Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

[oneofshibumi]

Lordking wrote: 2. Physics vs Evolution: The Law of Entropy. a) The second law of thermodynamics is a simple and infinitely observable one. This law proposes that things get worse over time "Complexity in a closed system decreases over time." By definition, evolution proposes the opposite. The idea is that we are stronger and faster and smarter than our ancestors who lived millions of years ago. The Law of Entropy would say otherwise. According to the law of entropy, our ancestors endured less disease, deformity, and even lived longer, because we are the decayed replica of something that existed years ago. In order for evolution to be true we would see new species forming rapidly, new stars forming rapidly, and the fossil record of ancestry would be shaped like darwin's tree in some way.

RESPONSE: Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Thermo = heat, dynamics = motion) states, “Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location.” Entropy is a measure of how much this process has progressed. “The Law of Entropy” (it isn’t a law, it is a System Property(l)).


(l) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermodynamic_properties


Questions:

1) For you, what relevance does thermodynamics have with the theory of evolution?

2) For you. what relevance does entropy have with disease, deformity, and lived longer?

3) For you, what relevance does entropy have to do with decayed replica of something?


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics


Lordking wrote: b) To my knowledge what we've actually observed is that species are going extinct all the time, but new species are not forming. We see stars blow up all the time but we never see stars form, yet there are trillions upon trillions of them out there. A Japanese archaeologist observed that the actual tree of life is upside down. There are less species today than there were before. By following that pattern we can conclude that there was a spontaneous creation of all species in the beginning, and we're just left with what survived today and few extras from micro-evolution (i.e. wolves, dogs, coyotes).

RESPONSE: Actually, that has been observed by Ecologists since the 1960s. Scientist this great extinction of species, the Holocene Extinction(m). We, human beings, are the cause. The climate change that man has caused starting 10,000 B.C.E. (Before Christian Era).


(m) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction


Lordking wrote: What scientific evidence is there that evolution is capable of explaining the naturalistic creation of a universe that increases complexity over time. I believe that, in order to comply with the law of entropy , the universe requires a spontaneous creation. I want to know if there is any scientific evidence that gives evolution the right to defy the Law of Entropy without intelligent interaction.

RESPONSE: Evolution does NOT explain the naturalistic creation of a universe, Cosmology does. The laws of thermodynamics in general, and the “law of entropy” are bounded (limited to issues involving movement of heat.)


Lordking wrote: We defy the law of entropy all the time, we have repairmen, mechanics and doctors. We use intelligence to defy the law of entropy, and nature uses natural systems more complicated than any machine we've ever created to defy the law of entropy.

RESPONSE: Of course, life is a “thermodynamic open system,” animals gain energy by going outside of their own body systems and consuming nutrients from their environment. We need the nutrients for energy to keep our bodies warm, and maintain the body’s ability to do work. All living things reach a maximum level of entropy, we call it death. According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.


How does the body “defy” the state system of entropy? It doesn’t.


Lordking wrote: The Law of Entropy states that, "Complexity in a closed system decreases over time."


Entropy, in thermodynamics, means energy that is not available to do work.


According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy. Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.


Since entropy is a state function, the change in the entropy of a system is the same for any process that goes from a given initial state to a given final state, whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment.



Lordking wrote: The idea is that we are stronger and faster and smarter than our ancestors who lived millions of years ago.


RESPONSE: As a species, human beings are less than 120,000 years old. Why do you believe we are stronger in the present, than people in the past? People were very strong because life required it without the machines we now have. We are faster because our society can support for an elementary student who shows promise in sprinting or long distance running to practice up until adulthood.


The coaches teach the best techniques to improve form and speed for the individual. Add to this the proper equipment, the nutrition, and space/equipment to practice. Finally, we are smarter than our ancestors because we now write down knowledge and teach it to the general population.


In the last 25 years human beings have produced more knowledge than the previous 99,000 years.


Lordking wrote: According to the law of entropy, our ancestors endured less disease, deformity, and even lived longer, because we are the decayed replica of something that existed years ago.


“Think back to the last time you cut or grazed yourself. Can you imagine that cut becoming infected with bacteria(n) - so seriously infected that you couldn’t fight it? More people died in the past, than in the present


(n) http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/faq.htm#bacteria


Before the discovery of antibiotics, there was nothing much anybody could do. Streptococcus pyogenes caused half of all post-birth deaths and was a major cause of death from burns. Staphylococcus aureus was fatal in 80 percent of infected wounds and the tuberculosis and pneumonia bacteria were famous killers.


(o) http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/faq.htm#antibiotic


All this changed with the development of antibiotics.”


(p) http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/history.htm

 

[oneofshibumi]

Lordking wrote: 3. Biology vs Evolution: Genetic Homeostasis, Bio Genesis and Genetic Information Genetic homeostasis is a scientific observation that contradicts macro-evolution. Genetic homeostasis represents the fact that are barriers to the genetic changes a species can undergo when breeding. Mutations are almost always harmful and the changes they make do not compare to the amount of changes necessary to go from a dinosaur to a bird. There is evidence that these barriers cannot be broken, because humans have tried, that new complex genetic information cannot be made from mutations to create a new species.

RESPONSE; Genetic homeostasis is “the maintenance of genetic variability within a population through adaptation to varied or changing environments and conditions of life as a result of shifts or resistance to shifts in allelic frequencies.” How does this contradict macro-evolution? Genetic homeostasis means that a species maintains sufficient genetic differences within the population to augment the possibility that some population members survive in a disaster.


(q) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genetic+homeostasis


Lordking wrote: What scientific evidence is there that natural selection or the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium could cause a species to break the barriers of genetic homeostasis?

Punctuated equilibrium(r) (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once formed most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state of stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis.


(r) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

(s) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

(t) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

(u) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

(v) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladogenesis



Lordking wroteNA. Nothing more needs to be said, no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process. DNA is the most complex chemical in the universe. It's so unbelievably complex it consists of a language with it's own grammar and syntax and mathematical algorithmic expressions. This is my next argument, but I don't think there is anything more to be said in opposition about it


RESPONSE: Scientists do not believe life started in a DNA world, they believe it started in a RNA world. The RNA world refers to the self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules that were precursors to all current life on Earth. It is generally accepted that current life on Earth descends from an RNA world, although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to exist. I guess something else did need to be said.


As for your section that states, “no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process.” No scientist calls it an undirected process, they call it evolution.

 

[oneofshibumi]

Lordking wrote: 4. Psychology and Sociology vs Evolution “Whoever came up with vestigial organs doesn't know a single thing about biology. For example: If the appendix actually was vestigial, your body would have eradicated it by the time you were 13 years old. Your body doesn't keep organs alive that don't do any work. That's why your muscles get weak when you have a broken leg and can't walk on it for weeks. If your appendix was vestigial, yes, you would still be born with it, and your children born with it, but your body would have killed it off.”

RESPONSE: Well, vestigial structures(x) have been noticed since ancient times, and the reason for their existence was long speculated upon before Darwinian evolution provided a widely accepted explanation. In the 4th century BC, Aristotle was one of the earliest writers to comment, in his History of Animals, on the vestigial eyes of moles, calling them "stunted in development" due to the fact that moles can scarcely see. However, only in recent centuries have anatomical vestiges become a subject of serious study. May I also mention, neither vestigial structures are studied within psychology nor sociology, but within medicine, zoology, etc.


(x) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality


Some recent research into the appendix has provided some interesting results about the evolution of the appendix. It appears that Darwin was wrong about the evolution of the appendix.(x1)


(x1) http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/02/appendix-evolved-more-30-times


Lordking wrote: “If you've ever read the sad story of the little girl genie, whom no other child abuser in all history has been able to have a greater life-long psychological effect on the innocent child. Since Genie was neglected and never spoken to the major parts of her brain which register speech died off. The body said: "If you're not going to use it, why should I waste precious food keeping it alive?" Like a worker in a factory that does nothing, he's going to get fired, the body is hardcore.”

RESPONSE: I disagree with your analogy. Language acquisition or specifically, pronunciation (accents) are harder to learn as you get older is called thecritical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.


(y) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis


Genie (born 1957) is the pseudonym of a feral child who was the victim of extraordinarily severe abuse, neglect and social isolation. Her circumstances are prominently recorded in the annals of abnormal child psychology. When Genie was a baby her father decided that she was severely mentally retarded, causing him to dislike her and withhold as much care and attention as possible. Around the time she reached the age of 20 months Genie's father decided to keep her as socially isolated as possible, so from that point until she reached 13 years, 7 months, he kept her locked alone in a room. During this time he almost always strapped her to a child's toilet or bound her in a crib with her arms and legs completely immobilized, forbade anyone from interacting with her, and left her severely malnourished. The extent of Genie's isolation prevented her from being exposed to any significant amount of speech, and as a result she did not acquire language during childhood. Her abuse came to the attention of Los Angeles child welfare authorities on November 4, 1970.


(z) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)



Lordking wrote: “Now historic evolution says that in the paleolithic/neolithic era, man developed speech because they needed better order in the societies they were creating. My question is which came first, the babies who were capable of learning the language, or the adults who were capable of teaching it? If you never learn a language, you'll be little more communicative than a dog, you might be able to decipher sounds and respond with different syllables and noises, but grammar and syntax are physically beyond your comprehension.”

RESPONSE; When you write, “historic evolution,” Do you mean anthropological evolution(aa)?


The origin of language(ab) in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language. One problem makes the topic difficult to study: the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological evidence, contemporary language diversity, studies of language acquisition, and comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals (particularly other primates). Many argue that the origins of language probably relate closely to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.


