Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Short Commentary on the Nye-Ham Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I originally wrote this for a friend, but decided that other people might be interested, too. Anyway, this is not a blow-by-blow, and I’m sure I’m missing some important points, but here is my commentary on the debate. If parts of it read like an email to a friend, well, that’s because that’s where it originated 🙂


Overall impression – Ken Ham made an excellent (and better) initial presentation, but he faltered quite a bit at answering questions from both Bill Nye and the audience, in which part Bill Nye was the clear winner.

Where I Thought Ken Ham Succeeded, and Nye Failed

One thing I was surprised at was that Bill Nye completely discounted the distinction between operational science and origins science, even though that distinction is very well documented in the philosophy of science. Actually, it was the evolutionists themselves who recognized the need for a distinction, and a difference to the types of evidences and procedures needed for historical vs. operational science!

Here, for instance, is famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

I thought Ham had a better grasp on the philosophy and limitations of science. Nye failed to grasp that science has methodologies, and each methodology has its own limitations. Instead, science functioned as a religion to Nye, answering all of his questions in the way he wants it to, without regard to its limitations.

Ham also emphasized the origin of logic and reason. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has done a good job showing that science is consistent with theism but inconsistent with naturalism, since naturalism doesn’t provide adequate warrant for believing one’s own theories about nature, but theism does. A lot of Ham’s specific arguments come from a talk by Jason Lisle on this subject, which I think is well done.

Nye, quite predictably, hammered on about the need for science and engineering education and how creationism somehow prevents this. The funny thing is that the place where Nye thought was currently on top of science (i.e. the current US) is also the place where it is on top in creationism. Likewise, the subject he thought most important (engineering) is likewise the subject that produces the most creationists. I thought that Ham’s showing of many important Creation scientists and engineers was quite a good answer to the question of whether or not creation hinders the progress of engineering and science – it certainly has not been shown to do this.

Nye, for his part, seemed to be altogether ignorant of Christian theology. He tried several comments on it which were never responded to, primarily because the amount of education needed here would be so remedial.

Also, Nye harped quite a bit on the number of species, but he seemed to misunderstand his own calculation. His number (16 million I think) of species are based off of the total number of species anywhere – including bacteria, fungus, molds, plants, single-celled organisms, fish, etc (it is also an *estimate*, not an actual count). The number of species on the ark is based on the total number of land-based animals and birds. I don’t remember exactly what the present number of species is for land-based animals, but it is a much more reasonable number (I think there is an average that each ark-kind has only diversified into 8-10 species in total).

Finally, Ham did a decent job of explaining why current education in origins is already religious – by allowing only naturalistic causes, it is merely the religion of naturalism in disguise.

Where I Thought Nye Succeeded, and Ham Failed

Ham, however, failed to show, except in the narrowest cases, how the Creation model can be predictive. He did a good job showing Creationists who were scientists and engineers, but did not do a good job connecting their science and engineering to their creationism. He made a passing remark at one point that having a correct view of origins will lead a scientist in the right direction, but failed to show a specific instance of this actually happening.

Ham also left the audience without a sense of what a Creation scientist would actually *do*. Bill Nye pointed out the things that scientists investigate to discover, and how science generates a passion for knowing. Ham merely pointed to the Bible, as if the Bible answered every scientific question. Ham failed to give a positive account of what science looks like under the Bible except to assert that “the Bible is true”. If that was all Creation scientists did, it would be extremely boring.

Nye did a decent job of coming up with a short but powerful list of evidences to show that the world is old, and Ham did very little to counter any of that evidence. Nye also used Tiktaalik and humanoid skeleton’s to show the evolutionary tree, and that was also not countered by Ham.

Nye did a pretty good job of painting Ham into a hard-headed provincialist, unable to see past his own beliefs, and unwilling to dialogue with the rest of the world. On the flip side, however, Nye seemed altogether ignorant of the fact that he, too, was bringing in prior beliefs. I admire Ham for boldly proclaiming his beliefs, and he did a decent job of showing why his beliefs were not unreasonable; unfortunately, he gave very few reasons why other people should change their beliefs to his. Nye picked up on this instinctively, and hammered him nearly the whole night for it.

Overall, I appreciate Bill Nye’s willingness to engage in a respectful public dialogue with people he disagrees with. The world would be better off if that happened more often. I also appreciate the moderator, whom I thought did an excellent job. He did such a great job, I almost forgot to mention him!

Please post below if I left anything out important.

For those who missed the debate, it is available for viewing online for the next few days at this link.

UPDATE – Casey Luskin provides excellent commentary from an Intelligent Design perspective (my commentary had the aim of being more focused on what was said than what I wished was said).

