For Shernren and Mallon

[laptoppop]

Recently Shernren threw down a bunch of things all at once as if they were insolvable from a YEC perspective. Also, Mallon - here's an answer about termites. I'm more than a bit concerned about Erwin's new direction for the forums (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36472413&postcount=1) -- in particular no christian only forums, etc. I want respectful discourse on issues. If it turns into just name calling, etc., I don't know if I'll stick around. I have hung out in OT as opposed to the general evo forums specifically because I wanted to discuss the topic with brothers and sisters. If this forum is open, then there's no real difference.

Anyway -- here's some answers to the litany of challenges:

Well, you are free to say what you will. Just get back to us when the creationists have explained
Jurassic termite mounds

I found a fascinating article...

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006RM/finalprogram/abstract_104763.htm

paleogeographical correlation

Ecological zonation.

phylogenetically correct distributions of pseudogenes like GULOP

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1578

the absence of major bottlenecks in any given terrestrial genus

Actually, I’m looking for evolutionists to explain why we only find ecologically settled critters as opposed to populations in transition as I would expect would be found. The way that critters can be sequenced just shows man’s ability to sort things logically.

absence of greater genetic diversity in comparable marine genera

Ummm, the Designer (is this supposed to be hard? ). Again, that’s a problem for evolution, not creation.

the immense size of the universe

God stretched the heavens, and the heavens declare His glory.

the improbable absence of short-lived radionuclides without continuing origins in the solar system

I’m not sure what you are referring to. Can you explain the pervasive presence of C-14 in rocks identified as millions of years old?

evolution of novel adaptive features which are not degenerations of previous features

Like?

how "irreducibly complex" systems have plausible reducible origins

Behe’s brand new book talks more about the infamous flagellum – check it out. Its a lot more irrducibly complex than even previously talked about -- even down to the amazing assembly of the flagellum. There's a cool quicktime of the assembly process here:
http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/movie5.html

The molecular machines inside of each and every cell are AMAZINGLY designed
http://nwcreation.net/videos/voyage_inside_cell.html

a criterion for quantitatively measuring information or design

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118

and the immense similarity between the philosophies and theologies of the geocentrists of Galileo's time to yours

This has been discussed lots of times – sorry, but I don’t see a need to retread old threads.

Mallon -- I also finally found the book. There are maps in the book which show the huge extent of various deposits, but I have not found similar maps online. The book is Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology, and can be gotten through the online store at ICR.org.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for finally getting around to these issues, pop. shernren doesn't seem to be around lately (lucky him), and I won't speak on behalf of him, so I will simply address the issues you and I have discussed previously (although I'm itching to respond to some of the other issues you have raised)...

I found a fascinating article...

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006RM/finalprogram/abstract_104763.htm

I noticed this abstract was authored by a few creationists from Loma Linda. They doubt the identification of these structures as termite mounds, but they cannot fathom what else they might be. The senior author is also a biologist, not a geologist. Any idea if this abstract was published as an article anywhere?

Ecological zonation.

How does ecological zonation explain the distribution of, say, lystrosaurs? You throw out the term "ecological zonation", but what does it mean? How is it a useful explanatory tool?

Mallon -- I also finally found the book. There are maps in the book which show the huge extent of various deposits, but I have not found similar maps online. The book is Field Studies in Catastrophic Geology, and can be gotten through the online store at ICR.org.

At long last! Care to mention some of the extensive deposits listed in the book so we can evaluate them for ourselves?

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for finally getting around to these issues, pop. shernren doesn't seem to be around lately (lucky him),

Might be a few weeks before he shows up again. Isn't it around this time of year he takes his annual internet fast?

 

[shernren]

Might be a few weeks before he shows up again. Isn't it around this time of year he takes his annual internet fast?

Nopes, I went to Hillsong. It was a wonderful balancer, and in fact it convinced me that YECism is more dangerous, not less, than I thought it was. Anything that takes our eyes off the cross is dangerous, and to ground the revelation of God in creation and then insist that the Cross makes no sense without it, instead of vice-versa, is suspect theologically.

Anyways. I raised lots of challenges, but I'd love to discuss them in-depth. So I'll pick one. "Paleogeographical correlations" refer to the fact that ancient fossils in one area correspond to extant species now living in the same area. Why should that be so, if the global Flood really and historically happened? After all, according to laptoppop, the Flood was utterly chaotic and globally connected, so that because it is hard to confine hydrological processes to any one given area, it is near-impossible to predict its consequences.

But think about it. Darwin said in his very work:

Mr Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent. In South America, a similar relationship is manifest, even to an uneducated eye, in the gigantic pieces of armour like those of the armadillo, found in several parts of La Plata; and Professor Owen has shown in the most striking manner that most of the fossil mammals, buried there in such numbers, are related to South American types. This relationship is even more clearly seen in the wonderful collection of fossil bones made by MM. Lund and Clausen in the caves of Brazil. I was so much impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this `law of the succession of types,' on `this wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World. We see the same law in this author's restorations of the extinct and gigantic birds of New Zealand. We see it also in the birds of the caves of Brazil. Mr Woodward has shown that the same law holds good with sea-shells, but from the wide distribution of most genera of molluscs, it is not well displayed by them. Other cases could be added, as the relation between the extinct and living land-shells of Madeira; and between the extinct and living brackish-water shells of the Aralo-Caspian Sea.

Now what does this remarkable law of the succession of the same types within the same areas mean? He would be a bold man, who after comparing the present climate of Australia and of parts of South America under the same latitude, would attempt to account, on the one hand, by dissimilar physical conditions for the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of these two continents, and, on the other hand, by similarity of conditions, for the uniformity of the same types in each during the later tertiary periods. Nor can it be pretended that it is an immutable law that marsupials should have been chiefly or solely produced in Australia; or that Edentata and other American types should have been solely produced in South America. For we know that Europe in ancient times was peopled by numerous marsupials; and I have shown in the publications above alluded to, that in America the law of distribution of terrestrial mammals was formerly different from what it now is. North America formerly partook strongly of the present character of the southern half of the continent; and the southern half was formerly more closely allied, than it is at present, to the northern half. In a similar manner we know from Falconer and Cautley's discoveries, that northern India was formerly more closely related in its mammals to Africa than it is at the present time. Analogous facts could be given in relation to the distribution of marine animals.

On the theory of descent with modification, the great law of the long enduring, but not immutable, succession of the same types within the same areas, is at once explained; for the inhabitants of each quarter of the world will obviously tend to leave in that quarter, during the next succeeding period of time, closely allied though in some degree modified descendants. If the inhabitants of one continent formerly differed greatly from those of another continent, so will their modified descendants still differ in nearly the same manner and degree. But after very long intervals of time and after great geographical changes, permitting much inter-migration, the feebler will yield to the more dominant forms, and there will be nothing immutable in the laws of past and present distribution.
​

Think about it from a creationist perspective. The Flood happens and thoroughly mucks up the world, making fossils (or organic detritus) of every single land animal save those on the Ark. After it ends, all the animals land on Mt. Ararat. Now, what are the chances that:

- marsupials would migrate right back to exactly on top of where marsupial fossils are today found, and nowhere else?
- South American mammals, like armadilloes, should wander right back to where similar fossils are today found, and not happen to wander to China or America?
- moa would go to New Zealand and not Hawaii?

etc.

Furthermore, the present geographical distribution of the species cannot even be attributed to the species' present adaptedness to their present environment. For as the species were being dispersed, don't Flood geologists say that an Ice Age was just beginning? So kangaroos aren't in Australia because they are well-adapted to Australia - they're in Australia because their ancestors happened to be well-adapted to an Ice Age Australia. On top of that, those kangaroos-ancestors also happened to go wherever their ancestors' fossils could be found and avoided wherever their ancestors' fossils were absent - and just happened to be adapted to those regions!

Now multiply that ten-fold or even a hundred-fold.

Essentially: according to Flood geology, the range of fossilized species should be completely unrelated to the range of extant species. According to evolution, the ranges should be. Guess which is reality?