UOG, the age of the earth is derived from geneologies which provide a list from Adam & Eve through to events that can be dated historically.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm for a writup of some of the history of that.

Many Creation Scientists think that the earth is young along with a large proportion of christain creationists
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/creatdef.htm

It's not "an evolutionists strawman", it's an issue that has been pushed long and hard by many creationists. It's important to those who consider the christian bible to be the literal word of god because it provides the means of calcualting the age of the earth and if that is wrong god has lied.

R0bert

thanks for the heads up robert

im not a great one for geniologies
[jesus has two divergent 'family lines'] yet his paternal was god?[huh?]

the chem begetting whatever
are spiritual states[like emanuel means 'god with us' or elisabeth means 'oath to god]]
and if i got them wrong
REMEMBER
that isnt the TOPIC

BUT how does knowing this stuff CONFIRM , explain or validate evolution?

[i dont need teaching about the bible
tell me
[EXPLAIN evolution for me]

as previously stated im not into religion [JUST GOD ;and thus his creation ,and via them the sacred texts] i know god is real but this topic isnt about belief
{not yours nor mine
[ITS ABOUT someone [anyone] EXPLAINING evo-polution[if it science be]

[the bible is a collection of stories many stolen from other tribes[abraham was the father of xtians and muslims [or whatever]

BUT THE TOPIC IS EXPLAIN EVOLUTION.

cheers

as jesus said let the dead tend the dead
explain to me this thing called ';evolution'

if its science GIVE ME THE SCIENCE

the topic is explain evolution NAMING names

[names have meaning but i know enough from the religious namings][islam means follow gods will] SO what? it is by their proofs [fruits/deeds] we are to be revealed not our theory[nor name]

this topic is JUST about evolution
[please explain the official FACTS]

UOG wrote:
"this is a base fact
science has not evolved via its theory into science faulsifyable fact

those who have '
>>..generally rejected all of these beliefs due to the monumental body of evidence that disputes these beliefs...>>
ARE NOT ABLE TO PRESENT THE SCI-ENCE PROOF of this SO CALLED large body of evidence? here and now"

Let me get this straight, you haven't presented any PROOF of YOUR theory but I must - to satisfy you?

This could go round and round forever.

I'm just stating things AS I SEE AND INTERPRET THEM. In other words, its JUST my opinion, just like your words are JUST your opinion. This is a forum FOR OPINIONS. I am not a scientist, go to a science site to pose this question, there may be scientists here, I don't know, but I am not one....ARE YOU?

Personally, I don't need the god delusion...but i would suggest you read it, its possible you might learn something of interest. From your rambling style, I think you're awfully confused, you need to broaden your horizons, take off those blinkers you're wearing, stay away from conspiracy theory websites, look at some real science websites and listen to some real scientists talking about their investigations, do some REAL research. You may learn a thing or two about the questions you're asking here, or you may not, but methinks its worth a try. If you think you've got proof positive of your ideas...er...theory, why not put them forth for all to see. Otherwise, let it go and move on.

Celivia, I watched the second part of ‘Judgment Day - Intelligent Design On Trial’ yesterday evening. Missed the first part but I don’t think it mattered. Enjoyed observing how the intelligent design advocates were very logically and systematically dealt with. Very good.

I was intrigued as to why the ‘IDers’ used the bacterial flagellum and its motor mechanism as their main example of intelligent design, and stayed right away from the eye or ear or heart or whole creature of any sort, all of which are considerably more complex and also have to have all the parts working for the organ and organism to function. They could only have picked some highly obscure thing like the bacterial flagellum instead of something that we are all familiar with because they thought that the developmental (evolutionary) history of the flagellum motor mechanism couldn't be explained by evolution whereas for these other organs they feared that it could be demonstrated or pretty confidently extrapolated from looking at a wide range of creatures that are living today, and from the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Did you know that you’ve got reptilian bones in your mammillian (sic) ears? http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TZyYHGObgk8

Dear Ludwig,

I suggested "The Book of Life" to oug as it is an excellent source. On page 96 it shows the evolution of the mammalian jaw from the reptilian. with the malleus and incus bones in the mammalian ear formerly part of the reptilian Jaw. I have come to the conclusion that oug really isn't interested in putting in any effort to learn about evolution. She or he repeats the same or similar lines even after getting new info. I suggest "The Book of Life" to the rest of you as I think it is fascinating.

UOG, The original topic was about abiogenesis which is different to evolution (but a necessary precursor for it). Do you want explaination of evolution or abiogenesis?

My impression is that the debate about abiogenesis is still open, there are a number of theories which need to speculate about conditions at the time to a degree which makes it difficult to have a high level of confidence in which mechanism was involved. The mechanisms invol ved in evolution have been identified with a high level of certainty, the theory makes predictions which can be verified with a rock pick. Abiogenesis needs us to learn some more before we can have the same degree of certainty.

I consider evolution to the best currently known explaination for the origins of life on this planet. I'm not a scientist (and especially not a scientist in a relevant field) and don't have the knowledge or understand every aspect of the theory nor to try and explain it to someone who clearly does not want to understand it.

The other known major competing theories have been falsified - unless you think that god has gone around creating false evidence of evolution to confuse or that evolution occurred but god's hand invisibly guided it in such a meandering manner that it becomes invisible unless you are desperate to see it.

Scientists can make predictions about what they expect to find in a certain age of rock then go dig in rocks of that age and sometimes find what they expected to find.

No I can't give the science of the earliest life, as others have suggested ask that question in a forum where posters have the necessary science skills. I can read the work of others, I can weigh the credibility of what is presented and I can make judgements based on that.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Intermediate_Forms#The_theory_of_evolution_predicts_intermediate_forms

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/defense_of_evolution.html

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_12.htm

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2217546/Why-Is-Evolution-Important-How-Science-Works-The-Theory-of-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

R0bert