Comments
Ok so to avoid any confusion....I thought that my last post contained a copy of my previous post and that's why I asked to disregard it. It turns out that it was not duplicated over so please disregard my statement to "disregard" my last post! Err...cell phones are hard to post with lol! :)pgcawley
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Special creation took place about 6 thousand years ago when God started a "new generation" of the heavens and earth and placed mankind at the center of it. And all of a sudden out of no where modern humans appear talking with a written language, farming, living in complex societies, navigating by the stars, using herbology and metallurgy etc etc. This alone is enough proof that mankind made in the image of God was a special creative process and is only 6 thousand years old. But there were other man-like creatures who existed BEFORE this time. And they were either created by God purposefully OR....they were a made by Satan as a kind of confusion and as competition against what he knew God was going to create/make when He made mankind. Look, if WE humans can make things....what makes people think Satan can't? Is Satan not "in competition" against God Almighty? These other men-like creatures had at least 240 anatomical differences to mankind and could NOT talk except with squawks and grunts, had no formal written language, did NOT form complex societies, did NOT farm or navigate by the stars or do any of the other HIGHlY intelligent activities of modern mankind made in the image of God. There is scripture to support the fact that they were used as slaves by Lucifer (at least near the end of his reign) and that when Lucifer rebelled against the Almighty he was utterly destroyed from the face of the earth and all surrounding planets and was forced to living in the cosmos realm when manifesting in physical form and is known as the $prince of the power of the air" and only roams the earth periodically seeking whom he may devour but it is not his main place for living. Satan is an interdemensional being going back and forth between the physical world and the spiritual dimension. When Adam and Eve fell in the garden they gave the temporary ownership of the earth back to Satan but God still rendered his existence mostly to the cosmos and this is where the UFO phenomenon and the Watchers (fallen angels) and their descendants (the Nephilim) come from. Jesus said "I saw Satan fall like lightening from Heaven and a third of the company of Heaven went with him" so how many beings is this? Probably millions but at least many thousands. More to come....pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Please disregard last post. Im using my cell phone and it some how pasted my previous post into my next post! Wow. So I am posting the continuation again. Here we go: And finally…let me be crystal clear about the Ruin-Restoration or Gap Principal view of Genesis. No matter HOW MUCH the militant YEC movement (Young Earth Creationist) try to associate us Old Earth Gap believers with the belief in Darwinian Evolution or any other form of Macro-Evolution…Don’t believe it!! We utterly reject it!! We believe God engineered into ALL living organisms the ability to VARY within their OWN KIND and to REPRODUCE after their OWN KIND and that is IT. No animals living today “descended” from any other kind EXCEPT a variation of its OWN KIND with the original versions of each kind "MADE" (Asah) by God only 6 thousand years ago. This view is totally consistent with the literal Genesis account YET still acknowledges that there was a previous "world" on the earth BEFORE Adam. Now, I can already here the YEC believer saying "but Paul the Apostle specifically said that sin and death came through Adam, so how could there be sin and death before him? To which I he good Bible student replies: yes FOR MANKIND sin and death came into the world through Adam. But there were OTHER beings (namely Angelic beings who are NOT human) that existed LONG before Adam and Lucifer (aka Satan) DID in fact sin before Adam and in fact his sin brought DEATH too the ancient cosmos and to our solar system and the earth. Thus the evidence of which is recorded in the OTHER testimony of God....THE EARTH!! (There is TWO main evidences God says testify of Him and His truth and His existence. His eternal Word AND the creation; i.e. inclueing the astronolmical and geologic record of the earth and surrounding planets) And for that matter ALL of the planets in our solar system that have the remains of impact crators and other geologic evidence of MASSIVE destruction on them. When did a man ever live to tell about this destruction? The reason any form of Macro-Evolution utterly fails is because of this: no matter HOW OLD the earth is, there have been AT LEAST 3 known ELE events (Extinction Level Events) is earths natural (geologic) history. The last ELE event being the Younger-Dryas event that took place about 12,000 years ago and left the earth "void and formless and darkness upon the face of the deep" and coincides PERFECTLY with the Biblical description of the earth's condition JUST BEFORE the "sudden appearance" of modern man and a whole new class of animals and flora and fauna. Just like Genesis reveals. Question: how can Macro-Evolution be true as they say "an unbroken continuous evolution of species descending from earlier forms down to the present day" when there has been these 3 known ELE events that destroyed ALL life on the earth? It would mean that the so-called "miracle" of evolution (oh brother) would have to have occurred not once but at least 3 separate times!!! And that's not including trying to explain how MALE and FEMALE evolution took place separately (miraculously somehow) 3 separate times!! Who could possibly believe such nonsense!! More to come....pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
The author and biblical scholar quoted above is C.K. Quaterman and here is the rest of his treatise on the Ruin-Restoration Principle or Gap Principal (the same view just a different title): Furthermore, the Ruin-Reconstruction theory maintains the Genesis Creation account is inerrant in scientific fact. Gap Creationists assert that the biblical account lapse lasted an unknown number of years (between a first creation in Genesis 1:1 and a second recreation in Genesis 1:2). This allows for various observations, including; determining the Earth’s age as well as that of the universe, dinosaurs, oil formation, ice ages, and geological formations that occurred as outlined by science without contradicting a literal belief in Genesis. In contrast, the Ruin-Reconstruction theory differs from “Day-age Creationism” and “Young Earth creationism.” Day-age creationism claims that the days of creation were much longer (thousands or millions of years). Young Earth Creationism, although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not suggest a time gap. The Ruin-Reconstruction concept alleges that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth (between the 1st and 2nd verse) due to the fall of Lucifer. In addition, other verses of Genesis describe a reforming of the earth from a chaotic state. The E.W. Bullinger Companion Bible of 1909 clearly shows the Ruin – Restoration theme of Genesis: The beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the Heavens and the earth (Perfect, complete and to be Inhabited). And the earth became waste, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (Frozen Ice). And the Spirit of God moved (hovering, brooding); [the beginning of the heavens and earth which are now] upon the face of the waters [Melted Ice]. (Gen. 1:1-2, EWB-CB) The six days of Genesis are the account of a re-creation, or regeneration of a previously existent heavens and earth (not the original creation), and seven creative days within Genesis chapter one are not a geological history of the earth! Ruin-Reconstruction relies upon specific linguistic reasoning behind the Hebrew Scriptures. First, a newly created earth should not have been without form and void. Second, the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 is more accurately translated as “became.” The Hebrew word for “was” is haw-yaw’ and means “become”, or come to pass. Third, “create” and “made” are different in the Hebrew language as well. “Create” (bara in Hebrew) means to call forth out of nothingness. The Christian doctrine “Ex nihilo” has a Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing” from this Hebrew word. Subsequently in the text, the words “make” or “form” (asah in Hebrew) mean a re-fashioning or making from pre-existing material. This refers to the substance remaining after the earth underwent Lucifer’s judgment. Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” This means that the heavens and the earth came into existence by divine command and was not assembled from pre-existing matter or energy. Further support can be seen in Isaiah 45:18 where it is stated that the earth was not created in “vain” (tohu), “He (God) formed (asah) it (the earth) to be inhabited.” The word “was” or “became” in Genesis 1:2, allows a change of state to occur from verse one to verse two and is more accurately translated “became”. That is, the initial perfect creation of verse one “became” without form and void, indicating a transition occurred. Genesis 1:2 reveals that, “And the earth was (had become) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2) Additional support comes from the phrase “without form and void.” Consider other Biblical texts in which these words are found together. In Isaiah 24:1 and Jeremiah 4:23, one sees that they are judgmental in character and context. Jeremiah describes a time when the earth was “without form, and void.” Noah’s flood was not even as horrific nor brought such barren conditions as described by Jeremiah. It can only be a cataclysmic destruction by God of the Pre-Adamic world. Remember, Isaiah 45:18 states: “God did not create the earth in vain; he formed it in order for it to be inhabited”. Jeremiah also wrote: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it (Jeremiah 4:23-28). There were no descendants of Adam (no man), yet there were cities that God destroyed by his wrath – who dwelt in these cities? According to Hebrew Cosmogony, Earth was changed by catastrophe, before the birth of our world as we know it. Worlds were shaped and brought into existence, only to be destroyed in the course of time, not to be inhabited by man. He made several worlds before ours, but he destroyed them all. Hebrew mythology assigns this to a period before Adam and different geophysical catastrophes. It should also be noted that DNA remains actually older than 6,000 years (like “Neanderthal” and “Cro-Magnon”) will be found to have no genetic connection to any people living on the Earth today. Questions answered by the Ruin-Reconstruction theory include: (1) How can the Earth only be 6,000 years old, according to the Bible’s chronology, when the forensic evidence of geology and the fossil records reveal that the Earth is very ancient? (2) How could death have only started with the fall of man at about 6,000 years ago when evidence for death is found in the Pleistocene geologic era, and a long reign of death across ancient ages past? (3) How can man have been on the Earth for only about 6,000 years when there is evidence of man-like creatures inhabiting the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years? What happened during this Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? One also wonders, what took place during this time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Around the Cambrian geologic period (about 500-600 million years ago), an explosion of death happened to well-developed life forms in the fossil record, with no antecedent fossils in the more ancient Precambrian, except for what could be primitive cell remains. Consequently, what appears in the fossil record as an explosion of life was actually an explosion of death. Living things do not leave remains until they die. The Cambrian geologic period marks the first record of death and the fall of Lucifer. Because Lucifer was the steward of the whole creation under heaven when he fell, all things under his rule were also subjected to corruption. Adam’s sin brought death into our world (Romans 5:12). Therefore, it is no contradiction with the Bible that Earth’s geology shows an ancient track record of death on this planet long before Adam. As seen throughout the geologic record, there is evidence of mass extinction and geologic catastrophes. Recapping, in Gen. 1:1, the word created is baw-raw’ and means to create out of nothing. After, Gen. 1:1 the word “made” is used but it is a different word in Hebrew, known as aw-saw,’ and means “to make out of existent materials.” This is translated as made instead of create so the reader knows it is a different assertion. In verse one of Genesis, God created. Thereafter, God made or recreated from existent material the Earth from material he had created out of nothingness in the first verse. The science behind both Carbon and Argon data is flawed, but not by millions of years. Carbon and Argon dating based upon radioactive decay may have been accelerated in the recent past. However, the vast age assigned to the earth based on radioactive measurements can by no means be set aside. Is there another reasonable explanation for a literal six-day creation that explains the great age of the earth? Perhaps, if one is willing to say that science is very wrong and that the earth is not but 10,000 years old, and that God is tricking the scientists. Many Christians champion a six-day creation, Ex nihilo. In order to do so, one has to deny the geological evidence of the Earth’s vast age. Furthermore, no scriptures warrant an arbitrary assumption that a day is more than 24 hours long. Believing that a day is 24 hours is a general principle in the absence of any statement to other effect. Therefore, one must except the days of Genesis are literal 24 hour days. Thus, Ruin-Restoration Creationism best fits the overall understanding of the creative acts of Elohim. In summary, Elohim existed and created the earth perfectly (Genesis1:1), but it became a wasteland because of war in the heavens (Genesis 1:2). Elohim then remade the earth out of the old materials of the previous creation in a literal six-day period. Ruin-Restoration Creationism proves that the Biblical story of creation is in harmony with the teachings of modern science, and this casts a new light on the integrity of the Bible.pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Concerning my last post, I mentioned the correct exegesis of Genesis chapter 1 and the need to understand the meanings and definition of words Moses used when writing Genesis chapter 1. Here is a good overview of this by yet another Biblical scholar, of which I will provide the link to his work next. Here is a portion of this work: RUIN-RESTORATION “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen. 1:2) The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory suggests that there is a gap of time between a distinct creation event in the first verse of Genesis and the second recreation in the second verse of Genesis, explaining the age of the Earth. And the earth was (ha?ya?h) without form, (to?hu?) and void; (bo?hu?) and darkness (cho?shek) was upon the face of the deep.(teho?m teho?m) And the Spirit (ru?ach) of God (‘e?lo?h??ym) moved (ra?chaph) upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2 Hebrew) ha?ya?h – become, come to pass, became to?hu? – desolation, or become worthless. bo?hu? – ruin cho?shek – destruction teho?m teho?m – abyss ru?ach – breath ra?chaph – to brood as a mother hen The Ruin-Reconstruction theory, known as Gap Creationism, suggests a time lapse exists between a distinct creation event in Genesis’ first verse and the second recreation that takes place in the second verse, explaining the Earth’s age. This concept suggests that science has proven the Earth is much older than accounted for by adding up biblical chronology.pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
