Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Bible Research Tools]

Because you allegedly know what you are talking about, I will just talk directly to you and will ignore your random youtube videos.

That is mighty nice of you.

Now, do explain what the issue is with lamination in sedimentary rocks found throughout the worlds rock layers.

Bioturbation is common among modern sediments, but the sedimentary layers of the geological column (nearly all of them) lack bioturbation. There is evidence of the beginning of bioturbation by fossilized organisms, but it abruptly ends, as if the next layer was rapidly deposited on top of it.

For the rest of you -- those with open minds, this is the segment by Dr. Wise (PhD, Geology, Harvard) about lamination/bioturbation. Paste "&t=38m42s" to the end of the URL (no spaces or quotes) to go directly to the segment:

Does anyone know a way to keep the board from stripping start times from the Youtube links?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

You were critiquing Bible Research Tools for arguing with a published PhD in genetics that evolution is not true (and I could be wrong here, but it came across to me that the basis for your critique was his not having the educational background to make these claims in opposition to SFS), so I pointed out there are published PhD geneticists with a biblical creation belief that also disagree with the evolutionary paradigm, citing the name of one (so you know I'm not just making things up - you can Google her, see she is real, has a real degree from a real university, works for AiG, etc...).

To be fair, if I turn the table around here; you are aware of Dr. Steven W Boyd - has a B.S. and a M.S. in Physics from Drexel University, a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
Steven Boyd - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

From Boyd's research, he concludes that Genesis is historical narrative and the days of Genesis are ordinary-length days. In the documentary, Is Genesis History, he also asserts that the world's leading Hebraists affirm that Genesis is historical narrative (ie. not a run-on figure of speech, a poem, a parable, etc...). One article in reference to some of his research:
Genesis is history - creation.com

From that, I presume that because you and others here do not have such educational nor professional experience in theology, hebraic or cognate studies, then you are going to rescind your opinions to the contrary of this view that Genesis is a historical account of creation? Nope? Okay, then we'll continue to proceed as we have been...

The difference here is, I dont go up to theologins and tell them that they dont know what they are talking about. Not that I am aware of any on this forum. But thats exactly what bible tools seems to be doing.

 

[Job 33:6]

That is mighty nice of you.



Bioturbation is common among modern sediments, but the sedimentary layers of the geological column (nearly all of them) lack bioturbation.

Dan

Huh? Bioturbation is very common throughout the worlds geologic column. You will have to be more specific with your claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

"There is evidence of the beginning of bioturbation by fossilized organisms, but it abruptly ends"

What is this supposed to mean?

There are fossilized animal burrows in the fossil record. You cant have animals start a burrow, then have their actions abruptly end right after they had begun, otherwise you wouldnt have a burrow.

 

[Job 33:6]

Large-Diameter Burrows of the Triassic Ischigualasto Basin, NW Argentina: Paleoecological and Paleoenvironmental Implications

There are networks of tunnels discussed in this paper.

But really, there are burrows everywhere. You can go almost anywhere and find burrows throughout the column, given that youre in a region that displays rocks of particular ages.

They arent abruptly cut off at the beginning of formation, theyre just regular burrows.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Bible Research Tools

How about I find you 10 research papers on paleozoic bioturbation. Would that be sufficient to counter your claims that bioturbation is...more or less non existent in the geologic column?

 

[Job 33:6]

Hardly used habitats: Dearth and distribution of burrowing in Paleozoic and Mesozoic stream and lake deposits | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

oldest evidence of bioturbation on Earth | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
The early Paleozoic development of bioturbation—Evolutionary and geobiological consequences - ScienceDirect
Ordovician increase in extent and depth of bioturbation: Implications for understanding early Paleozoic ecospace utilization | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

https://people.earth.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Planavsky/44_ Tarhan et al 2015 Nature Geoscience.pdf
https://www.int-res.com/articles/ab2008/2/b002p201.pdf
Miscellaneous Sedimentary Featur
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cd3e/e6083421e7434d51e4cd33c549ca5936e676.pdf

There are probably thousands of research papers on observed bioturbation in the fossil record. I could never even begin to scratch the surface here.

I've actually seen very large burrows, tetrapod burrows in rock that are right in the devonian. Which is allegedly right in the middle of this global flood. So, during this flood, these foot long or so amphibians, were making 5 foot long burrowed homes, right in the middle of this chaotic flood. But their bones arent in the burrows, theyre just borrows that were made and left alone.

Now tell me, how long it takes a salamander to create an entire den?

How long would it take a salamander to dig this when the continents and mountains are being shoved into the atmosphere by water blowing out of the mid oceanic ridge?

How long does it take millipedes to create entire complex networks?

 

[Job 33:6]

Whats worse is when you get eggs in these dens and nests. You cant have layers deposited by a global flood, when simultaneously life was living on these layers. You just cant have it both ways.

 

[sfs]

It all depends on your underlying assumptions, Stephen.

No, it really doesn't, which is why you can't point out any underlying assumptions I made.

I can make predictions about genetics based on common ancestry. You can't make predictions based on special creation. After all the words you write, all the attempts to dismiss and demean people here, all of the hand-waving -- I can still make predictions and you still can't. Why is that?

There are some pretty sharp geneticists out there who, looking at the same genetic information that you do, claim that common ancestry between the chimp and man is statistically impossible.

Who are these sharp geneticists? You've offered Tomkins, whose attempts are laughable.

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. Let me clarify. You did make this assumption, didn't you?

"One way we can test for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is to look at the genetic differences between the two species. If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years. That means they should look like mutations. On the other hand, if humans and chimpanzees appeared by special creation, we would not expect their genetic differences to bear the distinctive signature of descent from a common ancestor."
How do you know the highlighted part is a valid assumption?

Are you familiar with the English word "if"? Do you know what it's doing in the bolded sentence? I am testing the hypothesis of common ancestry, not assuming common ancestry.

Creation scientists and ID'ers can look at the same data and give entirely different and sensible conclusions.

I don't believe you. Show me a creation scientists or ID'er who has looked at these data and drawn a different conclusion.

How do you define "special" creation?

Direct creation by God. Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, probably a few thousand years ago. The whole ball of wax. That's how I was raised.

There are many scientific arguments against common ancestry. I am certain you are aware of a few from the scientists at the Discovery Institute;

I am aware of no arguments against common ancestry from the DI. The DI scientists I'm familiar with all seem to accept common ancestry and an origin for humans at least hundreds of thousands of years ago. Do you think they're brainwashed, too?

and there are more than a few from geneticists at the creation sites.

I've never seen a valid one from such sites, i.e. one that wasn't seriously misleading in some way.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't believe you. Show me a creation scientists or ID'er who has looked at these data and drawn a different conclusion.

Direct creation by God. Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, probably a few thousand years ago. The whole ball of wax. That's how I was raised.

I am aware of no arguments against common ancestry from the DI. The DI scientists I'm familiar with all seem to accept common ancestry and an origin for humans at least hundreds of thousands of years ago. Do you think they're brainwashed, too?

I just want to comment on this one statement.

This is actually significant, because in reality, many of the intelligent design movement, are in fact old earth christian scientists. And some, Michael Behe in particular, who is widely known (regardless of how few ID scientists there are), actually supports common descent, which is a big deal.

Even some of the most well known ID scientists, themselves, would actually and have actually, openly accepted concepts presented by regular everyday scientists, such as the existence of the fossil succession and it being evidence of common descent.

Which is to say that, while Behe resists darwinian evolution, he simultaneously accepts concepts such as...land mammals transitioning to whales. The evidence is so overwhelming, that even predominant ID supporters accept major lines of evidence for common descent.

 

[GenemZ]

What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

"Fact" remains a "theory" to those who can not see what is ... "Theory" can be a comfort position to take when one is being excluded from seeing what's there.

The Pharisees in certain ways pegged Jesus as a theorist.

The Gap in prehistoric creation(s) and the world we have now is no theory... For, the Genesis creation account "Gap" was seen many centuries before Darwin was born. Seen by Bible scholars who read from the ancient languages. Unlike today, they had no axe to grind with any evolutionists who did not exist in their day. What is contained in the original languages was simply seen as being so, and left them wondering about as to "why?" And, that is why God had Darwin to be born.

Then (by God's will) along came Darwin and his merry band of evolutionists with their theory of evolution. Thus God having a tool as a means to shake up and challenge stagnated Bible believers who were still stuck in living with their comfortable Sunday School concept about creation. Until then, they never gave it a thought about creation because in their thinking they were never truly challenged.

God is not looking for stubbornness in a believer to be seen as a virtue. Stubbornness is not being faithful conviction. Its only a counterfeit conviction. God is looking for true conviction. One that is based upon sound reasoning and understanding of accurate teaching from the Bible. That requires knowledge and adult thinking. No more Sunday school mentality is being allowed, or we die. For this is war.

God wanted Darwin born. All is good in the end. Romans 8:28

 

[GenemZ]

It all depends on your underlying assumptions, Stephen. There are some pretty sharp geneticists out there who, looking at the same genetic information that you do, claim that common ancestry between the chimp and man is statistically impossible.

A thot...

Why do we still have chimps? One would think that if man evolved from Chimps? That this 'higher form of chimp' would have turned around and killed off all genetically stagnated chimps who were comparatively stupid and would have hindered man's ability to survive.

Did not the birds beaks whom Darwin observed caused them to survive? Did he see the birds who's beaks did not "evolve" not die off? So, why do we still see chimps?

 

[sfs]

Why do we still have chimps? One would think that if man evolved from Chimps? That this 'higher form of chimp' would have turned around and killed off all genetically stagnated chimps who were comparatively stupid and would have hindered man's ability to survive.

In a word, no. Usually a new species of animal forms when an existing population becomes separated into two geographically distinct populations. Since they don't overlap, they don't directly compete. Chimps generally live in deep tropical forests, while humans lived on the more or less open plains, at least until comparatively recently. (And of course, now we are killing the chimpanzees off.)

 

[GenemZ]

In a word, no. Usually a new species of animal forms when an existing population becomes separated into two geographically distinct populations. Since they don't overlap, they don't directly compete. Chimps generally live in deep tropical forests, while humans lived on the more or less open plains, at least until comparatively recently. (And of course, now we are killing the chimpanzees off.)

What a convenient explanation.... using hindsight as your template.

Who nursed are cared for these new mutants called "man?" How could they have survived as a baby?

Human babies are totally helpless at birth. They can not see, nor walk.. let alone crawl until weeks after birth. But, baby chimps? They can see and are able to cling to its mother from birth!

 

[sfs]

What a convenient explanation.... using hindsight as your template.

No, that's the conclusion of evolutionary biologists who have studied species in various stages of near and recent speciation. That's in contrast to the scenario you simply dreamed up without knowing anything about the subject.

Who nursed are cared for these new mutants called "man?"

Their parents, of course.

Human babies are totally helpless at birth. They can not see, nor walk.. let alone crawl until weeks after birth. But, baby chimps? They can see and are able to cling to its mother from birth!

Um, so? Human ancestors were walking upright and able to carry babies long before Homo sapiens appeared.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know exactly what I am talking about. But I not certain that you do.

He's a geologist, and you are not. I have had to teach geology in secondary schools, and being a biologist, had a considerable amount of work to do, in order to teach even at that level. And Komatiite knows much more than I do about it. You seem to know less than the average high school science student.

I will discuss the science with you; but I am not playing your arrogant "I am smarter than you" game, or your "I am more educated that you" game.

He just happens to know more than you do about it. Not surprising; it's his degree.

(BRT tries the "I am more educated than you" game)

I am an old, retired engineer with many years of college;

So, you probably know a lot more about engineering than most people. Why is it such a shock to you then, that biologists know more about biology than you do, and geologists know more than you do about geology?

 

[The Barbarian]

It all depends on your underlying assumptions, Stephen. There are some pretty sharp geneticists out there who, looking at the same genetic information that you do, claim that common ancestry between the chimp and man is statistically impossible.

Nope. Last time I checked, about 0.03% of biologists doubted evolutionary theory. (source "Scientists who Doubt Darwin" and "Project Steve")


"One way we can test for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is to look at the genetic differences between the two species. If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years. That means they should look like mutations. On the other hand, if humans and chimpanzees appeared by special creation, we would not expect their genetic differences to bear the distinctive signature of descent from a common ancestor.

How do you know the highlighted part is a valid assumption?

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion from evidence showing that this is how differences appear in populations.

Common ancestry. Creation scientists and ID'ers can look at the same data and give entirely different and sensible conclusions.

Nope. In fact, more and more IDers are abandoning special creation and becoming evolutionists. Michael Behe, for example:

Everything from species, varieties, and individuals can be explained by purely natural processes like “random mutations, natural selection, and common descent” (1). The Line, then, between, Darwin and design is somewhere in the area of orders, families, and genera (218), though he thinks it is likely that even the orders are designed
Michael Behe The Edge of Evolution(193, 199)

Michael Denton, for another:
it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

A common theme regarding the notion of common ancestry among non-evolutionists seems to be "statistically impossible".

Show us your numbers. I'm guessing you don't even know how to do the calculations. But I could be wrong. Let's see what you've got.

There are many scientific arguments against common ancestry. I am certain you are aware of a few from the scientists at the Discovery Institute

Doesn't seem very likely. I just showed you the statements of two members of the Discovery Institute who disagree with you.

But as a Christian, the best argument against common ancestry is this one:
"from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV[/quote]

God specifically says what was there at the beginning, and there were neither male nor female. Jesus wasn't wrong; He was referring to the creation of man.

​

 

[The Barbarian]

A thot...
Why do we still have chimps?

Because humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, but evolved in different ways.

One would think that if man evolved from Chimps?

Didn't happen. Chimps are too evolved in their own way to have given rise to man.

That this 'higher form of chimp' would have turned around and killed off all genetically stagnated chimps

That common ancestor of humans and chimps is extinct. So there is that.

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

Because humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor...

Not according to scripture or the scientific materials I have seen, but I do not intend to demonstrate that at this time.

I have three questions for you concerning your beliefs, since I read you are 'catholic'.

Do you believe that the creation in Genesis 1-2 is given in literal 24 hour days, a 7 day week?

Do you believe in a literal global catastrophic flood in Genesis 6-9 that covered all the world?

Do you accept statements from 'church fathers' and 'doctors' of the 'catholic church' if they have the imprimatur and nihil obstat, and are 'canonized'?

 

[The Barbarian]

Not according to scripture or the scientific materials I have seen, but I do not intend to demonstrate that at this time.

Scripture has nothing to say about the sort of creature from which humans evolved. However, no biologist has argued that humans evolved from chimpanzees.

The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor, or CHLCA, is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee) genera of Hominini. Due to complex hybrid speciation, it is not possible to give a precise estimate on the age of this ancestral individual. While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been ongoing until as recent as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).


Speciation from Pan to Homo appears to have been a long, drawn-out process. After the original divergences, there were, according to Patterson (2006), periods of hybridization between population groups and a process of alternating divergence and hybridization that lasted several million years.[1] Some time during the late Miocene or early Pliocene, the earliest members of the human clade completed a final separation from the lineage of Pan — with date estimates ranging from 13 million[2] to as recent as 4 million years ago.[1] The latter date and the argument for hybridization events are rejected by Wakeley[3] (see current estimates regarding complex speciation).


Richard Wrangham (2001) argued that the CHLCA species was very similar to the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) — so much so that it should be classified as a member of the genus Pan and be given the taxonomic name Pan prior.[4] However, no fossil has yet been identified as a probable candidate for the CHLCA or the taxon Pan prior.


In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup, that is, as the extant species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor - Wikipedia

I have three questions for you concerning your beliefs, since I read you are 'catholic'.

Catholic. All Christians are small 'c' catholics, since "catholic" merely means "universal", applying to all who trust in Christ. This is why many Protestants and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, in reciting the Creed, acknowledge "the holy catholic church." It's not submission to Rome, it's the acknowledgement of the Body of Christ, which includes all who trust in Him. I happen to belong to the branch of Christianity that is Roman Catholic.

Do you believe that the creation in Genesis 1-2 is given in literal 24 hour days, a 7 day week?

As early Christians noted, it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. So most Christians have concluded that the story is figurative with the "days" being categories of creation.

Do you believe in a literal global catastrophic flood in Genesis 6-9 that covered all the world?

Since the Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, and since the evidence clearly shows that there was no worldwide flood, that is unsupportable. However there was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at the right time, so that's possible. We don't know for sure it it was figurative or a literal story. I suspect that it was literally true but of course not worldwide.

Do you accept statements from 'church fathers' and 'doctors' of the 'catholic church' if they have the imprimatur and nihil obstat, and are 'canonized'?

The Church doctrines depend on scripture. Where there is a definitive interpretation of scripture, it can be founded by the bishops in council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra. Anything else is a matter of opinion.

For example, a Roman Catholic could be a YE creationist, since the Church has taken no doctrinal stand on that. If the Pope declared that all Christians should cheer for the Boca Juniors, that would be his opinion, unless he should say so, ex cathedra. Not very likely, I think.