Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

Is that the same area? It looks to be SE of the Sucre area in a much lower area of the uplift?

No matter. I scanned my library and found this:

"Scientists who study tracks deduce several unusual behavioural characteristics of dinosaurs, such as parallel sets of tracks presume gregarious dinosaurs. However, within the Flood model, such behaviours may be unusual, and mean nothing about normal dinosaur habits. There are also a number of features of the tracks that not only are better understood within a diluvial model, but also tell us some of the unique events that occurred during the Flood. Just the preservation of billions of tracks indicates rapid sedimentation, since studies of modern tracks reveals that footprints deteriorate and are destroyed rapidly (page 18). The tracks are practically always found on bedding planes, generally capping sedimentary units, which suggests a cycle of sedimentation during the Flood followed by a brief exposure above the water. Why wouldn't the tracks be found throughout the beds if the sediment was deposited slowly over long periods of time?" [Michael J. Oard, A Review Of, "Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States." CEN Technical Journal, 1997, p.38] ​

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_1/j11_1_37-39.pdf​

"Also of interest is the author's contradictory interpretation. The tracks are in the Navajo Sandstone, interpreted to be desert sand that lithified (hardened) into rock. So, they postulate a 'desert oasis' or watering hole. If this were the case, why are practically all the tracks going in the same direction? Animals usually mill around a watering hole, making tracks in multiple directions... What are dinosaurs doing in a huge desert, even at an oasis? Desert oases are normally small and could hardly sustain dinosaurs in such large numbers. Moreover, there are 60 other track sites in the Navajo Sandstone, mostly of carnivorous dinosaurs. Just as mysterious from a uniformitarian point of view is that hardly any bones are found in the Navajo Sandstone. One would think that with shifting sands, a huge number of dinosaurs would easily be covered up, which is the first step in fossilization." [Michael J. Oard, "Dancing Dinosaurs? Stony footprints point to something more serious." Creation Ministries International, 2008] ​

Dancing Dinosaurs? - creation.com​

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I had never given it much thought.

BTW, I also found this short 1 minute video on dino tracks which highlights some of Michael Oard's points:

Dan

And just to confirm, uplift here post dates Cretaceous bedding. Else Cretaceous bedding nor Paleozoic bedding would not have undergone ductile nor brittle deformation. To further explain, if Cretaceous deposits post dated uplift, then Cretaceous deposits wouldnt be deformed.

And yes it's a cross section of the same area. This alleged wave that passed over hundreds of miles isn't going to be confined to a small area.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are even pteradactyl tracks. Imagine that, a dinosaur that could fly, is actually just waddling around.

[nitpick]Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.[/nitpick]

 

[Job 33:6]

[nitpick]Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.[/nitpick]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...relation-between-both-ichnotaxa_fig3_50851720

You are correct. Yes, as dinosaurs are by definition, terrestrial.

Thanks

 

[Job 33:6]

[nitpick]Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.[/nitpick]

I must say, pretty much every young earther ive ran into on this site...is just...i mean, this is the perfect example:

We have flying animals, that surely cannot walk very fast. And you have young earthers suggesting that the animals producing these tracks are ..."fleeing" from some giant wave. And they are allegedly all fleeing in the same direction.

Then you look at actual figures of the localities, and you see animal tracks going in multiple different directions, and beyond that...

These flying reptiles are soooo terrified, that they are just waddling away. Nevermind the fact that they can fly faster than they can walk. Never mind the fact that they are waddling in varying directions. Just know that they are...fleeing something, while simultaneously waddling around.

Most people would see this and would just shake their heads in embarrassment. But young earthers see this, and they ponder ludicrous ways to just explain it away. Because surely, they couldnt possibly be wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

I must say, pretty much every young earther ive ran into on this site...is just...i mean, this is the perfect example:

We have flying animals, that surely cannot walk very fast. And you have young earthers suggesting that the animals producing these tracks are ..."fleeing" from some giant wave. And they are allegedly all fleeing in the same direction.

Then you look at actual figures of the localities, and you see animal tracks going in multiple different directions, and beyond that...