I want to refer anyone reading THIS post to read my first post about the Gap Principal of Genesis. The next point to make is this: the correct exegesis of Genesis chapter 1 is this: the first verse "In the beginning God created (Bara) the Heavens and the Earth" is a complete statement and is referring to the fact that however long ago the beginning started (and it does NOT indicate when that beginning started) when God was finished, the heavens and the earth were completed! The next verse, verse 2, is NOT (I repeat) is NOT a continuation of verse one. There is a BREAK in the text!! There are a number of indicators and word usages that Moses employed to make sure the reader understood this. I offer the following word distinctions for your review: "Bara" means to create something out of nothing for the first time. "Asah" means to MAKE something from materials already in existence. The word Bara is used in verse one of Genesis and not again until the 6th day when God both Bara AND Asah (creates and makes) Adam & Eve. More word contrasts to consider: "World" and "Earth" with the term "World" always and I mean ALWAYS referring to a current world system or past or future world system but NEVER to the globe itself! The term "Earth" is ALWAYS 100% of the time referring to the globe itself...the sphere and or the dirt of the planet itself. Until these differences are thoroughly understood by the Bible student, there will most likely always be a misunderstanding in the translation of Genesis chapter one. More to come....pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
There is a better answer to this entire debate that needs to be brought to light. The answer I'm referring too is the Gap Principal view of Genesis. This view is held by over 40 Biblical scholars and was the predominant view of Genesis until the militant YEC movement took over evangelical Christianity. Some of the most profound Biblical scholars of modern times hold too (or held too) this view and it has a TON of exegetical and scientific proof to sustain it. I offer the following websites/books/authors/scholars/teachers for your review: 1. "A Long Held View" by Arthur Custance (Google the title to get to the website) 2. www.EvoGenesis.com ("EvoGenesis" book and website by author John Thomas). 3. www.kjvbible.org ("The Bible, Genesis & Geology" book and website by Gaines R. Johnson). 3. www.gaptheoryofcreation.com ("In The Beginnings" book and website by Steven E. Dill). 4. "The Truth About Evolution Or; Don't Let Satan Make A Monkey Out Of You" Google title to find more info on the book and author Max D. Younce. This last book contains a chapter listing over 25 MAJOR Biblical scholars who hold to the Gap Principal view of Genesis. EVERY SINGLE PERSON MENTIONED ABOVE IS A OLD EARTH CREATIONIST. I include myself in this list. ALL of us utterly REJECT Darwinian Evolution or any other version of Macro-Evolution. We believe the earth is VERY old (at least hundreds of thousands of years old) but that "modern man" made in the image of God and ALL of the current life and creation were "made" by God about 6,000 years ago BUT that the earth itself and a previous age existed on the earth LONG before Adam & Eve. We believe the Genesis account of creation is a literal historical event that took place about 6 thousand years ago and it is describing God returning to the earth to RESTORE IT in 6 literal 24-hour periods of time NOT creating it for the first time. More to come....pgcawley
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Scordova:
A strata containing certain kinds of fossils, cannot in principle have formed slowly, unless you invoke special pleadings like: “Cambrian formed in an instant, and then stop for a buzzilion years, and then Permian formed and then stopped for a buzillion years, etc.”
But this doesn't follow even if every individual fossil required rapid formation. It is entirely consistent to suggest something like, "An average of once every thousand years (and probably more frequently than that), the right combination of circumstances occurred for another fossil to form (or two or a hundred all together), a process that by itself took a couple days." That could raise questions about fossils at identical depths, but I take it on pure ungrounded faith that these do not create a problem for geology/palaeontology. :)
... we know stratified sedimentary layers can form quite rapidly as demonstrated by the University of Colorado turbidity studies and that simple physics equation in the video I linked to.
Okay, that's an interesting suggestion. I'll look into it.
The fossils serve as index fossils in a way that was not realized, they contain: 1. C14 2. DNA 3. unracemized amino acids
While I agree that the third one has definitely been found and I'm not sure about the first one, the second one simply isn't the case. No DNA has been discovered in any fossil that is "too old" to have DNA (or indeed, in any fossil at all, as far as I know). At least, not if you're thinking of "T-Rex DNA." I hope none of my responses have come across as personally insulting to you or to your expertise. I just couldn't help but read (possibly misread) your fossilization/stratification argument as involving a simple error. I now amend that interpretation somewhat.Lenoxus
February 10, 2014
February
02
Feb
10
10
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
What I find interesting is how intelligent people do not acknowledge all the contradictions in the Old and New Testament. If we’re going to talk theology and Bibliology, I may as well throw it out. I can post tons of stuff. The Bible is LOADED with contradictions. Shall I point out a few of them? Please, please, people, leave the Bible alone. Leave your pet religions at the doors. Let’s talk about ID. Let’s DO SCIENCE.
I disagree. The real reason that UD exists is that Darwinism and Christian creationism exist. Regardless of the strength of ID, Darwinists will continue to ignore it because it's more advantageous for them to target the weak underbelly of their enemy. This weak underbelly is called Christian fundamentalism, the same fundamentalism that gave us young earth creationism. Christian fundamentalism exists because its leaders make a good living by preaching that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that God has infinite power and knowledge. As a Christian, it bothers me a great deal that people find it profitable to preach that God, the extremely advanced being who created the universe and life on earth, could have been the author of some of the nonsense I read in the Bible. In so doing they offend God's intelligence and mine. As a Christian, I strongly resent that and I think it's the work of the devil. Now, I don't believe for a second that the entire Bible is nonsense and that God's revelation cannot be found in it but I am convinced that Christianity will not win this war unless it does something about its weak underbelly.Mapou
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
What I find interesting is how intelligent people do not acknowledge all the contradictions in the Old and New Testament. If we're going to talk theology and Bibliology, I may as well throw it out. I can post tons of stuff. The Bible is LOADED with contradictions. Shall I point out a few of them? Please, please, people, leave the Bible alone. Leave your pet religions at the doors. Let's talk about ID. Let's DO SCIENCE.CentralScrutinizer
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Scordova: Do you understand my interpretation of your argument about rapid burial of fossils and rapid strata formation?
Yes, but you're characterizing my argument in a mistaken way, and that's perhaps because this is an informal discussion and I'm not a geologist I'm a derivatives trader and I don't always say things in the clearest most rigorous ways. I was avoiding being polemic since we won't settle anything in this discussion, this is just an exchange of views. A strata containing certain kinds of fossils, cannot in principle have formed slowly, unless you invoke special pleadings like: "Cambrian formed in an instant, and then stop for a buzzilion years, and then Permian formed and then stopped for a buzillion years, etc."
Do you think you could defend (not necessarily here, just hypothetically) your assertion that all the strata formed rapidly,
I didn't mean all strata (and if I said all I have to clarify a mistake), I meant strata that contain fossils requiring rapid burial. I can't defend it because I'm not a geologist, but one thing I know, geologists and evolutionary biologists who claim long ages haven't been able to defend the opposite viewpoint given the parameters I described. I usually get dismissal and put downs, not reasoned answers, I may not be a scientist, but I'm not exactly science illiterate either.
Without making reference to fossils? Or is the rapidness of fossilization integral to that argument?
