Even if Ken Ham may have fumbled on presentation, the facts may show him possibly closer to the truth on some matters. Rather than focus on the immense claims that are part of most YEC models (young universe, young stars, young planets, intelligent design of life, Noah’s flood, the tower of babel, created kinds, etc.), let me focus on the question of lab and field reporting in historical geology and paleontology, and something Nye said would change his mind. He said something to the effect:
Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers
He suggested if we found such things he might change his mind. The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!
It is true that the fossils tend to cluster in certain ways, but let me point out, even in ecosystems present today, limited sets of species tend to cluster around certain geographic areas. Some have argued that the clustering of fossils to particular “layers” (banks or strata is the better term) is due partly to eco-systems. This is sensible, and an occasional exception to a general pattern is what might be expected in the actual physical record versus the imaginary one.
So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!
Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.
“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”8
Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9
So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras.
This would then admit the possibility at least some (not all) “old” fossils are actually young. Note, this doesn’t not necessarily refute the claim of long ages, it may only demonstrate we are hasty in our conclusions. But to say, “we possibly made a mistake, we possibly don’t know the real age” is heresy in the world of Darwin. Further:
Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.
Nye also asked how layers could be formed so quickly.
The following video explains why even in principle layers are unlikely to form slowly! Watch the actual lab demonstrations of fast stratification and the vizualizations. You can even see one lab experiment where layers are formed in a matter of minutes 😉 It crushes Nye’s claims about Grand Canyon formation.
In the video Dr. Julien uses the following impressive analysis using a simple physics equation
E = 7/10 m V^2
to explain sedimentary particle segregation. But you don’t need to understand the equation, you just need to watch the video. IMPRESSIVE! Physics crushes Darwinism. 😎
embedded by Embedded Video
YouTube Direkt
HT: JGuy
There you have it. Real but taboo empirical and theoretical science that you won’t get in school. Why? Evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field, and theory. Falsehoods are perpetuated, and truth is rarely known.
NOTES
1. Picking out only certain fossils and throwing out others in a dig site is cherry picking. This is yet another area of cherry picking in addition to one I reported on at UD earlier:
The Price of Cherry Picking for Addicted Gamblers and Believers in Darwinism
2. HT JGuy
3. See previous articles at UD that support what I laid out above:
DNA half life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?
C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous era dates 300 million years ago
Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner
Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition
Astrophysics vs. Darwinists Paleontology
Collagen in Dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false
Falsifying Darwinism by Falsifying the Geological Column
4. CMI lists Bill Nye’s other “science lies” (Note, I’m not saying Bill is really lying, just mistaken, but “lie” rhymes with Nye:)
http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate
He said that in Kentucky, the Creation Museum stands on many layers of limestone with coral fossils. He claimed there would not be enough time in a creationist timeframe for these creatures to grow, die, and then be fossilized. However, creationist marine biologist Dr Robert Carter has addressed the existence of fossil corals.
The next argument was that there are ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle. Again, he claimed that this disproves a creationist timeframe. However, creationists have also answered this, see Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition.
He also claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. However, dendrochronology is not an exact science; see plant biologist Dr Don Batten’s article on dendrochronology. Nye specifically mentioned bristlecone pines, but there is evidence that they may have more than one growth ring per year as argued at Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines.
His next challenge related to geology. He asked, if the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere? But as flood geologists have demonstrated, the Flood would have involved a number of different mechanisms at various stages as the waters drained off the continents. In fact, many erosional features are best explained by a global flood. There is a vast body of creation information in this area; we would send interested readers to our Geology Q&A page.
Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.
Photos by Ian Juby
Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree trunks.Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.
Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.
Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. Those 14,000 animals only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and that Tiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?
Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?
Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, but that God has intervened at various times in events that cannot be explained by uniformitarianism.
Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.
Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.
Nye appealed to distant starlight, but see How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?
I am no Christian and as far as I know I am unbiased on this subject. All this evidence for a young earth is very interesting and compelling.
Or you could say it rhymed with ‘guy’ in the expression:
‘Bill Nye the science guy’.
More on topic:
I wonder what extant mammal forms are found in dino-strata. Let’s say, a beaver of with same as extant morphology is found. How would this be different than finding a human in terms of falsifying Darwin’s theory? It would be a modern mammal… nuff said?
Mulling new thought: Not sure what to do with this thought without further knowledge of “oldest” strata. But pre-cambrain and cambrian are filled with oceanic life fossils. i.e. only things we might find at the bottoms of oceans. I find it curious that these are only oceanic. I understand the explanation is that it’s the earliest life forms, and that it supposedly evolved from the ocean. But regarding the strata… Was any of the precambrian or cambrian EVER above the ocean before subsequent layers? If not… then this is clear evidence that you would NOT expect any land forms in that strata… thus, asking to find a rabbit in strata that was always only under the ocean is silly… BUT…if parts of that strata were above the ocean, then we should not expect strata above that strata to contain ocean life-form fossils… well, unless you want to postulate that the continents are bobbing up and down in the ocean.
So, it sounds like the one creationist notion that strata may represent ecological zones would then make more sense of why there is only aquatic life in the pre-cambrain and cambrian…and progressively more terrestrial lifeforms in “younger” strata.
In the Q&A session, they were both awed this question: “What, if anything, would change your mind?”
Ken confidently stated that the Bible is the Word of God, and so nothing would make him change his mind. In the wake of the debate, pundits jumped on that statement as much as anything Ham declared. Ken encouraged people to use their critical-thinking ability to check out what the Bible says and how its claims hold up for themselves.
But Nye, wanting to come across as open minded and truly seeking the truth, surprisingly said this: “I would just need one piece of evidence”. But this is surely not true! In reality, Nye is not interested in evidence that will disprove evolutionary ideas as Sal showed so clearly above.
Evolutionists want people to think they are open minded and unbiased. This may be true when dealing in experimental or operational science, but not when it comes to historical science.
By the way, from the AiG website:
Box @ 1
If you would like to read some more compelling evidence. I can make some suggestions… depending on how technical you want to get.
Someone recommended Ian Juby’s series the other day. That would be a good start if you like videos. I’ve seen all of them, and it has some good info across the board of evidences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....2CBE4FDC4D
But if you want just a single technical bit of evidence that can single-handedly upset the entire old earth apple cart. Here’s a starter:
Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
http://creation.com/helium-evi.....nd-critics
The Helium diffusion link shows a demonstrated YEC prediction that was proven to a high degree over old earth model prediction by an order of 100,000 This would have been one of several examples Ken Ham could have used to counter Bill Nye’s request for a YEC prediction.
If you want any other links. Feel free to ask me. OR go digging into any of these:
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-the-earth
As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Comparing diffusivity data to Young Earth prediction and Old Earth predictions:
http://creation.com/images/fee.....g3-lge.gif
Tjguy
Feb 05 – 5:56 pm
Box, I agree with Jguy as far as one good piece of evidence, but here is an article entitled “101 Evidences for a young earth”. Might be of interest. Evolutionists claim these are all creationist lies, can they prove or even test their just so stories they have concocted to try and explain these away?
Neither Creationists, IDers, or anyone else has all the answers. I doubt we ever will because we are dealing with history here. So while unsolved questions remain for all, I believe there is enough evidence to consider the idea of a young earth and universe.
Remember, for evolutionists, this issue is foundational to their whole theory and belief system. Without deep time, they are stuck with God! This just might cause a tiny bit of bias when looking at and interpreting the facts.
http://creation.mobi/age-of-the-earth
JGuy,
Yes, and wouldn’t that be a hoot. Birds and terrestrials are on the “more recent” strata, but deep see creatures on the “earliest”.
It would be funny to see if land plants appear after the Cambrian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._evolution
Funny! Why did land plants appear with land animals. Surely the land plants should have preceded them. Hahaha!
a speculation….
One would expect sea creatures with ability to live in a wide range of depths to occupy many strata. This is definitely the case for a few “living” fosils:
Examples I found
and nautilus
and
and
The problem is assuming there was a catastrophic world wide flood and that perhaps insane depths of water exist which did not before, some of this speculation will be impossible to test.
But some other observations. A curious data point that may or may not have relevance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-sea_gigantism
Curious that these creature or similar one are seen almost as far back as life:
And some observations from the Discovery Institute which I don’t know has any relevance:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....70391.html
We might even see that deeper creatures (the supposed Cambrian) were larger because of deep sea gigantism. Pure speculation of course, but if so it may explain this:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/t.....lopoda.php
Look at this:
http://wilandeva3.tripod.com/111591-R1-02-0.jpg
Sal
Have you ever seen this very intriguing observation: http://www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm
Sean Pitman included it in one of his pages here:
http://detectingdesign.com/fos.....le_Complex
Excerpt from Pitman’s detectingdesign.com:
________________________________
“There are so many other features of the geologic column and fossil record that seem just as difficult, if not more so, for the notion that very long periods of time are represented. For example, it seems that many land animals, excluding birds and mammals, do not generally have their footprints located in the same layer in which their bodies are found, but in lower layers.56 Did the footprints evolve before they did? The footprints of dinosaurs, for example, are generally located in lower levels than the actual fossilized bones of the dinosaurs.1,56,82 Why would this be? What is there to explain this apparent sorting of body from footprint fossils? Leonard Brand and James Florence comment on this most interesting phenomenon:
If the geologic column represents sediments that have accumulated over many millions of years, and the fossils from each geologic period are the remains of animals living in successive time periods, it would be reasonable to expect that the stratigraphic patterns of footprint diversity should roughly parallel the patterns of equivalent body fossil diversity.56”
________________________________
Wow! JGuy. Haha! Yeah, bill Nye asked why didn’t these guys swim (or should I say run) up to higher altitudes during a flood. Well, apparently they did. HAHAHA!
And I found this on a website of a gentlemen I met at ICC 2013. He’s used Accelerator Mass Spectrometers (AMS) on several fossils. His observations:
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm
Darwinist Paloeontology lives by radiometric dating, it dies by it to. Poetic justice.
Sal @ 7
On plants. Yeah, a happy coincidence that plants popped out along with land creatures.
And an interesting idea with a possible prediction based on the sea creatures that can survive at various depths. I bet Dr Carl Werner would have somethign to say about that.
p.s. Post debate discussion just started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IUHWp8XBpo#t=31
Btw,
It would seem the whole water issue has something to say about supposedly “living fossils” that are aquatic.
My testable prediction is that distribution of shark fossils or other aquatic “living fossils” will be strangely lower or completely absent in the Cenezoic era.
One thing we do know for sure is the coelacanth was supposedly extinct for the last 65 million years (that is none found in the Cenezoic) and then it suddenly pops up alive! That means there is an absence of coelacanths in the Cenezoic.
Any paleontologists willing to investigate the question of absence of aquatic “living fossils” in the Cenezoic and possibly risk their career publishing such findings. Hehehe…
Just a speculation, a brainstorm.
refining my brainstorm look at the supposed extinction of sharks that occurred at the Permian:
Shark Evolution
And lookie here about the Permian Extinction!
Wait a minute! If we however assume the strata don’t represent age but rather eco systems (like water vs. land), or just plain hydrologically sorted strata, then this makes sense the marine creatures will suddenly go dead, even populations of “living fossils”. Ha!
There were not many, if any shark fossils in the Cenezoic, only teeth.
It is hard to say what is really happening. There is the possibility of multiple flood events. YECs are in disagreement about this. At ICC 2013 a respected YEC geologist (Whitmore I believe) talked about wasting processes after the flood.
The complication in all this is the long-term radiometric dating that seems at variance with short term dating methods (C-14, helium diffusion, other clocks).
Anyway, just speculations. If I’m wrong on these side show speculations, not biggie.
