Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[Alpha Born]

Dang! Where did everybody go??? This debate was just getting fun.

 

[Marvolo]

Ive still yet to see any actual scientific data to confirm your hypothesis that the bible dismisses over two hundred years of tested and evaluted data or the scientific facts that said testing evaluating bore. Furthermore, it doesnt seem youve done much in the way of actually learning about evolution. After 8 years of bible doctrine and religious studies under my belt and 18 years of church sessions. Ive heard every single piece of falsified evidence the creationists have tried to level at evolution. Not one has ever been an actual piece of evidence. Its always something theyve heard or someone told them. They never bother to actually check it out themselves or do their own research from acredited sources. They only read from books that support their ideas and desired conclusions. That's the key difference between scientists and creationists. A scientists will see a piece of data that disproves their theory and they will rework their theory to include the new data to reach a proper conclusion. They dont change the data to fit their conclusion. Creationists, however, are terrified of their conclusions being wrong so when they see a piece of data disproving their desired conclusion they ignore or change the data.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo Galilei

If you truly believe in god then stop dishonoring him by being a fool and use your sense and look around at the factual evidence.

 

[KalMart]

I said I wasn't gonna do this but f**k it.







You people can't refute my evidence against evolution so you resort to throwing insults. I knew you atheist were gonna start doing that. That's what evolutionists/atheist do when they're losing a debate between Creation & evolution.

No you misunderstand....you haven't provided any yet. That's what creationists do when they don't have any. We're still waiting. You've only stated that you don't believe in abiogenesis...which evolution doesn't either because it's not what it's saying. Hello?

Nobody even gave a rebuttal to all of the points I made. Instead they just started throwing insults at me. Go back and read the last 3 pages in the last forum. I didn't even want to waste my time responding to them.

No, we provided very specific rebuttals and explanations to this. So again...what else do you have? What exactly do you believe happened, if not evolution? We have asked this repeatedly, and you have yet to respond.

 

[Marvolo]

And any "evidence" you present must have credible sources that can be checked out and verified. You see thats important to. Im not going to take the evidence founded by a source with little to no college education or a degree from a degree farm. They better have education in the appropriate field, be published, been through peer-review, and have a doctorate otherwise i might as well be getting evidence from a highschool student.

 

[KalMart]

Dang..where did Alpha go? Probably got a bit too 'fun' to handle......





...again.

 

[Kelly]

I said I wasn't gonna do this but f**k it.







You people can't refute my evidence against evolution so you resort to throwing insults. I knew you atheist were gonna start doing that. That's what evolutionists/atheist do when they're losing a debate between Creation & evolution.

Wow....ok.

 

[Alpha Born]

Ive still yet to see any actual scientific data to confirm your hypothesis that the bible dismisses over two hundred years of tested and evaluted data or the scientific facts that said testing evaluating bore. Furthermore, it doesnt seem youve done much in the way of actually learning about evolution. After 8 years of bible doctrine and religious studies under my belt and 18 years of church sessions. Ive heard every single piece of falsified evidence the creationists have tried to level at evolution. Not one has ever been an actual piece of evidence. Its always something theyve heard or someone told them. They never bother to actually check it out themselves or do their own research from acredited sources. They only read from books that support their ideas and desired conclusions. That's the key difference between scientists and creationists. A scientists will see a piece of data that disproves their theory and they will rework their theory to include the new data to reach a proper conclusion. They dont change the data to fit their conclusion. Creationists, however, are terrified of their conclusions being wrong so when they see a piece of data disproving their desired conclusion they ignore or change the data.


Galileo Galilei

If you truly believe in god then stop dishonoring him by being a fool and use your sense and look around at the factual evidence.

Blah blah blah. All you did in your post was just rant about how evolution is sooooooo true & how creation is sooooooo wrong, & nothing else.

 

[Marvolo]

Blah blah blah. All you did in your post was just rant, & nothing else.