Don't know about the argument without fossils, but then in that case neither side can assert much in face of the fact we know stratified sedimentary layers can form quite rapidly as demonstrated by the University of Colorado turbidity studies and that simple physics equation in the video I linked to. The fossils serve as index fossils in a way that was not realized, they contain: 1. C14 2. DNA 3. unracemized amino acids I've never gotten satisfactory answers from the mainstream either on those points. Personally, I don't care anymore. If there is no determination to be self-skeptical, nothing is going to change. And in the case of some layers, POLYSTRATE orientations of fossils like trees pretty much demand rapid burial as a matter of principle. Maybe one can get away with layers containing only mirofossils, but then if the microfossils in the Cambrian are ever found to evidence: 1. C14 2. DNA 3. unracemized amino acids Then I don't see why someone shouldn't be skeptical to begin with about the age of the FOSSIL not necessarily sedimentary rocks that could possibly be old. Old rocks are a challenge to YECs, but I was specifically challenging the age of the fossils. C14, DNA, unracemized amino acids indicate we are not accounting for something. I would think on those grounds, saying, "we don't know for sure" would be a good answer, but that seems intolerable for both poles of the debate. I have my personal views, obviously, and I'm glad my profession doesn't depend on being a conformist to prevailing paradigms because my conscience would bother me to insist the layers are old when there are these unresolved discrepancies. I was an Old-Earth believing evolutionist long ago raised in a Roman Catholic home that didn't care one iota about the creation/evolution controversy, and they were just happy to see me get an A in my high school biology class. I became an OLD Earth creationist before graduating high school, and even after 3 undergraduate science degrees, I still had believe the fossil record was old, and changed my mind only before entering grad school. I say that just in case some readers might think I came with some religious bias to the argument, I didn't, I got convinced of another viewpoint by examining the evidence.scordova
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
DebianFanatic @78,
I can certainly understand your doubt from a naturalistic perspective, but not from a Scriptural perspective, for Moses writes:
HCSB Gen 3:20 – Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living. HCSB Gen 5:3 – Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth [who through generations, v. 28] fathered a son. 29 And he named him Noah…. HCSB Gen 9:19 – These three were Noah’s sons, and from them the whole earth was populated. HCSB Gen 10:32- These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their family records, in their nations. The nations on earth spread out from these after the flood.
I see your point and I, too, believed this to be true for most of my life. However, I find it hard to believe that humanity is only six thousands years old in view of the evidence from modern science. For one, I don't believe the Adam in the Garden of Eden (the Adam that named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living) is the same Adam that fathered Cain and Abel. I am almost certain that the Garden of Eden story is a purely metaphorical description of a very ancient humanity. My main reason for saying this is that strange talking snake which, based on other scriptures, I believe to be a metaphorical reference to Lucifer. The story of Noah and of a global flood that occurred only 4000 years ago is even harder to accept. The geological evidence for this is simply not there. No, the Grand Canyon is not evidence for a recent global deluge. We have strong evidence that North Africa used to be a green fertile land with lakes, rivers and many tribes of people as recently as 12,000 years ago. It is very possible that either Moses himself was mistaken or his use of the phrase "the whole earth" is not what we think it means. I have seen the same phrase translated "the whole land" in other places. Alternatively, it is possible that the flood occurred tens of thousands of years ago and that there is an error in the Mosaic genealogy. It is possible that there is a vast historical gap between Noah and Abraham. After all, Moses was relying on records that were already ancient even in his day.
And not just Moses, but the Mosaic Law scholar / Pharisee Paul:
Paul could have been mistaken about this. And it would not be the only time that Paul showed his lack of understanding of things. Paul thought that the end of world was going to happen in his lifetime and, as a result, he advised people not to get married. How can someone as knowledgeable and educated as Paul make such a mistake? It happens. I could be wrong about all this (I certainly am no better than Paul), but, as I have said elsewhere, even though I am a true blue Christian, I do not worship the Bible as the inerrant word of God. That would be idolatry, in my opinion. I keep searching always in the hope of improving my understanding.Mapou
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Sorry; messed up the link: Here.DebianFanatic
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Interesting, that as we speak of fossils being not quite in the right order in the rocks, there's this new piece:
A team of paleontologists affiliated with USC Dornsife and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County has determined that birds were capable of modern flight patterns much earlier than previously suspected — at least 60 million years before T. rex stalked the land.
So maybe dinos weren't the ancestors of birds after all? http://crev.info/2014/02/cretaceous-starling-flew-over-feathered-dinosaurs/#sthash.pYUsO2Cy.dpufDebianFanatic
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Mapou writes:
On another tangent, I doubt that the Adam that married Eve and had Cain and Abel was a common ancestor to all of humanity. Moses was only interested in the lineage that engendered the Hebrew or Abrahamic tribes. It is almost certain that there were many other lineages on earth at the time and that the Adam lineage was not the first.
I can certainly understand your doubt from a naturalistic perspective, but not from a Scriptural perspective, for Moses writes:
HCSB Gen 3:20 - Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living.
HCSB Gen 5:3 - Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth [who through generations, v. 28] fathered a son. 29 And he named him Noah.... HCSB Gen 9:19 - These three were Noah’s sons, and from them the whole earth was populated.
HCSB Gen 10:32- These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their family records, in their nations. The nations on earth spread out from these after the flood.
And not just Moses, but the Mosaic Law scholar / Pharisee Paul:
HCSB Acts 17:26 - From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.
HCSB Rom 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. 13 In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression. He is a prototype of the Coming One.
HCSB Rom 5:17 - Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone.
HCSB 1 Cor 15:45 - So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
DebianFanatic
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
DebianFanatic:
This explanation is consistent with evolutionary theory (in other words, evolutionary theory gets the points for predicting it), but it’s not evidence of it. As you yourself say in the quote above, it’s an inference. Nothing wrong with making inferences; they just shouldn’t be confused with actual evidence.
True, the inference itself isn't evidence, but the inference is based on evidence. Scientists aren't saying "There's a gap in the timeline, ergo, the gap will be filled", but rather, "The fossil and DNA evidence suggest a branching of the tetrapod group of lobe-finned fishes from a "fishapod" group of lobe-finned fishes. Assuming those are in fact tetrapod trackways, we can assume that an ancestor to both groups existed before the tracks, and if we're lucky some close relative of that ancestor fossilized in an accessible area." I appreciate the credit given for an at-least-partly-fulfilled prediction. And I think the sci-blogging community has perhaps been a little quick to jump on defense rather than acknowledge that the trackways, in addition to being a marvelous find, are also a small wrench in a "clean" prior hypothesis. This hypothesis would be that Tiktaalik, along with all the other fossil fishapods, was relatively close to (say, within 5 million years of) the true common ancestor in question. In a way, the situation turns out to be the opposite of the human-chimpanzee split: Whereas there are many more specimens for the side that interests us (the human side), there aren't many relics of chimpanzee evolution from the common ancestor, probably because chimps didn't diversify as much as humans. Conversely, most of the fishapods we've found post-date the tracks, and might therefore represent a separate diversified group with no living descendants at all. (In other words, the pre-trackways lobe-finned "fish-not-very-pod" fossils were in the same group as some common fishapod ancestor. From that ancestor are two branches, one including the tetrapod trackmaker, while the other includes all the post-tracks fishapod fossils we've found). Scordova: Do you understand my interpretation of your argument about rapid burial of fossils and rapid strata formation? Do you think you could defend (not necessarily here, just hypothetically) your assertion that all the strata formed rapidly, without making reference to fossils? Or is the rapidness of fossilization integral to that argument?Lenoxus
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Robert Carter, PhD (Marine Biology) touches on mtDNA here at about 39:00 minutes into his presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDuLEVu1C4A&feature=youtu.be&t=9m40s There are three mitochondrial lineages: M, N, and R across the globe. -QQuerius
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Sal, In my opinion, using genetic analysis to trace the Jewish lineage to a single common male ancestor (Noah) would not constitute proof that the flood was global. To lend credence to the global flood hypothesis, the analysis would have to include all the far-flung ethnic groups of the world and arrive at the same Noah common ancestry. On another tangent, I doubt that the Adam that married Eve and had Cain and Abel was a common ancestor to all of humanity. Moses was only interested in the lineage that engendered the Hebrew or Abrahamic tribes. It is almost certain that there were many other lineages on earth at the time and that the Adam lineage was not the first.Mapou
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
One conflict with the Genesis account that creationists should consider is that it says Noah had 3 daughter-in-laws. That means we should see 3 matriarchal lineages that are daughters of one Eve. Instead, the best assessment is: The Seven Daughters of Eve by Oxford Geneticist Bryan Sykes. Sykes got a little flak because of some his (unwitting) creationist friendly writings like: Adam's Curse But finding the 3 daughters of Eve would be a great project for a creation model.scordova
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
The Ham-Nye debate raised a question, "do you have testable predictions?" The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 predicts the structure of population genetics for the current day. That is a topic research in its infancy. We may get there some day for the table of Nations in Genesis 10, but even now, Abraham first mentioned in Genesis 11, about 10 generations after Noah is being explored by Jewish geneticists: Abraham's Chromosomes
Can recent genetic research give some indication of the existence of the historical Abraham? Recent genetic studies of the Jewish people clearly indicate that the roots of the Jewish nation can be traced to the Middle East. This research confirms the geographical origin of the core of every major Jewish Diaspora community. (See: “Jewish Genes.”) Furthermore, the discovery of the “Cohen Gene” — the genetic signature shared by the majority of Kohanim — the Jewish priestly family worldwide, is an indication that this signature is that of the ancient Hebrews. (See:”The Cohanim – DNA Connection”) Based on the DNA of today’s Kohanim, the geneticists have dated their “Most Common Recent Ancestor” to 106 generations ago, approximately 3,300 years before the present. This is in agreement with the Torah’s written and oral tradition of the lifetime of Aaron, the original High Priest and founder of the Kohen lineage. Further genetic studies have found that the CMH-the Cohen Modal Haplotype-a haplotype of the MED (J) haplogroup-is not exclusive to Kohanim, and not unique to Jews. It is also found in significant percentages among other Middle Eastern populations, and to a lesser extent, among southern Mediterranean groups. A haplotype is a group of distinct DNA markers — neutral nucleotide mutations, which when found together indicate a lineage. These particular markers were discovered on the Y-Chromosome, which is passed from father to son, without change, thus establishing a paternal lineage pattern. All of the above is scientific fact, which has only become known in recent years. Using these findings as a basis, perhaps we can speculate and consider some implications of the findings. If the CMH is the genetic signature of Aaron, the father of the Kohanim, it must also have been the genetic signature of Aaron’s father, Amram, and that of his father, Kehat, and of his father, Levi. Levi’s father was Jacob who also must have had the CMH as his Y-Chromosome genetic signature, as did his father, Isaac. Thus we arrive at Abraham. Abraham was only seven generations removed from Aaron, a matter of a few hundred years. Genetic signatures change slightly only over many generations. Thus, it is very reasonable to assume that the CMH, the most common haplotype among Jewish males, is therefore also the genetic signature of the Patriarch Abraham.
Of active interest is the fact that Y-chromosomal Noah (mistakenly called Y-chromosomal Adam) should be a few thousand years younger than mitochondrial or matrilineal Eve according to the Genesis flood and creation model. The problem is the clocks don't say that right now. We'll see... Because it is an open question as to how accurate the first tablets were, how well Moses copied, them etc., there is plenty of room for doubt, but that doubt may be reduced by modern genetics. Now, a speculation. Could it be that God made sure those genealogies were written and preserved for 6000 years knowing one day we'd have the ability to confirm it through science? I think so. It seems the enterprise of science has been miraculously gifted to humans, that there is no reason we should have the technology today that we have, that instead we should just be behaving like chimps if the Designer didn't intend for us to have technological advancement. DebianFanatic, that was some awesome commentary. I didn't know that about the tables. I learned something! That totally makes sense! I believe that personally because the Designer is all-wise and all-knowing and knows our days even before we were born.scordova
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
DebianFanatic @71, Thanks for the comment. Moses was a highly educated man, having been trained in all the wisdom of the land of Egypt. It's a sure bet he had access to all their records and could read and speak several languages. In those days, records were kept on either clay tablets or papyrus scrolls. I suspect that there were several scrolls in the beginning and that they eventually became a single book long after Moses' death as the scribes continued to copy the original records.Mapou
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Mapou:
The evidence seems to indicate that Genesis is a compilation of several texts that were badly put together into one book, thus falsely suggesting a continuity that was not there originally. ... [Genesis] does mention another source of information, some ancient chronicle or other.
