The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[Orogeny]

Permian would mean it was somewhere in the middle of the entire catastrophe which started with a breaking open of the fountains of the deep - it would involve tectonics and flooding - not just flooding

Permian is its depositional age, but as you said it must predate the flood, the flood must, in your mind, be post-Permian, yes?

the pC-Cambrian boundary as the base of the flood is just an idea - it's not my idea - I know it's far-fetched -

Incredibly so.

it's an alternative idea to 4.5 billion years of slow plodding along and sequential thin deposits that would not preserve any fossils and destructive mutations causing more complex life forms to magically appear which is also far-fetched

Can you back the assertion that taphonomy is impossible using processes in action today? Also, nobody that I know of asserts that destructive mutations or magic are involved in increasing biodiversity. This is a strawman.

so if there wasn't a catastrophe of some sort then what authority does the Bible have to believers? where did all the flood legends come from? why were plants and animals so much larger in the past? why do the Bible and other sources speak of how much longer people lived before the flood?

Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but these questions appear to expose the core of what troubles you- an emotional inability to stray from your interpretation of the bible. There are many, many Christians who have no problem reconciling the teachings contained in the bible with their observational understanding that the earth is ancient and that evolution has and does occur.

why is there a global network of extremely well-built precisely-oriented pyramids and other structures with functions we cannot figure out today?

This is an interesting claim, but I don't see that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. However, I would like to see any evidence you have for this network.

 

[Orogeny]

no - but unlike modern science I admit there is a lot I do not know or understand

You are aware, I hope, that every scientist's task- passion, if I may go so far- is investigating and attempting to understand that which they do not, yes? Every scientist is doing exactly what you claim they are not!

 

[razeontherock]

if there was a global flood

and if the pC - Cambrian is the unconformity for the beginning of the flood

then all the vertebrates dead in the fossil record represent the vertebrates alive before the flood

i'm not saying that's what happened - lots of problems explaining how that would happen

i know what the Bible says

and I know what old earthers say happened

i don't know what happened i have lots of questions

Notice the line I bolded. While I'm not advocating anything here, the literal model would point out that the (non existent) vertebrates in the fossil record you refer to pose no problem because death entered by one man, Adam. The time from that event to the flood is very short, from the POV of a fossil.

 

[razeontherock]

Meanwhile, modern geology explains the origins of the reef itself (you haven't), documents and explains the evolution of organisms composing the reef (you haven't), explains the morphology of the reef and associated sediments (you haven't), provides petrographc and geochemical constraints on the diagenetic history of the reef (you haven't), explains why the reef complex died, giving SPECIFIC PROCESSES leading to its demise (you haven't) explains why the reef was preserved (you haven't), explains why the reef was exhumed (you haven't), when it was exhumed (you haven't), and why caves have developed in it since it was exhumed (you haven't).

And the un-stated assumption here, is that because these answers are published, that they are all correct.

 

[gluadys]

those are disputes between like-minded evolutionists - I am speaking of disputes between creationists and evolutionists - disputes between antagonistic views

if both views have merit both must be compared and contrasted

They have been, ad nauseum. The verdict that the view antagonistic to evolution has no merit was rendered more than a century ago and is not in any serious dispute.

if life was created by a creator - an intelligent being existing outside of it's creation - but children are taught they evolved accidentally from naturalistic forces and that same idea sets the foundation for university research it is hardly irrelevant

Why do you exclude God from a naturalistic view of the universe? Why do you exclude God from accidents? (There are plenty of biblical examples of accidents planned by God.)

What do you think words like "nature" and "natural" meant to the biblical writers? Do you think they interpreted nature as "fenced off from God"?

 

[gluadys]

And the un-stated assumption here, is that because these answers are published, that they are all correct.

I think the unstated assumption is the reverse: that they have been published because they have been shown to be correct.

And the point is that because they have shown the basis of their conclusions, those conclusions are open to scrutiny by others.

 

[razeontherock]

The only exceptions I can think of are articles by Todd Wood, who's trying to bring some rigor to creationism -- but who ends up spending lots of him time criticizing the arguments of other creationists.

So what you see is essentially a new science, in it's infancy. You're saying this branch has a total of 1 member that you're aware of. That would seem to, leave some room for development

Which is not the way that looking at the available evidence from a different angle is typically viewed by the scientific community. Surely you must admit that, with respect to the creationist viewpoint?

 

[Orogeny]

And the un-stated assumption here, is that because these answers are published, that they are all correct.

No, the assertion is that the explanations given by the scientists are PLAUSIBLE, even probable. There are infinite interpretations for any data set, but some are much more likely than others. These are the ones that get published.

 

[valkyree]

Permian is its depositional age, but as you said it must predate the flood, the flood must, in your mind, be post-Permian, yes?


.

the Permian would represent some point mid-flood/catastrophe

I meant if it was a huge clast of preserved bioherm then it may represent a piece of pre-flood deposit from the pre-flood shallow sea next to the pre-flood N American craton/Laurentia that got uplifted and preserved
Permian Reefs and Carbonate Complexes shows a good map at the top

Then you mentioned the interfingered turbidites - I was looking into that and found this Bureau Staff - Peter Scholle - Guadalupe Mountains where it said this near the top:

[SIZE=+1]snip....."T[/SIZE]he entire depositional spectrum from far-back-reef to deep basin can be observed in outcrops of the Guadalupe Mountains and adjacent areas, with little or no structural deformation and very slight vegetation or soil cover. The reef complex of this region is dissected by a series of deep canyons cut approximately at right angles to the regional facies strike. These canyons, especially McKittrick Canyon, provide exceptional cross-sectional views of the lateral and vertical relations of depositional environments through time.

Finally, the region is rather exceptional in that, at the end of Guadalupian time, the entire suite of facies was preserved (essentially pickled) by extremely rapid deposition of evaporites (gypsum/anhydrite, halite, sylvite, and more exotic salts). These Ochoan evaporites filled the Delaware basin remnants and even covered adjacent shelfal areas. Thus, original facies relations were preserved from extensive erosional modification, and late Tertiary uplift, coupled with dissolution of the very soluble evaporites, has led to resurrection of original (Permian) topography , greatly facilitating facies reconstruction...."


I was looking for more info on the turbidites and was wondering if they were found as deposits that could have been made in similar canyons to these but at an earlier date and then partially eroded later causing them to look like they were interfingered

turbidites and the later ''extremely rapid deposition of evaporites'' would be evidence of a rapid series of events - the later evaporites making sense as a late stage settling of flood waters

maybe I'm way off base - it's just an idea

 

[valkyree]

1 Can you back the assertion that taphonomy is impossible using processes in action today? Also, nobody that I know of asserts that destructive mutations or magic are involved in increasing biodiversity. This is a strawman.

2 Please forgive me if I am mistaken, but these questions appear to expose the core of what troubles you- an emotional inability to stray from your interpretation of the bible. There are many, many Christians who have no problem reconciling the teachings contained in the bible with their observational understanding that the earth is ancient and that evolution has and does occur.

3 This is an interesting claim, but I don't see that it has anything to do with the topic at hand. However, I would like to see any evidence you have for this network.

1 the basic creationist claim is the fossil record does not show the requisite series of intermediate forms showing the gradual changes necessary for the evolutionary process - yes some would have been eroded but not all of them - there should be a lot of them in the fossil record

2 yes there is the emotional component of not wanting to give up on the idea that The Almighty saw to it that His Word was accurately maintained - I don't see that as a problem - I see it as a good thing worthy of hanging onto - that is why I want to compare the young earth model to the old earth model

3 if the earth is young then all these over-sized structures could represent pre-flood structures and give great insight to the pre-flood world - they are here all over the planet and we can't explain them - not even ancient legends can explain them - old legends only speak of them as being built by ''the people who were here before us'' - in other words these structures could have been found by the post-flood people who migrated and re-settled the earth after the flood

they help explain the large animal and plant fossils in the fossil record - it is reasonable to assume that if most plants and animals were larger in the pre-flood world as is indicated by the fossil record then so was man and this is why these structures are so oversized

archeologists are well aware of these structures - the most spectacular being the Egyptian pyramids - some of which may be post-flood or were re-used after the flood as they were the people who retained the most knowledge of the pre-flood world - but others such as at Tihuanaco, Peru and sites north of Dublin, Ireland could be pre-flood - I use google-earth to verify as I read about new ones and sure enough there are old pyramids and other weird structures all over and the local cultures don't know a thing about their origin - archeologists have dated some of them as 5,000 yrs old or older - using the Biblical dates that means they date as pre-flood

 

[valkyree]

Notice the line I bolded. While I'm not advocating anything here, the literal model would point out that the (non existent) vertebrates in the fossil record you refer to pose no problem because death entered by one man, Adam. The time from that event to the flood is very short, from the POV of a fossil.

yes - more confirmation the Genesis account may be accurate

 

[valkyree]

You are aware, I hope, that every scientist's task- passion, if I may go so far- is investigating and attempting to understand that which they do not, yes? Every scientist is doing exactly what you claim they are not!

absolutely - just a slight misunderstanding here

I find fault with the foundation of historical geology - that foundation was set by men of Darwin's time so it is not any of today's scientists that are at fault - they are doing excellent scientific work but may be dealing w a faulty foundation

if corrections need to be made to the foundation all of this work will still have value but different conclusions will be drawn

 

[valkyree]

1 They have been, ad nauseum. The verdict that the view antagonistic to evolution has no merit was rendered more than a century ago and is not in any serious dispute.


2 Why do you exclude God from a naturalistic view of the universe? Why do you exclude God from accidents? (There are plenty of biblical examples of accidents planned by God.)

3 What do you think words like "nature" and "natural" meant to the biblical writers? Do you think they interpreted nature as "fenced off from God"?

1 That verdict may not be the correct verdict - the evidence will tell us - it was a verdict rendered by man - not by God

2 A naturalistic view merges The Creator with the creation and falsely gives to the creation powers that should reserved to the Creator - we are part of the creation and so it falsely gives us powers we do not have - it appeals to our egos so it is accepted but that does not make it correct

3 I have to research the history of the word nature to be able to answer - I think the Biblical writers used a word more like creation

''Fenced off from God'' is an interesting expression - there are ancient ''myths'' from Africa that tell stories of how God interacted more directly with people in the ancient past - the Genesis account also tells of God walking w Adam in the Garden of Eden - there are others

I do not discount ancient myths but consider them to be, with varying degrees of accuracy, remnants of ancient history - they are stories that have been handed down for centuries for a reason - included in this body of myths are flood tales from all over the globe - they are stories of things that happened in the past - I know this is not science but when dealing w the ancient past they may be parts to the puzzle - science cannot discount history when dealing w the past

Anyway then something happened and God separated Himself from people - the Bible has an account of that - so yes some sort of separation ocurred

 

[valkyree]

No, the assertion is that the explanations given by the scientists are PLAUSIBLE, even probable. There are infinite interpretations for any data set, but some are much more likely than others. These are the ones that get published.

plausible/probable within a given paradigm

if parts of that paradigm are proven to be incorrect then the explanations must be re-examined


we have two paradigms of merit - some people recognize only one as having any validity and that limits the conclusions they can draw - that's true for people on both sides

the truth will end up containing some of both

 

[sfs]

So what you see is essentially a new science, in it's infancy. You're saying this branch has a total of 1 member that you're aware of. That would seem to, leave some room for development

No, I'm saying I see someone who is trying to do science within the rigid confines of belief in the literal truth of Genesis. I think he's failing -- he hasn't found anything of substance that I know of, and his baraminology work seems to end up just recapitulating standard phylogenies -- but at least he's trying. Most creationists seem to be more intent on finding debating points to use against evolution than on learning anything new about the world.

Which is not the way that looking at the available evidence from a different angle is typically viewed by the scientific community. Surely you must admit that, with respect to the creationist viewpoint?

I certainly admit that young-earth creationism involves looking at the evidence from a different point of view than is currently common in the scientific community. (It wasn't always so, of course: the scientific community started out looking at all evidence from a young earth creationist point of view, and only abandoned it when the evidence didn't fit with the viewpoint.) The problem is that looking at the evidence from that point of view doesn't work. That is, you have to discard lots of evidence, or keep coming up with ad hoc and contradictory solutions. An old-earth, evolutionary point of view, on the other hand, makes sense of an enormous amount of data, and keeps making accurate and fruitful predictions. Until that situation changes (and I see no reason to think it will), there's not much contest about which point of view scientists will adopt.

 

[Astridhere]

No, I'm saying I see someone who is trying to do science within the rigid confines of belief in the literal truth of Genesis. I think he's failing -- he hasn't found anything of substance that I know of, and his baraminology work seems to end up just recapitulating standard phylogenies -- but at least he's trying. Most creationists seem to be more intent on finding debating points to use against evolution than on learning anything new about the world.

I certainly admit that young-earth creationism involves looking at the evidence from a different point of view than is currently common in the scientific community. (It wasn't always so, of course: the scientific community started out looking at all evidence from a young earth creationist point of view, and only abandoned it when the evidence didn't fit with the viewpoint.) The problem is that looking at the evidence from that point of view doesn't work. That is, you have to discard lots of evidence, or keep coming up with ad hoc and contradictory solutions. An old-earth, evolutionary point of view, on the other hand, makes sense of an enormous amount of data, and keeps making accurate and fruitful predictions. Until that situation changes (and I see no reason to think it will), there's not much contest about which point of view scientists will adopt.

I think that Valkyree has made some excellent points.

Your comment that YEC points of view do not work is not correct.

I am not necessarily a YEC, and yet they have some very convincing evidence for a young earth.

We all know the flaws in radiometric dating and the unknown of closed systems. Isochron dating is also still based on certain basic assumptions, and in particular on the assumption that the specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed i.e. not layered or incompletely mixed.

Decay rates are thought to not be affected by outside influences but recently this assumption has also been challenged.

[0808.3283] Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

Radiometric Dating Methods

Indeed evolutionists require a very old earth for evolution to take place. However to suggest that YEC interpretations of data is less relevant than your view is in error. Indeed 'common scientific thinking' has been proven false many times. Hence to suggest that 'common scientific thinking' is irrefuteable is a fallacy. Majority held scientific views have been falsified many times.

There is certainly strong and convincing evidence for a young earth that better explains some extinctions. I suggest that if naturalists are content with taking huge leaps of faith in their assumptions that satisfy their need for an old earth then YEC's cannot possibly be doing any worse.

Creationism, Creation Science and the Young Earth Theory

 

[razeontherock]

No, I'm saying I see someone who is trying to do science within the rigid confines of belief in the literal truth of Genesis. I think he's failing -- he hasn't found anything of substance that I know of, and his baraminology work seems to end up just recapitulating standard phylogenies -- but at least he's trying.

there's not much contest about which point of view scientists will adopt.

Scientists have adopted a POV. And you seem to be presenting a foregone conclusion, rather than an open mind. I think if the "school of one" you refer to here is legitimately trying, he should be allowed to fail. Thomas Edison did. Over and over.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As it turns out there are probably more dead people than living people right now.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lucaspa]

absolutely - just a slight misunderstanding here

I find fault with the foundation of historical geology - that foundation was set by men of Darwin's time so it is not any of today's scientists that are at fault - they are doing excellent scientific work but may be dealing w a faulty foundation

Actually, the "foundations" were set up before Darwin by men who were all creationists. Darwin learned geology from Rev. Adam Sedgwick, who (at the time) was a creationist and thought there was a world-wide flood.

When Darwin was still on the Beagle, long before he thought of evolution by natural selection, Rev Sedgwick (who was President of the Royal Geological Society and head of Geology at Cambridge) announced that the data he and others had gathered had shown that there never had been a world-wide flood. That was in 1832. I can get you portions of the speech if you would like.

So, it was the people who laid the foundations of geology that 1) showed that there was no world wide flood and 2) discovered that the world was several hundred million years old.

if corrections need to be made to the foundation all of this work will still have value but different conclusions will be drawn

Sorry, but if the foundations were wrong, the work today would not work. Have you ever heard of Pierre Duhem? Duhem showed (back in 1905) that hypotheses are tested in huge bundles. That's how we "repeat" previous work: we take that work as true and use it as one of the bundle of hypotheses we are testing. If our present experiments do not "work", we start looking at the bundle.

Bad news for you: Flood Geology was falsified by 1800. By men who were creationists. By 1800 Noah's Flood was confined to just some of the upper geological layers. From 1800-1832 more and more of the layers were elimiinated as being caused by Noah's Flood -- falsified that the Flood caused them. By 1832 no geological layers, not even the uppermost gravels and morraines, could have been caused by a world-wide Flood. A Flood was falsified for even them. Thus you get Sedgwick's acknowledgment that the Flood had been totally falsified.

 

[lucaspa]

No, the assertion is that the explanations given by the scientists are PLAUSIBLE, even probable. There are infinite interpretations for any data set, but some are much more likely than others. These are the ones that get published.

Actually, there are not an "infinite interpretations for any data set". Data sets disprove some interpretations. The ones that get published are the ones where we have disproved all the interpretations that we can think of except the one getting published.

Orogeny, that's what the experimental controls are for: eliminating those "infinite interpretations".