(aa) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_anthropology

(ab) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language


Lordking wrote: “Is there a scientific explanation for how millions of years of evolution humans could ever develop a language that only the adults would have been capable of speaking if they themselves were taught it as a baby?”

There are many explanations take your pick(ac). Please note these are hypotheses, and not theories.


(ac) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Language_origin_hypothesis

 

[oneofshibumi]

Lordking wrote, 5. Population vs Evolution: It's entirely mathematically possible for a younger earth to produce a population like we have today. However, due to the exponential nature of population growth, it is inconceivable that the population of man today would only be 7 billion after millions of years. In just 200 years, based on consensus, the population rose from 1 billion to 7 billion. What scientific evidence is there that this trend would not have given rise to a much greater population of humanity over millions of years?


RESPONSE: The world population in 35,000 BCE is estimated to have been around 3 million people, all of whom subsisted as hunter-gatherers. The population had increased to around 15 million at the time agriculture emerged in around 10,000 BCE. By contrast, it is estimated that around 50–60 million people lived in the combined eastern and western Roman Empire in the 4th century CE.


(ad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


The Plague of Justinian(ae), which first emerged during the reign of the Roman emperor Justinian, caused Europe's population to drop by around 50% between the 6th and 8th centuries CE, The population of Europe was more than 70 million in 1340. The Black Deathpandemic(af) of the 14th century may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million in 1340 to between 350 and 375 million in 1400; it took 200 years for population figures to recover. The population of China decreased from 123 million in 1200 to 65 million in 1393, which was presumably due to a combination of Mongol invasions, famine, and plague.


(ae) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian

(af) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death


At the founding of the Ming Dynasty in 1368, China's population was reported to be close to 60 million; toward the end of the dynasty in 1644, it may have approached 150 million. England's population reached an estimated 5.6 million in 1650, up from an estimated 2.6 million in 1500. New crops that were brought to Asia and Europe from the Americas by Spanish colonists in the 16th century are believed to have contributed to population growth. Since their introduction to Africa by Portuguese traders in the 16th century, maize and cassava have similarly replaced traditional African crops as the most important staple food crops grown on the continent.

Around 300 BCE, the population of India was between 100 million and 140 million. The population of India in 1600 was around 100 million. Hence, from 300 BCE to 1600, India's population was more or less stable.


Pestilence, famine, and war (humans like killing each other) guaranteed to keep humanities numbers low.


MY PERSONAL COMMENTARY


1. Mathematics vs Evolution: The probability of chance

If you are going to use a probability argument, the argument must show how it was constructed. If you use information from someone else, it should be stated or linked in your essay.


2. Physics vs Evolution: The Law of Entropy

This argument shows a misunderstanding of the concepts of Thermodynamics and Entropy. Cognition skills (thinking skills), according to Bloom Taxonomy(ag) has 6 levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. An evaluation on the Physics vs. Evolution argument shows that you only have a basic comprehension of evolution, and barely any knowledge of thermodynamics and entropy. You do not have and skills in their application. What you are trying to do (analysis. synthesis, and evaluation). Is practically impossible without the first 3 levels (knowledge, comprehension, and application) being mastered first.


(ag) http://teaching.uncc.edu/learning-r...-practice/goals-objectives/writing-objectives


3. Biology vs Evolution: Genetic Homeostasis, Bio Genesis and Genetic Information

Punctuated equilibrium explains how Genetic Homeostasis changes. In the same way heads and tails are on the same coin. RNA is the molecule you will need to focus on. Are you a scientist? If you are not, reframe from saying “no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process.” By science standards, it nothing to your argument, and scientists know you are telling a falsehood.


4. Psychology and Sociology vs Evolution

Vestigial organs argument is false where you try to associate vestigial organs to other types of tissues in the body. May I ask do you work as medical doctor? I ask because you are making medical claims without evidence. The body does not eradicate tissue, the body reabsorbs tissue.


5. Population vs Evolution

Your argument shows a lack of knowledge about events that can reduce population size. The anecdote about Genie does not further your argument about population vs evolution. What was the purpose of adding the Genie anecdote?

 

[PeterDona]

I have on many occasions looked for actual data on this, but it is a tricky proposition. The only way to answer this would be to dig up vast amounts of sediment being deposited in rivers, lakes lagoons, open ocean etc. and see what was in there. This is pretty unfeasible, which I assume is why I can't find any numbers. But plants and animals around the world still die in vast numbers every day, and many of them die in or near aqueous environments. It seems reasonable to believe that a certain small proportion of these are being buried via sedimentation and that a certain (even smaller) proportion of those organisms will eventually be fossilized.

And your response has not addressed the question I asked you: Given the fact that a global Flood is not required to explain the current dominance of aqueous depositional environments, why do you think it is most parsimonious to invoke a Global Flood to explain this same dominance of aqueous depositional environments in the rock record? I understand that as a Young Earther that is necessarily your stance, but I'm hoping you can provide a more specific support for believing that the Flood is necessary (or at least a more parsimonious explanation) for the creation of an aqueously-dominated rock record when no such global even is required to create the current aqueously-dominated sedimentation.

Yes, it was a question that just popped out of my head, but it is actually a problem for evolution theory to explain how those deposits form in welldefined locations, whereas it is not such a big problem for flood theory. I recall wondering why (I live in Denmark) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Møns_Klint Møns klint has only one layer of fossil, and why all the chalk is in the same location. In Møns klint you can clearly see about 20m from sea level, there is a layer of fossils. The rest is chalk, it appears. Mostly it was the chalk that I wondered about. Was it deposited slowly or quickly. I reasoned, it had to be quickly or otherwise the chalk would also be seen in many other locations, spread out, mixed with other stuff.
When you talk about rocks, I guess you do not mean granite rocks? In Denmark, rock equals granite, but I would not believe that fossils are found in granite.
I would be happy to provide more fundamental evidence that a flood has been there. But I have only a little to supply here. I remember reading a book, 15 years ago, that stated that all around the world there were found sand layers 4-5 m think when digging into the ground, indicative of a flood. And since this was widespread over the whole world, it was reasonable to believe that there had been a worldwide flood.
Are you a paleontologist by profession? Or geologist?

So please do explain why a) this pattern is explained by the Flood and, if you can b) why this pattern is better explained by the Flood.
I believe that you are asking me to explain something that you have observed? I am at a loss, but I would like to if I had the expertise.

We don't see bits of South American rock unites mixed in with Mongolian rock units, for example.
So you mean, the chemical composition of rocks is distinct to the geographical locations? And maybe also the fossils found there?

The relative immaturity of Flood geology could be considered an excuse for why it fails to explain the rock record
In my mind it does not really fail. I think it has a good explanation. Maybe even better than evolutionist explanation, concerning why some mammals are found on top whereas smaller organisms are at the bottom.

I can give you a variety of examples that refute the Floodist rescue mechanisms of ecological zonation, differential escape and hydrological sorting if you are interested, but for now we can look at a coral example.
I can see your point and that there is some fundament for your belief in morphological evolution there. However, what caused the "former" to become extinct and the "latter" to survive? You see, in order to believe in evolution, you also have to believe in selective pressure (at least within my branch of science which is molecular biology). I think the lack of ability to identify selective pressures is one of the big failings of evolutionary theory.
Do these kinds of corals no longer exist?

 

[USincognito]

In Møns klint you can clearly see about 20m from sea level, there is a layer of fossils. The rest is chalk, it appears. Mostly it was the chalk that I wondered about. Was it deposited slowly or quickly. I reasoned, it had to be quickly or otherwise the chalk would also be seen in many other locations, spread out, mixed with other stuff.

Chalk is actually made up of fossils. Coccolithophores form bodies using calcium carbonate and when they die the very slowly descend to the bottom of the sea floor where they build up over time. Chalk also contains the fossils of other marine animals and plants.
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/dover_kent_fossils.htm

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, it was a question that just popped out of my head, but it is actually a problem for evolution theory to explain how those deposits form in welldefined locations, whereas it is not such a big problem for flood theory. I recall wondering why (I live in Denmark) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Møns_Klint Møns klint has only one layer of fossil, and why all the chalk is in the same location. In Møns klint you can clearly see about 20m from sea level, there is a layer of fossils. The rest is chalk, it appears. Mostly it was the chalk that I wondered about. Was it deposited slowly or quickly. I reasoned, it had to be quickly or otherwise the chalk would also be seen in many other locations, spread out, mixed with other stuff.
When you talk about rocks, I guess you do not mean granite rocks? In Denmark, rock equals granite, but I would not believe that fossils are found in granite.
I would be happy to provide more fundamental evidence that a flood has been there. But I have only a little to supply here. I remember reading a book, 15 years ago, that stated that all around the world there were found sand layers 4-5 m think when digging into the ground, indicative of a flood. And since this was widespread over the whole world, it was reasonable to believe that there had been a worldwide flood.
Are you a paleontologist by profession? Or geologist?

As has been pointed out, the chalk of Mons Klint is composed of fossils and contains fossils, as even the most superficial googling will reveal. Mons Klint is also part of a larger formation, as best I can tell, that extends far beyond the six km of cliff known as Mons Klint. In any case, there is no reason I know of that rapid deposition should equte to deposition over a small area. It seems like it would be beneficial for you to do some reading and get a basic knowledge of geology rather than have me trying to explain concepts to you one at a time.

As for your book from 15 years ago, perhaps you should not still be using that (as far as I can tell completely untrue) anecdote to support your belief in Flood geology.

I believe that you are asking me to explain something that you have observed? I am at a loss, but I would like to if I had the expertise.