Since the discovery of thousands of tablets in places like Tel El Amarna since the 70's, the evidence seems to indicate that the book of Genesis is a series of "ancient chronicles" stitched together into a coherent whole. Moses cites his source material; we just haven't recognized those citations until these tablet discoveries showed us how to recognize them. As Welhausen, et al, recognized, Genesis 1 is a separate account from Genesis 2. But rather than being two stories told around the campfire, passed from generation to generation over hundreds of years before being written down, Moses copied down a tablet he had found in his research, and cited it as, "This is the record of the creation of the heavens and earth, concerning their creation, when Yahweh God created them" (Gen 2:4), making sure to identify the God of this creation account with Israel's God, Yahweh. The next tablet he found seems to have been written by Adam himself, covering the events of which Adam would have personal knowledge. Moses gives his citation for this tablet also, actually mentioning that it is a "book": "This is the book of Adam's family" (Gen 5:1). Moses then seems to weave a single story of the Flood out of the stories of the three sons who survived it and who would know the events of these tablets first-hand: "These are the records of Shem, Ham, and Japeth" (Gen 10:1). It makes sense that one son might mention that the animals came on-board by single pairs (Gen 6:19), whereas a different son might add the detail that clean animals came on by seven pairs (Gen 7:2). He cites Shem's family records to establish part of the family tree (Gen 11:10). Moses then cites Terah's family records to establish more of the tree (Gen 11:27). And so on. When Moses gets to the part of Jacob's story where Jacob reunites with his long-lost brother Esau, he then incorporates into his story Esau's records, which were probably exchanged with Jacob during that reunion (Gen 36:1). Having only passing interest in that side of the family, after giving a brief rundown of that side of the tree, Moses then moves back to the Jacob line and continues his story (Gen 37:2). And then Moses (and later editors) wraps us the story that leads up to his own story (Ex 1:1), and begins telling the story he knows in much more detail, that of his birth and life and the Exodus of which he was a central part.DebianFanatic
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Lenosux writes:
Actually, the term “argument from silence” refers to the opposite, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. … Tiktaalik had to come from somewhere .... If it’s compatible with creationism, fine, but evolution gets the points for actually predicting those fossils, the morphology, and the contemporary DNA evidence that complements it. You don’t need a specific parent-species fossil to infer the existence of some sort of parent species, unless you intend to be hyperskeptical no matter how many parent-species (technically, more like uncle-species) fossils keep getting found.
Perhaps I used the wrong terminology, but my point was that what the actual evidence shows is tetrapod fossils, then later in the record, an "ancestral" fishapod form; it does not show an ancestral form followed by an evolved descendant, which is what claim is being made for it. This explanation is consistent with evolutionary theory (in other words, evolutionary theory gets the points for predicting it), but it's not evidence of it. As you yourself say in the quote above, it's an inference. Nothing wrong with making inferences; they just shouldn't be confused with actual evidence. That's all I'm saying.DebianFanatic
February 8, 2014
February
02
Feb
8
08
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
Mapou: Also, the Biblical narrative is somewhat fuzzy and weird. Genesis 10 speaks of different tribes and nations (descendants of Noah) each with a different language (tongue) and then Genesis 11 goes on to say that the whole earth had one language. It makes no sense. The Old Testament is full of contradictions. Anyone who has seriously studied it with an open mind knows it. However, it still may have some value. What do you think?
The evidence seems to indicate that Genesis is a compilation of several texts that were badly put together into one book, thus falsely suggesting a continuity that was not there originally. However, it is one of my favorite books of the Bible. We just don't know how to read it properly. Not yet, anyway. It does mention another source of information, some ancient chronicle or other. Unfortunately, it has never been found. Hopefully, archaeology will come to the rescue some day. I do research in Biblical metaphors and I find certain books fascinating: Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Revelation, etc.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Mapou: Also, the Biblical narrative is somewhat fuzzy and weird. Genesis 10 speaks of different tribes and nations (descendants of Noah) each with a different language (tongue) and then Genesis 11 goes on to say that the whole earth had one language. It makes no sense.
The Old Testament is full of contradictions. Anyone who has seriously studied it with an open mind knows it. However, it still may have some value. What do you think?CentralScrutinizer
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
DebianFanatic:
But it’s important to realize that this is an argument from the silence of the record; there is no evidence that Tiktaalik had evolved earlier as a transitional.
Actually, the term "argument from silence" refers to the opposite, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In this case, an argument from silence is the point being made by Tiktaalik naysayers such as this blog: We see no pre-trackways fossils of fishapods, so why assume there were any then? (This is assuming the trackways were definitely a tetrapod, which might not be the case, but for the sake of argument we can assume it was.) That's not a bad point. Here's my counter... Tiktaalik had to come from somewhere (it had parents and they had parents, right?), and the vast set of related evidence, including fossils of over a dozen other relatives from that time and place, suggests that it had fishapod ancestors, either distant or recent, that gave rise to tetrapods. Otherwise, the placement of those species, both geographically and laterally, would be arbitrarily similar to what we would expect if there had been a fish-to-tetrapod transition. If it's compatible with creationism, fine, but evolution gets the points for actually predicting those fossils, the morphology, and the contemporary DNA evidence that complements it. You don't need a specific parent-species fossil to infer the existence of some sort of parent species, unless you intend to be hyperskeptical no matter how many parent-species (technically, more like uncle-species) fossils keep getting found. Additionally, any fossils we do find would still only be "the closest we've come" to the actual transition that interests us. Right now, the closest we've come (on the tetrapod side) is Tiktaalik. (We never expect to get "all the way there" because it's a tiny needle in a stack, or rather a tree, of millions of needles. And its physical similarity to the other needles means that the needle experts will always debate over the particulars, even while agreeing on the nature of the overall picture, and even on relatively close-up pictures as well.) Meanwhile, referring to Tiktaalik "evolving as a transitional" suggests an incorrect framing of the situation. Species simply evolve; they don't change "as a transitional" or "not as a transitional", although some lines undergo more obvious outward change than do others. Try to remove the species-essentialist goggles that everyone (including me) naturally wears all the time, such that if you can find enough X-type traits on a creature then it is "fully X", otherwise it is "fully Y" or some sort of poor confused "halfway X-Y creature". Tiktaalik was a fully-formed (to use creationist language for a moment) creature in its own right, just like all species are. Its morphology happens to be interest to human paleontologists millions of years later, because it clearly resembles the sort of fossil they had been expecting to find. If tetrapods had never evolved, then (hypothetical non-human) scientists would consider Tiktaalik interesting without being "transitional", rather like how we look at today's flying squirrels, or at the triceratops. As it happens, the combined patterns of extinction and continuation (tetrapods developed and then persisted to this day, while alternative possibilities did not) are such to make Tiktaalik interesting as an intermediate form. Given the current "silence", do you wish to predict that within, say, the next fifty years, no fishpod fossils will be found pre-dating the famous tracks? Should the expected fossil record should go fish, (to-be-discovered) tetrapods, trackways, Tiktaalik -- an out-of-order deal? scordova:
It doesn’t make sense that erosion and accumulation is focused like a laser on select areas of the Grand Canyon for 150 million years.
Why should all places erode equally? I'm not an expert here, but surely erosion is a process entirely dependent on the environment, and environments can be very different from one place to another.
