Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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 called age of the dinosaurs

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.

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

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. 😎

[youtube PL886FFE0E3EA557BE]

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?

Comments
Box @ 74
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.
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."JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Mapou @ 75
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.
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Interesting article at nature.com by Maggie McKee. Excerpt:
What observers see now, they presume, has been going on for billions of years — and will continue for eons to come. But observations of the distant reaches of the Solar System made in the past few years are challenging that concept ....
Box
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
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. :-D I can't wait.Mapou
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
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.Box
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
Edit: "Therefore, if God says X, and science evidence is interpreted to say Y…then X… pure and simple." B/c Science - done right - does not contradict God's word.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Mapou, Thanks for stating the basis of your position. Just a quick response to one part I found interesting:
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.
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Mapou:
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.
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)?Box
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
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
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Sal: 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
There is a third: 3. dubious and controversial interpretation of the ancient texts.Mapou
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
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.htmJGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Sal: 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
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.CentralScrutinizer
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
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.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Dr. Steve Austin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaOhaNO9cP0 Not this Steve Austin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5zn-mF2-_8JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
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?!JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Sal.
ROFL! Thanks again.
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
drc466 lol... I guess you're right... dogs, they are a many.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
JGuy,
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”
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.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record
so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.
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. :shock: 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.org/articles/cm/v14/n3/time
One of the most dramatic of these so called erosional breaks in the Grand Canyon strata is that between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone beneath (see Figure 1). The Redwall Limestone is assigned by evolutionary geologists to the so-called Mississippian Period (or the Lower Carboniferous to Europeans and Australians), said to have been 310-355 million years ago,3 whereas the Muav Limestone is said to belong to the so-called Cambrian Period, believed to be 510-570 million years ago.4 That means that where the Redwall Limestone rests directly on top of the Muav Limestone there is said to be a time gap of at least 155 million years during which the land surface was supposed to have been exposed to the forces of weathering and erosion.
:shock: Talk about being accountable for time, where is that missing 155 million years?
there is one place in the Canyon where diligent search has failed to find any evidence of erosion between the Redwall and Muav Limestones. The supposed 155 million years of geological time is not only ‘missing’, but appears to have never existed! The site is found on the North Kaibab Trail, which starts at Phantom Range on the Colorado River and climbs northward up to the North Rim of the Canyon. The trail crosses the boundary between the Redwall Limestone and the Muav Limestone, the spot being signposted by the National Park Service. The sign reads:
An Unconformity ‘Rocks of Ordovician and Silurian Periods are missing in Grand Canyon. Temple Butte Limestone of Devonian age occurs in scattered pockets. Redwall Limestone rests on these Devonian rocks or on Muav Limestone of much earlier Cambrian age.’
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.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
TSErik
1. the problem of distant starlight
Couldn’t the rapid expansion of the universe account for this?
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
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
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.drc466
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
1. the problem of distant starlight
Couldn't the rapid expansion of the universe account for this?TSErik
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
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-w9oJGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
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.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
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.JGuy
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
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
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
“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.
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. Salscordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
JGuy @ 46 Thanks for your response JGuy. I enjoyed reading it. You make a compelling argument.TSErik
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply