The Demise of Evolution

[Astrophile]

That's what the geologists say, albeit sans the term 'carefully designed'. I read a geology paper that reported finding huge boulders several miles from their original site on an outcropping of a particular kind of rock. It determined that the boulders were carried along by a very powerful flood event.

Can you give a reference, or even a title with the authors' names, for this paper? How did the geologists know that these boulders were not glacial erratics?

 

[ZNP]

I have tried. Creationists simply cannot be honest.

Tell me, how does one get creationists to even try to learn what evidence is in the first place?

I have tried. Creationists simply cannot be honest.

Tell me, how does one get creationists to even try to learn what evidence is in the first place?

Probably the same way we get scientists to. Are you familiar with the theory that a large asteroid/meteorite crashed into the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs? When it was first proposed it was rejected by the scientific community because they had embraced the "present is the key to the past" paradigm and this flew in the face of that, despite the evidence that was piling up. It was not until they actually found the crater that the scientific community finally came around. That is only one of a hundred possible examples of scientists ignoring, discounting, or rejecting physical evidence.

I am a scientist, but no reason to be so arrogant about it while being ignorant of our rather embarrassing past.

 

[ZNP]

Can you give a reference, or even a title with the authors' names, for this paper? How did the geologists know that these boulders were not glacial erratics?

It is quite easy to distinguish a deposit from a very large flood able to move large boulders versus glacial erratics.

There were a couple of huge floods, that we only recently discovered. These took place at the end of the last ice age. Apparently as the glaciers melted large dams created huge lakes in the mountains, when these ice dams collapsed they led to floods we have never seen before. The biggest came out of the Himalayas, but the Rocky mountains also had a huge one leaving ripple marks the size of large hills.

 

[ZNP]

I don't think that a wildly inaccurate description adds to the debate, particularly given that there are so many other wildly inaccurate descriptions of evolution posted here. I can see your point that he's trying to depict evolution as being compatible with scripture, but has gone so far that only the name 'evolution' remains.

Why not explain the difference?

Evolution -- does it explain where the very first form of life came from? Not really. It does theorize if you have a number of chemicals in a liquid soup, water being a key ingredient, that electrical charges could produce amino acids, an important building block to life, but not life. There is no evidence that life evolved from inanimate molecules.

Does evolution give a theory on how we could have life on Earth without a creator? No. There is no theory on how something would evolve from nothing. Evolution does not in any way apply to the Big Bang theory, only to the theoretical possibility that once we have matter and energy that they could on their own and randomly create highly organized life with purpose and a mission.

What does the evidence say -- there is overwhelming fossil evidence that life becomes more complex, that simple structures appear in later, more complex structures, and theorizing that life evolved is a very reasonable theory. After this theory was made we discovered DNA which by its very nature is designed to "unzip" and "zip" back up. We have since learned that DNA can withstand low levels of radiation and that it is an ingenious design that was able to survive radiation and even random mutations are a realistic expectation. However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. This is something that has yet to be explained and anyone who is a proponent of evolution should be interested in solving this mystery. There are other unexplained mysteries which as yet only have theories and no evidence explaining them. For example, man's brain is a very expensive part of the anatomy using a tremendous amount of energy relative to any other mammal. Since the basic premise of evolution is "survival of the fittest" one has to wonder what benefit this expensive brain conferred. The reason our brain uses far more energy than a chimpanzee is because of our ability to read and write. Chimpanzees have a photographic memory, if they see fruit or food even a slight glance they can remember and find it. That is an obvious competitive advantage for a hunter gatherer. We lost our photographic memory in exchange for our ability with the written word, both writing and reading. So the question is, what kind of competitive advantage was it to not have the photographic memory but rather be able to read when there were no books, and to be able to write when there wasn't anyone who could read?

 

[pitabread]

When it was first proposed it was rejected by the scientific community because they had embraced the "present is the key to the past" paradigm and this flew in the face of that, despite the evidence that was piling up.

Is this actually true though?

I know the hypothesis did receive criticism, but that's par for the course when hypotheses get proposed.

 

[pitabread]

Does evolution give a theory on how we could have life on Earth without a creator? No. There is no theory on how something would evolve from nothing. Evolution does not in any way apply to the Big Bang theory, only to the theoretical possibility that once we have matter and energy that they could on their own and randomly create highly organized life with purpose and a mission.

Nobody thinks that life formed randomly since chemistry itself isn't random.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably the same way we get scientists to. Are you familiar with the theory that a large asteroid/meteorite crashed into the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs? When it was first proposed it was rejected by the scientific community because they had embraced the "present is the key to the past" paradigm and this flew in the face of that, despite the evidence that was piling up. It was not until they actually found the crater that the scientific community finally came around. That is only one of a hundred possible examples of scientists ignoring, discounting, or rejecting physical evidence.

I am a scientist, but no reason to be so arrogant about it while being ignorant of our rather embarrassing past.

That is not the case. It was fairly well accepted even before they found the crater. The crater was merely the last bit of evidence needed.

But new ideas are often resisted by older scientists. They are only human after all. But progress is continually made because younger scientists are more apt to embrace new ideas. For example younger scientists are more behind accepting cladistics when it comes to classifying life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not explain the difference?

Evolution -- does it explain where the very first form of life came from? Not really. It does theorize if you have a number of chemicals in a liquid soup, water being a key ingredient, that electrical charges could produce amino acids, an important building block to life, but not life. There is no evidence that life evolved from inanimate molecules.

Does evolution give a theory on how we could have life on Earth without a creator? No. There is no theory on how something would evolve from nothing. Evolution does not in any way apply to the Big Bang theory, only to the theoretical possibility that once we have matter and energy that they could on their own and randomly create highly organized life with purpose and a mission.

What does the evidence say -- there is overwhelming fossil evidence that life becomes more complex, that simple structures appear in later, more complex structures, and theorizing that life evolved is a very reasonable theory. After this theory was made we discovered DNA which by its very nature is designed to "unzip" and "zip" back up. We have since learned that DNA can withstand low levels of radiation and that it is an ingenious design that was able to survive radiation and even random mutations are a realistic expectation. However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. This is something that has yet to be explained and anyone who is a proponent of evolution should be interested in solving this mystery. There are other unexplained mysteries which as yet only have theories and no evidence explaining them. For example, man's brain is a very expensive part of the anatomy using a tremendous amount of energy relative to any other mammal. Since the basic premise of evolution is "survival of the fittest" one has to wonder what benefit this expensive brain conferred. The reason our brain uses far more energy than a chimpanzee is because of our ability to read and write. Chimpanzees have a photographic memory, if they see fruit or food even a slight glance they can remember and find it. That is an obvious competitive advantage for a hunter gatherer. We lost our photographic memory in exchange for our ability with the written word, both writing and reading. So the question is, what kind of competitive advantage was it to not have the photographic memory but rather be able to read when there were no books, and to be able to write when there wasn't anyone who could read?

I am sorry but there is evidence for abiogenesis. You simply do not understand the concept since you listed some of the evidence. Nor is there a theory of abiogenesis. You contradict yourself by using that term. A theory is a concept that has gone far past merely having evidence. It by definition has to be both well supported and well accepted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you give a reference, or even a title with the authors' names, for this paper? How did the geologists know that these boulders were not glacial erratics?

The location was in the Driftless Area. It's been years since I read the survey.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is quite easy to distinguish a deposit from a very large flood able to move large boulders versus glacial erratics.

There were a couple of huge floods, that we only recently discovered. These took place at the end of the last ice age. Apparently as the glaciers melted large dams created huge lakes in the mountains, when these ice dams collapsed they led to floods we have never seen before. The biggest came out of the Himalayas, but the Rocky mountains also had a huge one leaving ripple marks the size of large hills.

We have those same large 'ripple' hills in southern Wisconsin, north of the terminus of the glaciers. This area should be much flatter than it is.

 

[Lazarus Long]

We have those same large 'ripple' hills in southern Wisconsin, north of the terminus of the glaciers. This area should be much flatter than it is.

Should be much flatter according to whom?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Should be much flatter according to whom?

According to the normal pattern of glaciation in the region.

 

[Lazarus Long]

According to the normal pattern of glaciation in the region.

According to whom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have those same large 'ripple' hills in southern Wisconsin, north of the terminus of the glaciers. This area should be much flatter than it is.

No, you don't.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why not explain the difference?

Evolution -- does it explain where the very first form of life came from? Not really. It does theorize if you have a number of chemicals in a liquid soup, water being a key ingredient, that electrical charges could produce amino acids, an important building block to life, but not life. There is no evidence that life evolved from inanimate molecules.

Does evolution give a theory on how we could have life on Earth without a creator? No. There is no theory on how something would evolve from nothing. Evolution does not in any way apply to the Big Bang theory, only to the theoretical possibility that once we have matter and energy that they could on their own and randomly create highly organized life with purpose and a mission.

What does the evidence say -- there is overwhelming fossil evidence that life becomes more complex, that simple structures appear in later, more complex structures, and theorizing that life evolved is a very reasonable theory. After this theory was made we discovered DNA which by its very nature is designed to "unzip" and "zip" back up. We have since learned that DNA can withstand low levels of radiation and that it is an ingenious design that was able to survive radiation and even random mutations are a realistic expectation. However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. This is something that has yet to be explained and anyone who is a proponent of evolution should be interested in solving this mystery. There are other unexplained mysteries which as yet only have theories and no evidence explaining them. For example, man's brain is a very expensive part of the anatomy using a tremendous amount of energy relative to any other mammal. Since the basic premise of evolution is "survival of the fittest" one has to wonder what benefit this expensive brain conferred. The reason our brain uses far more energy than a chimpanzee is because of our ability to read and write. Chimpanzees have a photographic memory, if they see fruit or food even a slight glance they can remember and find it. That is an obvious competitive advantage for a hunter gatherer. We lost our photographic memory in exchange for our ability with the written word, both writing and reading. So the question is, what kind of competitive advantage was it to not have the photographic memory but rather be able to read when there were no books, and to be able to write when there wasn't anyone who could read?

"However, there are some intriguing problems in the fossil record, most notably "lazarus taxa" which are creatures that we presume took millions of years to evolve, became extinct in the Permian extinction and then miraculously reappear in the fossil record a few million years later. "

The absence of fossils never meant that the above didn't exist. Historically, people thought dinosaurs went extinct too. But as fossils are continually dug up, those numbers of allegedly extinct animals continued to dwindle, not necessarily because of a miraculous re-creation of life, but because they never went extinct to begin with.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would interview Christians that came out of a life of dishonesty. They would know best the results.

But how do you know they were leading a life of dishonesty if you do not yet have a test for dishonesty? You are making a circular argument. It's silly. I ask again, what objective*, independent*, verifiable*, repeatable* test do you have for honesty or dishonesty?

*I didn't move the goalposts. In a science context tests should be objective, independent, verifiable and repeatable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But how do you know they were leading a life of dishonesty if you do not yet have a test for dishonesty? You are making a circular argument. It's silly. I ask again, what objective*, independent*, verifiable*, repeatable* test do you have for honesty or dishonesty?

*I didn't move the goalposts. In a science context tests should be objective, independent, verifiable and repeatable.

This test wouldn't be subject to strict scientific rules. It would be more of a poll.

 

[Ophiolite]

This test wouldn't be subject to strict scientific rules. It would be more of a poll.

I see. So, when Speedwell said this:

How would you test "honesty itself?"

Your "honest" reply would have been "I don't know how to do that. I suppose you conduct a sort of poll."

Instead you worked us through a series of posts wherein you gave supposedly valid answers, but led eventually to the point where you conceded you didn't know. That avoidance looks suspicious. Gosh, if only I had some way of testing your honesty in this instance. Perhaps I'll just ask people what they think about your avoidance instead. You know, a sort of poll.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I see. So, when Speedwell said this:

Your "honest" reply would have been "I don't know how to do that. I suppose you conduct a sort of poll."

Instead you worked us through a series of posts wherein you gave supposedly valid answers, but led eventually to the point where you conceded you didn't know. That avoidance looks suspicious. Gosh, if only I had some way of testing your honesty in this instance. Perhaps I'll just ask people what they think about your avoidance instead. You know, a sort of poll.

Do you want to poll people that know me well, or will you rely on those on the forums who disagree with virtually every position it take?

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you want a list of people that know me well, or will you rely on those on the forums who disagree with virtually every position it take?

We'll select honest people. Do you have a test we could use to select them?