I'm talking about the pattern I have outlined. It seems to me that you are saying that you can't explain that pattern in the context of the Flood. You also have been unable to explain why the past dominance of aqueous deposition is best explained by the Flood when the current dominance of aqueous deposition is obviously not explained by the Flood. I would appreciate some direct answers to these two questions. If you are unable to provide them, that should be a red flag to you. If your Flood geology can't explain these things then there are big problems with it.

We don't see bits of South American rock unites mixed in with Mongolian rock units, for example.
So you mean, the chemical composition of rocks is distinct to the geographical locations? And maybe also the fossils found there?

The chemical composition would likely be different. There are distinct strata or groups of strata in these two areas, with distinct fossil assemblages.

In my mind it does not really fail. I think it has a good explanation. Maybe even better than evolutionist explanation, concerning why some mammals are found on top whereas smaller organisms are at the bottom.

I know you don't think it fails, but I have provided you with some pretty clear arguments that it does, arguments which you have not yet been able to counter. You can think Flood geology isn't a failure, but how can you support that position if you can't refute the arguments that say it is? You've invoked differential escape here, but the pattern you're imagining only exists if we ignore almost all of the fossil record. In other words it is not really a pattern but a superficial and biased sampling of data to prop up a failed model of geology.

I can see your point and that there is some fundament for your belief in morphological evolution there. However, what caused the "former" to become extinct and the "latter" to survive? You see, in order to believe in evolution, you also have to believe in selective pressure (at least within my branch of science which is molecular biology). I think the lack of ability to identify selective pressures is one of the big failings of evolutionary theory.
Do these kinds of corals no longer exist?

I think you missed the point of those pictures. The point was that both types of coral have the similar morphologies, geographic locations and ecological niches, yet Scleractinians (which exist to this day) are never found below the Rugosan corals which went extinct. This strict stratification despite obvious similarities refutes the idea that they were living together at the same time when the Flood came and buried them.

 

[PeterDona]

I know you don't think it fails, but I have provided you with some pretty clear arguments that it does, arguments which you have not yet been able to counter. You can think Flood geology isn't a failure, but how can you support that position if you can't refute the arguments that say it is?

It is not that I would not be able to provide a model that is in agreement with flood geology, if I had the time to sit down and study geology. You use some words that are foreign to me, and reference some observations, which are not known to me. I refuse to be so unscientifical to argue from a position of lack of training, and therefore I will only say, that on my level of understanding of geology, it works.

I do not reject that your model of understanding has some solidity. I have decided on another model, which also has some solidity.

Concerning the corals with similar morphologies, I would suspect that they are within the same kind, and most probably they coexisted (for I reject the interpretation of the fossil strata as "ages"). Why one of them is consistently lower in the strata than the other, could be due to a number of reasons, and it might even have to do with the fact that these are corals
However, I do not think that the flood came and buried them, like that, I would rather think, that they were torn away from their natural habitat, and subsequently deposited. I would be surprised to learn of habitats being preserved in fossilized areas. It probably exists somewhere, just as we see trees growing through multiple layers of strata. How could those trees withstand the enormous powers of the flood water? I have no idea, but some trees have a powerful net of roots, and so a few might be able to stand.

So to sum up, I try to avoid answering on a scientific level that I do not possess. I try to know my limitations. but maybe I could answer, if you paint the picture clear enough, so that I understand fully enough your question.

p.s. in one post I spoke about CO2 levels. I of course meant, C-14 levels.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Concerning the corals with similar morphologies, I would suspect that they are within the same kind, and most probably they coexisted (for I reject the interpretation of the fossil strata as "ages"). Why one of them is consistently lower in the strata than the other, could be due to a number of reasons, and it might even have to do with the fact that these are corals
However, I do not think that the flood came and buried them, like that, I would rather think, that they were torn away from their natural habitat, and subsequently deposited. I would be surprised to learn of habitats being preserved in fossilized areas. It probably exists somewhere, just as we see trees growing through multiple layers of strata. How could those trees withstand the enormous powers of the flood water? I have no idea, but some trees have a powerful net of roots, and so a few might be able to stand.

Have you tried an internet search for "fossil coral reef"? Turns out there are quite a few, with ages from several thousand years to hundred of million years.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not that I would not be able to provide a model that is in agreement with flood geology, if I had the time to sit down and study geology. You use some words that are foreign to me, and reference some observations, which are not known to me. I refuse to be so unscientifical to argue from a position of lack of training, and therefore I will only say, that on my level of understanding of geology, it works.

I would agree that only someone unfamiliar with geology would say that flood geology works. Once you start looking at geology, however, you quickly find out that it doesn't.

You may want to read an article written by a former young earth creationist named Glenn Morton. He is a self trained geologist who abandoned YEC because of what he saw in his day to day work. He wasn't just any YEC that happens upon internet discussion forums. He actually wrote papers for the ICR and went to their meetings. Here is an excerpt from that essay:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
​

For the most part, young earth creationism was abandoned by scientists even before Darwin presented his ideas on evolution. The evidence hasn't changed in the 150 years since then.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It is not that I would not be able to provide a model that is in agreement with flood geology, if I had the time to sit down and study geology. You use some words that are foreign to me, and reference some observations, which are not known to me. I refuse to be so unscientifical to argue from a position of lack of training, and therefore I will only say, that on my level of understanding of geology, it works.

I do not reject that your model of understanding has some solidity. I have decided on another model, which also has some solidity.

Concerning the corals with similar morphologies, I would suspect that they are within the same kind, and most probably they coexisted (for I reject the interpretation of the fossil strata as "ages"). Why one of them is consistently lower in the strata than the other, could be due to a number of reasons, and it might even have to do with the fact that these are corals
However, I do not think that the flood came and buried them, like that, I would rather think, that they were torn away from their natural habitat, and subsequently deposited. I would be surprised to learn of habitats being preserved in fossilized areas. It probably exists somewhere, just as we see trees growing through multiple layers of strata. How could those trees withstand the enormous powers of the flood water? I have no idea, but some trees have a powerful net of roots, and so a few might be able to stand.

So to sum up, I try to avoid answering on a scientific level that I do not possess. I try to know my limitations. but maybe I could answer, if you paint the picture clear enough, so that I understand fully enough your question.

p.s. in one post I spoke about CO2 levels. I of course meant, C-14 levels.

While it is laudable to admit that you are uninformed in a certain area, it seems strange to combine such humbleness with the arrogance of presuming that your model, Flood geology, is more credible than the model put forth by people who are extremely well-versed in geology. You have hit the nail on the the head when you say that Flood geology makes sense on your "level of understanding". You admit that your level of understanding is very limited when it comes to geology. Doesn't that set off any alarm bells for you? You know very little about geology and the Flood makes sense, but even the very minor amount of geological knowledge I have provided shows that it doesn't make sense. Think how absurd the Flood model is to people whose day to day lives are spent immersed in the study of geology.

 

[PeterDona]

An answer to you both Atheos Canadensis and Loudmouth, and maybe we should close the topic here:
Flood geology, at my level of understanding makes MORE sense than evolutionist geology. I do not know if that will change with further study, or such will just be more wasted time. I suspect the latter.
Within my field, molecular biology, a creationist understanding makes MORE sense than an evolutionary understanding.
I appreciate your efforts, but the call for confronting stuff beyond my training is unfair. It does not make your argument more right, it does only provide explanation that you should consult a young earth geologist, not a young earth molecular biologist.

I consider myself not arrogant at all, but by experience when such words start to appear in a discussion, then it is time to take a break.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

An answer to you both Atheos Canadensis and Loudmouth, and maybe we should close the topic here:
Flood geology, at my level of understanding makes MORE sense than evolutionist geology. I do not know if that will change with further study, or such will just be more wasted time. I suspect the latter.
Within my field, molecular biology, a creationist understanding makes MORE sense than an evolutionary understanding.
I appreciate your efforts, but the call for confronting stuff beyond my training is unfair. It does not make your argument more right, it does only provide explanation that you should consult a young earth geologist, not a young earth molecular biologist.

I consider myself not arrogant at all, but by experience when such words start to appear in a discussion, then it is time to take a break.

As has been pointed out, modern geology existed well before evolutionary theory, so "evolutionist geology" is a fairly meaningless term. You insist that your limited knowledge of geology convinces you that the Flood model is more correct while simultaneously admitting that you can't explain how it works in the face of even the most basic facts I have presented. That strikes me as a really weird way to approach a topic, but if you are so attached to your model then so be it. But in any case I think you have misconstrued the tone of my post. I do think it is arrogant to maintain that your model is better when you have only the vaguest knowledge of the information presented, but I would not say that your posts are characterized by arrogance by any means. So if you are worried that the ad hominems are about to fly, worry no more.

 

[Loudmouth]

QUOTE="PeterDona, post: 67529765, member: 256046"]An answer to you both Atheos Canadensis and Loudmouth, and maybe we should close the topic here:
Flood geology, at my level of understanding makes MORE sense than evolutionist geology.[/quote]

First, there is no such thing as "evolutionist geology". It is just geology. The ancient age of the Earth and a lack of a recent global flood was already well established before anyone knew of Darwin's theory. The evidence for an old Earth and a lack of a recent global flood has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Second, you never explain why it makes more sense? Why does it make more sense that a flood would sort fossils and volcanic ash so that we never find a dinosaur fossil above an ash bed that dates to 65 million years old by measurements of the K and Ar in the volcanic ash? How is a flood able to sort fossils so that they correlate to tiny changes in the Argon content of igneous rocks around them?

Within my field, molecular biology, a creationist understanding makes MORE sense than an evolutionary understanding.

How do molecular phylogenies make sense in creationism? For example, how do you explain this data for cytochrome c?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055

For example, let's look at the comparisons for chicken, mouse, and human cytc. The evolutionary distance between humans and chickens is the same as the evolutionary distance between mice and chickens. This is because humans share the same common ancestor with chickens that mice do. Humans and mice are evolutionarily equidistant from chickens.

This carries over into the genetic data. The homology between human and chicken cytc is 81.6% at the DNA level. It is 81.9% between mouse and chicken, nearly the same as between human and chicken. This is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from evolution and common ancestry. How does creationism explain this?

Phylogenies like this are one of the most basic observations in molecular biology, so I would hope that you have a really good explanation for them as it pertains to creationism.

 

[PeterDona]

But in any case I think you have misconstrued the tone of my post. I do think it is arrogant to maintain that your model is better when you have only the vaguest knowledge of the information presented, but I would not say that your posts are characterized by arrogance by any means. So if you are worried that the ad hominems are about to fly, worry no more.

OK I accept this.
To sum up, what I have learnt from the short debate is
1) eolutionist geology has only weak or no explanation for the vast amount of deposition of fossils (and oil and coal included in that?) - a strong case for floodist geology
2) some strict stratification of corals seems to be a case for evolutionist geology - preferential evidence for evolutionist geology

So both sides have gained some, in my view. I wonder why the question of deposition has not been discussed scientifically. But maybe that is a reflection of how science works. Scientists will usually not focus their research on weak areas. They will postpone it until it becomes technically possible to research (if ever). Scientists need publications to keep their jobs.

3) a former YEG has lost his belief in YE geology - definitely something to consider, meaning that also some people go the other way.
4) the matter of carbon-14 dating, i think that one is pending, awaiting that I can invest the time to go into it.
5) there is a lot of debunking of Kent Hovind here in this forum. So the question is, how about all the convincing evidence he presents. Is it all just constructed evidence? I can hardly believe that. I tend to believe his explanation that there is far more evidence for a floodist view, but evidence gets scrapped (knowingly or unknowingly) when it does not fit the current model.

 

[PeterDona]

How do molecular phylogenies make sense in creationism? For example, how do you explain this data for cytochrome c?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/homologene?cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AlignmentScores&list_uids=133055

For example, let's look at the comparisons for chicken, mouse, and human cytc. The evolutionary distance between humans and chickens is the same as the evolutionary distance between mice and chickens. This is because humans share the same common ancestor with chickens that mice do. Humans and mice are evolutionarily equidistant from chickens.

This carries over into the genetic data. The homology between human and chicken cytc is 81.6% at the DNA level. It is 81.9% between mouse and chicken, nearly the same as between human and chicken. This is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from evolution and common ancestry. How does creationism explain this?

Phylogenies like this are one of the most basic observations in molecular biology, so I would hope that you have a really good explanation for them as it pertains to creationism.

Those "evolutionary relationships" are the cornerstone of the evolutionist understanding of molecular biology. If you hear an evolutionist molecular biologist speaking, he will always point his finger to this kind of evidence. So is 96% likeness or 98.1% likeness really indicative and convincing? Probably for some people, namely the people that prefer this explanation.
What is lacking in those "evolutionary relationships" is an estimation of the genetic spread of human genetics. I think the whole human race is within 99.9%. So that makes for a gap of 4% to be bridged by a genetic spread of 0.1% Do you see why I am not leaned on the evolutionary explanation when considering this? Rather, there seems to be a limitation to the spread of human genetics, and I believe if we investigated the spread of other species/kinds, we would find the same pattern.
The genetic spread amongst humans of 0.1% is what I get from e.g. this article: https://www.icr.org/article/5657/
21.6 mutations/16.569 nucleotides = 0.13%

I have more to say on molecular biology but at least this answers your direct question, and so I am off to work. Have a nice day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PeterDona, I don't know why you think that geology cannot explain fossil beds. And Flood "geology" is a joke at best. It is just an ad hoc explanation that is constantly contradicting itself. There are many problems that Flood advocates have no explanation for. One of my favorites is this:

They have no explanation of how this formed.

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

It can only be explained by the standard model of geology, but go ahead. Take a shot at it.

 

[bhsmte]

OK I accept this.
To sum up, what I have learnt from the short debate is
1) eolutionist geology has only weak or no explanation for the vast amount of deposition of fossils (and oil and coal included in that?) - a strong case for floodist geology
2) some strict stratification of corals seems to be a case for evolutionist geology - preferential evidence for evolutionist geology

So both sides have gained some, in my view. I wonder why the question of deposition has not been discussed scientifically. But maybe that is a reflection of how science works. Scientists will usually not focus their research on weak areas. They will postpone it until it becomes technically possible to research (if ever). Scientists need publications to keep their jobs.

3) a former YEG has lost his belief in YE geology - definitely something to consider, meaning that also some people go the other way.
4) the matter of carbon-14 dating, i think that one is pending, awaiting that I can invest the time to go into it.
5) there is a lot of debunking of Kent Hovind here in this forum. So the question is, how about all the convincing evidence he presents. Is it all just constructed evidence? I can hardly believe that. I tend to believe his explanation that there is far more evidence for a floodist view, but evidence gets scrapped (knowingly or unknowingly) when it does not fit the current model.

What is eolutionist geology?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

OK I accept this.
To sum up, what I have learnt from the short debate is
1) eolutionist geology has only weak or no explanation for the vast amount of deposition of fossils (and oil and coal included in that?) - a strong case for floodist geology

Please make explicit your reasoning for this statement. As far as we have discussed, the depositional processes we observe today are perfectly sufficient to have been responsible for the creation of the fossil record in the past.

Also I wish you would stop saying "evolutionist geology". It is historical fact that modern geology existed long before evolutionary theory. You are giving the impression of being wilfully ignorant or even attempting to goad by repeatedly using that senseless term despite being corrected.

2) some strict stratification of corals seems to be a case for evolutionist geology - preferential evidence for evolutionist geology

This was but one example out of an effectively limitless supply. I can provide many more if you are willing to read a lot.

So both sides have gained some, in my view. I wonder why the question of deposition has not been discussed scientifically. But maybe that is a reflection of how science works. Scientists will usually not focus their research on weak areas. They will postpone it until it becomes technically possible to research (if ever). Scientists need publications to keep their jobs.

I agree that scientists postpone research until it is technically possible to carry it out. I don't think it could be done any other way. But knowing many working scientists, I would argue that they do not shy away from areas where knowledge is weak. Those are the areas that attract many scientists because of the opportunity for novel information.

3) a former YEG has lost his belief in YE geology - definitely something to consider, meaning that also some people go the other way.
4) the matter of carbon-14 dating, i think that one is pending, awaiting that I can invest the time to go into it.

It definitely is something to consider. Someone who believed in the Flood could no longer do so after learning about geology. Your supposition about the opposite situation seems doubtful and speculative at best. There are of course some geologists who are Floodists, but can you point to a single person who became a Floodist only after studying geology?

5) there is a lot of debunking of Kent Hovind here in this forum. So the question is, how about all the convincing evidence he presents. Is it all just constructed evidence? I can hardly believe that. I tend to believe his explanation that there is far more evidence for a floodist view, but evidence gets scrapped (knowingly or unknowingly) when it does not fit the current model.

That's because Hovind has a habit of grossly misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence so that it seems to support his point. Your faith in his credibility does not actually confer any credibility to him. I bet if you were willing to start a thread about what Hovind gets wrong, you would get a very detailed and reference-based account of all the ways he has mislead you.

 

[PeterDona]

Please make explicit your reasoning for this statement. As far as we have discussed, the depositional processes we observe today are perfectly sufficient to have been responsible for the creation of the fossil record in the past.

The observation was made, that catastrophic events are needed along the way, for deposition of fossils to happen. However I do not see how evolutionist geology can accomodate this.

Also I wish you would stop saying "evolutionist geology". It is historical fact that modern geology existed long before evolutionary theory. You are giving the impression of being wilfully ignorant or even attempting to goad by repeatedly using that senseless term despite being corrected.
Evolutionist geology simply means, geology interpreted in the framework of evolution. E.g. old earth, macroevolution, and related theories that belong to the evolutionist framework. Likewise I use the term floodist geology to mean, geology interpreted in the framework of flood theory / creation theory.

It definitely is something to consider. Someone who believed in the Flood could no longer do so after learning about geology. Your supposition about the opposite situation seems doubtful and speculative at best. There are of course some geologists who are Floodists, but can you point to a single person who became a Floodist only after studying geology?
Do you know of a university teaching geology in the floodist framework, then I will probably be able to point you to several people like that.

That's because Hovind has a habit of grossly misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence so that it seems to support his point. Your faith in his credibility does not actually confer any credibility to him. I bet if you were willing to start a thread about what Hovind gets wrong, you would get a very detailed and reference-based account of all the ways he has mislead you.
Well, the thing is, he would only be misleading me if he guided me into a belief that I did not want. I accept his evidence, because this is what I want to believe. I had the idea however to start a thread on his claims, but I believed that most people in here would be bored and not take part.

Apparently evidence exists that cannot be easily reconciled to floodist theory (according to your an others opinion).

But I have seen quite a number of examples of evolutionists scrapping knowledge that did not fit into their framework. So do not only accuse floodists of doing such a thing.

For one example, to give you some meat here, from my field, scientists disapprove of the theory of one common ancestor:
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2281
"More recently, researchers are suggesting that that ancestral population of bacteria was not composed of a single species, but of multiple species which swapped genes freely."
While others still continue to believe in the universal common ancestor, the "first living organism". Did you know, that the idea of a single common ancestor has been scrapped? I find that very interesting. P.s. take note of the religious language here. There is even a scientist who is now "molecular evolutionist". Fascinating title hmmm .....