You just proved my point. You are ignoring all the data and evidence because it doesnt fit into your idea about how the world was created. Creationists ignore facts and data. Scientists do not.

Im waiting on you to come through and post some evidence from some accredited sources. I dont need to rant about about evolution being true. I have an entire scientific field of study and experimentation made up of accredited sources to back me up. Whereas you have what? A book that predates science, your preachers sermons, the ramblings of creationists with no accredidation or knowledge of how these scientific processes work, and your faith.

You keep ignoring our requests for evidence and latching onto insignificant posts. Present your factual evidence and prove evolution wrong.

 

[VictorCreed]

Blah blah blah. All you did in your post was just rant about how evolution is sooooooo true & how creation is sooooooo wrong, & nothing else.

And what did you just contribute? Nothing again? At least you're consistent! Good job!

 

[childeroland]

I'm not even gonna responed to the comments in the last forum. I'm just gonna start here since that forum is closed.

In that case, if I may repost from the last forum (if that's all right with the mods -- if it isn't, my apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Born
I never said that evolution taught that life just popped up fully-formed. HAHA!

Again. Prove to me that Abiogenesis is possible.

Scientists have already been able to prove that abiotic molecules and simpler molecules with redox reactions can self-organize and self-replicate under proper conditions similar to some models of Earth's early atmosphere. They proved that amino acids can spontaneously form protein micosperoids which are likely the most common ancestor of all life on earth, or similar to it. It's not proof, but it's a start.


Quote:

Which one do you know happened??? The word evolution has six different and unrelated meanings or stages.

There is plenty of evidence for all these phenomena, not just microevolution, which is only different from macroevolution in scale.


Quote:

Evolution is hypothetical.

There is so much evidence behind the theory, which is falsifiable, that it is "hypothetical" only to the degree that the atomic theory, the theory of special relativity, etc, are.

Quote:

The steps of the scientific method, which most of us learned in high school science classes, are simple: [1] Observe data, [2] Make an hypothesis, [3] Test the hypothesis, [4] If it passes the tests, make it a theory, [5] Test and retest, [6] If it passes all tests, make it a law.

Actually that is only one aspect of the scientific method. The method can also be used to construct frameworks into which observations fit -- theories.

Quote:

So, how does one test the hypothesis of evolution? The obvious answer is that one cannot test this hypothesis. It is not possible to create experiments which will either support or defeat this particular hypothesis.

There are many ways to test the theory (not the hypothesis, which it is not). For example, DNA sequencing, which shows how organisms can be grouped by sequence similarity into trees so congruent with traditional taxonomy that they are used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. All the evidence of common descent visible from proteins to endogenous viruses also provide testable evidence. In fact, scientists have uncovered a number of different mechanisms organisms use to facilitate large evolutionary changes: gene duplication, which distributes a lot of genetic material with very little selective constraints; the process of transferring genetic material between cells that are not an organism's offspring, which is how species acquire beneficial genes from each other; and the way populations reassort large numbers of different alleles while establishing reproductive isolation.


Quote:

Evolution, which is gradual change, cannot be tested in a laboratory experiment. How does one observe 13 billion years of gradual change in a laboratory? One does not. One can not.

Actually, it is quite simple to observe evolution occurring,when populations change their genetic composition from generation to generation. In the laboratory, this has been seen in fruit flies, mice and bacteria and in the field, cichlid fish. Testing evolution with controlled experiments has become its own field.

Quote:

Scientists cannot observe events that took place billions of years ago. There were no witnesses to write down what happened. There were no cameras to record the events. The hypothesis of evolution is built on data scientists are not able to see or recreate.

By that standard, a great many accepted theories would not be theories, but that is not necessarily how science works. In this case, scientists can infer past macroevolution from transitional fossils, which provide plausible links between several different groups of organisms, for example between birds and dinosaurs, or fish and limbed amphibians.

