Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Bible Research Tools]

And, young earthers can argue all they want about this and they can quote RATE or whoever creation institute or Ken Ham etc.

It doesnt really matter. We could bury the entire Noahs Ark ship museum of kentucky, in research papers affirming these data.

That is a gross underestimation. You can bury the entire state of Kentucky in the false assumptions found in those papers, alone.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Batbarian observes:
Barbarian notes that Gingrich accurately demonstrated that nostrils/blowholes show transitional forms in whales.

All Gingrich had proven is, he is a dreamer.

You've been lied to about that:

Shows that the predicted movment of nostrils to the top of the head happened in a stepwise fashion.

That proves nothing except that some animals had a protruding maxilla and/or a set-back nostril.

Do you know the scientific definition [of macroevolution]? What do you think it is?

It depends on who is doing the defining. To the hard-core evolutionist, macroevolution means common descent from a single cell organism which itself magically appeared from inorganics (also called, "from goo to you"). To the scientist, it is the unprovable assumption that one created kind mutated into another entirely different kind.

The ones who predicted all those transitional forms before they were found? Know what's even more impressive than that? We never find one that the theory says should exist. No whales with gills, no whales with horozontal swimming motions. Just the predicted forms. This is why even knowledgeable creationists admit that these transitions are strong evidence for evolution.

There are no transition forms to be found; only vivid imaginations. Show us 50 clearly defined transitions from a land animal to a whale (no imagined parts), and I will become an evolutionist (again).

The information we get from those fossils, for example, show that the blowhole moved backwards from the snout in a series of steps over a good number of transitional forms. As you now realize, even more important is that we don't see transitional steps where the theory says there shouldn't be any.

You fellows do have vivid imaginations. I am more of a realist.

They lied to you about that, too. For example, a culture of bacteria was shown to have evolved a new enzyme system through a series of mutations.

Was it still bacteria, or did it become a frog?

Perhaps you don't know how "information" is determined in population genetics. How do you measure information, and how do mutations change the amount of information in a population genome?

I know bait-and-switch when I see it. Until macroevolution can be clearly and succinctly demonstrated, only low-information adults and brainwashed school-children will believe it.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory p. 260

Perhaps you omitted some context:

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. " [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory." Stephen Jay Gould Archive, 2011]
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994​

Inference is a fancy word for "faith", based on premises assumed to be true.

Dan

 

[NobleMouse]

Yes, the lack of DNA in any of the thousands of fossils found, is indeed evidence against 3000 year old dinosaurs. Thank you.

Artistic renderings...great...

Collagen in a well preserved fossil.

This isnt even a response. I would love to see someone go into an academic forum, and show a slide show of cave drawings as a case against evolution. They would just be laughed at. This isnt even worth mentioning.

Perhaps an academic forum is where you will find unanimous acceptance of your worldview and greater satisfaction thereof. I'm not interested in convincing academia any more than Jesus was, I'm just presenting the truth from God's word and showing there is work by well-credentialed scientists in support of God's word. Academia will not be my judge, nor yours, so its opinions are of no value.

When you question the scientists at places like AiG and ICR, et al about what they are reporting, what kind of responses are you getting back? Or, are you not even doing that at all, but instead "doing the greater good" or "bringing more glory to God" by debating on a Christian forum with those who actually do believe God's word on the topic of origins?

Here in CF, there are many different views on the topic of origins. So, obviously this is greatly influenced by one's worldview... if it were not then all would agree. There is disagreement even among those in the scientific field, with PhD's on both sides of the fence. In all the 'overwhelming' evidence you feel exists against people having been aware of dinosaurs well before the 18th century, how big of a communication failure would it take then to not be able to convince everyone? Clearly you feel all the guess-work and assumptions have been stripped away and all that remains is simple fact, fact that only paves the path to one view, your view. The more adamantly you insist upon old earth geology and people / dinosaurs existing at vastly different periods in time, the more incompetent the secular scientific community will appear in their failure to communicate this simple fact as more and more evidence brings these old-age assumptions into question.

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps an academic forum is where you will find unanimous acceptance of your worldview and greater satisfaction thereof. I'm not interested in convincing academia any more than Jesus was, I'm just presenting the truth from God's word and showing there is work by well-credentialed scientists in support of God's word. Academia will not be my judge, nor yours, so its opinions are of no value.

When you question the scientists at places like AiG and ICR, et al about what they are reporting, what kind of responses are you getting back? Or, are you not even doing that at all, but instead "doing the greater good" or "bringing more glory to God" by debating on a Christian forum with those who actually do believe God's word on the topic of origins?

Here in CF, there are many different views on the topic of origins. So, obviously this is greatly influenced by one's worldview... if it were not then all would agree. There is disagreement even among those in the scientific field, with PhD's on both sides of the fence. In all the 'overwhelming' evidence you feel exists against people having been aware of dinosaurs well before the 18th century, how big of a communication failure would it take then to not be able to convince everyone? Clearly you feel all the guess-work and assumptions have been stripped away and all that remains is simple fact, fact that only paves the path to one view, your view. The more adamantly you insist upon old earth geology and people / dinosaurs existing at vastly different periods in time, the more incompetent the secular scientific community will appear in their failure to communicate this simple fact as more and more evidence brings these old-age assumptions into question.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that AIG published blatently false information, and you and the other person posting here, is defending them.

You say that division exists in the scientific community. From my experience this is somewhat of a 99% to 1% split, with the one percent seemingly in denial. And yes, many of us do attempt to reason with young earthers such as yourself and even those at AIG. But the responses are largely the same. Empty.

Bill Nye had an open discussion with Ken ham. Watch it and see that Ken hams ideas have nothing to do with science. Nothing to do, even with physical reality. And this is the state of young earth creationism.

Lies are posted on AIG, but reality doesn't matter to YECs apparently. AIG says DNA was found from the T Rex, but this just isn't true. It is blatently deception. Yet, here it is, promoted, accepted and even defended.

And really as Christian's, the person defending AIG should be ashamed of himself.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Platypus is a transitional form?

Yep. It's warm-blooded and has a primitive kind of nursing for the young. It has a single bone in the lower jaw, with the other bones incorporated into the middle ear. All these are mammalian traits.

But it has a soft bill like some therapsid reptiles, a sprawling reptilian stance, the reptilian shoulder, a reptilian cloaca and it lays reptilian eggs. So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals. Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

 

[The Barbarian]

When you question the scientists at places like AiG and ICR, et al about what they are reporting, what kind of responses are you getting back? Or, are you not even doing that at all, but instead "doing the greater good" or "bringing more glory to God" by debating on a Christian forum with those who actually do believe God's word on the topic of origins?

One cannot bring glory to God by deception. Aig has repeatedly engaged in deceptive practices.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Bible Research Tools, post: 72723448, member: 409605"]"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that stEditill surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. " [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory." Stephen Jay Gould Archive, 2011]
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

Inference is a fancy word for "faith",

You've been misled about that, too...

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.


Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference.


Statistical inference uses mathematics to draw conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. This generalizes deterministic reasoning, with the absence of uncertainty as a special case. Statistical inference uses quantitative or qualitative (categorical) data which may be subject to random variations.
Inference - Wikipedia

based on premises assumed to be true.

No, you have that backwards, too. Deductive reasoning starts with premises assumed to be true and makes decisions about particular things based on those assumptions.

Inductive reasoning, which is the way science works, observes particular things and infers the rules based on the evidence from those observations.

Learn about it here:
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Remember, ultimately, the conclusion has to be testable, and until the conclusion has been repeatedly validated by such testing, it's not a settled theory. If it's not testable, it's not science.[/QUOTE]

 

[NobleMouse]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that AIG published blatently false information, and you and the other person posting here, is defending them.

You seem to be ignoring the world of God, in preference to defending the assumptions of events never observed... they're more like some kind of traditionally held belief within the realm of science that comes from an era before we had the technology to get better information, but now the interpretation of results are just getting manipulated and the understanding twisted, so as to maintain the traditional beliefs.

You say that division exists in the scientific community. From my experience this is somewhat of a 99% to 1% split, with the one percent seemingly in denial. And yes, many of us do attempt to reason with young earthers such as yourself and even those at AIG. But the responses are largely the same. Empty.

What I said was true.

Bill Nye had an open discussion with Ken ham. Watch it and see that Ken hams ideas have nothing to do with science. Nothing to do, even with physical reality. And this is the state of young earth creationism.

Bill Nye the science guy now?? Yeah at 14:20 to about 14:35 of the following video Nye openly admits that it hasn't been proven that life arose from natural processes, hence it is a "belief":

This brings your worldview into question when a well-known secular scientist concedes macro evolution by natural processes hasn't been strictly 'proven'. You made it seem so certain... so absolute... that no other possibility could exist (certainly not least of which one being that God created all life in 6 days of creation). How about we both agree we won't reference Bill Nye going forward? Doesn't seem to help either of our positions.

I don't believe the folks at AiG, ICR, CMI, and others our out intentionally spreading lies. Instead of referencing Bill Nye, how about you go challenge folks like Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, Markus Ross, Kurt Wise, and others? I'm sure you'll enjoy your "basketball game" with guys who can shoot the 3-pointers you so long for on the topics of geology and paleontology.

Lies are posted on AIG, but reality doesn't matter to YECs apparently. AIG says DNA was found from the T Rex, but this just isn't true. It is blatently deception. Yet, here it is, promoted, accepted and even defended.

You know, my oldest son does this same thing where he keeps changing the subject or focusing on one random idea when confronting him with the truth. Now, in his defense, he's only just turned 16, we adopted him only 2 years ago, from China, and he's afraid that if he gets caught doing something wrong (as an honest mistake or not) that we'll send him back - so we have to keep reminding him that we love him and nothing will change that or cause us to reject him. That behavior seems understandable given his past and the trauma he has experienced. What I'm struggling to understand here is what your motivation is for doing the same. You keep focusing on an AiG article (you'll find similar responses from ICR and Creation.com below) and I feel you keep skipping over the bigger picture - it's apparent people have been aware of dinosaurs long before they were called dinosaurs, it's in the Bible, it's in historic written literature, artwork, and more evidence keeps showing up in opposition to the old-age assumptions:

Dinosaur DNA Trumps Mammoth Expert
Dino DNA bone cells - creation.com

And really as Christian's, the person defending AIG should be ashamed of himself.

I'm getting out and playing my small mouse-sized violin... will someone join me in this time of mourning? Sarcasm aside: In all seriousness, I really do believe you'll be more satisfied with your efforts being directed to the scientists out in the field doing the research and reporting the findings for organizations like AiG, ICR, et al - you'll have the caliber of discussion you keep seeking for - someone who can 'hang' with you, and you'll finally know why they believe what they believe. Maybe you'll teach them something, maybe they'll teach you something, maybe that's why you haven't gone down that path yet - I don't know, but I do know it'll be more worth the effort than the time you're spending here trying to convince those of us who believe in the end God and His word will always true.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No, that's wrong, too. Gould says that gradual evolution is rare, not nonexistent.

Actually, he wrote they are extremely rare.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:​

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [Darwin, Origin, 1859, p.342]​

[Stephen Jay Gould, The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]​

Gould pointed out ammonites and horses as cases of gradual evolution.

Do you have a reference?

It's not an entirely new theory, in either sense of the word. First, it's a modification of Darwinian theory, by a scientist who regarded himself as an "orthodox Darwinian." Second, the idea of stasis punctuated by rapid change goes all the way back to Darwin's associate, Thomas Huxley.

A modification? More like an escape! Fortunately for Gould, his theory is just as unobservable and unprovable as gradualism, so he can never be proven wrong (or, right).

Darwin explained why in his book. When a population of organisms is well-adapted to a relatively unchanging environment, natural selection will prevent evolution from occurring. Later, if the environment changes, the stasis is interrupted by a period of adaptation.

It is meaningless unless it can be proved; and historical "science" is not provable, absent a time machine.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So your claim is that the great majority of biologists aren't very knowledgeable about biology. I think that pretty well sums up your position.

You misquoted me. I wrote:

"The truth is, evolutionists are not very knowledgeable about biology, or they would reject the myth of macroevolution."​

Why did you insert "biologists" into my statement? There is a big difference between a biologist and an evolutionist.

For the record, I was responding to your slanderous statement about YEC's. If you can't take the heat, . . .

On the other hand, As noted above, you don't seem to have any idea at all about how "information" is determined in a population genome, so there is that...

Meaningless.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

The skull is so remarkably whale like, that when the first one was found (without the postcranial skeletion) paleontologists assumed it had a body adapted to the water.

Some people see what they want to see.

It turned out to be one of the several predicted ungulate/whale transitionals. It had a long whale-like skull with whale teeth. It had the auditory bullae found only in whales. Its bones were osteosclerotic, providing ballast for living in water, and the eyes were high on the skull, allowing it to be mostly submerged, but still able to see above water.

The first exotic drawings of the "aquatic" Pakicetus (left), were based on the highlighted skull and jaw fragments (right):

But with the 2001 discovery of a mostly complete skeleton, we are able to put the so-called Pakicetus into perspective:

1) no blowhole
2) no flippers (only hooves)
3) no whale-like neck (typical land-animal neck)
4) no whale-like ear bone (plate-like sigmoid process)
5) not aquatic.

There is not a lot of "whale" left. The discoverer of the mostly complete skeleton, J. G. M. Thewissen, a colleague and former student of Gringrich, wrote in Nature:

"Taken together, the features of the skull indicate that pakicetids were terrestrial, and the locomotor skeleton displays running adaptations. Some features of the sense organs of pakicetids are also found in aquatic mammals, but they do not necessarily imply life in water. Pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir." [J. G. M. Thewissen, "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls." Nature Vol 413, 20 Sept 2001, p.278] ​

In the same issue of Nature is a critique of Thewissen's discovery, which includes:

"Thewissen and colleagues' discovery allows us to address both of these problems. The newly found fossils include several skulls and postcranial bones from two early pakicetid species — which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region) and the body of an artiodactyl. All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl if they had been found without their skulls. Many of the fossils' features — including the length of the cervical vertebrae, the relatively rigid articulations of the lumbar vertebrae, and the long, slender limb bones — indicate that the animals were runners, moving with only their digits touching the ground." [Christian de Muizon, "Walking with whales." Nature Vol 413, 20 Sept 2001, p.260]​

Like I said, there is not a lot of whale to be found. But that does not prohibit the highly imaginative evolutionism crowd from pretending it is "whale-like". Just saying . . .

Pretty much the predicted transitional that creationists claimed could not exist.

Still saying . . .

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

It's sometimes hard for most people to imagine how creationists could mistake a mammal for an alligator. But they often do. It's just one of those things that creationism does to people.

It is will forever by hard to imagine how evolutionists can mistake a few fossilized skull fragments for an exotic aquatic creature.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No, that's wrong. They were eventually shamed into removing the misquote, but they edited the words of these astronomers:

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

The quote is still there:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’.4" [Jonathan Sarfati, "Exploding stars point to a young universe: Where are all the supernova remnants?". Journal of Creation, 1997]
Exploding stars point to a young universe - creation.com​

If that non-mistake by Chemistry PhD Jonathan Sarfati in the Journal of Creation caused you to claim AIG (Answers in Genesis) "lost all credibility" with you, then you cannot possibly think too highly of Geology PhD Phil Gingerich, who took a few skull fragments and imagined an exotic aquatic creature that fooled a boatload of people (and still does).

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I understand you want to believe that. But the evidence is quite clear. The dating, using several independent sources of evidence, shows this particular specimen to be about 10,000 years old. There are much older examples.

Radiometric dating is unreliable.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Nope. Sudden erosion can't explain entrenched meanders. More to the point, we have examples of sudden catastrophic floods (Washington scablands, for example) and they don't dig out meandering canyons.

That sounds like something you might hear in a PBS documentary. Try this paper:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_3/j24_3_106-116.pdf​

It's an example of a rejuvenated river. First, you have an old, slow, meandering river with lots of bends and loops. If you're unclear as to why old rivers are like that, we can talk about it.

Talk is cheap.

Then there is an uplift of the area, which makes the river run faster. It then cease to meander, and cuts deeper and deeper into the existing channel. Would you like to learn the evidence for this?

Evidence? There is no evidence: only interpretations of data that are claimed to be evidence.

Since there are places in the world where the entire geologic column exists, it appears that your hypothesis is in serious trouble.

How could the existence of the entire column be a problem for anyone who understands the mechanics of sedimentology?

Oh, now I get it. You misunderstood me. I was referring to the faulty evolutionary model of the column, not the column itself.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Nope. Who told you that?

I read it somewhere; or perhaps I interpreted if from the biblical timeline; or both.

I also used simple logic: if the sediment layer did not harden fairly quickly, and/or get quickly covered with many, many feet of sediment to prohibit destruction by marine "diggers", many organisms waiting to be fossilized, especially fish, would virtually disappear.

Therefore, until I see evidence of slow fossilization, I will stick with the fast kind.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Some of Gentry's samples are known to have been taken from metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins that are intruded into, or occur on top of, sedimentary rocks - sometimes even fossil-bearing rocks (Collins, 1997a, 1988a, 2000; Wakefield, 1988a, 1988b, 1990).

Logically, such veins must be younger than the sedimentary layers, and therefore cannot be primordial "creation rocks" as Gentry claims. Gentry has tried to deny some of this evidence, but it is extensive and well documented, and acknowledged even by other creationists (DeYoung, 2006; Snelling, 2002, 2003; Wise, 1989).
Unfounded Creationist Claims about Radio Halos

These are a couple you didn't list:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_1/j15_1_14-16.pdf

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j15_1/j15_1_86-88.pdf​

Now, where did you get the notion that the sedimentary rock is much older than the granite?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Another puzzle is that at five of the 20 Po-radiohalo-bearing biotite localities the host granitic rocks intrude apparently older rocks arguably produced during the Flood.22 If these granitic rocks therefore also formed during the Flood, then how were the Po radiohalos produced in them?
Andrew Snelling, Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery" ICR Impact August 2000

Interesting. You might be also be interested in this more up to date paper:

Radiohalos—startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth - creation.com

This video lecture is from a couple of years ago:

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This isnt a real response. Its teeth are whale like, as are its skull. Now, of course it doesnt have flippers and a blow hole. But it shouldnt have flippers and a blow hole, as a transition has to start somewhere. In the fish to tetrapod transition, the fish doesnt have legs, right, it has to evolve legs before it has legs. Just the same, pakicetus has to evolve a blow hole, before it has one.

See here:

Is evolution a fact or theory?

Dan