Given the requirement that burial be rapid, I thought to myself, “how is it possible that these strata could have formed so slowly?”
Again, I believe you are conflating fossilization with stratification. Even if the fossilization did always require initial rapid burial, that doesn't mean stratification is rapid. To consider the distinction, just suppose that living things never fossilized, then try defending the proposition, with specific details, that geologic strata were laid down rapidly.
1. C14 2. DNA (which only has 521 year half life) 3. unracemized amino acids 4. published erosion rate would have erased the fossil record in a matter of millions of years.
The first two points, as I understand them, are simply mistaken. I believe it is possible to "carbon-date" something that doesn't actually contain carbon, and to get a wrong answer as a result. And we haven't found "T-rex DNA", that's just sensationalistic science journalism again. As for the third item, I am less familiar with that data, although it should be pointed out that amber fossils, where the unracemized amino acids were found, are known to require millions of years to form. Your fourth item assumes uniformity in erosion for no reason. It's entirely possible (and a bit sad to consider) that millions of years' worth of fossils may have been eroded from some places. That doesn't mean the entire fossil record ought to have disappeared -- Earth isn't a uniform biosphere.
Thanks again for the civil exchange of views.
Thank you likewise. I will say this in favor of creationism -- by some quirk in my personality, there's nothing more than these debates (either reading about or participating in them) that gets me so motivated to learn about this stuff, which is rewarding because this stuff is so awesome.Lenoxus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
scordova:
From my perspective, the whole YEC movement is the work of the devil. It has deception written all over it. There, I said it. Could you accept, OLD EARTH BUT RECENT FLOOD? That’s defensible, and even I could live with that.
No. A worldwide flood occurring just 4000 years ago is not defensible, IMO. Sal, you should not jump into finding scientific evidence to support your beliefs. You should first question the basis of your belief in a global flood. I personally believe there was indeed a flood but all indications is that it was a local flood. Looking at the scriptures, I see no reason to believe there was a global flood. Also, the Biblical narrative is somewhat fuzzy and weird. Genesis 10 speaks of different tribes and nations (descendants of Noah) each with a different language (tongue) and then Genesis 11 goes on to say that the whole earth had one language. It makes no sense. I strongly suspect that we are missing something very important in the narrative or that the ancient texts became somehow contaminated or incomplete.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
From my perspective, the whole YEC movement is the work of the devil. It has deception written all over it. There, I said it.
Could you accept, OLD EARTH BUT RECENT FLOOD? That's defensible, and even I could live with that.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
When it comes to your idea, there is no reason to think that what paleontologists consider the major eras were actually represented by living creatures all at once, with spatial rather than temporal separation. For one thing, it would require one of the following: that either the entire world was collectively zoned-up like this (with, say, the precambrian life existing in Eastern Americas, the Cambrian to the East of that, and so on until you hit the Cenozoic environment in the Western Americas)… or that the same exact series of eco-zones were, for some reason, represented in the same order several times over, in different parts of the world. And in either case, you also have to argue that the flood always turned the zones sideways in the same direction.
I appreciate the criticism here. I always welcome such reasoned objections which is far better than the sophistry I'm accustomed to in these discussions. Thank you. You raise credible points worth considering, that we, obviously can't settle in the space of this discussion. If I may point out, even if there are difficulties with the suggestion of eco-zones and modest hydrologic sorting, the problem of: 1. missing layers 2. out of order layers 3. horizontal layers is clearly in evidence. Missing layers would seem to argue for fast erosion and/or eco zones. This is not explainable for hardened lithified layers, but explainable if we invoke somewhat pliable unlithified layers that are like unsolidified cement which can more easily be washed away, and also the eco-zone can also help explain missing layers.
One of the most dramatic of these so called erosional breaks in the Grand Canyon strata is that between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone beneath (see Figure 1). The Redwall Limestone is assigned by evolutionary geologists to the so-called Mississippian Period (or the Lower Carboniferous to Europeans and Australians), said to have been 310-355 million years ago,3 whereas the Muav Limestone is said to belong to the so-called Cambrian Period, believed to be 510-570 million years ago.4 That means that where the Redwall Limestone rests directly on top of the Muav Limestone there is said to be a time gap of at least 155 million years during which the land surface was supposed to have been exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion.
:shock:
there is one place in the Canyon where diligent search has failed to find any evidence of erosion between the Redwall and Muav Limestones. The supposed 155 million years of geological time is not only ‘missing’, but appears to have never existed! The site is found on the North Kaibab Trail, which starts at Phantom Range on the Colorado River and climbs northward up to the North Rim of the Canyon. The trail crosses the boundary between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone, the spot being signposted by the National Park Service. The sign reads:
An Unconformity ‘Rocks of Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian age.’
That geological "layers" can be shuffled around like legos or decks of cards isn't reassuring to the notion the Earth's history was fundamentally stable enough to maintain such a record in the first place over millions of years. If the Earth was behaving this way for so long, why does the Cambrian look so well preserved? It doesn't make sense that erosion and accumulation is focused like a laser on select areas of the Grand Canyon for 150 million years. The special pleading for this would seem to warrant responsible science if not saying, the record is young or old, should say, "the age of the fossil record is inconclusive and requires more investigation". I say that because fossils themselves evidence youth: 1. C14 2. DNA (which only has 521 year half life) 3. unracemized amino acids 4. published erosion rate would have erased the fossil record in a matter of millions of years. When Nye asked how is it possible that these strata formed so quickly, I thought, given the requirement that burial be rapid, I thought to myself, "how is it possible that these strata could have formed so slowly?" There is an incongruity; 1. C14 says the fossils are young 2. K/Ar dating says the rocks the fossils are in are old It is possible a fossil can be young but the rocks they are buried in are old. I have some info on K/Ar that I intend to provide in the other discussion: Nye-Ham and how Darwinism poisons. It will take a while to provide some of the K/Ar dating stuff. Thanks again for the civil exchange of views.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
So as I understand it, Tiktaalik is interpreted as a transitional fossil between X and Y, even though Y shows up in the record before Tiktaalik does. The explanation is that Tiktaalik evolved earlier, but just didn't show up in the fossil record until later. Okay, I get that. But it's important to realize that this is an argument from the silence of the record; there is no evidence that Tiktaalik had evolved earlier as a transitional. In other words, the claim is based on conjecture, not on evidence. It's a plausible-sounding story, but stories do not evidence make, and should not be presented as the final word.DebianFanatic
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply