How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Jig]

If creationists wish to hold that the earth is 6000 years old in spite of facts to the contrary then I have few problems with that. My problem is when they claim that the evidence supports a 6000 year old earth - that is when they cease to rely on faith and start to rely on terrible science.

More like in spite of presuppositions to the contrary.

The evidence does not support anyone's claim; it is neutral. The issue is whose interpretation of such evidence is correct. My interpretation is influenced by what the Bible states. What is your interpretation influenced by?

 

[Freedom63]

More like in spite of presuppositions to the contrary.

The evidence does not support anyone's claim; it is neutral. The issue is whose interpretation of such evidence is correct. My interpretation is influenced by what the Bible states. What is your interpretation influenced by?

Would that you understood what the bible states.

Creation Science

 

[troodon]

More like in spite of presuppositions to the contrary.

The evidence does not support anyone's claim; it is neutral. The issue is whose interpretation of such evidence is correct. My interpretation is influenced by what the Bible states. What is your interpretation influenced by?

Okay, so do you claim that the sequences of paleosols (preserved soils, which by the way don't form under deep water or more than ~2m below the earth's surface), mudstones, and sandstones (many in channel-form) 10s to 100s of meters thick in the Moenkopi and Chinle Formations in the Colorado Plateau, were deposited by a global flood rather than a sequence of fluvial systems? If so what is your interpretation of the sequence of events which created this rock sequence?

Please, I really want a YEC to finally give a cogent explanation for how these two formations can be deposited by a giant flood. I can't think of one, but maybe I'm not thinking sufficiently outside of the box.

To facilitate your interpretation below is a strat column I made of the sequence showing the generalized sedimentology of the units in question. The x-axis shows grain size, so the farther to the right you get the coarser the sedimentary material (except for the bottom Kaibab Formation, which is limestone). Never mind the radiometric dates to the right, because scientists just make those up anyways (amirite?). How else could they get them to line up perfectly with the stratigraphy like that?

Also, how do you explain the stratigraphic segregation of the fossils found in these formations? Why does the lower formation (the Moenkopi) have a fauna that looks nothing like the fauna seen in the lower Chinle Formation? Why does the lower Chinle Formation have a fauna that is distinct from that seen in the upper Chinle Formation? If these bones were supposedly deposited in one giant flood event why aren't they all jumbled up with one another?

My interpretation is influenced primarily by uniformitarianism. I see rocks and I look at modern depositional environments to see how the rock sequences can be explained. That's what I did 2 summers ago, I went out to the Moenkopi Formation, looked at the rocks, and tried to explain how they were formed. I'll tell you that they look nothing like a massive flood deposit.

Edit: Here's another fact that is incompatible with the global flood explanation for earth's geology. This is a photograph of the Grand Canyon showing an angular unconformity:

This is a schematic showing the stratigraphy surrounding said unconformity:

This is a feature that cannot be explained by flood geology. It falsifies that explanation for earth's geology.

 

[Jig]

I'll tell you that they look nothing like a massive flood deposit.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later...I don't have much time. But I want to comment on this remark.

How do you know this? We have nothing to compare the Noahic Flood too. Even large localized floods cannot be rightly used to determine the effects of this event. It was brought about supernaturally. What would the breaking open of the fountains of the deep look like? What would this have done to the appearance of the Earth? How exactly did the waters subside? What could we expect to see hydrologically? Etc.

We can only know a few things for certain. For example, the waters rose above the tops of mountains. Today we see sea life fossils on the top of the highest peaks. Also, millions of dead things would have dead rather rapidly and would have been buried under sediment. We see millions of fossils all over the globe. Fossils are due to rapid death and burial.

The Flood is not easily ruled out.

 

[Freedom63]

I'll get back to the rest of your post later...I don't have much time. But I want to comment on this remark.

How do you know this? We have nothing to compare the Noahic Flood too. Even large localized floods cannot be rightly used to determine the effects of this event. It was brought about supernaturally. What would the breaking open of the fountains of the deep look like? What would this have done to the appearance of the Earth? How exactly did the waters subside? What could we expect to see hydrologically? Etc.

We can only know a few things for certain. For example, the waters rose above the tops of mountains. Today we see sea life fossils on the top of the highest peaks. Also, millions of dead things would have dead rather rapidly and would have been buried under sediment. We see millions of fossils all over the globe. Fossils are due to rapid death and burial.

The Flood is not easily ruled out.

You need to get your science from sources that actually know something about science.

The Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis do not qualify.

 

[troodon]

I'll get back to the rest of your post later...I don't have much time. But I want to comment on this remark.

How do you know this? We have nothing to compare the Noahic Flood too. Even large localized floods cannot be rightly used to determine the effects of this event. It was brought about supernaturally. What would the breaking open of the fountains of the deep look like? What would this have done to the appearance of the Earth? How exactly did the waters subside? What could we expect to see hydrologically? Etc.

I know this because I know the mechanics of particle motion. Sand gets deposited in relatively high energy environments; clays (which make up most of the paleosols in the Chinle) typically take absolutely still water to deposit, certainly in large quantities like we're talking here, and even then they do it very slowly (if at all, some clays require additional floculation in order to be deposited). In order to explain this stratigraphy you would have to have very fast moving water, then very still water for LONG periods of time, then fast moving water again, then again still water, etc etc etc. for every single sand/mudstone coupling you find in these formations, and there are many of them.

And this doesn't even explain the formation of vertisols in the Chinle mudstones. Soils only form at the very surface of material that is exposed to the air where plants are growing - those conditions do not exist during a world-wide flood. Soil formation also takes very long periods of time. So you have to explain how vertisol-like structures can form in a clay-rich mudstone that is buried by kilometers of sediment. I have an explanation for that feature, flood geologists do not. They never even talk about it. I'm out there studying it and they pretend it doesn't exist because they have no explanation for it.

We can only know a few things for certain. For example, the waters rose above the tops of mountains. Today we see sea life fossils on the top of the highest peaks.

Yes, the fossils are found in the rocks. They're not just laying around on top of the mountain, they're inside of the mountain. The mountain is (in part) made up of these fossils. How can a flood "rise above the tops of mountains" if those mountains are made up of fossils supposedly deposited by the flood? That doesn't even make sense.

Also, millions of dead things would have dead rather rapidly and would have been buried under sediment. We see millions of fossils all over the globe. Fossils are due to rapid death and burial.

Not rapid death and burial, death and rapid burial. And I'd love to hear your explanation for the segregation of faunas. Why does the Moenkopi not have dinosaurs and yet the Chinle formation has hundreds of known dinosaur skeletons? Why is Eocyclotosaurus, by far the most common fossil in the Moenkopi, not present in the Chinle, while phytosaurs, by far the most common fossil in the Chinle, are not present in the Moenkopi? These formations were deposited literally right on top of one another. What made the phytosaur get deposited higher up than the Eocyclotosaurus? Or the dinosaurs get deposited higher up than Ammorhynchus? Why is there zero faunal overlap between these formations?

The Flood is not easily ruled out.

You only think this is the case because you have not been sufficiently exposed to the evidence. I live and breathe this evidence every day of my life, this research is what I do. Geology falsifies the flood model. Paleobiology falsifies the flood model. The flood model is nothing more than hand-waving and willful ignorance of the facts. Go sit in on a good stratigraphy class, or better yet arrange to go to the Colorado Plateau with someone who knows sed and strat. That'll give you a much better education than I can provide via the interwebs.

 

[Jig]

Please explain how evidence speaks for itself without the need for subjective interpretation.

 

[shernren]

As your good buddy Dr. Thomas Young from Heartland Forensic Pathology says:

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.​

Does troodon have a plausible explanation for the evidence? Yes.
Does Jig have a plausible explanation for the evidence? No.

Can we reliably surmise past events from physical evidence? Until Jig gets us a plausible alternative explanation, yes.

Now quit your presplainin' and tell us how you would expect such sediments as troodon has described to be deposited in a global Flood.

 

[Jig]

You are assuming that, if the Noahic Flood occurred, angular unconformity must have developed while the layers were initially being laid down. This is what you are stressing and what you are requiring me to address. However, I don't believe this. I'm not claiming that this particular feature can be explained by flood geology. This is not the only option. The more plausible assumption would be that angular unconformity in the sediment layers happened after the layers were laid down.

So again:
Please explain how evidence speaks for itself without the need for subjective interpretation.

 

[troodon]

Please explain how evidence speaks for itself without the need for subjective interpretation.

I never claimed it spoke for itself, I claimed that a global flood cannot explain it, and that the evidence therefor falsifies the global flood explanation.

And, like every other YEC whom I have confronted with this evidence, you also appear to have no explanation.

You are assuming that, if the Noahic Flood occurred, angular unconformity must have developed while the layers were initially being laid down. This is what you are stressing and what you are requiring me to address. However, I don't believe this. I'm not claiming that this particular feature can be explained by flood geology. This is not the only option. The more plausible assumption would be that angular unconformity in the sediment layers happened after the layers were laid down.

There is no fault at this unconformity, it's an erosional surface - there's a big difference between these things. For that huge amount of rock to be moved there would be very clear signs of stress along the boundary - there are none.

Also, the Colorado Plateau is geologically inactive; there are no large faults there because there are no large stresses acting in that region.

You're assuming that geologists aren't looking for these things, but they are. If I could show that the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon was a fault I could get a very nice publication out of that. So could anyone else. But it's not. It's nothing like a fault, except only in the most superficial way (it's a linear rock contact). Scientists have every incentive to try to find things that upset the status quo. That's what I'm doing with my Master's thesis; I have found a part of the paleontological record that is incompatible with the current interpretation, and as a result I'm probably going to get my own nice publication. We want to find things in geology and paleontology that are wrong, because by pointing them out we develop good reputations for ourselves.

 

[lismore]

I would like to read discussions of how other Christians have thought about this debate. Serious and theological discussions only, please.

I lean towards creationism, however I do not view this issue as being a salvation issue. Salvation is through believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, not on your view in this debate.

Even someone who does not see Genesis as literal can look at the world and see wrongdoing and evil i.e 'sin'.

I think the most important thing is that we speak to each other with mutual respect so that no-one is left feeling bad by the discussion.

We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord and that's most important!

God Bless All

 

[gluadys]

I think the most important thing is that we speak to each other with mutual respect so that no-one is left feeling bad by the discussion.

We are all brothers and sisters in the Lord and that's most important!

God Bless All

That's a good sentiment and I think most of us try most of the time to adhere to it.

At the same time, in the final analysis, I cannot be responsible for someone else's feelings. When people are so attached to their opinions that even the slightest critique is taken as personal insult, they will be left feeling bad no matter how careful one is to avoid offense.

So, we strive to do our best to show respect, but even so, some people will be left feeling bad regardless.

 

[Jig]

I never claimed it spoke for itself, I claimed that a global flood cannot explain it, and that the evidence therefor falsifies the global flood explanation.

I am happy that you agree that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I'm tired of hearing old-earthers claim that the physical evidence supports their position. It is their own interpretation of the evidence that supports their position. Such interpretations are all based on presuppositions. We have different presuppositions. The issue we are discussing is heavily based on philosophical ideas - actual science is only but a small part.

 

[Mikecpking]

I am happy that you agree that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I'm tired of hearing old-earthers claim that the physical evidence supports their position. It is their own interpretation of the evidence that supports their position. Such interpretations are all based on presuppositions. We have different presuppositions. The issue we are discussing is heavily based on philosophical ideas - actual science is only but a small part.

Physical evidence does speak for itself and you can compare directly what you find in the rocks with processes going on today. This is how the science of Geology is based on.

 

[Freedom63]

I am happy that you agree that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I'm tired of hearing old-earthers claim that the physical evidence supports their position. It is their own interpretation of the evidence that supports their position. Such interpretations are all based on presuppositions. We have different presuppositions. The issue we are discussing is heavily based on philosophical ideas - actual science is only but a small part.

This argument totally crumbles when one actually studies the science itself. The evidence of an old earth/universe comes from a wide variety of sources and unrelated scientific disciplines, yet they all come to very similar conclusions. The notion of "presuppositions" is nothing but a smoke screen meant to deny that which one does not understand for the purpose of maintaining some particular dogma.

 

[sfs]

I am happy that you agree that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I'm tired of hearing old-earthers claim that the physical evidence supports their position. It is their own interpretation of the evidence that supports their position. Such interpretations are all based on presuppositions. We have different presuppositions. The issue we are discussing is heavily based on philosophical ideas - actual science is only but a small part.

This kind of claim would be much more persuasive if those making it could point out a consistent set of young-earth, non-evolutionary presuppositions that made sense of the data as well as the usual scientific ones. Until they do, my belief remains that all of this talk about presuppositions is just a way to avoid facts creationists don't want to hear about.

 

[lismore]

When people are so attached to their opinions that even the slightest critique is taken as personal insult, they will be left feeling bad no matter how careful one is to avoid offense.

That can be true yes!

I think with Creation/Evolution controversy it is possible to find weak spots in both extremes. I do lean more towards Creationsim, but I can see some weak spots in that position.

So I think we have all got to be quite think skinned, while at the same time trying not to hurt other people's feelings, as far as possible.

 

[Papias]

lismore wrote:

I think with Creation/Evolution controversy it is possible to find weak spots in both extremes. I do lean more towards Creationsim, but I can see some weak spots in that position.

I agree that it's not a salvation issue (and would point out that an acceptance of evolution is often seen as "creationism", in that God created using evolution. This is sometimes called "Evolutionary Creationism", which is synonymous with Theistic Evolution). In your own investigations, you may find, as I have that:

• Practically all those who know the data agree on evolution being true, including thousands of scientists who are Christian, and that they have found evolution to be at least as well supported as the existance of the Roman empire.
• That thousands of clergy, from both Protestant and Catholic churches see evolution as completely consistent with Scripture.
• That today, the anti-science, evidence denialism of some churches is what is driving away the next generation by the thousands - making creationism the best friend atheism could ever have.

Anyway, welcome to these sub-fora! Have a fun day-

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

lismore wrote:



I agree that it's not a salvation issue (and would point out that an acceptance of evolution is often seen as "creationism", in that God created using evolution. This is sometimes called "Evolutionary Creationism", which is synonymous with Theistic Evolution). In your own investigations, you may find, as I have that:

• Practically all those who know the data agree on evolution being true, including thousands of scientists who are Christian, and that they have found evolution to be at least as well supported as the existance of the Roman empire.
• That thousands of clergy, from both Protestant and Catholic churches see evolution as completely consistent with Scripture.
• That today, the anti-science, evidence denialism of some churches is what is driving away the next generation by the thousands - making creationism the best friend atheism could ever have.

Anyway, welcome to these sub-fora! Have a fun day-

Papias

"the creation of all organisms via the random mutation of a common ancestor-the creation of organisms without universal common descent" (evolutionary creationism/ Darwinian Creationism) doesn't work. Someone shouldn't have to tell Darwinists that.

Creationism, or the doctrine that man was created by God doesn't drive people away from God. Evolutionary psychology, God as an evolutionary side effect, ancient texts as a remnant of the beast's mind do.

We are not anti-science. We only reject a single sect of science. There are dozens which use physical tools to inquire.

 

[troodon]

I am happy that you agree that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. I'm tired of hearing old-earthers claim that the physical evidence supports their position. It is their own interpretation of the evidence that supports their position. Such interpretations are all based on presuppositions. We have different presuppositions. The issue we are discussing is heavily based on philosophical ideas - actual science is only but a small part.

The only way YEC can be a valid scientific theory is if they can come up with an interpretation of the evidence at hand that is consistent with a global flood. There is no way to interpret the data to yield this result; you can't do it, AiG can't do it, no creationist geologists or organizations can do it. Heck, I can't do it (and I've tried to see if I could, as a mental exercise).

I have no problem with you throwing up your arms and saying "I can't explain it, but that doesn't mean I'm about to believe in an old earth". That's your right. My problem is with people who say "no no no, the earth's geology IS consistent with an old earth. Scientists are just interpreting the rocks wrong, they need to use my global flood interpretation". That's untrue, it's a falsehood, because there is no valid global flood interpretation.