Quote:

The evolution of human beings is said to have involved the gradual transition of creatures from primates (apes) to humans. That is the hypothesis. But how can one create experiments to support this hypothesis? In all the recorded history we have, apes remain apes and humans remain humans. No one has ever seen evolution of species taking place, and no one can create a situation in which it can take place. In order for this hypothesis, that primates gradually evolved into humans, to be supported, experiments must be conducted that show this change taking place. It cannot be done.

Actually scientists have seen evolution of species taking place within a life time, as with the examples above. We didn't evolve from primates, we ARE primates. And there is much evidence of human evolution, including: The correspondence of chromosome 2 in humans to two ape chromosomes, the fact that the closest human relative -- the chimpanzee -- has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2 but are found in two separate chromosomes, and the fact that this is also true of the gorilla and the orangutan. In addition, chromosome 2 contains a vestigial centromere, unusual for any chromosome, as well as vestigial telomeres in the middle of its sequence. This indicates lost ancestral functions not belonging to the current species.

This is very strong evidence in favor of the common descent of humans and other apes, indicating that the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

 

[Bill]

Nice try but that goatsbeard example is not an example of a species evolving into a completely different species being observed.

This is a rebuttal to that goatsbeard argument.



Source - http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/deception.html

Well, actually, not quite a rebuttal.

First, the TO articles do mention when it is by polyploidy. There are articles which detail speciation that is neither by polyploidy nor hybridization. The snippet used by your source is a piece of an article in response to another poster in the group. So the article isn't even complete. If there is any indication of deception, it is by the author of the supposed "rebuttal" when stating TO is attempting to hide something, when they're pretty clear about it. This article is quite clear, and list examples that do not use either method. So much for deception.

This article by AiGbusted, refutes the "rebuttal" with examples.

 

[Dr.]

Nice try but that goatsbeard example is not an example of a species evolving into a completely different species being observed.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Well according to you it’s not. I expect your idea of speciation is a frog giving birth to a squirrel or a monkey giving birth to a human. And when that doesn’t happen, you announce “toldya so!” Problem is, this definition of speciation bears no resemblance to the one that biologists actually use. This is called a “strawman argument” - making up a position that the opponent doesn’t hold and criticizing the non-position.

Polyploid speciation is a well-understood form of sympatric speciation and it has been observed. Moreover, it meets the standard definition of speciation: a novel organism that’s reproductively isolated.

But with the standard definition being satisfied, creationists deploy ad hoc objections. Despite how biologists define the term, this is not true speciation. And the reason, apparently, is because it exists - whereas true speciation is, allegedly, a thing that axiomatically does not exist. Unfortunately, some of our fondest wishes don’t always conform to reality. (I, myself, have certain objections to gravity. What are you gonna do?)

In this short (slightly technical) video, the instructor explains what polyploidy speciation is and how it produces a bona fide new and reproductively isolated organism.



This is the orthodox view within the biological sciences. Now in defiance of the experts, theology (not a science) may take a different position. But that’s about as persuasive as modern dance voicing its dissent over a foundational aspect of particle physics - which is to say, not very persuasive at all.


Btw, you really need to check in with your creationist leadership. Answers in Genesis helpfully lists a number of arguments that creationists should not use. E.g.:

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalidated aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)

1. Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)
2. Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)

Just to be clear - creationist “brainiacs” are telling other creationist to stay away from the (above) claims. Presumably, they’re concerned about bad PR and don’t want the movement looking too idiotic.

 

[KalMart]

Ultimately, a creationist does not look to offer a sound alternative to evolution, explaining how life began developed, and how we came about. A creationist's stance is that we shouldn't ask.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Ive still yet to see any actual scientific data to confirm your hypothesis that the bible dismisses over two hundred years of tested and evaluted data or the scientific facts that said testing evaluating bore.

That's because the Bible isn't a science book. It was never meant to be. People tend to forget this.

Not one has ever been an actual piece of evidence. Its always something theyve heard or someone told them. They never bother to actually check it out themselves or do their own research from acredited sources. They only read from books that support their ideas and desired conclusions.

A couple years ago I heard a recording of a sermon that talked about evolution that cited holes in the theory (accepted by scientists), and addressed incongruencies/falsifications in the fossil record (Pitdown Man, the Archaeoraptor fossil, etc). The pastor's sermon wasn't an attempt to disprove evolution, but to show people that evolution as a scientific theory is not only falliable, but also susceptible to forging of facts by dishonest scientists, just as much as creationists can ignore/twist facts to fit their own beliefs.

They dont change the data to fit their conclusion. Creationists, however, are terrified of their conclusions being wrong so when they see a piece of data disproving their desired conclusion they ignore or change the data.

This is untrue. Scientists aren't some saintly group of people who are totally devoted to Truth and have an unrelenting resolve to accept facts, whatever they may be. The history of scientific discovery is fraught with acts of forgery and dishonest results/claims, from simple teasing of experiment results to flat out hoaxes like the Pitdown Man, which existed for nearly 50 years before being proven false.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...d-omitting-unwanted-findings-in-research.html
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/faking-results
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/plos-hms052809.php

If you truly believe in god then stop dishonoring him by being a fool and use your sense and look around at the factual evidence.

Can't argue with that one bit.

For the record, I believe in God, but I have no problem with accepting evolution as we understand it now, but I also accept that what we know of evolution now could change drastically 50 years from now, so I don't hold to the current theory like a security blanket like some more atheist-minded people do.

Even though its a sitcom, I find this to be a pretty good summation of the above statement:

[YT]cXr2kF0zEgI&t=3m47s[/YT]

"Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"

 

[KalMart]

Even though its a sitcom, I find this to be a pretty good summation of the above statement:

[YT]cXr2kF0zEgI&t=3m47s[/YT]

"Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?"

Yes, but the important distinction to make is that if it changes in 50 years, it will expand scientifically...like the flat-Earth and Earth-as-universal-center misconceptions did to what we know today. It didn't become a discovery that there is no universe, or that the world is even flatter than it was assumed. It's not going to regress as if we were wrong and it's actually as the Bible literally says it is. If things are to change then we're only touching upon a much broader scientific knowledge of it, not back to a narrow/archaic/uninformed one of ignorance and not asking out of awe/fear/etc.. Moving forward is the nature of scientific knowledge and, interestingly enough, evolution.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Yes, but the important distinction to make is that if it changes in 50 years, it will expand scientifically...like the flat-Earth and Earth-as-universal-center misconceptions did to what we know today. It didn't become a discovery that there is no universe, or that the world is even flatter than it was assumed. It's not going to regress as if we were wrong and it's actually as the Bible literally says it is. If things are to change then we're only touching upon a much broader scientific knowledge of it, not back to a narrow/archaic/uninformed one of ignorance and not asking out of awe/fear/etc.. Moving forward is the nature of scientific knowledge and, interestingly enough, evolution.

I wasn't suggesting that our knowledge would regress, nor that our understanding of evolution would eventually become congruent with creationism.

My point was that what we think we know/understand NOW doesn't hold a candle to what we'll know/understand in the future, despite this fact, a LOT of people hold onto our current understanding of evolution as the End All Be All of scientific discourse, when if they were honest with themselves, they'd see that our "understanding" is grossly inadequate to the reality, and is therefore subject to change/expand - and to be near fanatical about our current understanding of evolution as some people are is a disservice to science and at times just as bad as the creationists they're so dismissive towards.

 

[Dr.]

...wasn't an attempt to disprove evolution, but to show people that evolution as a scientific theory is not only falliable, but also susceptible to forging of facts by dishonest scientists, just as much as creationists can ignore/twist facts to fit their own beliefs.

