Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Job 33:6]

Philosophically speaking, perception is reality. You referenced things like reality being something you can touch, smell, taste, feel, etc... all the things of classical scientific study. Well, absolutely none of these qualities applies to history... you cannot touch things like 4500 years ago, much less 4.5 billion years ago, you cannot smell it, taste it, feel it, or see it, etc... it's history - all you have is what is here in the present. Ironically, you have to "imagine" the events that would have led to the conditions of the present.

Assuming you maybe once had an American History class somewhere along the way, did they just give you a bayonet, a boot, a candlestick, various other artifacts... or did you read about the history of America and discuss in class? I hope you didn't misplace your trust in the words you read, say about the Civil War, as you feel would be the case in trusting God's word.


I am in agreement that it is what God created... but what you call reality is just a perception of the past. When someone has a PhD in geology, this denotes a doctorate of philosophy in the applied science of geology... it's a philosophical view of things with a structured method of study applied - this is not all black & white, yes & no, true & false. You know this to be true as there is the principle of uniformitarianism that guides much of what is understood in conventional geological assumptions.

If I want to know more about American history, I turn to the history books to get the story before I turn to artifacts to try to piece together a story. Similarly, if I want to know about the beginning of creation, I turn to God's word to get the story before I turn to the fossils and rocks to piece together a story. You and I both know what God's word says regarding creation and the flood.


Yes we've been through this example before and your position assumes there's either an intent to misrepresent or that scripture cannot be understood. If you believe scripture is that difficult to understand correctly, you are free to continue believing so... but don't sleep too well tonight thinking you've really been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ either... because salvation may not be applicable to you, you may just think you are saved, if you really are saved (now), salvation may in fact be revocable, "Jesus" may have been in reference to any number of people other than the only Son of God, a new body may not be literally a new body, heaven may not actually be any different than here, you may never actually see Jesus face to face or other family members who have already died, and eternity may not mean there is no death, disease, or suffering in the way you think about it.


You are the one inventing countless meanings for words (mostly without cause or reason for doing so) - like in your example. By your own line of reasoning, nobody can really trust anything the Bible says, including the parts around salvation, so they might as well become atheists, pick a different faith, or maybe just make up their own faith. It seems your faith is grounded in what you have been taught is reality and less on what the bible says... but remember, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1 ...assuming you believe ithe biblical definition of 'faith' means what it says).


God is the source, but not your perception of history outside of and in contradiction to His word.


How very bizarre of a post this is from you - I don't know I've seen a Christian charge so headlong into naturalism - going on about things like the hardness of rocks in the same way Gollum went on about that ring of his. You may believe in the hardness of rocks, but you have built your faith on shifting sands brother - it is just the conventional wisdom - the philosophy of the day (here and now) and will change. Go back and re-read post #1128 and see if this really is representative of how you would want your faith in God's word to be characterized. You have so much more to say about rocks than you do God... go back and look through your links on Old Earth Geology, Part 1 and Part 2 and see how often you [don't] reference God, how often you [don't] reference scripture.

What proceeds out of our mouth (or written/typed) is what is in our heart, so all I can take away from this post and everything else I've ever read from you is that it would seem you place higher value on rocks than you do on God and His word. Everybody here has the opportunity to be a fool for something... something we will defend without shame. I know what that is for you and you know what that is for me. If I am to be found a fool when I stand in judgment before Christ, I want it to be because I foolishly believed the Bible meant what it said - even in the face of the philosophers of my day.

Oh, whatever you think I said above, perhaps I didn't - you may just be imagining I meant what you think my words to have meant.

As we've already established. A person doesn't need to be present during a car accident to experience reality after the car accident has occurred. If you are driving down the road and you see two cars smashed to pieces, you don't need a time machine to understand what occurred.

You continue to suggest that we can't understand reality of the past because we were not alive back then. But on the contrary, of course we can.

 

[NobleMouse]

We're talking about transitionals. More precisely, we're discussing the problem Todd Wood brings up wherein the boundaries between various genera of hominids are so fuzzy that creationists can't come up with a clear distinction between them. Yes, I notice that Todd has his own ideas about it, but as he admits, so do many other creationists, few of which agree with his. This was first pointed out by Darwin, and it remains a serious problem for creationists, as Wood mentions.

His research seems to have a pretty clear system for the distinction... so now we've identified 2 creationists whose research strongly supports biblical creation. Who should we go to next, Marcus Ross, Art Chadwick...?

 

[NobleMouse]

As we've already established. A person doesn't need to be present during a car accident to experience reality after the car accident has occurred. If you are driving down the road and you see two cars smashed to pieces, you don't need a time machine to understand what occurred.

And, as we've already established, a person doesn't need to be present during a car accident to know it happened because car accidents have been seen before. If you had never seen a car before, had never seen a car accident before, you'd just say, "what's with all of the twisted up metal and broken glass - what are these contraptions with what looks like seats inside?" Have you seen other creations and worldwide floods and just not letting the rest of us in on the secret? Just applying a little logic/reasoning here...

You continue to suggest that we can't understand reality of the past because we were not alive back then. But on the contrary, of course we can.

See above

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We're talking about transitionals. More precisely, we're discussing the problem Todd Wood brings up wherein the boundaries between various genera of hominids are so fuzzy that creationists can't come up with a clear distinction between them. Yes, I notice that Todd has his own ideas about it, but as he admits, so do many other creationists, few of which agree with his. This was first pointed out by Darwin, and it remains a serious problem for creationists, as Wood mentions.

His research seems to have a pretty clear system for the distinction...

So far, not a single characteristic that clearly differentiates the genus Homo from other hominids. Which is why creationists are unable to come to anything remotely like a consensus as to who was human and who was not.

How about telling us what characteristics mark the boundaries that Todd Wood thinks separates various hominids?

 

[Job 33:6]

And, as we've already established, a person doesn't need to be present during a car accident to know it happened because car accidents have been seen before. If you had never seen a car before, had never seen a car accident before, you'd just say, "what's with all of the twisted up metal and broken glass - what are these contraptions with what looks like seats inside?" Have you seen other creations and worldwide floods and just not letting the rest of us in on the secret? Just applying a little logic/reasoning here...


See above

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.

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.

And no, nobody needs a time machine to confirm whats going on. Because it is readily visible before our eyes. And, not only that but new faults commonly form, so we can continue to observe this occurrence.

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

And no, if...say the himilayas are rising today, you dont need a time machine to understand that they were rising yesterday, even if you didnt see them rising yesterday.

I didnt see the himilayas rising before i was born. Do I need a time machine to be aware of the fact that they were? No of course not. Because everything we know about physics and reality, tells us that plate tectonics is a real thing and that plates drift.

You just dont need a time machine to understand the past. All you need is an understanding of basic physics and a bit of common sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

"what's with all of the twisted up metal and broken glass "

And in geology, you wouldnt say this. And here is why...

You have physical distortion of otherwise regular bilaterally symetric objects (this is just one example).

When you understand directions of distortion, you can backpeddle and extrapolate the original form of various objects.

You wouldnt be confused like "oh why is this mountain folded?" No, you use physics to reverse engineer it and you can reconstruct an entire orogenic event.

This of course is impossible if you believe in a global flood that blasted mountains into the atmosphere. But it is not only possible, but simple and applicable and testable and...you can objectively confirm reverse engineered forms of physical objects (assuming the earth is old).

 

[Job 33:6]

In short, even though we dont have time machines, we dont need time machines because everything is pretty well spelled out for us. For example, the trilobite. Nobody needs a time machine to know that the trilobite used to be bilaterally symmetric, because thats just how God created life, and we have other trilobites to confirm that. The same goes for rocks and minerals. If the crystal lattice of a mineral is sheared in a direction that matches direction of forces in rock, you dont need a time machine to understand that the rock and or mineral has been sheared. And if you think you do, then you're wrong.

God has made an old earth. If it is truly 6000 years old, then God is deliberately deceiving anyone who actually studies the earth. Because anyone with actual awareness of features of the earth, and common sense, who isnt trapped in religious bias, is well aware that the earth is extraordinarily old.

This is what reality shows us. And either you have a choice to accept reality. Or you can ignore reality and...go with your...human perception of written words.

 

[Job 33:6]

How very bizarre of a post this is from you - I don't know I've seen a Christian charge so headlong into naturalism - going on about things like the hardness of rocks in the same way Gollum went on about that ring of his.

And its not about naturalism. Its about reality. And Christians like you and I, shouldnt have to part ways with reality in order to have faith in our Lord. But indeed, this is what you have done.

 

[Job 33:6]

Someone posted this picture in another thread.

5000 tracks from over 294 species of dinosaur.

Now, according to Kurt Wise, these megasequences were all laid down from giant waves, 5 in particular, that traveled across north america.

But here, right in the middle of a megasequence, we have 5000+ tracks from 294 different species of dinosaurs.

And yet, we are supposed to believe these dinosaurs wouldnt have time to do much of anything before being asphyxiated and drowning and being buried alive in a matter of seconds.

If all this strata was really deposited and buried in a matter of seconds...why in the world are there nearly 300 independent species (which is less than the total number of dinosaurs) of dinosaurs all walking around casually in random directions? You can tell by the spacing of their steps that the majority are not running, they are just casually walking around.

@Bible Research Tools
@NobleMouse


Its far more plausible to believe that this land was exposed for years, or even decades. And in those decades, many dinosaurs just happened to casually pass through the area. Just like any modern day city, many people casually pass through going to museums or supermarkets or restaurants etc.

The geologic record doesnt indicate chaos and destruction and giant waves passing over continents. Rather, it displays...regular every day life.

 

[David Kent]

Some have suggested that the singularity of the BBT is the very moment of divine creation.There are several viable but as yet untested hypotheses that the birth of our present universe was the moment of death of a previous universe. We have no problem speculating that a completely unobservable and untestable God always existed. I see absolutely no reason why the universe in one form or another always existed as well.

I don't need theories, I believe the bible

• Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[sfs]

That was the final in series of articles by Nathaniel Jeanson in support of Jeffrey Tomkins against a vicious attack by an arrogant little charlatan named Dennis Venema. I thought you might be curious, in the interest of "science", of course.

If you thought that, you are deeply confused. Nothing in creationism is of any scientific interest, and there's very little in it that's likely to pique my curiosity at this point. I've read lots of pro-creationist articles about genetics, and two things have proved to be true about all of them: (1) they are filled with gross scientific errors, and (2) creationists don't care about (1). You have admirably continued the tradition. When I point out the major scientific mistakes in an article, your only response is to ignore it and change the subject. Life is short, and I don't see any reason for spending any more of what remains of mine demonstrating yet again to that creationism takes to science the way vampires take to sunlight.

 

[2tim_215]

I don't need theories, I believe the bible

• Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I'm not going to debate earth age any more (it has nothing to do with God's creation or the Bible) but I agree with David and Genesis 1:1 and that's pretty much it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Barbarian observes:
We're talking about transitionals. More precisely, we're discussing the problem Todd Wood brings up wherein the boundaries between various genera of hominids are so fuzzy that creationists can't come up with a clear distinction between them. Yes, I notice that Todd has his own ideas about it, but as he admits, so do many other creationists, few of which agree with his. This was first pointed out by Darwin, and it remains a serious problem for creationists, as Wood mentions.



So far, not a single characteristic that clearly differentiates the genus Homo from other hominids. Which is why creationists are unable to come to anything remotely like a consensus as to who was human and who was not.

How about telling us what characteristics mark the boundaries that Todd Wood thinks separates various hominids?

From what I've read on AiG, ICR, Is Genesis History website, etc... there is a general consensus among creationists on most fossils with regard to which ones are human and which ones are not, with only a few fossils where discussion and debate still occurs. If you'd like to learn more about the characteristics T. Wood uses, I recommend reaching out to him directly. His contact information is available on his blog:

Todd's Blog

 

[The Barbarian]

From what I've read on AiG, ICR, Is Genesis History website, etc... there is a general consensus among creationists on most fossils with regard to which ones are human and which ones are not, with only a few fossils where discussion and debate still occurs.

Well, let's see what Todd says.

Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

They're all over the map on this. I'll ask again:

(Barbarian asks earlier)
So far, not a single characteristic that clearly differentiates the genus Homo from other hominids. Which is why creationists are unable to come to anything remotely like a consensus as to who was human and who was not.

How about telling us what characteristics mark the boundaries that Todd Wood thinks separates various hominids?

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, let's see what Todd says.

Creationists do not agree on which of these fossil taxa are human. Most extreme are the old-earth creationists Rana and Ross (2005), who accept only modern Homo sapiens sapiens as human. Nearly all young-earth creationists accept Neanderthals as human and australopiths as not human, but opinions on other members of the genus Homo vary. Homo erectus (sensu lato, including H. ergaster) is viewed as human by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), Lubenow (2004, chap. 12), and Wise (2005). In contrast, Gish (1995, pp. 304–305) and Bowden (1981, pp. 208–210) view H. erectus as a mix of ape and human specimens, and Cuozzo (1998, p. 101) labeled H. erectus an ape. Gish (1995, p. 279) and Hartwig-Scherer (1999) classify Homo habilis as ape, but H. habilis is considered to be a mix of ape and possibly human specimens by Lubenow (2004, pp. 299–301). The skull KNM-ER 1470 (Homo rudolfensis) is accepted as possibly human by Bowden (1981, p. 200), Cuozzo (1977), and Lubenow (2004, pp. 328–329), while Hartwig-Scherer and Brandt (2007) and Mehlert (1999) consider it an ape. The recently-discovered Flores remains (Brown et al. 2004) are considered human by Wise (2005), and the Dmanisi hominids (Gabunia et al. 2000) are considered very similar to australopiths by Hartwig-Scherer (2002a).

Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin
Todd Wood, "Answers in Genesis"

They're all over the map on this. I'll ask again:

(Barbarian asks earlier)
So far, not a single characteristic that clearly differentiates the genus Homo from other hominids. Which is why creationists are unable to come to anything remotely like a consensus as to who was human and who was not.

How about telling us what characteristics mark the boundaries that Todd Wood thinks separates various hominids?

This is the same thing with their ideas on geology. They can never agree on anything because their ideas have no objective base to be constructed off of. They make so much stuff up with their imaginations, their imaginative ideas inevitably contradict one another.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I can see lamination as well. How about we recognize the existance of bioturbation and destruction of lamination in the geologic record, then once we cover that topic, we can discuss why there are also areas that are laminated.

Your original comment suggested that bioturbation perhaps shouldn't exist, or if it did, it was abruptly stopped. So first we need to establish the fact that there are complex burrow networks and large tunnels, some of which do obstruct subsurface lamination and were not abruptly stopped.

If a complex, multi level system of burrows has been formed in the Jurassic, then we know that indeed organisms had plenty of time to create these complex underground systems.

Also if large mammals dug tunnels that we're feet in diameter and perhaps tens of feet long (to the extent that you can climb inside) we also know that these mammals must have had plenty of time to dig these tunnels.

Do you admit to this reality?

None of the above instances of bioturbation are structures that could be formed in a single day or week or perhaps even months of time. Let alone could an animal form them in perhaps the 30 seconds they might have if they were caught in a wave that was sweeping across all of north america.

Where did you get the 30 second number? Are are you assuming that once the water covers an area, it lingers there and doesn't retreat?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

Where did you get the 30 second number? Are are you assuming that once the water covers an area, it lingers there and doesn't retreat?

Dan

According to Kurt wise, these animals wouldn't have time to make burrows and tunnels. Some of these tunnels were made by large animals such as large mammalian armadillos. So, I put a number out.

Do you have a better prediction on how much time a large mammal might have to burrow in the middle of the flood? I wouldn't think such animals would have any time at all.

 

[Job 33:6]

And remember, this is a global flood that is depositing thousands of feet of sediment with water that at some point or another, rises above mountains and even deposits mountains of sediment.

We aren't talking about the seasame place kiddy wave pool. This isn't something that animals get their toes wet and it's over. This is a monster of a flood with extraordinarily high energy waves that sweep over continents, hypothetically.

 

[Job 33:6]

And to add to the above post. I mentioned this in the other topic,

Many of these complex burrows and tracks and nests, appear superpositionally late in the geologic record. Many of these features appear after some 90% of the geologic column has already been deposited below. Indicating that life would have had to have survived perhaps 90% of the flood, at least temporally.

For example, in Bolivia, if you look at a geologic map, you have sequences spanning majority of the column. Indicating that the area was flooded during prior events of the flood and during prior waves. Yet you have the dinosaur dance floor on the same location later in the succession.