Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Bible Research Tools]

Also, just to clarify on this comment

"but when they are examined the lamination is still there."

If you read some of the research that I have posted, you will see discussion of localities in which lamination is no longer present.

And in fact, if you think about it, lamination cannot exist where a burrow has been formed. And not only do we have plenty of research and discussion on areas in which lamination has been obstructed by bioturbation, but we also have very large and complex burrow systems in the geologic record.

Kurt Wise was suggesting that during the flood, animals would not have the time to bioturbate subsurface sediments. However, anyone with eyes can see that life had plenty of time to burrow and to make homes and in fact, it is commonplace that some of these complex subsurface features are right splat in the middle of where Kurt Wise seems to believe a single wave carried this sediment across all of north america.

Imagine...a family of organisms is carried across all of north america in a giant wave, and deposited. Somehow the family is all alive...and together. In the middle of this giant section of sediment that was just deposited by a wave that traveled across the continent. And somehow they are alive and ok and able to...make a network of tunnels? And they couldnt have been buried, and dug their way up from the precambrian all the way up to the jurassic or anywhere above, because if they did, their burrows would be present throughout the whole column, and as kurt wise suggests, if a flood occurred, they would die before they could. So life must have literally been in the middle of this wave, riding across all of north america. Imagine, or try to imagine, a family of milipedes being carried across north america, holding onto one another to keep their community together so that they could build a complex tunneling network wherever they land.

And, it doesnt take a genius to understand the fact that this is ridiculous.

I was puzzled why you did not understand Wise's explanation, so I revisited his video lecture, and found this that may help explain some of your statements:

"we have we have evidence here of five humongous surges of water five humongous I mean depositing hundreds of feet of sediment crossing the entire continent of North America depositing sediment of that and that magnitude across the continent.​

Wise was not referring to every square inch of the continent on each surge, even though it may have sounded that way. He was not using his own data, but Sloss's, as he continually referred to. He also said this, which explains the previous statement:

"The Sauk mega sequence is very thick in the Eastern United States; it's very thick on the western United States; it's very thin halfway in between in the Mid Continent. So we have a sequence of rocks very thick on the coasts and thins to the center of the continent."​

That surge, and the others, covered the coastal and interior low-lying areas first, while the high ground, such as what came to be known as the "dinosaur peninsula", were covered last, possibly in a later surge. The sediment deposition maps tend to bear out that interpretation.

To many, Kurt Wise may sound like he knows what he is talking about. But to the other 99% of geologists, including myself, few would actually take such concepts seriously.

He knows exactly what he is talking about on both the transcontinental layering and the fossil record, which he explains on another video. I admit the concept is a little difficult to understand from a 90 minute lecture, and probably more so if one has a gradualism mindset. It made no sense to me the first few times I watched it, but eventually it began to fall into place.

But Kurt wise says right up front, that even if evidence was against his beliefs, he would just denounce the evidence in favor of his beliefs. So its no surprise that...his ideas do not necessarily make sense in light of reality. They dont have to because they are faith based ideas. He isnt trying to publish them, theyre just thoughts that he has that remain in his mind. They dont actually mesh with reality.

Where did Wise say he would denounce the evidence? This is from his own mouth, and recently:

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com​

Some creationist criticize him for being too "lenient" to evolutionists.

Wise, like all scientists, makes assumptions:

"Dr Wise believes that most of us have been trained to be biased towards thinking in an evolutionary way, which unfortunately is not along the lines of God's thinking. So he encourages his students to look at their starting assumptions, and to think about whether those assumptions are correct, or whether there are other options they need to consider."​

But your statement about evidence also applies to many evolutionists, according to Wise:

"For evolutionists, he says, one of these is the conventional evolutionary assumption that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. Such beliefs are non-negotiable for the evolutionist. 'I would say that if you investigated any scientists in any field you would find issues they assume at the beginning that are unchangeable for them.'"​

Kurt Wise, Steve Austin, and those on the same page will eventually turn the geology world view upside down. Count on it.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I think its a matter of going with...reality. Moreso than it is a rejection of scripture. Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with. If a rock is hard for example, it will be hard no matter who looks at it or feels it or tastes it etc. It will forever be hard, and you can smash a marshmellow or a pillow against it, and the pillow and marshmellow will deform while the rock stays hard.

This is, a case of reality. It just is what it is. And this is what God has created. Nothing can really change it from being what it is.

Interpretations of scripture on the other hand, can go any which way.

For example, we could take the simple phrase "the cake is in the oven". And, we could interpret literally every noun in the sentence, and transform it into countless things. The oven could be any color, any shape, any make or model. It could be an easy bake oven, it could be a toy oven that isnt even an oven at all, rather its just a plastic box. The cake, it could be any size, shape, flavor, made of any ingredients. I could make a cake out of dirt, and someone else might say, well thats not even a cake.

So, by depending on words, no matter what authority is behind those words, if our understanding of reality is souly dependent on those words, we are susceptible to misunderstanding them.

Whereas with a rock, you cant be susceptible to misunderstanding the hardness of a rock. It just is what it is. And if you are confused about it, you can go pick the rock up and smash it into a marshmellow to confirm that it is hard.

One position is dependent upon the imagination, circling around words. While the other is based on reality.

And God is the source of reality. He created everything. So by default, reality of the created rock, is more likely to be real, than the imagination that a human being formulated around scripture. The bible is a real thing, it is physically existent. But mankinds understanding of it, is something that only exists in the minds of people who read it.

But a rock will exist, whether people perceive its existence or not. And no person can imagine that the rock is something that it is not. No person could imagine that the rock is soft for example, because if anyone did suggest such a thing, we could just smash it into a marshmellow to confirm its hardness.


-----------------------------------------------------

The difference here is, reality vs imagination. And of course reality is the more...real entity between the two. No matter what any of us thinks scripture says, the rock is the rock. The perceived interpretation is the interpretation.

What is real about the slow fossilization?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"Reality is something that...you cant really go wrong with", except that is in the sense of traditional physics, where in the 1900 scientist thought we now know everything. Then quantum physics is funded and now it is clearly established that we can't accurately measure anything, all what we see are just a somewhat correct image.

That is an excellent point. Some biblical scholars warn Christians not to hitch their wagons to any scientific theory, because no one knows what the next theory will bring.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I see absolutely no reason why the universe in one form or another always existed as well.

I know of one possible reason why it did not always exist:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Gen 1:1 KJV

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." -- Mar 10:6-8 KJV​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

There is a difference between discussion of quantum theory and quantum mechanics, and talking about simple geology.

There is a difference between simple geology, or the study of rocks as they exist, and historical geology, which is and will always be theoretical.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

But, do you know if the Indian plate contacted the Asian plate at a speed of 3 cm/yr or at 10 cm/s? That is theory, not reality.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

In short, even though we dont have time machines, we dont need time machines because everything is pretty well spelled out for us.

If everything was "spelled out" in geology and paleontology, there would be no competing theories.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

Christians didn't part ways with reality. It was evolutionists who parted ways with Christians.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

Correction: the ways traveled over parts of North America, according the research and maps provided by Sloss.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

Very well.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

So, the concepts of evolutionary geology are cut in stone?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

That is correct, except to remind everyone that the flood did not happen all at once, nor did it drop its sediment all at once.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

That is an assumption.

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

That is an assumption.

Dan

What is an assumption?

Massive megasequences are found superpositionally below mesozoic strata in Bolivia. Therefore, massive waves already passed through bolivia prior to the mesozoic.

Not only that, but Paleozoic mega sequences are found at the highest elevations in Bolivia, which superpositionally pre date the mesozoic.

Do you disagree with this?

Or are you suggesting that Paleozoic strata in Bolivia wasn't deposited by the flood?

But of course it was.

Or are you suggesting that Paleozoic strata in Bolivia isn't actually Paleozoic strata, even though Kurt wise would disagree, as he has already openly described is support for our understanding of the geologic column?

 

[Job 33:6]

That is correct, except to remind everyone that the flood did not happen all at once, nor did it drop its sediment all at once.

Dan

According to Kurt wise, there were 5 to 6 mega waves that deposited the geologic column. Just want to make that clear. So, one wave for example, for each megasequence. So if one wave happened to deposit say, all mesozoic strata, then everything within mesozoic strata was deposited in a single giant wave event. Hypothetically.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wise was not referring to every square inch of the continent on each surge, even though it may have sounded that way. He was not using his own data, but Sloss's, as he continually referred to. He also said this, which explains the previous statement:

"The Sauk mega sequence is very thick in the Eastern United States; it's very thick on the western United States; it's very thin halfway in between in the Mid Continent. So we have a sequence of rocks very thick on the coasts and thins to the center of the continent."​

That surge, and the others, covered the coastal and interior low-lying areas first, while the high ground, such as what came to be known as the "dinosaur peninsula", were covered last, possibly in a later surge. The sediment deposition maps tend to bear out that interpretation.
Dan

Well dinosaur tracks and features of life, are found everywhere. In both low elevation areas and high elevation areas.

So this whole idea about an island where thousands of dinosaurs all ran together and Huddle's is just rediculous.

Not only that, but you're missing the point that many of these features, such as the dinosaur dance floor" are in fact in the middle of a megasequence. As are many fossil tracks, and nests and tunnel networks etc.

You can't say "oh the dinosaurs just ran to higher ground" also because many features, such as burrow networks, tunnels and nests, can't run.

They're are found throughout the mesozoic, indicating that they were allegedly deposited by a giant wave. But of course a dinosaur nests couldnt be deposited by a giant wave, nor would dinosaurs create nests while under water. The same goes for burrow networks and tunnels.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

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.

Stephen, I didn't have time to properly respond to this earlier today, but are you saying you didn't bother to read and respond to Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's challenge to the doctrine of Biologos that dismisses the inerrancy of the Word of God, and his critique of the research of one your Biologos' colleagues, Dennis Venema?

One should not flippantly dismiss the comments of their betters.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

What is an assumption?

Massive megasequences are found superpositionally below mesozoic strata in Bolivia. Therefore, massive waves already passed through bolivia prior to the mesozoic.

Not only that, but Paleozoic mega sequences are found at the highest elevations in Bolivia, which superpositionally pre date the mesozoic.

Do you disagree with this?

Or are you suggesting that Paleozoic strata in Bolivia wasn't deposited by the flood?

But of course it was.

Or are you suggesting that Paleozoic strata in Bolivia isn't actually Paleozoic strata, even though Kurt wise would disagree, as he has already openly described is support for our understanding of the geologic column?

What I am suggesting is you have no reasonable alternative to the flood model.

But I am always willing to learn. Perhaps you will explain how the Bolivian strata was deposited, and how the associated landmarks were created?

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

What I am suggesting is you have no reasonable alternative to the flood model.

But I am always willing to learn. Perhaps you will explain how the Bolivian strata was deposited, and how the associated landmarks were created?

Dan

This isn't a response. You're trying to change the subject.

Can you answer my question please?

What did I assume in my post?

 

[Job 33:6]

Regarding my post above,

You continue to avoid responding to people on this forum. It demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about, both in geology and biology.

We have multiple posts now in this thread that you have avoided responding to.