...Scientists aren't some saintly group of people who are totally devoted to Truth and have an unrelenting resolve to accept facts, whatever they may be. The history of scientific discovery is fraught with acts of forgery and dishonest results/claims, from simple teasing of experiment results to flat out hoaxes like the Pitdown Man

The neat thing about science is that it’s a (self-correcting) method - it operates as a kind of “truth engine.” It stipulates that humans (including scientists) have egos and biases and flaws; but that the method is a way to avoid (or at least minimize) those things. Your fondest belief that you’ve discovered the cure for cancer means nothing until it passes the method.

Btw, the reason we know about the Piltdown hoax is because scientists exposed it as such. The decisive proof certainly didn’t come from a priest or his Bible.

My point was that what we think we know/understand NOW doesn't hold a candle to what we'll know/understand in the future, despite this fact, a LOT of people hold onto our current understanding of evolution as the End All Be All of scientific discourse, when if they were honest with themselves, they'd see that our "understanding" is grossly inadequate to the reality, and is therefore subject to change/expand - and to be near fanatical about our current understanding of evolution as some people are is a disservice to science and at times just as bad as the creationists they're so dismissive towards.

There’s a tremendous amount about the Cosmos that we don’t know. Indeed, the more knowledge we accumulate, the more we know how much we don’t know. But some things are now beyond question - like the Theory cwink of Heliocentrism (the Sun is the center of the Solar System and the planets orbit it). There ain’t gonna be any new discovery that disproves this fact.

By the same token, there’s a whole lot about biology and evolution that we don’t yet understand. But evolution really did happen. And asserting a fact shouldn’t be deemed a matter of bad manners or etiquette.

 

[Alpha Born]

Dang..where did Alpha go? Probably got a bit too 'fun' to handle......





...again.

Don't copy me.

 

[Alpha Born]

No, we provided very specific rebuttals and explanations to this. So again...what else do you have? What exactly do you believe happened, if not evolution? We have asked this repeatedly, and you have yet to respond.

Don't lie.

 

[KalMart]

Don't lie.

Show that it is.

 

[KalMart]

I wasn't suggesting that our knowledge would regress, nor that our understanding of evolution would eventually become congruent with creationism.

My point was that what we think we know/understand NOW doesn't hold a candle to what we'll know/understand in the future, despite this fact, a LOT of people hold onto our current understanding of evolution as the End All Be All of scientific discourse, when if they were honest with themselves, they'd see that our "understanding" is grossly inadequate to the reality, and is therefore subject to change/expand - and to be near fanatical about our current understanding of evolution as some people are is a disservice to science and at times just as bad as the creationists they're so dismissive towards.

Not saying that you did, but conjecturally, there are many who point to the same 'analogy' of changing knowledge...without acknowledging that it actually and distinctly changes for the better. It certainly WILL be regressing if we somehow abandon evolution and look back towards creationsim. Thankfully, that doesn't look to be the case. No science claims to know everything there is to know in its respective field yet. But the fact that they progress the way they do, and discover a wider palette of what is right shows that the discipline is indeed in the right direction....it's important to recognize that, and not just put an actual argumentative value on arbitrary change. If someone who touts science somehow sees any stage as a completion of that journey, then it's a universal human error of the person, not an error of the science or discipline itself...and that's quite frankly pretty obvious. Anyone who truly understands the sciences and knowledge, and their progression, welcomes and embraces that it is ever-growing, irregardless of religion...whereas creationism, quite simply, fears it.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Btw, the reason we know about the Piltdown hoax is because scientists exposed it as such. The decisive proof certainly didn’t come from a priest or his Bible.

I never said that a priest did uncover it. In fact, if you read my previous post, you would quite clearly read that I stated "the Bible isn't a science book. It was never meant to be. People tend to forget this."

But some things are now beyond question - like the Theory cwink of Heliocentrism (the Sun is the center of the Solar System and the planets orbit it). There ain’t gonna be any new discovery that disproves this fact.

I've never stated that the solar system is not heliocentric, nor that future discoveries would disprove it, nor evolution. And before you get the chance, no I do not believe that dinosaurs walked around with man.

And asserting a fact shouldn’t be deemed a matter of bad manners or etiquette.

Of course not. But in this vein, I think Neil deGrasse Tyson says it best:

[YT]Dxff0k_TEzI[/YT]

 

[Spider-Who?]

Not saying that you did, but conjecturally, there are many who point to the same 'analogy' of changing knowledge...without acknowledging that it actually and distinctly changes for the better. No science claims to know everything there is to know in its respective field yet. But the fact that they progress the way they do, and discover a wider palette of what is right shows that the discipline is indeed in the right direction....it's important to recognize that, and not just put an actual argumentative value on arbitrary change. If someone who touts science somehow sees any stage as a completion of that journey, then it's a universal human error of the person, not an error of the science or discipline itself...and that's quite frankly pretty obvious. Anyone who truly understands the sciences and knowledge, and their progression, welcomes and embraces that it is ever-growing, irregardless of religion...whereas creationism, quite simply, fears it.

Fully agree with this. I think a lot of people who are not...let's say "interested" in science misunderstand the idea that science by its very nature is an evolving understanding of the universe and that mistakes can be made, holes can be found and corrected, that discovery A leads to discovery B, which leads to correcting theory 1, etc. I also think its this lack of understanding, plus misrepresentation BY scientists who are better served to stay in the laboratory as opposed to public discourse that helps widen the chasm between science and religion, and even science and "faux scientists" (ie: people who misunderstand and treat science as a god or infallable entity - there are plenty).

Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of my favorite scientists, and even though I DO believe in God, I love this quote, because the meaning behind it is universal (being content with your limited understanding is a waste of time and knowledge):

"The day that you stop looking — because you’re content God did it — I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world."

 

[KalMart]

Fully agree with this. I think a lot of people who are not...let's say "interested" in science misunderstand the idea that science by its very nature is an evolving understanding of the universe and that mistakes can be made, holes can be found and corrected, that discovery A leads to discovery B, which leads to correcting theory 1, etc. I also think its this lack of understanding, plus misrepresentation BY scientists who are better served to stay in the laboratory as opposed to public discourse that helps widen the chasm between science and religion, and even science and "faux scientists" (ie: people who misunderstand and treat science as a god or infallable entity - there are plenty).

Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of my favorite scientists, and even though I DO believe in God, I love this quote, because the meaning behind it is universal (being content with your limited understanding is a waste of time and knowledge):
If you take away the blanket premise of "science = no God", I think it makes things a lot more palatable on both ends.
"The day that you stop looking — because you’re content God did it — I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world."

If you take away the blanket premise of "science = no God", I think it makes it considerably more palatable on both ends.

 

[Alpha Born]

You just proved my point. You are ignoring all the data and evidence because it doesnt fit into your idea about how the world was created. Creationists ignore facts and data. Scientists do not.

Im waiting on you to come through and post some evidence from some accredited sources. I dont need to rant about about evolution being true. I have an entire scientific field of study and experimentation made up of accredited sources to back me up. Whereas you have what? A book that predates science, your preachers sermons, the ramblings of creationists with no accredidation or knowledge of how these scientific processes work, and your faith.

You keep ignoring our requests for evidence and latching onto insignificant posts. Present your factual evidence and prove evolution wrong.

You people act like scientists are so holy & they don't do no wrong. You evolutionists are in NO position to accuse somebody of ignoring facts & data when evolutionists have been ignoring facts & data for decades. And here's one example of what I'm talking about:

Carbon dating was proven to be inaccurate a long time ago but yet evolutionists were still using it to prove that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, or to prove that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

1. Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.

2. Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.

3. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.

4. “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.”

5. “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”

6. Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.