Is evolution a fact or theory?

[The Barbarian]

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

As KomatiiteBIF has shown you, the evidence for such erosion is overwhelming. He obviously knows a lot more about earth science than I do, but even I know that there's no point in denying the evidence that exists.

It seems there are competing paradigms happening here within geology: uniformitarianism vs catastrophism

And again, your statement tells me that you don't know what "uniformitarianism" means. Again, I'll ask; what do you think it means?

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

The discussion sort of originated with the suggestion by Kurt wise that animals wouldn't have time to obstruct lamination via bioturbation, because the flood would have deposited megasequences so quickly, that animals would be asphyxiated and would die from the flood too quickly for this to happen.

But then I displayed evidence for complex burrow systems and tunnels located within a megasequence. Thereby demonstrating that Kurt wise is incorrect.

On top of that, the tracks are part of a site which contains tracks from hundreds of different species of dinosaur, that are contained within a megasequence. And if the tracks aren't fleeing, one would suspect that it would take a long time for hundreds of different species of dinosaur and in this case, flying reptiles, to casually walk across the land.

But going back to the original point, according to Kurt wise, these sediments were deposited as part of a megasequence that was the result of water being carried in the form of one giant wave. According to him, animals in this strata would have been almost instantly buried.

However, we can see that they were not instantly buried. They were actually just casually walking around.

Thus resides the purpose of the discussion.

We have complex burrows, nests with eggs, massive tunnel networks, and now a site with thousands of tracks from hundreds of different dinosaurs and reptiles...all contained within a megasequence that was allegedly instantaneously deposited by one giant wave.

 

[Job 33:6]

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?

Excuse me, do you or do you not see the erosional surfaces in my last post? Did you see the angular unconformity?

Yes you do, ok, then we can agree that the source you quoted is yet again, incorrect. Just like the AIG source that said dinosaur dna was found, even though such a thing never happened.

This is about more than people just disagreeing, your sources are providing blatently false information.

I don't mind disagreeing with other geologists, so long as they aren't compulsive liars. But your sources are being pulled from places that are giving you false information.

It doesn't matter if the angular unconformity is 100 million years old, or 5 years old. The fact of the matter is, by the nature of the existence of unconformities, they contain an eroded surface.

Which that young earther you sourced, said didn't exist.

So, he outright lied.

 

[Job 33:6]

And while I'm on the topic of angular unconformities, I figured I would share my familiarity with one in particular.

So, just off of the Appalachian trail, there is an angular unconformity. It's pretty standard. On the left (facing in a southwest direction) there is horizontal ordivician bedding. On the right, vertical silurian bedding with a conglomerate base. Now, this formation exists in this orientation because the ordovician was originally laid down, then it was turned on it's side during something we call the taconic orogeny, then the silurian was deposited on top of this vertical ordovician, then both of them together were turned yet again, bringing the older layers back to a horizontal position with the younger being vertical.

The erosional surface between the two formations of the angular unconformity is in plain view and is easy to identify. In case anyone had any question about that.

Would any young earther who is aware of the geologic succession, ever dare to try to explain how something like this could be formed in a few thousand years by a global flood?

No, of course not. @NobleMouse , feel free to chew on that one, think about it.

Actually, I would love to hear either you, or @Bible Research Tools try to explain that one.

But I'm sure neither of you will, perhaps neither of you will even attempt to.

@The Barbarian you might like this too.

 

[Job 33:6]

And while I'm on the topic of angular unconformities, I figured I would share my familiarity with one in particular.

So, near me, there is an angular unconformity. It's pretty standard. On the left there is horizontal ordivician bedding. On the right, vertical silurian bedding.

Would any young earther who is aware of the geologic succession, ever dare to try to explain how something like this could be formed in a few thousand years by a global flood?

No, of course not. @NobleMouse , feel free to chew on that one, think about it.

Actually, I would love to hear either you, or @Bible Research Tools try to explain that one.

But I'm sure neither of you will, perhaps neither of you will even attempt to.

What's worse is that, these formations are located in the Appalachian basin and makeup part of the tippacanoe megasequence which Kurt wise suggested was instantaneously deposited by a single wave.

Now someone please explain to me, how a single wave deposits an double turned angular unconformity?

Its just not possible...unless God instantaneously created it all and made it look "as if" it was old, when in reality it was not.

This is why young earth scientists are not respected. Their suggestions and ideas are just all, nonsense.

Granted, I'm sure Kurt wise is a nice person. And he seems to be a bright guy as well. But his ideas, are not ideas based in reality.

 

[Job 33:6]

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."

Precisely.

 

[Job 33:6]

I actually just updated a couple details on that angular unconformity post #1224 and #1225 if anyone is interested.

 

[Job 33:6]

And one last thing, and ill stop posting after this, or ill try to.

I just want to point out, that angular unconformities, and their presence throughout the geologic column, also shows us that these rocks were not all deposited as soft layers, as some young earthers might suggest. Now we already know this for a number of other reasons, but this is just one more way that we know that the earth is old...

Because soft layers wouldnt have features of brittle deformation along fault planes, and things like angular unconformities wouldnt exist had not the older layers been hardened prior to being offset, in order for the angular unconformity to form.

If the layers were not hard, angular unconformities wouldnt exist, at least not unconformities like the one i just described above.

And you have these crazy people saying that erosional surfaces dont exist between beds...its just rediculous.

 

[The Barbarian]

Being a biologist, I'm happy to see what you've got to show us. (Barbarian busily takes notes)

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that it's peculiar to blame Hawaii on plate tectonics, when it's thousands of miles from the nearest plate boundary.

T. Clarey is a research associate with ICR,

That would explain why he's confused plate boundaries with hot spots.

I'm sure there's a way you can contact him there for further discussion.

Could you cite his paper; I'd love to see what he wrote there.

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

Only if you don't understand the evidence.

"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.

Lyell, who established uniformitarianism, wrote about catastrophic events, so I'm puzzled as to how anyone would think of this as a modern revision. Uniformitarianism considers gradual processes like erosion, uplift, volcanism, and so on to be the primary forces in changing the Earth. None of this rules out catastrophes like the Washington scablands or the flooding of the Black Sea area. No one had any philosophical issues with the Chixlub meteorite or even the formation of the moon by a collision, which was likely the most powerful of catastrophes.

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.

Since God is the creator of nature, it can hardly contradict Him. If the evidence and scripture seem to be at odds, then we have misunderstood one or both of them.

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.

If the evidence rules out one particular interpretation of scripture, then that interpretation is almost certainly false.

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)?

This is the point that YE creationists miss. God doesn't do miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something. The idea that He would use the loaves and fishes to make a theological point is perfectly reasonable. It is not reasonable to imagine that he did one thing, and then left evidence pointing to another thing. It's completely incompatible with God as Christians know Him.

 

[NobleMouse]

The discussion sort of originated with the suggestion by Kurt wise that animals wouldn't have time to obstruct lamination via bioturbation, because the flood would have deposited megasequences so quickly, that animals would be asphyxiated and would die from the flood too quickly for this to happen.

But then I displayed evidence for complex burrow systems and tunnels located within a megasequence. Thereby demonstrating that Kurt wise is incorrect.

On top of that, the tracks are part of a site which contains tracks from hundreds of different species of dinosaur, that are contained within a megasequence. And if the tracks aren't fleeing, one would suspect that it would take a long time for hundreds of different species of dinosaur and in this case, flying reptiles, to casually walk across the land.

But going back to the original point, according to Kurt wise, these sediments were deposited as part of a megasequence that was the result of water being carried in the form of one giant wave. According to him, animals in this strata would have been almost instantly buried.

However, we can see that they were not instantly buried. They were actually just casually walking around.

Thus resides the purpose of the discussion.

We have complex burrows, nests with eggs, massive tunnel networks, and now a site with thousands of tracks from hundreds of different dinosaurs and reptiles...all contained within a megasequence that was allegedly instantaneously deposited by one giant wave.

I think the best anyone can come up with is a generalization - including K. Wise. Generally speaking, it seems there is evidence for catastrophic burial - but not everywhere in all the same ways. It would seem too simplistic to expect all artifacts of the flood will fit any one model or set of assumptions.

Depending on the topography of any given area, at the time of the flood, the effects of the flood will be varied, right? It may have been violent crushing walls of water at near the speed of sound in some areas, certainly (perhaps near where 'fountains of the deep' were bursting forth). In others, it may have just been more like a pooling up of water... enough to bury everything and lay down megasequences over the span of the various phases across the year.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think the best anyone can come up with is a generalization - including K. Wise. Generally speaking, it seems there is evidence for catastrophic burial - but not everywhere in all the same ways. It would seem too simplistic to expect all artifacts of the flood will fit any one model or set of assumptions.

Depending on the topography of any given area, at the time of the flood, the effects of the flood will be varied, right? It may have been violent crushing walls of water at near the speed of sound in some areas, certainly (perhaps near where 'fountains of the deep' were bursting forth). In others, it may have just been more like a pooling up of water... enough to bury everything and lay down megasequences over the span of the various phases across the year.

Youre trying to make excuses for something that is broken, rather than just being honest about the fact that it doesnt make any sense. And, you didnt even make an attempt at post 1224.

 

[NobleMouse]

And while I'm on the topic of angular unconformities, I figured I would share my familiarity with one in particular.

So, just off of the Appalachian trail, there is an angular unconformity. It's pretty standard. On the left (facing in a southwest direction) there is horizontal ordivician bedding. On the right, vertical silurian bedding with a conglomerate base. Now, this formation exists in this orientation because the ordovician was originally laid down, then it was turned on it's side during something we call the taconic orogeny, then the silurian was deposited on top of this vertical ordovician, then both of them together were turned yet again, bringing the older layers back to a horizontal position with the younger being vertical.

The erosional surface between the two formations of the angular unconformity is in plain view and is easy to identify. In case anyone had any question about that.

Would any young earther who is aware of the geologic succession, ever dare to try to explain how something like this could be formed in a few thousand years by a global flood?

No, of course not. @NobleMouse , feel free to chew on that one, think about it.

Actually, I would love to hear either you, or @Bible Research Tools try to explain that one.

But I'm sure neither of you will, perhaps neither of you will even attempt to.

@The Barbarian you might like this too.

Isn't this just a case of different paradigms within the same field of study? Understandably, if people make the same assumptions and apply the same axioms you do, then they'll come to your conclusions. Nobody can unequivocally prove millions of years of slow gradualism, if that is their position. Equally, nobody can unequivocally prove thousands of years of a catastrophic past, followed generally by gradualism, if that is their position either.

Do you see this in your reasoning? I think it's obvious if all geologists start at the same place, gather the same data, apply the same measurements and assumptions, they'll have arrive at the same conclusion. So every time you say a creationist geologist is "blatantly lying", you are saying this because you may have started at a different place, applied different interpretations and axioms, and (of course) arrived at a different conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Depending on the topography of any given area, at the time of the flood, the effects of the flood will be varied, right?

So anything would be consistent with a worldwide flood, then? That means that nothing could be evidence for such a flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Isn't this just a case of different paradigms within the same field of study? Understandably, if people make the same assumptions and apply the same axioms you do, then they'll come to your conclusions. Nobody can unequivocally prove millions of years of slow gradualism, if that is their position. Equally, nobody can unequivocally prove thousands of years of a catastrophic past, followed generally by gradualism, if that is their position either.

Do you see this in your reasoning? I think it's obvious if all geologists start at the same place, gather the same data, apply the same measurements and assumptions, they'll have arrive at the same conclusion. So every time you say a creationist geologist is "blatantly lying", you are saying this because you may have started at a different place, applied different interpretations and axioms, and (of course) arrived at a different conclusion.

Can you explain then, from your paradigm, how the angular unconformity might have come to be?

 

[dcalling]

Youve lost this discussion weeks ago. I'm going to have to.let you go now friend. All the best.

See, that is exactly what I was talking about, what you think is reality might not have happened see my post below.

Just say rock is hard is in correct, as there are different types of hardness under different conditions, so rocks compare to many other mental alloys are soft.

What you describes as reality should be observed evidences, however the moment you put your own interpretation onto those observed evidences, that is no longer reality but your own interpretation, it is the same when those scientists, based on the same evidences and lab tests, argues against each other if light is practice or wave.

 

[dcalling]

Ah, the Morris Dodge.
"If we find a transitional in the gap between A and B, we then have two more gaps on each side of that transitional."

No, that excuse fell apart as soon as it was used. So let's see what you have. Name us any two groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, for which there is no transitional form.

And feel free to show us two groups, said to not be evolutionarily connected, for which there is a transitional form.

You're on. What do you have?

Why groups? groups is too big. Want to do case by case?

Also your second argument "And feel free to show us two groups, said to not be evolutionarily connected, for which there is a transitional form." does not prove anything, since just like software engineers, God might wrote the code for one group and didn't re-use much for the other group so they seems not connected.

 

[dcalling]

So anything would be consistent with a worldwide flood, then? That means that nothing could be evidence for such a flood.

Well, the evidence of a global flood is rather obvious.
1. The Bible confirms it (if you thinking the Isrealites are not good book keepers, almost all the other ancient races have story of huge floods)
2. We know there are mass extinction points over history (it might be asteriotes, global warming/cooling or global flood).
3. As we discussed in the other thread, the image you posted literaly showed us that in ancient times, there are huge amount of water, (i.e. some global flood), and then the waters left over to drain left HUGE meanders that we don't see any river making today.

 

[Chinchilla]

Well, the evidence of a global flood is rather obvious.
1. The Bible confirms it (if you thinking the Isrealites are not good book keepers, almost all the other ancient races have story of huge floods)
2. We know there are mass extinction points over history (it might be asteriotes, global warming/cooling or global flood).
3. As we discussed in the other thread, the image you posted literaly showed us that in ancient times, there are huge amount of water, (i.e. some global flood), and then the waters left over to drain left HUGE meanders that we don't see any river making today. View attachment 231603

If the flood was local and not global then God did not kept his promise of it never happening again and Bible is good for garbage

Genesis 9:11

Now it sounds like a cospiracy theory .

 

[NobleMouse]

I'll comment on the more relevant points...

Since God is the creator of nature, it can hardly contradict Him. If the evidence and scripture seem to be at odds, then we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Clarification: you don't know God is endorsing the interpretations of evidence made by those asserting that what the Bible says is not what it means.

If the evidence rules out one particular interpretation of scripture, then that interpretation is almost certainly false.

Clarification: There is an interpretation of evidence that is contradicting scripture... no rock comes with it's birthday etched on the bottom nor any fossil with a tag saying it used to be something different.

This is the point that YE creationists miss. God doesn't do miracles because He must. He does them to teach us something. The idea that He would use the loaves and fishes to make a theological point is perfectly reasonable. It is not reasonable to imagine that he did one thing, and then left evidence pointing to another thing. It's completely incompatible with God as Christians know Him.

[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt miracles teach something either. 1 Corinthians 2:14 seems to characterize you. You are the natural man who does not accept what scripture says, your mind is so polarized towards science that you only accept what you believe about the past from a purely scientific perspective; as if you cannot see that scientific assertions of origins are based upon interpretations of evidence, through a philosophical view to a man-made field of study, of a history never documented through first-hand observation by man. Shifting sands brother... the evidence is not pointing to another thing... it's the interpretation of the evidence pointing you astray.

Maybe you need to go through the same exercise K. Wise went through, cutting out the parts of the Bible that would have to be removed to have what the Bible says fit the scientific assertions of origins, and when the whole thing falls apart in your lap then maybe it will click for you.