UD as cloud storage 😛 ….
Just a note for later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Ecology
“Ecology[edit]
During the daytime, coelacanths rest in caves anywhere from 100 to 500 meters deep while others migrate to deeper waters.[2][3] By resting in cooler waters (below 120 meters) during the daytime, coelacanths reduce metabolic costs. By drifting toward reefs and feeding at night, they save vital energy.[26] Staying in caves during the day also saves energy because they do not have to waste energy fighting the currents.[27]”
Related. You might like this if you haven’t been exposed to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlxqsUO42Ek#t=0
Dr Werner shows how ancient fossils are [systematically?] named differently than their modern representations. This makes it so that if you ask if a modern creature fossil was found in ancient strata, evolutionists can say that not a one has been. Howso? e.g. That’s not a modern conch shell, it’s a [insert fancy latin name of what is found in that strata here notwithstanding that the fossil looks like the modern counterpart].
Sal. A better more detailed video with Dr. Werner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6LmWznY4Ys
Look what I found regarding the “living fossil” horseshoe crab. It agrees with my prediction that such aquatic “living fossils” will be under represented in the “eras” associated with land creatures (“later” in the geological column). Refer to the diagram geological column to see that observation agrees with Sal’s speculation. hehehe.
http://link.springer.com/chapt.....-89959-6_2
They then offer their speculation for the lack of such fossils in those eras to some sort of chemical/mineral explanation related to those eras. But that’s because they aren’t privy to my new theory which I just made up today and published for the first time at UD.
But so far so good for my theory! Isn’t science wonderful.
regarding the “living fossil” sturgeon, look at the fossil distribution relative to the geological time. I predicted an absence of such fossils in the Cenezoic which includes the Eocene and Oligocene eras (56 million to 23 million years ago). Sure enough, observation agrees with experiment, and Sal’s day old theory is batting 100, 4 for 4!
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/.....lCode=pleo
Wow. I’m doing even better than Darwin with respect to having observations agree with my predictions!
“living fossil” hagfish:
So let’s get this straight. Hagfishes are alive today, they appear only in the fossil record in the Carboniferous era (360 to 298 million years ago), and then are absent there after (including the Cenezoic). Oh my, I’m 5 for 5 in my theory! Better than Darwin’s predictions of the fossil record!
I’d like to have a reliable comprehensive overview of the continental surface as divided by strata. My guess will be that where the “youngest” strata are on the surface – i.e. strata with primates – you will not find strata WITH fossils older fossils directly underneath that region of strata. This isn’t a guarantee, but my guess is that would be the rule. Especially, where the surface is far from any surface border with “old” exposed strata – i.e. strata with only marine fossils – is at/near the surface.
..that’s just a bit more unrefined mulling.
So, a challenge for Dawkins et.al. Akin to looking for a rabbit in the cambrian (the ocean). Find a hagfish with a chimp or dog in the middle or later part of the cenozoic… and you will possibly refute the ecological flood model.
I suppose, the only problem with that is if hagfish live in shallow waters. Then you might find them with primates that got flooded out…maybe.
This image looks interesting in light of a flood:
http://www.prehistoricplanet.c.....ctime1.jpg
haha.. nothing in paleontology makes sense except in the light of a flood.
It’s a hostile take-over of the evolutionary quote repertoire!
And now the aquatic “living fossil” Nautilus. 🙂
This report
http://link.springer.com/chapt.....7_5#page-2
says they are missing from : Miocene, Pliocenene, and Pleistocene which is, TADA — the later part of the Cenezoic!
Now the Nautilus appears as far back as the Cambrian (500 million years ago), and then we see fossils all the way up to the early part of the Cenezoic (40 million years ago), and then they VANISH from the fossil record only to appear alive today, just like the Coelacanth.
So, I’m 7/7 add the Coelacanth, I’m 8/8!
In fact, the estimate that they are traced to the middle of the cenezoic might not even involve fossils but (puke) phylogenetic methods and molecular clocks.
If all animal types were created in six 24-hour days, 6000 years ago, how come there are no elephants in the Cambrian layers? You guys are joking, right?
Young-earth creationism, as insane as ever. Get a grip! Do you guys EVER google anything to find out if there might be some prosaic answer short of SCIENTISTS IZ STOOPID WE KNOW BETER?
Hint #1: “living fossils” are rarely, if ever, identical to their fossil counterparts. Usually all that’s meant is the living group has only a few living species, and no other close living relatives, such that the closest known relatives to the living group are ancient fossils. Look at fossil coelocanths, platypi, ginkgos, etc. Are the fossils identical to the living ones? No!
Hint #2: Mammals with dinosaurs: we’ve known that mammals were a group with deep roots for probably a hundred years or more! Mammal-like reptiles from the Paleozoic were being described back in the 1930s, for goodness sake! The mammals in the Mesozoic are small and primitive. Just because you read on the back of a cereal box when you were six years old about how the “Age of Mammals” came after the “Age of Dinosaurs” doesn’t mean that excited, naive and lazy yapping about mammal fossils mixed with dinosaurs in Mesozoic means anything at all. You’re just parading your ignorance before us!
You guys are acting no better than the bigfoot people or the Moon-Hoax people. No wonder even many of the ID people try to sweep their young-earth creationist supporters under the rug.
Also, try spellcheck.
The geological time scales may be an illusion as confirmed by alternate radiometric (C14) and helium diffusion dating.
It is becoming apparent the “strata” are tied to their ecosystem with water vs. land being the most severe divergence. That’s why you won’t find elephants in the Cambrian, but then you find aquatic “living fossils” 300 million years ago, and then the “living fossils” are strangely absent from about 65 million years ago to now in the fossil record even though they are alive today.
The Cambrian represents sea creatures that lived recently! How do we infer this? C-14 in the Cambrian!
No, we’re not joking. Did you even bother to watch the video provided. There was almost nothing about theology, just hard nosed operational science and physics. The simple equation provided explains the fast stratification!
My analysis bears this out. That’s exactly why paleontologists thought the coelacanth was extinct because it was absent from the recent fossil record, existing in the old fossil record, but alive today. There is a huge gap of non-existence unless one wants to argue the coelacanth magically evolved twice from scratch. 😉
Similar considerations apply to the other “living fossils” I listed. They are strangely absent from the Cenezoic, because the Cenezoic doesn’t actually represent an era, it represents an eco system!
Finally, there really isn’t a column. They de-emphasize that word because you don’t just dig in an area and find them following the order of the diagram above. That diagram doesn’t exist physically (an interesting controversy about that) it only exists in textbooks. We don’t dig into the ground and see these layers in exact succession, maybe only a few fragments here and there and sometimes they are side by side or inverted. And 99% of the fossil record will not have the entire column intact, which would mean the whole concept of succession due to age is fallacious.
Further, the video using that simple physics equation demonstrates a far more believable mechanism, and it leads also to testable hypotheses about the sedimentary particles in terms of mass and size, etc. relative to the layers.
Finally, I described here why the fossil record has to form quickly and can’t form slowly even in principle:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....al-column/
You are invited to open your eyes to true rebel science as I’ve laid out here.
scordova @26,
Well, show me a dolphin or a penguin or a manatee in the Cambrian, then.
Dude, this is not rebel science. Young earth creationism is the work of the devil, pure and simple. It’s a mountain of bovine excrement designed to make Christians look stupid. To tell you the truth, as a Christian, it pisses me off.
Well, well, look who showed up. Rather than try to refute the obvious physics in particle segregation, Nick makes circular appeals to the very thesis his is trying to prove.
No because they evolve according to the creationist Orchard model as Blyth predicted — a prediction that Darwin plagiarized and distorted from an orchard model to a single tree and miserably failed in scientific terms but succeeded in captivating minds willing to be blind to obvious difficulties.
Creationists are especially interested in rapid evolution within individual trees in the orchard. I provided one powerful example where “species” today were mated with creatures they supposedly diverged from millions of years ago, which means they are of the same kind!
See:
De-origination of species by means of reunion.
It illustrates incredibly fast evolutionary change that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution! It shows that Darwinism fails to be the mechanism of such rapid evolutionary change within a kind.
It is very embarrassing that, we have “living fossil” that change by similar degrees but not demonstrably to other kinds. As you yourself said:
True. But you’ll never admit the real reason why. The real reason is Darwin’s tree of life is an illusion, whereas the Orchard model of Blyth is the reality! Creationist blyth was also the pioneer of the idea of Natural Selection and Adpative Radiation, not Darwin.
Was Blyth the True Scientist and Darwin Merely a Plagiarist?
So there you have it Nick, creationists have better models of real evolution than Darwinists. Blyth wins Darwin loses.
And the evolutionary change creationist predict is actually faster than what Darwinism predicts. Creationists need rapid evolution to make Noah’s ark account work from a small number of kinds to the diversity we have today.
Strange that evolutionist are incredibly disinterested in hybridization experiments (which show rapid evolution within kinds), but creationists are. Why is that Nick?
They don’t like looking at how evolution really works: rapid evolution within kinds vs. slow geological evolution across kinds.
I never said they were identical Nick, that is your straw man representation of an argument I never made. The same sort of straw man argument where Darwin accused creationists of saying species are unchangeable when he full well knew (because he plagiarized Blyth) that they didn’t claim it. Some have found it hard to explain Darwin would do this because it would imply he was lying, and he couldn’t be doing that could he? 😉
I provided more details giving evidence that creationists did not argue for the “immutability” of species except that certain characters must be retained. Darwin tried to prove his case by the variability of finches, but that was nothing new! It was evidence to knockdown arguments creationists didn’t make. see:
De-origination of species by means of reunion
PS
and
“it leads also to testable hypotheses about the sedimentary particles in terms of mass and size, etc. relative to the layers.”
That video doesn’t look very recent. Wonder why no YEC has done the analysis and written it up.
Tjguy @6:
In interest of fairness, here’s an evolutionist “refutation” of the article you linked: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/F.....e_universe
If anything it shows how much substance they have to back up their claims. Zero that is. A completely idiotic refutation IMO.
sixthbook
Indeed. And from the start with item #1…
Young Earth claim:
[DNA in “ancient” fossilsimg. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.]
RationalWiki “Refutation” in toto:
[We can do 18,000 to 30,000 years reliably,[3][4] and up to a million at a stretch.[5]
Notice that this is the very first point, and he’s already saying stuff that’s arguments against his 6,000-year timeframe.]
“Wow”… compelling comprehensive refutation. 😛
Sal
Jonathan Safati laid out the history and a clear refutation of that misrepresentation in his book “The Greatest Hoax On Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution”.
Safarti describes that this starts with the Latin Vulgate translation of the Hebrew word min (English kind) into the Latin species and genere.
Linnaeus used the Latin terms in his classification. Over time, equivocation occurred and the biblical fixity of kinds, was confused with Linnaeus species… and this became a type of strawman as the equivocating misrepresented the fixed bible kinds with fixity of [modern] species. An easy target for Darwin’s work as Safarti explained.
Nick @ 25
Misrepresentation as Sal pointed out.
I was aware of this. If you look up the sources above, it’s not just about mammals in the sources, it’s about both the common perception and the kinds of mammals found.
Example:
Many still think that mammals and dinosaurs, for example, never coexisted, or if they did it was only for a short period when only small shrew-like mammals were present.
However, the facts show otherwise. Gradually, more and more evidence is being discovered that is consistent with what we know from the Bible, namely that dinosaurs and other creatures all lived and died at the same time.
To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3 beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!
I would have guessed bigfoot people were evolutionists. Afterall, what would a bigfoot be if a bigfoot existed? 😉
I’m pretty sure you meant spell-check…. but whose counting. 😛
This is an excellent article by Dr. Sean Pittman:
http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column
So fossils are used to date layers, but how do we date the fossils? By the layers. Circular reasoning
The circular reasoning is demolished by radiometric C14 dating and other dating methods.
So how do we explain the apparent succession from Cambrian to the present? It’s because likely the only place all the younger layers are on top of the older layers is in the imaginations of geologists, not in physical locations.
If this is so, this is really bad! This suggest the possibility that as I suggested above, the eras really represent eco-system locations. The Cambrian represents eco systems in the water that were recent, not some layer that got buried 500,000,000 years ago. This is shown to be the case because of C14 in the fossils of the Cambrian. What did I say, if paleontology lives by radiometric dating, it dies by it too!
If the Cambrian represents sea eco systems, there is no surprise there are no rabbits there! Curiously, if the many of the latter “eras” are not really eras at all but represent land eco-systems, we should see a scarcity of certain sea creatures in those eras, and in fact as I showed in the comments above, this is the case!
Hasn’t anybody bothered to look whether there could be an extreme lack of fully body fossils of sea creatures fossils in the Cenezoic, and an over representation of land creatures? What do I mean, count the number of fish in the sea and then animals on land right now. Make an estimate. Is that the ratio you find in the Cenezoic? What, no one has done this work. For shame!
As JGUY pointed out there is something ideological and not quite disingenuous:
and
Get a load of this:
So what was that Bill Nye was saying about out of place fossils. TONS of them!
The problem is if there is all this sort of scrambling going on, why are the layers like the Cambrian (500 million years ago) still intact and recognizable! Doesn’t make sense.
Well, no wonder there are not official out of place fossils. The official record is sanitized. The embarrassments are erased.
WHOA! Sal’s hypothesis confirmed by independent observation.
Perhaps this is because fossils group in terms of eco systems, not long ages of layers depositing on top of each other?
99% of the Earth does have the entire fossil record represented. Some have suggested 1% of the Earth may have all the fossils represented but this is dubious so it could be that 100% of the Earth has NO place the entire fossil record is represented, and so this casts doubt that the geological ages for the time life was on Earth is even valid to begin with!
Pitmann goes into great detail to refute the remaining 1% of regions where it is claimed young fossils are on top of old fossils all sorted correctly in one column in one place like the diagram above. I simply direct the reader to the link for that.
http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column
If Pitman is correct, then all the layers can be said to generally represent eco system locations, not actual eras. This is reinforced by the fact C14 dates all the “eras” to be the same age.
And another testable prediction, if we find DNA and proteins we can test in the lab from the Cambrian, then these will date the Cambrian era to a nearby time. Recall, I provided a link in the OP to the fact DNA has a half-life of 521 years. No one has tried to look for DNA in these fossils because Darwinism has poisoned science in the lab, field, and theory. But if we find DNA in these creatures that should be the creatures DNA and not some contaminant, then the fossils are young.
From Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”:
Number of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, excluding birds 178
Number of living families of terrestrial vertebrates found as fossils, excluding birds. 156
Percentage of terrestrial vertebrate families fossilized:
87.8%
Only Genus and Species remain in the resolution of animal classification…. Assuming all things are equal. We can with simple math extrapolate this level of preservation to what is the current resolution of species collected:
(87.8% of families) * (87.8% of genus) * (87.8% of species) = 67.7% of all past species are represented by collected fossils.
Given that high degree of preservation from collected specimens, there should be no apparent gaps in the collected fossil record. But…there exist gaps…. major gaps.
What more needs to be said?
p.s. One must ask. If the record is collected to that high a degree of resolution (completeness) of past life. Then why is it that it looks so much like life we see walking around today? You’d expect that anytime a new fossil is found, with the numerous intermediates that evolution would require, that you’d find a new species at every fossil dig site… but… things sure look stasiseee (deliberate mispelling).
That’s generally true anyway since as pitman observers:
And it is really bad that we have entire STRATA in the wrong order. We call such things “overthrusts”.
But what is required for an overthrust to happen? We need to start out with a “young” layer horizontally beside an “old” layer (which would seem a serious contradiction to the notion of younger on top and older on the bottom) and then the “older” layer gets pushed up on top of the “younger”.
Think about the difficulty of getting an “older” layer to be horizontal to a “younger” layer in the first place, and then some mechanism pushes the entire “old” layer of the “young” layer.
Example cited above :
Er, Bill Nye, were not talking one fossil, how about a set of mountains of rocks and fossils!
😯
Err, Bill Nye not a pre-Cambrian rabbit but 21 miles of fossils in the wrong order!
😯
and now regarding the big daddy, Heart Mountain,
Must have been a sight to see, an entire mountain moving at about 60 miles an hour! And that is the mainstream account, that is not a YEC account. Michael Oard suggests a YEC alternative to the mainstream account, but both YEC and the mainstream suggest something incredible.
But for the sake of this discussion the issue is how could supposedly differently aged layers lie horizontal to each other in the first place. That sort of violates the law of non-contradiction where the Younger layer must sit on top of the older layer! Instead, as Pitman points out:
Uh, you have Paleozoic (which contains the Cambrian) sitting on top of the Jurassic (dinosaurs) sitting on top of the Tertiary (just before mammal) sitting on top of the Palezoic (again!)
😯 😯
Now let us reconsider that the different strata aren’t eras but ecological zones, thus they lie naturally horizontal to each other to begin with! They fossilize perhaps at the same time due to the same catastrophe. Then sometime later such a strata can be overthrusted.
In addition to that we have may some modest stratification due to the mechanisms in the video above. We may not know all the details, but it seems we have something workable.
I pointed out here:
Falsifying Darwinism via Falsifying the Geological Column
that the entombment which causes permineralized fossilization cannot happen slowly, it must happen as a matter of principle with water and preferably in a matter of hours.
Say we have a geological layer that is 100 meters high that took 2.17 million years to form by slow accumulation of sediments:
Indeed, as matter of principle, the fossils must have become buried with water quickly!
What happens is we have several ecological zones perhaps lying horizontal to each other much like the present day, and they get overwhelmed with water and buried rapidly. Then sometime later, after they fossilized, then stuff like Heart mountain overthrust can happen. It’s more sensible as a matter of principle for the reasons stated.
Given the “strata” (a misnomer) are laid out mostly horizontal anyway, it seems to accord with ecological zone, not eras.
Imagine the heat generated from a massive over thrust for so many miles. Depending on when it supposedly occurred, would one then expect to find residual heat… if not molten rock at the junction?
p.s. Just to be more sure on conditions ripe for frictional heat. If the thing being over thrusted wasn’t in rock form, it would have curled up.. mixed.. So, if there is no mixing, which is apparently the case, then accompanying the over-thrust explanation, you need to expect heat generation from rock on rock friction. Heat would dissipate extremely slowly in rock..so.. how long ago were these supposed over-thrusts? And is there evidence of a melt?
Just asking some relatively obvious questions.
Nick,
‘Platypi’? It’s not a Latin word so it’s plural wouldn’t be this awful utterance.
Platypodes if you want the Greek, but colloquially it’s either platypuses or platypus.
JGuy,
First off, YECs have competing theories.
1. At first they didn’t accept over thrusts, that the clustering of creatures in strata was illusory. That overthrust were evidence against clustering in the first place!
2. Later on, the weight of the evidence seemed too great to ignore that like animals tended to cluster in the same localities (no surprise) and in the same strata (no surprise either under the eco-zone hypothesis). So then then notion of overthrusts became plausible.
The problem for the mainstream is either of the above to scenarios is bad for the claim that the strata represent ages. The mainstream generally accepts overthrust as real, but then this violates non-contradiction because it assumes layers of different ages must be horizontal with each other violating the original assumption they must be vertical with youngest on top!
OK back to your question. Yes, the mainstream and the current generation of YEC accept that heart mountain moved about 60 miles an hour for 30 minutes. In fact, I met a physical geologist at from secular school at the Creation Geology Conference 2 years ago by the name of T Cleary.
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Faults.pdf
He argued some reports said the mountain could have moved 150km/hr or 93 miles/hr 😯 Too bad we didn’t have a video tape! He argues it happened toward the late stage of the flood. The key point is the mountain was still not completely solid (unlithified), it was still kinda like wet concrete. Cleary was able to infer the best answer to the structure was that the mountain had to be sort of still like not-compeletely-hardened, and if so this is evidence of the mountain being the result of events after a great flood.
That said, back to your observation, I don’t know anything about the heating. Sorry.
But man, talk about WOW catastrophes with entire moutains moving 93 miles an hour. So much for uniformitarianism and Darwin’s buddy Lyell the supposed father of modern geology and uniformitarianism.
Sixth book,Yes I know they have “answers” for these, but I think many are simply theory saving just so stories. I think I have seen a rebuttal on Talk origins as well. Maybe it is the same one. There may be some valid points in the article but I don’t think that they haven’t sufficiently dealt with these many evidences, preferring to simply chalk them up as anomalies that don’t effect what they “know” to be true. Thanks for the link.
I’m quite curious. What did you guys make of Mr. Nye’s comment on the rate of discovery for new species?
Nick Matzke:
Umm there is more evidence for bigfoot than there is for natural selection being a designer mimic.
And Nick, your position can’t explain dinosaurs and mammals. Perhaps you should stop making fun of other people and actually try to support evolutionism.
First, let me describe the two competing models to explain the patterns of diversity:
1. Darwin’s single tree of life of Universal Common Ancestry
2. Creationist Blyth’s Orchard of Trees of Created Kinds
In this case, a tree is not a physical tree but a conceptual one. A tree in Blyth’s Orchard corresponds to a created Kind (Baramin) in the book of Genesis. How we establish Kinds will be explained below.
Like real trees, a single Baramin “Tree” can lose and grow more branches all the time. We see this in Lenski’s bacterial experiments with incredible number of new branches over 30,000 generations from his original e-coli sample. We see new branches of the influenza Kind emerge every year. In antibiotic resistance we see new branches of a bacterial kind evolve new branches all the time. Behe’s edge of evolution describes new branches of Malaria kinds evolving over the past century and developing resistance to anti-malarial medicines.
So if we then are counting branches, we can easily report far more than 11 every day! And the Darwinists notion of species is so incoherent that we can argue almost one way or the other that then number of species is either increasing or decreasing by huge amounts.
Ask a Darwinist how many species are emerging by the process of natural selection each day. They’ll say, “don’t know.” Then ask them, are the numbers of species declining rapidly in the present day, they’ll say, “absolutely”. So I’ll say, then by all counts the number of extinctions is exceeding new speciations, so it would seem that based on our best observation, the real trend in the biosphere, REAL EVOLUITION is decline of complexity not increase of it. Of course, they don’t like admitting that either because that would seem to imply the origin of complexity came from another source than the processes we see in real time, just like in Lenski’s experiments which don’t substantially increase complexity even after 30,000 generations, just more varieties of the same basic form without substantial increase in new function.
In the present day, the number of so-called “species” in the Darwinian view is rapidly decreasing. See:
The Price of Cherry Picking to see what the data indicate. This is very embarrassing since it would seem to demonstrate Darwinian processes can’t make more species faster than nature can kill them off. No surprise to me the theory fails, because Darwin basically says, “you build new things through the process of destruction”.
Suffice to say then, even in the present, Darwin’s universal tree can’t even be of much help to describe the patterns of life, because somewhere implicit in that tree is the notion that we should see new complexity, new functionality arising, but instead we see new varieties of functionally defective descendants! In anti-biotic resistance, we just see emergence of new ways bacteria can have dysfunctions that confer antibiotic resistance. The pattern of evolution in the current day follows Behe’s rule: ADAPTATION IS MOSTLY VIA LOSS OF FUNCTION NOT GAIN OF FUNCTION.
Compare Darwin’s abysmally failed model with Blyth’s orchard model. Now imagine an orchard of “kinds” the started out from an initial creation event, or from Noah’s flood. As the kinds diversify and are fruitful and multiplying, at some point they run out of room and huge numbers of branches start to die off from each Kind. In the case of the present, a dominant Kind are the humans and they are sawing off huge numbers of branches from the trees of other kinds. What we view as rapid extinction of species is actually rapid extinction of branches of other Kinds.
Darwinists are eager to say there are lots of new species originating by natural selection all the time, but are unable to actually demonstrate it.
See:
De-origination. In the case of sexually reproducing creatures, the claim a truly new species has emerged is falsified when we can demonstrate the ability to interbreed them! We sometime call that hybridization, but really it’s just normal exchange of genes within the same Kind (Baramin).
We often say lions, tigers, leopard, etc. are different species, when in fact because they hybridize, they really aren’t a different species.
Same with dogs, wolves, hyenas, jackals, coyotes, …they actually can interbreed (hybridize).
So hybridization experiments helps creationists establish Kinds if the Kind reproduces sexually. I’ve suggested another way to test Kind is through orphan genes, we’ll see…
But they aren’t really new species, like Lenski’s experiments, they are just branches of the Kind, and in the case of sexually reproducing kinds the tree analogy fails a bit because you can sort of re-merge branches and form new branches from the merge points.
The reasons creationists are deeply interested in hybridization experiments is that we can possibly identify groups of creatures that truly have common ancestors even if they look like new species. They are eager to demonstrate:
1. the number of animal Baramin (Kinds) are actually limited
2. the diversification of a Baramin is extremely rapid, that like Lenski’s experiments, and Dog Breeder’s work, huge new branches are being generated all the time while at the same time huge numbers of branches are dying off
How any animal species are there? Fast Blythian evolution (as demonstrated by hybridization) would argue:
1. patterns of diversity are consistent with the existence a finite number of true kinds, and the number of true kinds cannot increase. This is what we see in fossil record, it looks at best like an orchard, not a single tree.
2. show that what may look like new species are actually just varieties (branches) of the same Baramin (kind).
3. that evolution of new so-called species happens quite quickly free of selection (look at those hybridization experiments, the variation is far greater in 1 generation than Darwin’s finches over supposed eons!).
Which model accords to explain the patterns of life better?
Blyth Orchard, imho.
Hybridizaion experiments are also a huge embarrassment to Darwinism. Why? Here is what I said in De-origination of species by means of re-union
The Kinds, the Baramin seem to display an incredible fixity even over 35 million years despite their branching pattern within the kind. So we have huge variety within the Kind, but it is still the same kind! Yet in the space of maybe 5 million years 20 new phyla just pop into existence in the Cambrian explosion? Ha!
On the one hand Darwinists want to show all the new varieties emerging every day, but then they are embarrassed the nature of change isn’t as severe as required for macro evolution. It’s like a bacteria breeder like Lenski, “see look at all the new variety of bacteria I’ve introduced into the world, that means a fish can evolve into a bird one day.” 🙄
Ironically, the YECs actually want to show that evolution within Kinds is lightning fast! They can support the claim through hybridization experiments. Look at what hybridization did in even one generation in the Panthera genus:
De-origination of species by means of re-union
We got ligers, lepons, tigons, etc. within just one generation! I have to admit, the Tigon looked so different it was creepy! So Blyth’s orchard explains the patterns of life today: lots of new branches growing all the time, but at the present a far larger number of old branches are disappearing. In the case of Blyth’s orchard, each branch has no fundamentally new complexity than the tree from which it springs.
In the case of Darwin’s model the new branches have to evolve radical new complexity from the tree it springs from. That’s not what we see.
Bottom line: Nye was wrong, and actually asked a leading question like “are you still beating your puppy”. He assumed that there are fundamentally new species being created from the time of Noah:
1. using Darwin’s incoherent notion of species
2. and the presumption of new species actually arise
It’s like asking, “how many new square circles emerge from you Ham’s model each day, it would have to be a rate of 11 a day”. Nye’s question was just as incoherent, but not obviously so.
TSErik @ 43
Nye’s math:
4000 years since flood. (Nye calls this “Ken Ham’s flood”. Why?)
7000 kinds of animals (Nye calls these “Ken Ham’s kinds”. Why?)
16,000,000 species today
________________________
11 new species per day
……
Sounds impressive… but I don’t think it’s a problem as he insists.
Nye states the lowest estimate is 8.7 million species are reported, but opts for a higher number. Usually, people that want to disprove by absurdity, use a generous case, not worse cases. But he added that the number is higher when you count viruses and bacteria etc… Why would he talk about the number of microbes?
Nye is also including in this number every species of animal alive. That is, he’s including things in the ocean and apparently insects. However, There wasn’t this same bottleneck for species in the ocean. They could in large survive during the flood.
But that isn’t to totally refute Nye’s argument. Just to give an idea of how he is approaching this.
Here one way I might continue and refute Nye’s argument that this is a problem. Simply take a related kind of animal and see what it does to Nye’s problem. Say the various birds. Noah would have had perhaps a few kinds of birds, but for the sake of a worse case scenario, let’s say every bird today comes from only one kind of bird – though birds can probably be differentiated into several kinds (e.g. I’d doubt buzzards and sparrows have a common ancestor).
Anyway…
There are perhaps 10,000 species of birds today. Going by one source I’m reading.
4000 years since the flood (worse case; actual is ~4500y)
1 bird pair (worse case)
10,000 species (worse case)
……
10,000 species/((365.25days/year)*(4000 years)) =
0.00684 species per day. Which is about 2.5 new bird species per year.
Now, if you go back in and plug in closer to actual numbers, you will get even fewer species per year per kind of bird.
Example:
4500 years since the flood
10 bird kinds
10,000 species
……
10,000 species/((365.25days/year)*(4500years)) =
0.00608 species per day =
2.22 species per year.
But now divide that by 10 kinds =
.22 species per year per kind of bird =
Translation. Average 4.5 years to speciate.
Some may object that that is still too fast. But…
The genetic potential of the original bird kind pairs, off of the ark, would have been far greater than modern species. So, speciation would have been very rapid at first. As genetic information decreased, then you would expect a slower rate of speciation per lineage we might expect today. But you would have more lineages. I suspect this tapers off at some point, but I imagine it would have ballooned rapidly in the first few hundred years.
So, Nye’s numbers are inflated with all the wrong species. If you were to count only the terrestrial and avian vertebrate, for example, you have only about 29,000 species. And Nye used a shorter duration since the flood.
Source:
http://animals.about.com/od/zo.....pecies.htm
Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|–Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `–+–Sponges: 10,000 species
| |–Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |–Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |–Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |–Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |–Echinoderms: 6,000 species
| |–Annelida: 12,000 species
| `–Arthropods
| `–+–Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |–Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `–Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`–Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`–+–Reptiles: 7,984 species
|–Amphibians: 5,400 species
|–Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|–Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`–Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species
Summarizing the answer to Nye’s question:
Because they aren’t layers for the most part on top of each other. The “layers” are laying HORIZONTALLY (not vertically) in relation to each other just like eco zones lay horizontally to each other. Because a reasonable explanation is that if the “layers” lay horizontally to each other, they probably represent eco-zones in the first place!
You won’t find a dead rabbit in the Cambrian any more than you’ll find a living rabbit at the bottom of the sea. And when the “layers” are stacked on top of each other, sometimes they are worse than mixed, they are in the wrong order! It is misleading to suggest they are really “layers” when most of these fossil collections from a given “era” lies horizontally in isolation on about 99% of the Earth. The Darwinists got a way with misleading claim by showing pictures of a vertical column to describe long ages such as this one:
http://stuartsorensen.files.wo.....rata-5.jpg
To the extent there may be vertical stratification, it may be explained by the fast stratification methods described in the video Drama in the Rocks
Nye is asking a leading question like, “have you stopped beating your puppy today”. Even that said, we see mammals in dino dig sites, the fossil record is heavily edited of embarrassments.
Rapid stratification is demonstrated possible, and actually shown necessary. It’s not just possible that the fossil layers were built fast, it is virtually impossible that they were built slowly if the fossils are permineralized because of the requirements that the entombment happen rapidly (a matter of hours to weeks) and involve water.
Radiometric C14 dating, measurable DNA and non-racemic amino acids, helium diffusion, consideration of erosion rates indicates strongly the fossil record must be recent. This is also consistent with the evidence that the so-called “layers” aren’t really “layers” but collections of fossils lying HORIZONTALLY (not vertically) in relation to each other, a fact reinforced by the observation that even when they are vertical, they can also be in inverted order, suggesting that as a matter of principle, they had to start out in horizontal relation to each other, and the fact of abundant horizontalization of layers contradicts the assumption that the “layers” accumulated vertically over long ages. Thus Nye’s model is incoherent, self-contradictory, therefore, false.
Ham may have lost the debate but the facts win the war against evolutionism.
JGuy @ 46
Thanks for your response JGuy. I enjoyed reading it. You make a compelling argument.
REC,
Sorry for the delay, I didn’t see your comment till just now. Welcome to UD.
I don’t know exactly how the system admins place people on the “approved” list of commenters. I can sometimes release comments if they are in my discussion.
Thanks for posting, and welcome again to UD.
Sal
Sal @46
Thanks Sal. I appreciate all the work you put into your response. Yours and JGuy’s responses have illuminated a facet of the grand argument that I hadn’t thought much about until now.
I honestly couldn’t understand just what Nye was asking. It could have been that it was 4:00 AM in the UK when the debate was being hosted, or that Nye’s question really was incoherent.
TSErik.
No problem. There is more that could be worked out of it, but that at least shows there is no problem. The same is true for each of Nye’s challenges. Well, at least there si a possible answer for most. The most tangly is, and always has been, the starlight problem. But I think that is resolved well enough to show that there appear to be workable solutions – not to mention that old earth models have light travel problems also that have had to been uniquely explained (e.g. the big bang’s horizon problem).
Even so, f my memory serves me correctly, it has already been shown that speciation can occur fairly rapidly compared to what evolutionists might have thought. I think there is a documented case of one species of bird speciating in a hundred years (maybe two hundred?). If true, and all things being equal, that means if each of the 10,000 species existing split into two species (one being new) over the next 100 years, then that would average out to 10,000 new species / 100 years = 100 new species of just bird per year on average.
Do the same math for things with shorter generation times, like insects… and you’ll find the animal kingdom being filled with new species like crazy… especially, if the individuals genome is rich – as it would have been straight out of the ark.
But… I don’t think that rapid speciation is the norm now (I don’t know)… I’m guessing things are nearing their potential, but who knows… Maybe, God programmed in some new stuff into the so-called junk DNA that will cause creatures to diversify even more… perhaps, triggered by environmental cues… just thinking of possibilities.
Interesting area of physics investigation.
There are two major thorns in YEC’s side. It is widely and openly acknowledged in YEC circles and YEC scientists:
1. the problem of distant starlight
2. long-term radiometric dating
The incongruity is:
1. all the fossils give young radiometric C-14 dates
2. the rocks they are buried give “old” radiometric dates, and further the deeper you go, the older they look.
So the clocks do not look exactly synchronized! Now an easy fix is to say, you can have young fossil buried in old rocks just like a living dog buried in 65 million years old rocks doesn’t make the dog 65 million years dead.
Short term radiometric dating (C14) argues for YEC, but long-term does not.
There is a general pattern. The deeper you dig on the very surface of the Earth, the more “aged” the rocks appear.
But is this pattern consistent in a way that argues for Old Earth? It can be falsified, if, as Walt Brown predicts, you dig about 10 miles deep and you find the absence of “old rocks”, in fact the absence of radiation, period! So let that be left an open issue for future investigation.
In the meantime, considering something like Heart Mountain where the “layers” are inverted, do the rocks at the top look younger than those at the bottom. If so this tells us something, it tells us some mechanism of physics is making the rocks look older with depth, when we know, even in principle, even under Darwinists assumption this cannot be true because the next lowest layer in Heart Mountain is the Eocene layer (65 million years or so), so if we find Old rocks with young fossils (even in Darwinian terms), this tells us something. Now under YEC terms all the fossils are young, so then YECs and Darwinists are confronted with the same puzzle, why are the rocks on top radiometrically dated as millions of years younger than the rocks on the bottom? We first need to test the rocks. I don’t believe that has been done, it is very expensive….
All the scientists I’ve met at ICC 2013 and other creation conferences openly admit long-term radiometric dates of rocks are a nasty problem. If that is solved, then we have a credible Young Earth/Old Universe or Young Earth/Young Universe. Until then, I say, YEC is alive but in a hospital bed. But like my mom when she was in the hospital recovering, though I was sad she was sick, I thanked God every day that she was alive.
p.s. Keep in mind that species are not kinds. So, creatures diversifying (as in speciation) is not new kinds coming into being.
A good video that includes this, and more is here:
“The Greatest Hoax on Earth” summary of book by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVEO28r-w9o
Couldn’t the rapid expansion of the universe account for this?
Sal @ 53
And then there’s a problem keeping this “age”, but rejecting the one’s you “know” are wrong.
We should do a big kick-starter. Then have someone collect a few hundred samples of igneous rocks from across the nation (or world). And do a blind dating study. See how well it really matches up to the strata depth.
If there aren’t any igneous rocks around, they go by index fossils…but of course.. there then comes in some of that circular reasoning.
For the easily-distracted reader (like, say, me), here’s the Cliff Notes version of why scordova and JGuy are right, and Bill Nye and Nick Matzke are wrong:
Dogs.
TSErik
I don’t know about Sal. He see’s problems with many solutions, but he also balances that back out by illustrating that similar problems occur with old earth models (e.g. above with the C14 dates conflicting with other radiometric dates).
Anyway, for myself, I find the Humphrey’s and Hart models satisfying enough. Even if it isn’t perfect, it has an overall principle that makes sense. So, it might be workable in other areas.
In that model, the universe is bounded. And the earth – or at least our galaxy if not solar system – is near the center of the universe. And because of mass distribution, clocks near the center would tick slow, and clocks far away would tick far faster. Time dilation found in Einstein’s theory. The same as why an atomic clock would tick slower at sea level versus one in orbit. So, measured in Earth days, the universe could be 6000 years old..but a clock at distant stars might indicate billions of years. So, using Earth Standard Time and such a cosmological model, YEC works.
JGuy,
ROFL! Thanks again.
Snelling made same observation in the Grand Canyon.
Andrew Snelling also made a similar point that I made, but then includes some of the hydrologic sorting you saw in the video.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....sil-record
Exactly.
Now if for example we have ecozones that have some creatures represented and other not, then this could beautifully explain missing “layers” in some formations.
That’s right, in some places, you have a very “young” layer on top of a very “old” one, and nothing medium age in between. 😯
Alternatively if the layers are still unsolidified and hardening like cement, then some layers can be quickly eroded away.
It seems either or both mechanisms can explain the missing layers in the Grand Canyon.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....14/n3/time
😯
Talk about being accountable for time, where is that missing 155 million years?
What sort of sensible explanation is there for such features under millions of years of accumulation and erosion. Doesn’t make sense that erosion and accumulation is focused like a laser on select areas of the Grand Canyon for 150 million years.
drc466
lol… I guess you’re right… dogs, they are a many.
Sal.
haha… yeah, that is one of my favorite under-shared gem’s. It should be brought up more often…as should the rapid stratification evidences.
Can you imagine if Ham brought those prints. Being as unique as it is, it would have stirred up a lot of questions. No doubt, Nye would have been blindsided with it.
So far, the only attempt to explain that attempts to make sense is that fossil footprints were under sampled (paleontologist got bored with prints). But that doesn’t really make sense of the distribution as compared to body plans as they relate to strata or depth.
Dr Steve Austen (cool name by the way) also discovered a layer at the bottom of Grand Canyon that evidences rapid layering. It’s an entire 6(?) foot layer filled with nautoloids that have a heavily biased common directionality of their fossilized shells. The layer extends the length of Grand Canyon, and beyond.
It should be easy to see the implications when you consider their hydrodynamic properties (long shells tapered at one end). Of course, if they died in a flood, they would tend to align in a direction of the flow. So, that is the obvious and best explanation. So, how big must that flood have been to lay down such a layer in essentially one swoop?!
Dr. Steve Austin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaOhaNO9cP0
Not this Steve Austin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zn-mF2-_8
This video dramatizes the flood in a semi-sanitized way, but not too sanitized as to not be troubling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yT47gM2dmg
And there will be Russell Crowe Movie coming out next month, called Noah. See the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qmj5mhDwJQ
Up until now I’ve avoid too much mention of personal issues about the flood in this discussion, just tried to focus on the mechanics of why the geological record is at either inconclusive or totally against the Darwinian story. So in terms of formal science, I’d would say, “the Darwinists have certainly not proven their case, whether the YEC record is real is you decision, but the evidence does not favor the mainstream timeline as being invincibly true.”
But you all know where I stand personally, I accept the flood. One note of caution, at ICC 2013, the consensus was there are a lot of catastrophic features of the Earth that may no be directly related to the flood, i.e. post flood volcanoes, meteor crashes, etc.
But it is evident many animals died in the great flood, many by drowning, suffocation, instant burial, crushing. Either during the time of the flood or thereafter, tropical landscapes were frozen like Siberia and we see elephants frozen, buried under piles of snow and to this day have tropical vegetation in their stomach because the snow poured on the tropical paradise in an instant. The flood was likely explosions of water from beneath associated with geological activity creating horrific rains and snow storms that created frozen tropical trees we find in the arctic.
It is estimated that there were 500,000,000 people alive dying a cruel death and only 8 souls were spared. It’s been heartwarming and reassuring that there is evidence that reassures us the Bible has divine inspiration because it describes an unbelievable event that has been regarded as fable (even by me at times in my life), and now we find evidence it is true. As heartwarming as it is, as I pondered the suffering of creatures that fossilized, I think of the 500,000,000 lives that perished — men, women, children, infants…
I have mixed feelings, feelings of the horror of the flood, but also the feeling that by underserved grace I escaped it, and I find peace and joy in that.
Not necessarily. Earth’s biosphere could be young, while the earth as a planet and the universe at large could be old. Who knows what the author of Genesis meant by shamayim? Doubtful s/he had any idea about the cosmos at large.
More refuting Nye.
Nye claims that if the world was flooded. Then we should find Grand Canyon’s all over the world.
(1) Is he assuming it would take the likes of a flood to form the Grand Canyon?
(2) Most informed YEC, that I know/read, think the Grand Canyon was not a result of the global flood, but rather the effect of a subsequent massive regional flood (akin to the Lake Moussoula flood – look it up). These would have been the result of natural bowls (formed by risen or rising mountains) that contained/kept the retreating & sheeting (i.e. not narrow/carving paths) flood waters. And other stored up water came later due to ice build up AFTER the flood. [side note: The ice-age is actually a mystery of science, but the biblical flood model can actually explain the ice-age!]..Anyway, the Grand Canyon would have been formed by the break-thru & release of waters above what is now the head of the Grand Canyon. Point being, it was special. If you want other evidence of this, research the first dynasty of China, about how the emperor of the first Chinese dynasty was famous among his people for releasing waters from the mountains.
(3) Nye was actually onto something. There should be evidence of the flood retreating. And..there is.. the flood would have sheeted off the continents, and left other evidences. And off the coast of every major continent are submarine canyons. They are perpendicular to the continents. Where did these come from?
As Michael Oard comments in his book “Flood By Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface” p.88:
“Common, Deep Chasms Perpendicula to the Coast
Many people have been to the Grand Canyon. Gazing down into the canyon, you naturally wonder at the unique event that carved it. But the Grand Canyon is only one of many. There are hundreds similar in size to the Grand Canyon, and even larger, in many places across the world. There are mostly unseen because these remarkably deep chasms are underwater[sic]. They are called submarine canyons. They commonly lie perpendicular to the shoreline and sometimes start on the continental shelf. Some even begin near the beach. […]”
Example of submarine canyon off Montery, California:
http://goo.gl/tRr9Nk
If you want a bunch to read on this topic…
http://michael.oards.net/GenesisFloodRunoff.htm
There is a third:
3. dubious and controversial interpretation of the ancient texts.
Mapou. Why not lay your case out instead of calling something dubious. If you’ve done so elsewhere, then link to it so it can be critically evaluated. So far, most of what I read from you about this topic is that you claim that YEC is dubious, wrong and even from the devil… and you claim that it makes you angry. It would make me angry too, if you case was found to be true. Well, make a case (made not only of opinions) if you are so angry. Otherwise, you’re complaints become more of a mantra than anything else.
If you can’t defend your case beyond opinion, then your simply making judgments while lacking hard evidence.
In the end, I suspect it will all amount to your opinion anyway. But at least you will have tried to make a clear case.
p.s I kinda think that we are going to be starting with totally different assumptions. So, if you ever do lay out a case. Enumerate your starting assumptions. That may actually demonstrate where a shift in interpretations comes.
For example, if you don’t believe scripture in the bible is inspired by God. Then we’ll obviously have disagreements from the start, and it will matter little how you proceed to make a case from there.
My case is simple and I have mentioned them before on UD. There is good reason to believe that most of the creation story of Genesis is allegorical. Some scholars have convincingly argued that the words day, morning and evening are symbolic and mean period/era, beginning and end, respectively.
The Garden of Eden story is obviously symbolic because there is an intelligent, talking snake moving about and making an ass of itself (this is a big clue, IMO).
Some have argued that there were previous creations of life on earth but the Elohim were not satisfied and either destroyed them or allowed them to perish. Personally, I think it might have been the Cambrian, Triassic and Jurassic eras. But who knows?
Other scholars have argued that the Adam in the garden of Eden is not the same as the Adam outside the garden because the texts appear to have been written by different authors. Therefore, a long period of time could have elapsed between the time humans were first created and the time Abel and Cain were born. Therefore, given the evidence of modern science and the uncertainty of the Biblical narrative, it is safe to conclude that the generational chronology used by YECs to date the creation of humanity to six thousand years old is almost certainly wrong.
A similar case could be made for the flood story. It could have happened several hundred thousands years ago and there is no good reason to believe that it was global either. The word used for planet earth is also used for land in many languages. Modern languages such as French (terre) and Spanish (tierra) also use the same word for both.
It is for these reasons that I say that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is dubious and controversial.
Mapou:
For now I don’t care much about hermeneutics. What are the cold hard facts? What is the best evidence of modern science? The problems mentioned by Sal (the problem of distant starlight & long-term radiometric dating)?
Mapou,
Thanks for stating the basis of your position.
Just a quick response to one part I found interesting:
The reason this is interesting to me is that I would have wrote that in the inverse order. That is, I have reasons to think the opposite.
(1)What the scripture says is certain.
(2)What the evidence of science says is not certain.
Therefore, it would be safe to conclude the earth is young.
I realize some YEC would disagree. And I guess this depends on if they are biased more by evidential or presuppositional arguments. My approach is a bit of a hybrid, with a slight bias to presuppositional thinking…. that is, we can’t start with ourselves to figure out things without some pre-existing ultimate truth.
Science requires presuppositions (reason, logic, order & uniformity in nature). But I hold that those are only accounted for and explained if one further pressupposes the God of the bible.
As such, why would one begin anywhere else but with the ultimate origin of truth.
It is a bit of an odd thing to ponder, I admit. It seems circular, and kinda is… But we reason and think..and as we conclude God.. we really find that to even be able to come to this conclusion requires God in the first place!
Science is useful, but never-the-less it is forever tentative by it’s very nature. God’s word is not. Therefore, if God says X, and science says Y…then X… pure and simple.
That said, I do think there is evidence that support a young earth. And evidences that are difficult for YEC to explain, which are actually relatively very few, are trumped by what God made clear. At least, I think it is clear enough… as do probably all YEC.
But that’s not to speak for all YEC. Sal, for example, can state his views on evidences in science and presuppositions.
Edit: “Therefore, if God says X, and
scienceevidence is interpreted to say Y…then X… pure and simple.”B/c Science – done right – does not contradict God’s word.
JGuy,
Why is every word in the bible God’s word? Did God claim to have written the bible? Why not think of the bible as partly inspired by God? Some writers more than others.
Jguy @72,
You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.
It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.
There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
So while you are busy following Ken Ham or whomever, I will patiently wait for the arrival of the great prophet Elijah who is to come and restore all things. As I wrote elsewhere, it’s a sure bet Mr. E will be nobody’s female dog. He will take sh*t from nobody. ‘Kick-ass Elijah’ is what I call him. 😀
I can’t wait.
Interesting article at nature.com by Maggie McKee. Excerpt:
Mapou @ 75
What?! This is like Bill Nye calling the global flood “Ken Ham’s flood”… shallow rhetoric… Why do I need to re-iterate this point again? I have my own view. My view comes from scripture. It really is as simple as that. I don’t believe in a young earth because Ken Ham says so… my young earth view existed perhaps nearly twenty years before I even heard the name. Do you believe the earth is old because the “preacher” Hugh Ross says so? I don’t assume as much…so, please, give me the same credit to reason myself – even if you think it a wrong conclusion.
Box @ 74
My view is that it’s all inspired by God, and still influenced in personal style (or mood) of the person writing. On levels of inspiration… I don’t think that registers. Unless, perhaps, you want to consider prophetic passages as more inspired. But it seems to me that if God inspired it, then it’s gold no matter how you slice it. 🙂
2 Timothy 3:14-17
“14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Over the years I developed a keen distrust and skepticism for religious ideas. I struggled believing the Bible, I trust facts I have access to more than extraordinary claims coming from religious institutions. Moreso when I had friends risking death to preach the gospel. I felt a moral obligation that if Bible was false, I had to find out and keep my friends for throwing their lives away for a lie. So, it was more than an intellectual curiousity for me…
If I found circumstantial evidence:
1. that life needed an intelligence to bring it to life from dead chemicals
2. that the intelligence needed was almost beyond comprehension
then I could believe in God.
If I found reasonable evidence:
1. the gospels being faithfully transmitted from the time of Christ
2. that humanity (not necessarily the Earth or Universe) was young,
then it suggests God himself was helping write the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3, and then I could believe in Jesus Christ.
The evidence is clear to me that the human genome is slowly deteriorating and that humanity could not have been on the planet very long. Our genes are wearing out, it is blatantly obvious except to those who are blind to it. Thus I accept the gospel of Luke. In addition to this, I’ve sensed Jesus’ work in my life and that of others.
For several years, I said, there is so much about the Bible I don’t understand, nor ever will understand, but if there is physical evidence that the geological column is young, or any other evidence that the planet, solar system, and beyond is young, then the Design Inference will be even more obvious than it is, and that at a personal level, God would be more real to me, and Jesus will be more real to me because it would appear so much of nature will affirm these words in Luke:
Those verses insufferably boring to most, are the ones I treasure, and Chapter 3 as a whole is my favorite book because it makes incredibly bold claims about physical facts, so bold and outrageous, that if the facts accord with it, it would be enough to persuade me the message came from God himself.
One additional note, the first few versus relating to Tiberius Caesar combined with the book of acts converted an atheist archaeologist to Christianity, his story is here. From Wiki: Sir William Ramsey
And now, we may the chance in the current day to determine if the genealogy of Jesus is attested to by nature and the geological record itself. It was at the point the circumstantial evidence, though not airtight, was too formidable to dismiss.
There are a few areas that offer formidable difficulties, but on balance I the geological record for life is young. Beyond that, it takes some faith, and I could change my mind when all reasonable avenues of a solution are exhausted, but at this time, I’m accepting a coherent model is possible…
A simple fact: if a given geological layer, say the Mesozoic, takes 186 million years to form, the dead creatures will become decomoposed, devoured, destroyed before they fossilize. For the fossils to be preserved, it is well acknowledge that they must be buried rapidly. For example, from the pages of Darwin loving wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
There are other fossilization mechanisms, but they also require speed, and millions of years will prevent this form happening.
So like many things in the world of Darwin, obvious contradictions are ignored, and pretended to not exist, and expressions of doubt are greeted with contempt. Nye says, “how can you explain how these layers formed so quickly?” WRONG!
The real question should be Mr. Bill Nye who promotes the Science Lie, “how can you explain how these layers formed so slowly since they have preserved fossils in them?”!
I’ve never gotten a satisfactory response because maybe there isn’t one, the layers had to form quickly as a matter of principle.
Box,
I’m going to post it as a separate thread. I know you said you aren’t a Christian, but I hope you won’t be offended if I say “God bless you” for putting me in touch with this article.
Sal
Sal,
It often happens that organic matter sinks to the bottom of a deep body of water where it can last for a very long time (centuries) because there is no oxygen at lower depths to sustain microbial life. The slow piling of sediments will eventually fossilize the organisms and, over a long time, the layers turn into solid rock.
The anoxic waters in the Black Sea, for example, are known to preserve wooden artifacts such as boats and even flooded human structures for centuries. Look it up.
I suppose that you believe that this means that this Adam was the first human and thus, by counting the years of the genealogy, one can infer the age of humanity. The problem with this is that you are taking Luke’s opinion at face value as if it were coming directly from God. How do you know that Luke was not just as mistaken/deceived as Ken Ham and the YECs? Did Luke have access to better information about the book of Genesis than you and I do? I doubt it.
When Jesus said, “search and you shall find”, he did not mean that everything was going to be handed to you on a platter. Nothing is that easy. Besides, if everything is so easy to find, why search at all?
scordova @80,
That Nature article makes no sense. Geologists have known for centuries that there were many upheavals in Earth’s history over millions of years. They know about many catastrophic climate changes and pole reversals. So they certainly don’t presume that things have always been the way we observe them today.
Box,
I posted this and mentioned you in the acknowledgments:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-friendly/
Thank you.
Sal
Mapou
Luke was a hand-picked by Jesus as a disciple and as one of only twelve apostles that were personally sent out by Jesus. I think it’s safe to call his writing as inspired of God and true. And of course he had better information than we have. Investigate the scriptures…but keep in mind, as scripture, it is inspired of God…and causing one to question God’s word was the first device used by Satan:
Genesis 3:1
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said[…]?”
….
You claim to speak only your opinion, yet seem to wield that opinion as fact when you assert that Ken Ham is mistaken & deceived. Or..do you have solid evidence that Ken Ham is deceived? I realize you wrote your basis for your views earlier, but it almost all amounted to an admitted opinion… as such, I can’t see that being used as evidence that Ham is deceived.
Let me think…. should a person trust yours (or anyone’s ) skepticism on Luke’s information… or should a person trust the God of the universe that literally hand picked Luke to be one of only twelve apostles,that walk with Jesus during His ministry, that learned truth from Jesus and be sent out by Jesus, on the truth nature of Luke’s writing?
JGuy,
Luke was not an Apostle, further he was the only Gentile God allowed to be an author of a book of the Bible. He did have a special relationship with Paul. His account was held in high, high esteem by the church.
Further, the essentials of that genealogy are repeated in Matthew going back to Abraham, which is traceable to Noah via other genealogies in the Old testament aside from Genesis like 1 Chron 1:
Sal:
Thanks for the kind correction.
Mapou:
Sorry, I stand corrected – obviously – about the point on Luke being a disciple. I reacted too fast and thought I saw low hanging fruit being that it was a Gospel. This doesn’t mean I have no remaining reason to think Luke’s writing is not inspired. But I see why there might be contention on that with some.
Sal.
Perhaps, it satisfies my mild o.c.d., but I found myself counting that genealogy a couple weeks ago… don’t ask… anyway, it’s 77 generations… nice and orderly! 🙂
One might say 78 if you count God at the start, but God is one. 😀
It starts with God… then Adam etc… and ends with God in the flesh (Jesus) – the Alpha and Omega form.
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
F/N: Openings of Lk-Ac:
Luke then continues at the beginning of Ac:
In short, Luke claims to be writing a two-volume, accurate, essentially consecutive history under sponsorship/commission of/ on the behalf of Theophilus; probably an eminent Roman who may here be given a pseudonym, meaning “Friend of God.”
The history covers the period c. 4 – 7 BC to c. 62 AD, and is focussed on Jesus as Christ come in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, as suffering servant [in Ac 8 he makes explicit use of Isaiah 53 through judiciously chosen example, a characteristic pattern of how he teaches by example . . . ], and through him the birth and establishment of the church, from Jerusalem to Rome, with an eye onwards to Spain, where of course we find Cape Finisterre, the end of the earth.
it is to be noted that his detailed, habitual accuracy on even minor matters has been repeatedly, abundantly vindicated in the teeth of the skeptical dismissals of ever so many learned critics, especially from the days of William Ramsay’s archaeological investigations in Anatolia. (Read his classic, St Paul, Traveller and Roman Citizen.)
I would be very slow to be dismissive of the veracity of Luke. Especially on the all too usual grounds of antisupernaturalistic prejudice and cavalier dismissiveness.
KF
PS: I think we may all profit by reading here on in context.
Scordova #80 & #83,
I’m glad I was able to help. However you have to thank Ian Juby who talks about the article at nature.com in Genesis Week Ep.23 season 2
An important point made by Ken was that both worldviews had the same evidence.
IMHO, in the end a seeker of truth will work diligently,truthfully and honestly to interpret this evidence.
Learnt a lot from posts by KF and Sal. Greatly and deeply informative!
God bless!
Whatho each and all.
An entertaining discussion to read with many a “well I never!” moment to be had along the way.
Our esteemed commenter Mapou, at #82, made a remark about pole reversals. This got me to thinking about an experiment I happened to have browsed over some time ago, which I think may even be relevant to this thread.
Here is the link
http://tinyurl.com/nrb6qb4
Would anybody like to assess this article for me and judge its merits and failings? If it is accurate in its conclusions it would raise ones eyebrows right back to the occiput.
I have often wished to ask about this article and lo, the scene is set to ask it. Just as Brutus said what? There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood … and so forth.
Thank you
Mapou, you zero in on Maggie’s petty introductory talk while ignoring the important point being made in the Nature article: several properties of the solar system are undeniably young. Why ignore the real issue?
BTW you mentioned the “evidence of science” – contrary to YEC. In post #71 I have asked you what the best evidence of modern science is. Would you care to respond?
Personally, I don’t trust the gospel of Luke because it looks like a forgery of the early Church. I am not one of those Christians who blindly worship the Bible as the inerrant word of God. That would be idolatry, in my opinion. The history of the Christian Church is not worthy of praise. In fact, Christianity has been extremely evil over the centuries and many of its leaders have been world class buttholes. At one point, the church was such a pain in the asteroid, they were kicked out of Avignon (France) and forced to retreat to Rome. And of course, nobody can ignore the so-called Spanish Inquisition and all the bloody religious wars of Europe.
The devil has had its filthy paws in the Church from day one. The apostle Paul complained about the emissaries sent by the Jerusalem church (headed by James, the half brother of Jesus) to spy on their liberty. Paul even had a spat with none other than Peter who was being his usual hypocritical self. Afterwards, Paul kept his distance from the jackasses in Jerusalem. Good for Paul.
My main concerns with the gospel of Luke is that it gives a useless (and thus highly suspect) genealogy of Jesus via Joseph who was not Jesus’s father. The old testament prophecy was that the savior would be a descendent of David of the line of Judah. Luke, for some strange reason, thought that the genealogy of Joseph was important (it was not) and saw it fit to compile a list that goes all the way up to Adam whom he identifies as the son of God.
I don’t buy it.
Box:
What real issue? You mean that things happened recently in the solar system and therefore the solar system is only 6000 years-old? I don’t think so.
Box, I’m sorry but I will not spend my time to iterate all the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth. Use Google or something.
On a tangential note, I just read the following in the Wikipedia article on Ussher’s chronology (emphasis added):
When I came to the ID debate 13 years ago, I couldn’t bear to read all the criticisms of radometric dating by YECs that read like sophistry and salesmanship. I thought it might be persuasive enough to some with no physics background, but I had a physics minor at the time to pick out flimsy arguments, and I felt some were quite flimsy. So for a season I stopped reading YEC literature altogether and focused on ID.
But that changed partly because we have more data now, better methods and procedures, and good critiques are finally available. The difficulties of long-term dating cannot be completely solved, but reasonable doubt can be introduced to defend an idea of :
OLD EARTH, but recent flood. That will suffice for the current discussion regarding Nye’s claims about the fossil record.
I’m told, with respect to layers and rocks containing fossils (not fossil-free rocks), the dominant method for dating is K/Ar dating.
The first point is old rocks do not imply young fossils because, you can bury a live dog today in 500 million year-old rocks, it doesn’t make the dog 500 million years dead, it just kills it today. So on those terms there is not an immediate incongruity unless one wants evidence of Young Earth as well, but the question for the sake of this discussion is the age of the fossil record, not the age of the Earth.
The sword of K/Ar dating cuts both ways.
C14 dating is easy to conceive of, the less of it in the fossil, the older it is.
K/Ar is not so simple. Basically the more AR-40 in a sample relative to K-40, the older it is. But for starters there is simply too much AR-40 to be due to K-40 to begin with. There is no way to distinguish naturally occurring AR-40 from AR-40 that was created from K-40, in fact that assumption leads to a contradiction:
Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate
Darwinists have said the C-14 in fossils is due to contamination. Curiously, they will desperately insist there is no possibility of contamination with AR-40! More AR-40 means higher indicated “age”. Suppose a rock becomes molten and all the argon is gased out of it, surely some of the AR-40 abundant in the environment can diffuse back in. A little crack here, a little crack there in the sampled rock, and you’ve increased the AR-40 concentration.
C-14 is not in high concentration in the atmosphere, but AR-40 is, 99.6% of AR in the air you breath is AR-40 so there is plenty of opportunity for contamination, unlike C-14. A little atmospheric C-14 in the air will not contaminate fossil samples because of the high density of a solid relative to air, but that same argument doesn’t hold with AR-40, since even a little AR-40 gas can pollute a K/Ar date. How little? 🙂
You see, a little C-14 in the air won’t be sufficient to contaminate a fossil sample since were are comparing highly dense C-14 in a solid to highly dense C-12 in solid. But that is not the case with Ar-40. A little AR-40 gas get in the wrong spot, and kaboom, it’s 500 million years old.
Another issue is that if the lava rock is cooled quickly, say by abundant water, AR-40 that was already there can get trapped and thus indicate a false age. There is a double standard in play, Darwinists will make every dubious contamination-and-alternate-mechanism for C14 presence in fossils from the Cambrian to Jurasic, but will turn a blind eye to the obvious contamination of A-40 from the air we breath and trapping mechanisms in from cooling by water.
Now revisiting one question I posed earlier about long-term dates being higher the deeper we go.
The rest of this material by Dr. Plaisted can be found at:
Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate
Plaisted made a defensible case for Old-Earth recent flood and combined with Sanford’s work, for my personal (not scientific) interest, it supports Luke 3, and thus it would appear the fossil record affirms the Christ, it points to his advent.
scordova:
This is a lame argument, Sal. And I won’t even go into why it is lame. It should be obvious to all.
Mapou
In a similar tone, one scholar I know of, if indeed he was a scholar, thinks this is a reason we don’t have the originals. To mitigate or prevent that from happening. That is, originals would perhaps be idolized as such… missing out on the message sender for awww with the medium of the message. Not sure how to evaluate that notion – it does make some sense.
But believing the bible contains God’s word, and honoring that word as such, is not the same as worshiping or idolizing a book. One must obviously distinguish the source from the medium.
Sal.
What you seem to be describing, for folks not familiar with the term, is a young life creationism. That is, an old earth with young life. Is this more of your view, or are you still considering yourself towards the YEC end of things?
BTW, having resourced his great materials, I’ll comment j.f.y.i. that I think (though not fully certain) that Sean Pitman is a YLC.
For any history buffs interested in the flood etc… Especially, those in the UK or Europe.
There’s a book by Bill Cooper called “After the Flood”. You can read a copy on the following website:
http://ldolphin.org/cooper/
It seeks out and documents evidences of the migration of Noah’s family after the flood. Particularily, the lineage that migrated into Europe and the northern parts thereof.
“After the Flood” table of contents: http://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html
JGuy,
I’m a professing YEC now, finally came around in November 2013.
But why burden people un-necessarily with YEC, when the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3, the recency of human life is central issue.
I would hate that someone hung up on the distant starlight issue causes him to dismiss evidence of the recency of humanity and the fact it affirms the gospel of Luke.
I propose OLD EARTH RECENT FLOOD (not even recent life) as a model to help learn the facts so that people are not so put off by other complications and reading of the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Genesis 10, the table of Nations cannot, to my mind be read allegorically.
But something cute, maybe not a great proof, but would be amusing if true would be the fact that some wanting to affirm their royalty seem quite eager to preserve their royalty by appealing to their ancestry from Noah. Competing Royal lines (sometimes at war) could not have colluded to preserve their recorded family tree Noah.
I speculate there are some huge gaps from Sceif to Woden, but get a load of the royal succesion (not genealogy) that traces Queen Elizabeth, Prince William (husband of Kate Middleton), all the way back to Noah.
Well some of our UK and Australian associates might help fix some of the details of the way I described the succession. I’m a little confused about William the Conqueror. Any way it seems if you trace Queen Elizabeth back to William the Conqueor, you then have William succeeding (by force) the throne that was from Alfred the Great who traces all the way back to Noah.
😯
The Saxon Royal Genealogies
Sal
In fairness to the reader however, the Saxon genealogies would conflict with Luke’s genealogies in the following way.
Assuming Luke’s genealogy (which correspond to 1 Chron 1 and Genesis genealogies) are a benchmark,
the Saxon genealogy would have to be riddled with about 28 generation gaps from Noah to Woden!
So I take that part of the genealogy from Woden and back with a grain of salt, but it would be cute if it is just a gap riddled genealogy that is essentially correct to say Woden is a descendant of Noah.
What would make this credible is if the descent from Noah was part of the culture that asserted Woden’s royalty, otherwise, it probably was just something a newly converted pagan monarch decided to claim by saying he was a direct descendant of Noah.
But the detail that “Scef was born on the ark” suggests weakly that the claim of ancestry from Noah did not originate from Christian conversion but was embedded in the pagan culture and thus we have independent witness outside of the Bible of Noah’s historicity. A Christian would say, Noah did not have a son name scef. So it seems we may have a pagan culture that has a real historical (slightly distorted) roots in Noah.
It would be cute if the Saxon genealogies legitimately are born of handed down wisdom, but I wouldn’t count on it.
I think Ian Juby discusses these in this video. They apparently have a replica of the genealogical scroll in their small museum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwCSg9MIgQY
The evidences converging with the ancient Chinese are also very thought provoking if not compelling regarding the bible and historical accuracy.
A recent contributor alluded to the fact that ID-Creationism needs to come to a consensus regarding ‘doctrine’.
I believe that a certain version of creationism is partly true (probably old earth), a certain version of evolutionism is partly true (probably teleological), and a certain version of ID is partly true (probably a mindful personal designer involved). But come to agreement of what that involvement was and to what extent.
A integration of the truisms of each of these distinct disciplines is probably in order. Otherwise, we will continue to look exactly as we are- disorganized and divided, or as one contributor concluded, running a fools errand.
Perhaps a forum opened on this blog may be useful in getting such an endeavor started, getting more organized, consistent, and precise in the delivery of the science and evidence of ID.
I also suggest advocating evolution as evidence of design, rather than playing into the hands of the enemy by fighting against certain facts. Take evolution away from the enemy by adopting it as our principle weapon.
We own it, so take what is rightly ours.
I’m not exactly an Answers in Genesis type person at the root, in terms of my belief, I’m an answers in Jesus type. That is, I came to accept Jesus as real first before accepting the rest of the Bible, and because Jesus appealed to Genesis, I accept Genesis. It began because, like a child, I called upon his name when I had nowhere else to turn, and it seemed prayers were answered.
So then how do we know which Gospel is really from Jesus since, even the NT says there will be false gospels.
I accept the transmitted Gospels as from God, for the reasons I’ve mentioned at UD.
The genealogy of Christ is probably my favorite passage in the Bible because it would seem the geological record, possibly all nature seems to affirm his advent through the genealogy.
We are indeed in special place in the universe living on a privileged plant in privileged time in all eternity.
Nature is telling us we live in special time, and the fossil record is pointing us to Luke 3 as a special oracle. As Bill Dembski said:
How about outrageous claims that superficially look like fables of ignorant people but end up through modern scientific discoveries thousands of years later to be true? Does that count a specified complexity? This almost as powerful as prophecy as if to say, “this outrageous claim will find confirmation in ways you never imagined.”
The genealogy is glossed over in church, but for me it is the central point of the Bible because it makes God real and involved in human history, not some philosophical abstraction.
The events of the whole world and life seem orchestrated to point to the genealogy, and if one really wants an explanation, imho, as to why the patterns of life and the fossil record are structured in the way they are, I’d say so as to affirm the Gospel: “confirming their word with signs and wonders” and now in the present day, with empirical science.
Sal.
On the topic of genealogies. Have you seen this before? I’ve confirmed 6 of the 10 names to be correctly transliterated. I didn’t find information on the other four, yet.:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/
Hebrew English
—————
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.
What I do know is almost all the most prominent YEC physicists accept some pole reversals and also supposed evidence for some pole reversals. Beyond that I know nothing. Sorry!
But on the topic of the Earth’s magnetic field, we do know it is decreasing, and possibly in a way that suggests the Earth cannot be old. Even if right, I think it is a bit too hard to tell.
Forget Global Warming, Worry Magnetosphere
So that’s all I know.
PS
Talk of magnetosphere catstrophes reminds me of a total aside, Carrington Flares.
If one searches the YEC science literature on this, I think you can see where scientists may have found evidence of rapid reversals. Here’s one article from a quick search:
http://creation.com/fossil-mag.....etic-field
Magnetosphere concern simply reminds me of one of the six bowls of wrath in Revelation…
Revelation 16
“8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9 Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.”
Jesus had two earthly parents, and it seems reasonable each parent provides a different genealogy. It is not clear to me which parent is which.
There are Jesus “Mythers” (those who disbelieve he was real) and then we could suppose other Mythers like
Hezekiah Mythers
Levi Mythers
David Mythers
Abraham Mythers
Noah Mythers
The gospel according to Matthew includes these names, or names related to those listed, so let me first quote it from Chapter 1:
Taking Luke’s genealogy we can then tie Abraham as follows:
Matthew gives an approximation (it is not exact, since it double counts the individual in the deportation) but it is:
So what archaeological evidences do we have. The one most near and dear to me is the one that makes Hezekiah a real historical person: The Taylor Prism
An other wise “throw away” verse in the Bible by most casual readers suddenly lends credibility to a large part of the Genealogy of Christ. Now if Hezekiah is king, so much so that an Assyrian King mentions him, it means this was a real nation, a real kingdom. So then this demolishes the Hezekiah mythers, it establishes faithful transmission of large parts of the genealogical record.
So to the “David Mythers”, where then do you say David became a myth and how did Hezekiah become a king of a nation only 9 generations later:
And we have evidence of David, one indirectly supported by the work of The Sketical Zone’s very own Joe Felsenstein. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
This traces those to the line of Priests in the time of David, and the more direct evidence of David:
The Tel Dan Inscription
So there are 14 generations from Abraham to David, and about from 11 Abraham to Noah:
Evidence of Abraham. A little weaker, but there is one story in the book of Genesis from the time of Abraham regarding his Nephew Lot and the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoboim, and Zoar.
Make of it what you will:
http://www.discoverynews.us/DI.....rah_1.html
So we have fragmentary evidence when it comes to Abraham, but well, that’s where the Y-chromosomal Aaron comes in because this traces to the time of Moses and Aaron has a geneology to Abraham. From Wiki:
So, ironically one our TSZ friends Joe Felsenstein made software assisting the search of Aaron, which is helping establish Abraham as real. That’s the sort of Phylogenetic analysis I like, one that can actually identify a real ancestor via common descent!
And sure enough, because of modern science, the question of Abraham is now fair game. Hehehe.
From a Jewish website:
Abraham’s Chromosomes
And now the genetics search to see if the genetic structure of humans today conforms to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10. Add to that, if we establish bottlenecks in animals that converge on the same date we have affirmed the genetic bottle neck predicted by the flood model.
Remember all those tedious genealogies in the Bible? Now it all makes so much sense. It serves as a witness to a modern skeptical scientific culture that is not satisfied with feel-goodism religion, but hard nosed empiricism.
God willing the data will pour in, and it will be even more obvious who was closer to the truth, Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham, or should I say, Bill Nye vs. God.
http://news.yahoo.com/scientis.....52260.html
scordova:
Interesting. It would also have to work with all races if the flood was global. Remember also that Abraham left his homeland (Ur) and people and his descendants apparently did not intermix with them afterward.
“Traces of the Bible in our Genetic Code–Dr. Robert Carter”
http://youtu.be/CDuLEVu1C4A?t=9m40s
…
“The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter, Ph.D. marine biology)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ
…
“Eve: Real Evidence | Origins with Dr. Robert Carter”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su2ix3TwbIs
I submitted a comment to the dinosaur article at creation dot com website:
“Evolutionists have long recognized that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed, since they place the origin of both groups in the late triassic epoch over 200 million years ago, so this comes as no surprise to anyone.
You say that creatures such as ducks, platypuses, and squirrels have been proven to have lived alongside dinosaurs. I dont think thats correct.
The duck find you reference is dubious and bird experts disagree that it was a member of the anatid family. Some call the fossil unidentifiable.
Gansus is not classified as belonging to any living order of birds. Apparently the skull was not found which means its not certain that it looked like a duck.
Ancient monotreme fossils have been found in the mesozoic, but they arent identified as platypuses or any other modern monotreme since the fossils are fragmentary.
The squirrel you reference is actually Volaticotherium which is not a squirrel or even a rodent. It belongs to a completely extinct order of mammals.
The beaver-like mammal is Castorocauda which is classified as a docodont, a completely exinct order.
The badger-like mammal is Repenomamus, which is a triconodont, another extinct order of mammals. All these extinct orders are said to have died out tens of millions of years ago, and have no modern representatives, so I think its dishonest to say that it has been proven that dinosaurs walked alongside modern mammals and birds”
Their response was basically that since the layman press releases described them as such, then that means they are not wrong to refer to them in the same way. Pretty lame excuse to double down on their error. It remains a fact that no modern mammals have ever been found alongside dinosaurs.
Kuartus,
Good work. Thanks!
Finally some substantive objections.
Sal
Kuartus.
Sounds like you reached a middleman of some kind. Perhaps, see if you can direct your message to Carl Werner (http://creation.com/carl-werner). He seems to have done a lot in that very specific area. I’m not sure where he works, or how you can reach him.
…or this guy:
Dr Clemens @ UC Berkeley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5eTNoTHewY#t=53
kuartus
I picking randomly… and chose Volaticotherium, which you called a completely extinct order of mammal.
Here is Nature’s artistic rendering on the cover of one of theri prints:
http://imgur.com/d5Dp02B
Here is a photo of a flying squirrel:
http://imgur.com/OyzZRma
What would significantly distinguish these two creatures?
Other than that one is a fossil. 😛
…especially such that they would not be in the same order?
JGuy,
Actually, the author of the article(Calvin Smith) was the one who responded. My comment, and the author’s response, can actually be seen in the Readers’ comments section at the bottom of the article:
http://creation.com/so-called-age-of-dinosaurs
He didn’t admit the errors and insisted my problem was with the evolutionists themselves, and he was merely repeating what they said. Point being that their descriptions were inaccurate which is to be expected from popular(not technical)press releases which is what he was using as references. Better to use accurate references lest they mislead readers like they did with this article.
Volaticotherium:
http://www.amnh.org/our-resear.....mal-fossil
JGuy,
The way fossils are classified is by the characteristics of their skeleton. Volaticotherium possesses unique skeletal characteristics not seen in any living order of mammals. The similarities to living flying squirrels is superficial. You gotta go deeper.
American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) on the Volaticotherium:
“Although the new gliding mammal is comparable in size and shape to flying squirrels (which are members of Rodentia, an order of placental mammals), V. antiquus is not a direct ancestor of these or any other living mammals, including flying marsupials, flying lemurs, or bats. Instead, V. antiquus provides evidence for the independent origin of flight in this now-extinct lineage of mammals.”
Apparently, if it’s ancient, it must be classified as a different order. I think we discussed this point earlier.
The algorithm for classification?:
Fossilized creature + Latin name = new order
???
kuartus
I figured there is probably some difference, but I’m looking for something significant. AMNH calls this similar in size and shape. I don’t know if this is with the artistic skin or not… but so far, if it looks like a squirrel … flies like a squirrel. 😛
To be fair, I might even expect a small difference.
I don’t know where to get the data, not my field of specialty, but would like to see the fossil laid out. I would have expected to see it on the museum website, but it’s not there.
Skull of Volaticotherium:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyn....._skull.jpg
Skull of Flying Squirrel:
http://www.digimorph.org/speci.....vthumb.jpg
Sure doesn’t look like the same kind of animal.
kuartus
Yeah, those look different. Maybe there is something similar out there still… or it is extinct for sure.
Notice this interesting species… Felis levitus:
http://i.imgur.com/qBO4PLG.gif
El Gato Volador!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVFDlg4pbwM
Looking at Volaticotherium and searching around just a little for teeth like it. It might be closer to a flying lemur than a flying squirrel… at least in the skull.
“Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds
by Robert Sanders, Public Affairs
posted November 18, 1998”
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/b.....ossil.html
Keeping in mind the title of this blog thread:
“Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory”
…
http://www.nature.com/news/199.....527-3.html
excerpt:
“When Stidham showed the fossil to other specialists, he met with opposition: people were quite prepared to believe that this fossil was of a parrot until he revealed its age, he recalled at a palaeontological conference last year. Nobody believed that a fossil parrot could be that old.”
“Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive”
http://crev.info/2014/02/fitte.....er-arrive/
Nye refuted again on any distinction between historical and operational science. Howso? Saw this zinger of a quote watching Ian Juby’s youtube channel as he discussed Ham-Nye debate. And searched and found a copy of it at creation.com
My emphasis:
“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. 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.”
—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.”
http://creation.com/evolution-.....istry-mayr
Whoa… Ian Juby unquestionably rips apart Bill Nye’s arguments. And provides interesting information that is probably lesser known:
http://youtu.be/sWLzj_dt1Jg
It’s quiet in the archives.
Some documentary evidence humans were contemporaneous with dinosaurs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYHuJayozus
🙂
TGuy,
Thanks for the links in #114. I found Dr. Carter’s presentations interesting and informative. Just another confirmation that it is not the data that supports any one particular viewpoint. Rather, the data must be interpreted to serve as evidence for a viewpoint. Dr. Carter presents an well reasoned and well presented interpretation of the data to serve, comfortably, as in, no shoehorn required, as evidence for a young human race originating from one individual.
scordova,
Thanks to you for a circumspect championing the young-creationist viewpoint. I am well aware there are some data difficulties for the position. Would that the old earth/universe advocates, theistic or otherwise, could be as aware or, if aware, as forthright, about much data, when not ignored or denied, that need to be shoehorned into their position.
It is data that is interpreted as evidence for any particular position in this “fight.” We all have the same data. Those who suffer from “selective imagination” will declare that there is “absolutely no evidence” for the position of their opponent. Ironically, they often embezzle the moniker of skeptic and anathematize their opponents as dogmatists.
Stephen
Sorry,
TGuyJGuyStephen
I’m just listening to the debate now. Ham strikes me as a weak debater, allowing Nye to get away with all sorts of subject-shifting (i.e., “is science education good”?) Ham also does not understand his audience. He wants to preach the Bible to people who do not accept its authority. He wants to preach Christian theology and the gospel to a crowd many of whom are hardened against it. Many have heard the gospel song and dance a million times, Guess what? They believe that “science” has proven all that wrong. So you have to deal with the science and the epistemology first, since that supports scripture anyway. Some hearers would be more inclined to believe the scripture as a consequence of removing the obscuring veil of materialist assumption.
Anyway, my thoughts about the damage Darwinism does to real science follow.
Too bad no one had informed the evolution-immersed doctors of the poor girl in California who died as a result of her tonsillectomy.
So “vestigial” organs are in fact vital parts of our immune system. Likewise, wisdom teeth were never reported to cause problems until modern Western societies and their degenerate diets led to degeneration in the jaw muscles and the resulting squeeze for space. The Creator of teeth is wiser than we credit him for being.
For decades doctors have cut inflamed appendices out of people, rather than attempt to heal them. This “throwaway” organ may in fact save your life.
Because of reigning Darwinist dogma, real and life-saving science and medicine were forestalled for decades. Inquiry into the actual function of the appendix, tonsils, etc., and the causes and treatment of disorders of those organs, was ignored.
Any consideration of the real cause of wisdom tooth overcrowding, too, has been overshadowed by the Darwininan world view in which this is yet another “mistake of evolution.” (Yet, as David Menton points out, even if vestigial organs did exist “they would not provide evidence for evolution but rather for devolution.”)
Far from being the magical Rosetta Stone without which nothing about our world is knowable and science cannot proceed, Darwinism actually produces B.S. — Bad Science.
Here is another show stopper for evolution that meets Nye’s requirement of an out of place fossil.
http://creation.mobi/roraima-pollen
Pollen in the Early Cretacious
So, here is Nye’s Cambrian rabbit!