These flying reptiles are soooo terrified, that they are just waddling away. Nevermind the fact that they can fly faster than they can walk. Never mind the fact that they are waddling in varying directions. Just know that they are...fleeing something, while simultaneously waddling around.

Most people would see this and would just shake their heads in embarrassment. But young earthers see this, and they ponder ludicrous ways to just explain it away. Because surely, they couldnt possibly be wrong.

Those guys could walk, of course, but very poorly. Some of the small ones could hop much as small birds do. The big guys were pretty clumsy on the ground, from all indications.

None of them would have fled anything on foot.

 

[NobleMouse]

Who says that the motion of plate tectonics has not been seen before? Its not about physically seeing a car accident anyway, its called using physics.

For example, lets say the rear of one car is smashed, and behind that car, the front of another car is smashed. Someone who has never ever seen a car accident before, could determine that the cars had collided, simply by examining the locations that have been affected by force.

You could build an alien space craft and fly it into a chicken coop...this is something nobody has ever seen before, but with knowledge of reality, you can still determine what happened, even if you have never seen an alien space craft fly into a chicken coop.

But where is the cheshire cat in all of this? I cannot even comment on the alien space craft situation... other than to say you would have absolutely no idea it was an alien space craft.

Its the same with rocks. For example...

I can take a rock, and squeeze it in a horizontal direction. It will break at a 30 degree angle. Or I can pull on a rock in a horizontal direction and it will break at a 60 degree angle. Thus is the physics of rocks.

Now if i go outside and look at a continent that is drifting into another continent, and i see that 30 degree angles are appearing in consequetive faults in the earth, i dont need a time machine to understand that the physics that applies to the rock in my hand, is the same physics that applies to the rocks in the ground.

And you get things like cataclastic faulting and sections of conglomerate and fragmentation around faults, which further confirm that these faults post-date cementation, and through relative dating, further allow us to understand the independence of certain time periods from other time periods before and after them.

Its just common sense.

This is interesting, but you are still presuming to explain events by only what is observable today and naturalistic causes. Such great lengths to go to try to prove to yourself the Bible is not true. I understand you limit the possibilities and events of the past to scientifically observed phenomenon today, that is fine.

Another example, hawaii.

Ever looked at the chain of Islands behind hawaii? They are historic hawaiis, and the reason hawaii is a larger island than maui and oahu, is because hawaii is a younger island. And we can see lava forming new land in hawaii right now, and we can see the island chain, continuing to form in a southwest direct at the rate of other observed plate motion.

You dont need a time machine to understand that volcanic eruptions in the past formed the yuryaky seamount. Its just common sense.

Another response, Hawaii:
http://www.icr.org/article/true-age-hawaiian-islands/

From the above, in the audio clip T. Clarey explains how the Hawaiian islands are evidence that fits the catastrophic plate tectonics model. That; however, it not really all that relevant... we may find irrefutable evidence of the flood, we might not.... we may find irrefutable evidence the earth is young, we might not. If you looked at the rate of my cell growth over the last year and assumed this same rate of growth going back to a single cell, you'd maybe also conclude I was very, very old... IF you didn't know that in the beginning I actually grew very rapidly (before I was born, then even right after I was born, then I had some spurts along the way, then eventually slowed and more or less stopped). I'm not saying God's creation of a human life is the model for all of creation, but that simply applying what we know from the present will not necessarily arrive at the true beginning. God said not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, yet there was deception; God said He made all of creation in 6 days, yet there is still deception. So, what's new?

Regardless of what is found and what is not as far as scientific evidence and the philosophical views held by science about the past, does not negate the word of God. If you have a new angle you'd like to discuss then is fine, but reciting for me the views held within conventional uniformitarian geology is least of all, convincing. It is a relevant field of study and makes relevant predictions here and now, but cannot unlock the key to knowing the past - for that, go to God's word.

 

[NobleMouse]

I must say, pretty much every young earther ive ran into on this site...is just...i mean, this is the perfect example:

We have flying animals, that surely cannot walk very fast. And you have young earthers suggesting that the animals producing these tracks are ..."fleeing" from some giant wave. And they are allegedly all fleeing in the same direction.

Then you look at actual figures of the localities, and you see animal tracks going in multiple different directions, and beyond that...

These flying reptiles are soooo terrified, that they are just waddling away. Nevermind the fact that they can fly faster than they can walk. Never mind the fact that they are waddling in varying directions. Just know that they are...fleeing something, while simultaneously waddling around.

Most people would see this and would just shake their heads in embarrassment. But young earthers see this, and they ponder ludicrous ways to just explain it away. Because surely, they couldnt possibly be wrong.

Just curious, are you assuming the dinosaurs (and pterodactyl) were still hanging out with their tracks at the time of the flooding the fossilized their tracks, as opposed to having moved on a little ways, then were buried elsewhere?

 

[The Barbarian]

From the above, in the audio clip T. Clarey explains how the Hawaiian islands are evidence that fits the catastrophic plate tectonics model.

That would be pretty weird, since the nearest plate boundary is thousands of miles away. Hawaii does not have volcanoes because of plate tectonics. There is a hot spot in the mantle that rises up through the crust. This is not caused by plate movement. If the Pacific plate was fixed in one place, the only difference would be that there would be one really big Hawaiian island.

That; however, it not really all that relevant... we may find irrefutable evidence of the flood, we might not.... we may find irrefutable evidence the earth is young, we might not.

In science, that's what counts. No matter how much you really, really want to believe something, in science evidence is what matters.

Regardless of what is found and what is not as far as scientific evidence and the philosophical views held by science about the past, does not negate the word of God. If you have a new angle you'd like to discuss then is fine, but reciting for me the views held within conventional uniformitarian geology is least of all, convincing.

What you're saying here, suggests that you don't know what "uniformitarian" means. Hint: it doesn't mean "no catastrophic changes." What do you think it means?

 

[The Barbarian]

Just curious, are you assuming the dinosaurs (and pterodactyl) were still hanging out with their tracks at the time of the flooding the fossilized their tracks, as opposed to having moved on a little ways, then were buried elsewhere?

Most such trackways (such as the Paluxy river trackways) show the tracks being tracked over, meaning that they were formed over a long period of time. Where carnivorous dinosaurs shared trackways with small herbivorous dinosaurs (as they do in many of these) one or both of them would be moving really fast, if they both made the tracks at the same time. (and yes, we can measure that, including the likely speed at which running replaced walking).

 

[Job 33:6]

But where is the cheshire cat in all of this? I cannot even comment on the alien space craft situation... other than to say you would have absolutely no idea it was an alien space craft.


This is interesting, but you are still presuming to explain events by only what is observable today and naturalistic causes. Such great lengths to go to try to prove to yourself the Bible is not true. I understand you limit the possibilities and events of the past to scientifically observed phenomenon today, that is fine.


Another response, Hawaii:
Revealing the True Age of the Hawaiian Islands

From the above, in the audio clip T. Clarey explains how the Hawaiian islands are evidence that fits the catastrophic plate tectonics model. That; however, it not really all that relevant... we may find irrefutable evidence of the flood, we might not.... we may find irrefutable evidence the earth is young, we might not. If you looked at the rate of my cell growth over the last year and assumed this same rate of growth going back to a single cell, you'd maybe also conclude I was very, very old... IF you didn't know that in the beginning I actually grew very rapidly (before I was born, then even right after I was born, then I had some spurts along the way, then eventually slowed and more or less stopped). I'm not saying God's creation of a human life is the model for all of creation, but that simply applying what we know from the present will not necessarily arrive at the true beginning. God said not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, yet there was deception; God said He made all of creation in 6 days, yet there is still deception. So, what's new?

Regardless of what is found and what is not as far as scientific evidence and the philosophical views held by science about the past, does not negate the word of God. If you have a new angle you'd like to discuss then is fine, but reciting for me the views held within conventional uniformitarian geology is least of all, convincing. It is a relevant field of study and makes relevant predictions here and now, but cannot unlock the key to knowing the past - for that, go to God's word.

I suspect these icr guys are all a bunch of loonies. The guy in his 10 minute video that allegedly refutes thousands of actual research papers, suggests that there are no erosional surfaces between layers in the geologic column.

But, as we see in my link below...

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

There are countless eroded surfaces between layers of the geologic column. As a matter of fact, we have names for them. Disconformities, nonconformities, angular unconformities, and paraconformities. All of which are very common throughout the geologic column around the world.

So is the speaker just plugging his ears? Is he a liar? Who knows.

@NobleMouse Tell me, in the figures and photographs that I have posted in the above link, are you able to see where layers have been eroded away?

The angular unconformities i would say are the most obvious ones. Let me know if you cant see it.

Can you see the above erosional surfaces between layers?

 

[Job 33:6]

Just curious, are you assuming the dinosaurs (and pterodactyl) were still hanging out with their tracks at the time of the flooding the fossilized their tracks, as opposed to having moved on a little ways, then were buried elsewhere?

You're way behind in the conversation.

Bible research tools suggested that tracks of the late mesozoic in Bolivia are facing a particular direction that indicated that they were fleeing.

So, I simply pointed out the fact that tracks of this age and location have been found going in various directions and were not indicative of fleeing at all.

That is to say, of course a pteradactyl wouldn't flee by waddling away.

Do you think pteradactyls would waddle away when fleeing a giant wave? Or would they fly? Of course they would fly.

 

[Job 33:6]

I always hear young earthers describe things like hyper plate tectonics. Where plates glide around super fast.

But no young earther ever talks about the actual physics behind such a thing, and how much heat and pressure an entire continents ramming into another continents at multiple meters per second would cause. They're unaware of things like mohs law and metamorphic facies.

They're just oblivious.

 

[The Barbarian]

But no young earther ever talks about the actual physics behind such a thing, and how much heat and pressure an entire continents ramming into another continents at multiple meters per second would cause. They're unaware of things like mohs law and metamorphic facies.

I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and using the masses of the continents and oceans, and the specific heat of water, determined how warm things would get if all that kinetic energy was expended and then slowed as we see it today.

The oceans would have boiled, if all that movement came about in a few years. Continental crust has a lot of mass, and to accelerate it, and then slow it down again, would have produced huge amounts of heat.

 

[Job 33:6]

I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and using the masses of the continents and oceans, and the specific heat of water, determined how warm things would get if all that kinetic energy was expended and then slowed as we see it today.

The oceans would have boiled, if all that movement came about in a few years. Continental crust has a lot of mass, and to accelerate it, and then slow it down again, would have produced huge amounts of heat.

Yea, not surprising.

And then when you bring this up , the common response is, well it could have just been a miracle because God can do anything.

Well of course I agree with that, anything of course e is possible through God. But if the science never made sense to begin with, then we try to use science to try to support a young earth, to begin with?

If the Hawaii guy knows that none of the physics makes any sense, why bother suggesting that tectonic plates flew around at meters per second?

Is he unaware of laws of heat transfer and properties of metamorphism? Or is he just intellectual dissonate? Accepting what makes sense to himself, but ignoring everything else? Or is he just a compulsive liar?

I think the second one makes sense.

I think these guys are thinking "well, the flood happened so because Africa and South America we're once joined, the plates must have moved super fast away from each other".

It's like they accept the common sense, look at a picture test of plate tectonics. But then none of the actual science makes sense, so they just ignore it.

Same with the deposition of the geologic column. Well, a flood must have deposited megasequences. But then they just ignore all the features that show us otherwise. Maybe this is why they keep parroting this idea that there are no erosional surfaces in the geologic column, even though anyone with two eyes can see that there is. Maybe they're all just...cognitively dissonate and intellectually dishonest.

And in their presentation of their contradictory ideas, some might accidentally take them for compulsive liars. But they are not lying, they're just speaking of logically broken ideas.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well of course I agree with that, anything of course e is possible through God. But if the science never made sense to begin with, then we try to use science to try to support a young earth, to begin with?

Once a person starts calling in non-scriptural miracles to cover problems with their beliefs, then any story is equally plausible. "It was a miracle!" covers any flaw in one's ideas.

 

[NobleMouse]

That would be pretty weird, since the nearest plate boundary is thousands of miles away. Hawaii does not have volcanoes because of plate tectonics. There is a hot spot in the mantle that rises up through the crust. This is not caused by plate movement. If the Pacific plate was fixed in one place, the only difference would be that there would be one really big Hawaiian island.

T. Clarey is a research associate with ICR, I'm sure there's a way you can contact him there for further discussion.

In science, that's what counts. No matter how much you really, really want to believe something, in science evidence is what matters.

In the end, it's faith that counts...

What you're saying here, suggests that you don't know what "uniformitarian" means. Hint: it doesn't mean "no catastrophic changes." What do you think it means?

[/QUOTE]
In geology the doctrine of uniformity refers to the theory that earth's geological history is the result of a continuous process as has been observed in the present: uplift and exposure -> weathering -> transportation -> deposition -> lithification -> back to uplift and exposure... a cyclical and gradualistic view. It would seem most geologists do not strictly hold to this view anymore and, to varying degrees, have an allowance for naturally occurring catastrophic events.

I'm sure you'll have arguments to this... so proceed, I'll respond (or ignore) accordingly

Where I'll challenge this view (and even the creationist geologists) is that if we're looking solely for naturalistic evidence for Noah's flood as the ONLY means for accepting it happened, then we're #1 undermining our own faith (living by what we see), and #2 kind of limiting the possibilities to that which we have the tools and knowledge to perceive, today. I'm not suggesting there isn't evidence for a global flood nor that God did not use naturalistic means to facilitate, just that I don't need to go around looking for proof of every single fantastic event mentioned in the Bible.

Will I believe Jesus really fed 5,000 men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish... ONLY if I can find unequivocal evidence thereof (perhaps fossilized baskets filled with the fossilized leftovers)? We tend to believe this event occurred, but I would suggest there is far more evidence of Noah's flood than there is of this event.

 

[NobleMouse]

You're way behind in the conversation.

Bible research tools suggested that tracks of the late mesozoic in Bolivia are facing a particular direction that indicated that they were fleeing.

So, I simply pointed out the fact that tracks of this age and location have been found going in various directions and were not indicative of fleeing at all.

That is to say, of course a pteradactyl wouldn't flee by waddling away.

Do you think pteradactyls would waddle away when fleeing a giant wave? Or would they fly? Of course they would fly.

I would think it would fly away... but still am not sure why these tracks, if not demonstrating fleeing, somehow means Noah's flood did not happen. Should every evidence of fossilized trackways always demonstrate fleeing in order to support a global flood?

 

[NobleMouse]

Once a person starts calling in non-scriptural miracles to cover problems with their beliefs, then any story is equally plausible. "It was a miracle!" covers any flaw in one's ideas.

1 Corinthians 2:14 sums this up.

 

[NobleMouse]

I suspect these icr guys are all a bunch of loonies. The guy in his 10 minute video that allegedly refutes thousands of actual research papers, suggests that there are no erosional surfaces between layers in the geologic column.

But, as we see in my link below...

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

There are countless eroded surfaces between layers of the geologic column. As a matter of fact, we have names for them. Disconformities, nonconformities, angular unconformities, and paraconformities. All of which are very common throughout the geologic column around the world.

So is the speaker just plugging his ears? Is he a liar? Who knows.

@NobleMouse Tell me, in the figures and photographs that I have posted in the above link, are you able to see where layers have been eroded away?

The angular unconformities i would say are the most obvious ones. Let me know if you cant see it.

Can you see the above erosional surfaces between layers?

Yes; however, as you know - creationist scientists challenge the assumption that million of years of erosion are evidenced between the layers when the layers are relatively flat with no evidence of erosional ruts or chemical weathering:
Don't Grand Canyon Rocks Showcase Deep Time?

It seems there are competing paradigms happening here within geology: uniformitarianism vs catastrophism and there is a philosophical component to both. I understand the views of creationist geologists is an 'unconformity' with your views and that is okay.

For something to be true, the evidence may not 100% stack up in favor of that view... and other than creation and the flood, I think you're cool with that as far as everything else in the Bible that you don't have evidence for, am I wrong?

 

[The Barbarian]

1 Corinthians 2:14 sums this up.

It explains why the man-made doctrine of YE creationism cannot replace God's word:

"Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged."