design points to an intelligent source.  And the same goes for cameras, x-ray machines, heart monitors, medications, cell-phones, I-pods, cars, spaceships, guns, explosives, and anthing else.  We know that really intricate things point to intelligence.  THAT is the evidence I'm referring to.  I don't need to prove the existence of a deity IF such intracacy already points to one.

The only thing that your examples point to is that humans have intelligence-- nothing else.  It does not confirm in any way that a deity or deities exist. 

Concerning observation, can we observe the evolution of the species?  Or do we settle for dating methods and fossil remains, and call it observation as we slowly piece it together in the order we think it happened?  If it's not true observation, then it's not science.

Yes, we have seen the evolution of new species in regards to bacteria and some insect forms.  Matter of fact, at Wayne State University where I did my graduate work, they've observed the evolution of new fruit fly species, which is an area of specialization there.  We've also seen bacteria and viruses evolving as well, and this has been well documented.  Larger organisms tend to evolve much more slowly since their rate of reproduction is over a longer span of time. 

But what about the evolution of organisms that we see according to the fossil record?  For example, if we go back 1 million years ago, there are no humans that look at all like us.  If we go back 5 million years, the human forms then are quite similar to early chimps-- especially bonobos.  Nothing resembles us today.  How do you account for that?  How do you account for the fact that most species of animals look very different if you go back millions of years ago?   

Concerning prediction, can we predict what new species will emerge from the forces of natural selection and random mutation?  If not, then does this qualify as science?

No.  We can sometimes tell how an organism generally evolved, but there's a problem in using it as a precise tool.  First of all, we don't know exactly what the environment may be like in the future in any given area.  Secondly, we do not know which random alterations may occur in the gene pool.  Geneticists generally can gauge the rate of mutations, however, even though there's no way to ascertain which genes would be more advantageous in the future.  But what we do know is that genes change and that they may prove to be advantageous, be a disadvantage, or have no effect.  So the rate can be predicted, but the eventual outcome can't.

So where's the evidence for i.d.?  Again, all you're doing is supplying hypotheticals that have literally no evidence behind them.   And, let me repeat a question that I asked you with my previous post, where's the "bottom line" as to why you have difficulty realizing that evolution has indeed occurred?  You know why, and so do I, so you'd might as well just come out and say it.



Shalom,
Vern       

[Acumen]

Vern,

The only thing that your examples point to is that humans have intelligence-- nothing else.  It does not confirm in any way that a deity or deities exist. 

Well, it confirms that intricate things come from intelligent sources.  I know it sounds cliche, but computers and software programs took careful thought and planning.

Yes, we have seen the evolution of new species in regards to bacteria and some insect forms. 

How about fish, mammals or reptiles?  You know, the living forms that actually breed with each other.

Matter of fact, at Wayne State University where I did my graduate work, they've observed the evolution of new fruit fly species, which is an area of specialization there. 

I would be interested to hear how they determine different fruit fly species.  You know, since there are over 2500 species of fruit fly.

We've also seen bacteria and viruses evolving as well, and this has been well documented.  Larger organisms tend to evolve much more slowly since their rate of reproduction is over a longer span of time.

How can bacterial and viruses change into different species if they change by mytosis?

But what about the evolution of organisms that we see according to the fossil record? 

Just like intricacy doesn't convey intelligence to you, fossils doesn't convey evolution to me.  The fossil record doesn't show evolution, it shows different fossils.

For example, if we go back 1 million years ago, there are no humans that look at all like us.  

How do we know they're human?

We can sometimes tell how an organism generally evolved, but there's a problem in using it as a precise tool.  First of all, we don't know exactly what the environment may be like in the future in any given area. 

So the theory of evolution isn't so great at predicting things?

Secondly, we do not know which random alterations may occur in the gene pool.

Okay, let me see if I follow you here.  Science is determined by the scientific method.  One of the standards of the scientific method is predictibility.  The theory of evolution can't predict the evolution of new species because both the environment and mutations are unpredictable.  Doesn't this disqualify the theory of evolution as a science?

So where's the evidence for i.d.? 

I never claimed there was. 

Again, all you're doing is supplying hypotheticals that have literally no evidence behind them.    

I didn't know I was doing that.  All I said was that intricacy conveys intelligence.  Aside from that, I don't reccall supplying hypotheticals.

And, let me repeat a question that I asked you with my previous post, where's the "bottom line" as to why you have difficulty realizing that evolution has indeed occurred?  You know why, and so do I, so you'd might as well just come out and say it.

I guess that was a rhetorical question then.  Anyway, I'm a philosophy student.  I received my BA in philosophy from a Wisconsin Univeristy.  My mind looks for assumptions and sees how they fit into a general argument.  I'm not convinced that the theory of evolution is as iron clad as the scientific community has been known to tell us.  It has nothing to do with religion.  If it makes you feel any better -- I don't believe in Plato's Forms, and that has nothing to do with religion either.

[metis]

Well, it confirms that intricate things come from intelligent sources. 

No, it only indicates SOME intricate things come from intelligent sources.

 

How about fish, mammals or reptiles?  You know, the living forms that actually breed with each other.

Does an hour hand on a clock move?  Of course it does, but you can only tell after some time has elapsed.  With humans, for example, noticeable changes of form and function typically would take tens of thousands of years or longer. 

I would be interested to hear how they determine different fruit fly species.  You know, since there are over 2500 species of fruit fly.

What they have done was to keep fruit flies in "cages" and allow them to reproduce until 50 is reached.  Once that occurs, they are split into two groups and the process resumes.  On the average it takes about 10 or so years before a new species may emerge.  How can they tell it's a new species?  When you have two groups who can no longer reproduce and birth fertile offspring.  One of my former professors was involved with that project, but that was many moons ago.

How can bacterial and viruses change into different species if they change by mytosis?

I never said they were species, only that their genetic composition changed.  We see evolution happening all the time in this regard with the mutation of viruses and bacteria that sometimes are resistant to antibiotics or with a change in how they're contagious, for example.  Evolution is still going on.

Just like intricacy doesn't convey intelligence to you, fossils doesn't convey evolution to me.  The fossil record doesn't show evolution, it shows different fossils.

That's really way off the mark.  You mention predictability.  What has occurred time and time again are predictions about intermediate forms that have been hypothesized and later found to either be right on target or quite close. 

How do we know they're human?

Because they exhibit human characteristics. 

So the theory of evolution isn't so great at predicting things?

See above.



 

I received my BA in philosophy from a Wisconsin Univeristy.  My mind looks for assumptions and sees how they fit into a general argument. 

Wisconsin!!!  That explains everything!  What do cheese-heads know! 

I'm not convinced that the theory of evolution is as iron clad as the scientific community has been known to tell us. 

Science is not an individual thingy.  What eventually becomes axiomatic is not decided by you or me, but is arrived at by an overall consensus.  The basic concept of evolution has been considered an axiom in the U.S. since the 1920's and the western Europeans accepted it as such about two decades before that.  Of course this is not binding on anyone, including other scientists. 

If you wish to get more official understandings as such, check out the National Academy of Science (NAS), which is the main scientific group that advises Congress and most administrations, and also check out the Smithsonian Institute, who publish the Smithsonian magazine.  You'll see that both don't hesitate for one second to deal with evolution as an axiom.

Let me also suggest a book entitled "Evolution For Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives" by David Sloan Wilson, who's a well recognized research biologist.  He can deal with many of your questions and statements in much more detail than I can supply here.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Acumen:  Well, it confirms that intricate things come from intelligent sources.  

Vern:  No, it only indicates SOME intricate things come from intelligent sources.

Okay, but you're assuming the theory of evolution in order to certify your statement.  The evidence I stated is widely experienced and evident to everyone.  Feel the difference?   

Acumen:  How about fish, mammals or reptiles?  You know, the living forms that actually breed with each other.

Vern:  Does an hour hand on a clock move?  Of course it does, but you can only tell after some time has elapsed.  With humans, for example, noticeable changes of form and function typically would take tens of thousands of years or longer.

Yes, a little convenient when our typical life spans are 50-80 years.

Acumen:  I would be interested to hear how they determine different fruit fly species.  You know, since there are over 2500 species of fruit fly.

Vern:  What they have done was to keep fruit flies in "cages" and allow them to reproduce until 50 is reached.  Once that occurs, they are split into two groups and the process resumes.  On the average it takes about 10 or so years before a new species may emerge.  How can they tell it's a new species?  When you have two groups who can no longer reproduce and birth fertile offspring.  One of my former professors was involved with that project, but that was many moons ago.

Sounds like an interesting experiment.  How do they know if the inablility to reproduce  between the two groups is a result of genetic changes and not just behavioral deviations?

Acumen:  Just like intricacy doesn't convey intelligence to you, fossils doesn't convey evolution to me.  The fossil record doesn't show evolution, it shows different fossils.

Vern:  That's really way off the mark.  You mention predictability.  What has occurred time and time again are predictions about intermediate forms that have been hypothesized and later found to either be right on target or quite close.

Do you have any examples that I can examine?

Acumen:  How do we know they're human?

Vern:  Because they exhibit human characteristics.

Right, but exhibiting human characteristics doesn't mean it's human.  Monkeys and pigs also exhibit human characteristics.  It would seem to me that the only way to determine if fossil remains are indeed of the human species is to observe reproduction.  The rest is an educated guess.

-Acumen

[metis]

Okay, but you're assuming the theory of evolution in order to certify your statement.  The evidence I stated is widely experienced and evident to everyone.  Feel the difference?   

I gotta be very brief because the Sabbath is almost upon us.

Evolution is not an "assumption"-- it's based on a huge body of evidence that cuts across various scientific disciplines. 

Sounds like an interesting experiment.  How do they know if the inablility to reproduce  between the two groups is a result of genetic changes and not just behavioral deviations?

Because it's genes that determine species-- not "behavioral deviations".

Do you have any examples that I can examine?

There are so many.  Get into Google or Yahoo, and type in "evolution + intermediate forms" or type in "'any animal' + evolution".  Or read Wilson's book.  He gives a great many examples.

Right, but exhibiting human characteristics doesn't mean it's human.  Monkeys and pigs also exhibit human characteristics.  It would seem to me that the only way to determine if fossil remains are indeed of the human species is to observe reproduction.  The rest is an educated guess.

I think we know the difference between a human and a monkey or a pig.  If it takes "observed reproduction" in order to determine if something is human, then I guess you have no idea as to whether your parents are human or not.

Shalom & have a good weekend,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Evolution is not an "assumption"-- it's based on a huge body of evidence that cuts across various scientific disciplines.  

I never said evolution was an assumption.  I said that you assume the theory of evolution when you say that intricacy only "sometimes" points to an intelligent source.  I know that the theory of evolution is based upon a body of evidence, but it is also based upon a body of assumptions as well -- and this is something I think we should keep in mind when considering opposing arguments.  Don't you?

Acumen:  Sounds like an interesting experiment.  How do they know if the inablility to reproduce  between the two groups is a result of genetic changes and not just behavioral deviations?

Vern:  Because it's genes that determine species-- not "behavioral deviations".

Right, but if behavioral deviations can account for unsuccessful breeding, then can it not ultimately affect the determination of whether they are a different species?

There are so many.  Get into Google or Yahoo, and type in "evolution + intermediate forms" or type in "'any animal' + evolution".  Or read Wilson's book.  He gives a great many examples.

All I need is one, Vern.  I'm not holding a conversation with Wilson's book.

Acumen:  Right, but exhibiting human characteristics doesn't mean it's human.  Monkeys and pigs also exhibit human characteristics.  It would seem to me that the only way to determine if fossil remains are indeed of the human species is to observe reproduction.  The rest is an educated guess.

Vern:  I think we know the difference between a human and a monkey or a pig.

Yeah, I know.  I was talking about anatomy similiaries of organs like hearts and livers.  Human characteristics doesn't mean the thing is human, it means it's like a human.

If it takes "observed reproduction" in order to determine if something is human, then I guess you have no idea as to whether your parents are human or not.[/i]

That's not what I meant.  If the skeleton or fossil looks no different than a human, then there is no reason to suppose the contrary.  However, if the fossil or skeleton shows human characteristics, but for instance, the cranium is twice the size of a human's cranium and it has a tail, then we have no way to know for sure if the darn thing is human unless we can observe its capacity for reproduction with humans.  Why?  Because we define a different species by its ability to produce fertile offspring with a member of the same species, do we not?

-Acumen

[metis]

I know that the theory of evolution is based upon a body of evidence, but it is also based upon a body of assumptions as well -- and this is something I think we should keep in mind when considering opposing arguments.  Don't you?

Depends of what you mean by "assumptions" (is this reminiscent of Clinton's defining the word "sex").  Science is based on evidence-- not assumptions.  However, science itself is based on certain assumptions that cannot in and of themselves be empirically "proven".  For example, we have to rely to a large extent on our senses even though we realize that the accuracy of our senses are limited. 

Right now scientists are in consensus that evolution best accounts for the evidence that we have.  Because of that, this is what should be taught in science classes and not religious concepts such as i.d.  However, obviously a student may choose to believe what ever they wish to believe.
 

 

All I need is one, Vern.  I'm not holding a conversation with Wilson's book.

I'm not going to do all your work for you.  I recommend you use Google or Yahoo and check out these matters for yourself. 



 

Because we define a different species by its ability to produce fertile offspring with a member of the same species, do we not?

Yes.  Obviously we cannot go back into the fossil record and indicate with any certainty that the breeding of organism A with organism B produced organism C.  What we can do is to look for patterns with the fossil record and attempt to determine as best as possible what might account for such patterns.  It's an imprecise art, but most of our experiences in any given arena are imprecise.  We cannot even state with absolute certainty of being correct that 1 and 1 equals 2.

Shalom,
Vern 

[Acumen]

Vern,

Acumen:  I know that the theory of evolution is based upon a body of evidence, but it is also based upon a body of assumptions as well -- and this is something I think we should keep in mind when considering opposing arguments.  Don't you?

Vern:  Depends of what you mean by "assumptions" (is this reminiscent of Clinton's defining the word "sex").  Science is based on evidence-- not assumptions.  However, science itself is based on certain assumptions that cannot in and of themselves be empirically "proven".  For example, we have to rely to a large extent on our senses even though we realize that the accuracy of our senses are limited.

By assumptions, I mean concepts that we take for granted.  For instance, the theory of evolution assumes the "randomness" of mutations because scientists can't truly know randomness.  Another example is the assumption that the decay rate of carbon-14 is always constant in order to determine the age of an artifact or fossil.  And there are many more assumptions like these that evolutionists use to lay the groundwork for their theory.

Acumen:  All I need is one, Vern.  I'm not holding a conversation with Wilson's book.

Vern:  I'm not going to do all your work for you.  I recommend you use Google or Yahoo and check out these matters for yourself.

And that is certainly your choice.

Acumen:  Because we define a different species by its ability to produce fertile offspring with a member of the same species, do we not?

Vern:  Yes.  Obviously we cannot go back into the fossil record and indicate with any certainty that the breeding of organism A with organism B produced organism C.  What we can do is to look for patterns with the fossil record and attempt to determine as best as possible what might account for such patterns.  It's an imprecise art, but most of our experiences in any given arena are imprecise.  We cannot even state with absolute certainty of being correct that 1 and 1 equals 2.

I think that is unfortunate for the evolutionist during a debate.  If a species is defined by its ability to breed successfully with the same species, and this must be observed to demonstrate the trans-speciation of evolution, then the entire fossil record and every concept built upon it is presupposed.  One could say that the theory of evolution is established upon an assumption of speciation.

-Acumen

[metis]

Another example is the assumption that the decay rate of carbon-14 is always constant in order to determine the age of an artifact or fossil.  And there are many more assumptions like these that evolutionists use to lay the groundwork for their theory.

Carbon-14 is not a dating technique that's based on a "constant" rate.  It has to be adjusted by using other dating techniques since the rate of absorption of radioactivity is not a "constant".

 


 

I think that is unfortunate for the evolutionist during a debate.  If a species is defined by its ability to breed successfully with the same species, and this must be observed to demonstrate the trans-speciation of evolution, then the entire fossil record and every concept built upon it is presupposed.  One could say that the theory of evolution is established upon an assumption of speciation.

Since speciation has been observed today, there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't happen in the past.  And the fact that we see a pattern of change through the fossil record also points in that direction.  Later this afternoon when I have more time I'll deal with this in a bit more depth.

BTW, you're more than welcome to come to my house and deal with all the leaves I have to pick up!



Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

Vern,

Carbon-14 is not a dating technique that's based on a "constant" rate.  It has to be adjusted by using other dating techniques since the rate of absorption of radioactivity is not a "constant".

Okay, that is news to me.  Here is what one website says on the matter:

"The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely."

Click here

Acumen:  I think that is unfortunate for the evolutionist during a debate.  If a species is defined by its ability to breed successfully with the same species, and this must be observed to demonstrate the trans-speciation of evolution, then the entire fossil record and every concept built upon it is presupposed.  One could say that the theory of evolution is established upon an assumption of speciation.

Vern:  Since speciation has been observed today, there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't happen in the past.  And the fact that we see a pattern of change through the fossil record also points in that direction.  Later this afternoon when I have more time I'll deal with this in a bit more depth.

First, performing tests using artificial selection in tightly controlled labs with one type of insect that has an extremely rapid reproductive rate doesn't mean that such things can happen to every species throughout geologic history.  Again, this is an assumption (no matter how rational it may be) upon which the theory of evolution is based.  Good reasoning isn't a suitable replacement for observation, which is necessary to demonstrate speciation.

Second, differentiation in the fossil record doesn't necessarily point in the direction of the theory of evolution.  Unless I'm missing something in particular, differentiation of fossils is just evidence of many different kinds of creatures.

BTW, you're more than welcome to come to my house and deal with all the leaves I have to pick up!

I don't pick up my own leaves.  I mulch them with my lawnmower.   

-Acumen