Evolution - Do you accept it or not?

[Bread_of_Life]

Of all species, that every single species shares a single common ancestor at some time in the past - that we all came from the same ancestral source. Of course, there is contraversy as to whether we are slightly more closely related to climps than gorillas or vice versa - or as to how to group the cetaceans - but apart from the minutii of fine detail phylogeny - all evolutionary scientists agree with the large scale principle and detail of common ancestry.

[Old Timer]

Nebula, you said,

Old Timer - FYI, no one claims oil and coal came from dinosaurs. The claim is that they came from plants. There's a big difference between dinosaurs and plants! I know you could care less, but when setting up a debate or a rebuttal, not getting the facts straight that you are trying to rebut makes you look more like a ranter and provokes others to be less likely to give you credance. I say this not to lessen your arguments, but to encourage you to become a better debater. I speak as a teacher in this.

I most humbly apologize. You are quite right, animals should not have been mentioned and the term

[Bread_of_Life]

I think it'd be cool if there was another source of oil through methane compression, but I don't see what it has to do with God, the age of the earth, evolution, or anything else that is being discussed on this forum.

I have never personally used the existence of oil as proof that the earth is old, because it is not proof that the earth is old. After all, God could easily that made deposits of oil himself, 6000 years ago! Could creationists just be pretending that scientists use oil and coal as proof of an old earth?

Anyway, I stand by my original statement, it'd be cool if we could get oil, and NPG from other sources!

[Old Timer]

ScientificAtheist, you said:

I have never personally used the existence of oil as proof that the earth is old, because it is not proof that the earth is old. After all, God could easily that made deposits of oil himself, 6000 years ago! Could creationists just be pretending that scientists use oil and coal as proof of an old earth?

This is by an evolutionist at http://www.astronomycafe.net/

"What is the chief evidence that disputes the Creationist proposal? The migration of petroleum from their strata of origin into surrounding rocks takes a long time, measured in millions of years, not centuries. This is based on the physics of fluid flow through semi-permeable material under a pressure gradient. There is nothing speculative about this mechanism, anymore than there is controversy over how water flows through a garden hose. There is also the problem of the time scale for conversion 'or cracking' of organic matter into oil and gas derivatives under the rather gentle temperature and pressure conditions found in nature. Again this is a matter of organic chemistry, not speculation, and the time scales are again measured in millions of years not days or centuries." (Emphasis added.)

So, evolutionist do indeed claim the formation of oil takes million of years.

[Bread_of_Life]

Not so, this evolutionist is talking about the migration of oil once formed, not its formation. Also, never heard this argument before, it's interesting, but it certainly does not make up a significant part of the scientific evidence that the earth is old.

[nebula]

Nebula, you said,

It is most gracious of you to mention your proficiency as a debater and to offer that instruction to us of a lower intelligence than yourself. How magnanimous of you. I eagerly await your future posts so that I may glean something of your debating skills.

In your last few posts you said:

[Old Timer]

SA, On the origin of oil. Have you ever read Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision (1950)?

His theory has bitumen raining from heaven during close approaches of Venus and Mars in recent history - 1500-700BC. Not only a very interesting read but his personal story with respect to his theory and the treatment he received for proposing it is fascinating.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not defending his theory, just mentioning it as it touches on the subject of oil.

[Old Timer]

Nebula, sorry for the previous post. I was just having a bit of fun. Seriously, I hope you will excuse me.

As to why creationists don

[nebula]

I do believe God created the universe and all that is in it, from the farthest galaxy to the background radiation to "dark energy" and "dark matter" to all the nebulas and stars and cosmic dust and hydrogen and whatever else is out there, to this solar system and this planet we call Earth and all that dwells within its gravity and on its surface and underneath.

I just question how we have come to interpret the ancient passages written in a different language, different culture, and from a different perspective on life and purposes of explaining things than our modern society does concerning this creation.

That is all.

[artsylady]

Of all species, that every single species shares a single common ancestor at some time in the past - that we all came from the same ancestral source.

That's way too vague. Again, that's like saying 'we all believe in evolution".

Of course, there is contraversy as to whether we are slightly more closely related to climps than gorillas or vice versa - or as to how to group the cetaceans -

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

- all evolutionary scientists agree with the large scale principle and detail of common ancestry.

Hello!!! lol Yep, ya'll believe in evolution!

You can't agree on a single species because the 'proof' is subject to interpretation to different philosophies.