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
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/10.1666/0022-3360%282006%2980%5B672%3AROTFRO%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=pleo
There is a relatively continuous record, with the exception of the Eocene and Oligocene, in which there are few (potentially in the Eocene) or no (Oligocene) known specimens available in collections. We have found that nearly all specimens are best regarded as Acipenseridae indeterminate genus and species due to their fragmentary preservation and lack of preserved diagnostic characters.
Wow. I'm doing even better than Darwin with respect to having observations agree with my predictions!scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
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/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-89959-6_2
The fossil record of the basic xiphosurid horseshoe crab body plan has been extended back to the Late Ordovician Period, about 445 million years ago, demonstrating an origin that lies outside of the paraphyletic ‘synziphosurines.’ Horseshoe crab body fossils are exceptionally rare and are found mostly in shallow coastal and marginal marine Konservat-Lagerstätten deposits. Their sporadic occurrences document a post-Cambrian history of low overall diversity with a modest morphological and taxonomic peak in the Late Paleozoic Era. Survival of a single xiphosurid lineage through the end-Permian mass extinction events was followed by a minor secondary radiation during the Triassic Period. The Jurassic to Recent fossil record of horseshoe crabs is relatively impoverished in both taxa and known occurrences.
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.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Sal. A better more detailed video with Dr. Werner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6LmWznY4YsJGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
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].JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
UD as cloud storage :P .... 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]"JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
refining my brainstorm look at the supposed extinction of sharks that occurred at the Permian: Shark Evolution And lookie here about the Permian Extinction!
The Permian Period (along with the Paleozoic Era) ended with the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, in which nearly 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died out.[6] It would take well into the Triassic for life to recover from this catastrophe.
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.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
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.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
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=31JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
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
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old. Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made. In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems. If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be once molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones. If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14. Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem. For more information on this consult the article in this link.
Darwinist Paloeontology lives by radiometric dating, it dies by it to. Poetic justice.scordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
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/fossilrecord.html#Simple_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" ________________________________JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
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/taxa/inverts/mollusca/cephalopoda.php
Nautiluses are the most primitive cephalopod group and all have relatively simple, buoyant chambered shells within which the soft body is protected. The high point of nautilus evolution would appear to be during the Paleozoic from about Ordovician and Silurian periods (about 505 to 408 million years ago). During this time giant straight-shelled nautiluses were the only really large animals able to actively swim above the sea floor, sharks were still quite small animals and bony fish hadn't yet become neutrally buoyant. As such these animals must have been the great white sharks of their day, probably eating anything they could find and overpower, but some may also have eaten the swarms of midwater crustaceans rather like whales taking krill today.
Look at this: http://wilandeva3.tripod.com/111591-R1-02-0.jpgscordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
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/Timeline_of_plant_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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_shark It is found off southern Australia, including Tasmania, and south of East Cape and Kaipara Harbour in New Zealand, at depths of 0 - 200 m ... which shared a common ancestor with the Australian ghostshark about 450 million years ago
and nautilus
The shell is coiled, aragonitic,[9] nacreous and pressure resistant, imploding at a depth of about 800 metres (2,600 ft). .... Fossil records indicate that nautiloids have not evolved much during the last 500 million years
and
Pacific hagfish at 150 meters depth, .... living hagfish remain similar to hagfish 300 million years ago.[1]
and
The sturgeon inhabits mainly the depth of 20-50 m in the delta of the Selenga River, mouths of some rivers, and bays of Lake Baikal. In autumn, when there are strong winds, the sturgeon descends to the depth of 150 m. http://baikal.ru/en/baikal/excursion/pisces/acipenser.html .... Acipenseriform fishes appeared in the fossil record approximately 200 million years ago, around the very end of the Triassic, making them among the most ancient of actinopterygian fishes. True sturgeons appear in the fossil record during the Upper Cretaceous.
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
The vertical distribution of giant squid is incompletely known, but data from trawled specimens and sperm whale diving behaviour suggest it spans a large range of depths, possibly 300–1000 m.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid
Curious that these creature or similar one are seen almost as far back as life:
Fossil record There are about 17,000 named species of fossil cephalopods, compared to the 800 identified living species of cephalopods. Clearly the lineages of extinct taxa were prolific and diverse. So diverse in fact, that paleontologists have identified three distinct fossil clades that are entirely extinct: Endoceratoidea, Actinoceratoidea, and Bactritoidea (cladogram A, at right). All members of these clades were squid-like, but had straight external shells called orthocones. They flourished in Paleozoic oceans between the Ordovician (488 mya) and Triassic periods (200 mya) with shells that, in some species, reached nearly 10 meters in length. More familiar to us in the fossil record are the nautiloids, ammonoids, and belemnites.
And some observations from the Discovery Institute which I don't know has any relevance: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/giant_squid_mig070391.htmlscordova
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
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-earthtjguy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
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/feedback/2008/6193Helium-critics-fig3-lge.gifJGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
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=atXl6XTwNPA&list=PL52734A2CBE4FDC4D 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-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-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.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earthJGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
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:
"At 8 p.m. tonight on the same debate stage, Ken Ham and museum scientist Dr. Georgia Purdom will hold a 30-minute post-debate analysis. It will be live streamed (also at no cost) through debatelive.org/answers."
tjguy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
"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:)"
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.JGuy
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
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.Box
February 5, 2014
February
02
Feb
5
05
2014
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply