Is evolution a fact or theory?

[NobleMouse]

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

No, I cannot personally as a finance/process guy - for that, you'll have to visit places like ICR.org, or research by K. Wise., A. Snelling, T. Clarey, etc... for example, Snelling gives this response in an article:

Where erosion can clearly be seen to have occurred at these breaks between rock strata …, creationists maintain that the erosion was very rapid, facilitated in many cases by erosion occurring in soft, “non-hardened” rock. Consequently, rather than having a land surface exposed for enormous periods of time after an ocean retreated, the same Flood processes responsible for depositing the sedimentary layers were also capable of eroding significant thicknesses of both loose sediment and consolidated rock. (“The case of the “missing” geologic time,” Creation14:3,1992, pp. 30–35, online at www.answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time/.)

From this, Snelling seems to indicate that the angular unconformity occurred quickly as the rock had not fully lithified.

Just curious, if you did decide to research further and found details find within their research explaining in greater details, what would really be your response - God already told you He blotted out all of the life on the ground, so if you won't believe Him why would you believe them?...?...?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'll comment on the more relevant points...
Clarification: you don't know God is endorsing the interpretations of evidence made by those asserting that what the Bible says is not what it means.

He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

Clarification: There is an interpretation of evidence that is contradicting scripture... no rock comes with it's birthday etched on the bottom

God so created things that many rocks contain information as to their age.

nor any fossil with a tag saying it used to be something different.

Populations evolve, not individuals. But of course fossils often contain evidence that they were descended from other kinds. Would you like to learn how we know this?

I don't doubt miracles teach something either.

What you should be careful to avoid, is to invent new miracles to clear up problems with your new beliefs.
1 Corinthians 2:14 seems to characterize you. You are the natural man who does not accept what scripture says, your mind is so polarized towards YE creationism that you only accept what you believe about the past from man's perspective.

As if you cannot see that YE assertions of origins are based upon modern reinterpretations of scripture, through a philosophical view to a man-made field of study. Shifting sands brother... your modern doctrines are not pointing to another thing... it's the reinterpretation of scripture pointing you astray.

Wise removed anything that he felt was contrary to science, but only contrary when viewed through the assumptions of YE creationism.

That alone should give you pause.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Genesis 9:11

We don't know if the story is a parable or not. But if it was not, the evidence is that the Black Sea was created by that flood, in an unprecedented deluge. On the other hand, there have been numerous gigantic floods recorded in history since that time. So that's definitely a ding against the flood as a literal history; if God promised not to do it again, and then we have other floods, that just doesn't work.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why groups? groups is too big.

No one else can find any, either. It's not a rhetorical challenge, but no creationist ever picks it up, because there are huge numbers of transitionals.

Want to do case by case?

Sure. Want to see reptiles/mammals?

Also your second argument "And feel free to show us two groups, said to not be evolutionarily connected, for which there is a transitional form." does not prove anything

It just shows you that there are so few gaps left that most creationists are quite reasonably unwilling to pick up the challenge. As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits all those transitionals are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

since just like software engineers, God might wrote the code for one group and didn't re-use much for the other group so they seems not connected.

That idea won't fly, because of genetic data. The relationships revealed by genes shows the same phylogenies as transitional forms.

 

[Chinchilla]

We don't know if the story is a parable or not. But if it was not, the evidence is that the Black Sea was created by that flood, in an unprecedented deluge. On the other hand, there have been numerous gigantic floods recorded in history since that time. So that's definitely a ding against the flood as a literal history; if God promised not to do it again, and then we have other floods, that just doesn't work.

Well it was raining for 40 days only , most of water was from fountains of deep . I dont recognise anything like that nowdays , by the way these cracks in ocean could be these fountains .

 

[The Barbarian]

Well it was raining for 40 days only , most of water was from fountains of deep . I dont recognise anything like that nowdays , by the way these cracks in ocean could be these fountains .

They come up from the mantle, and they are about 400 degrees Celsius (because of the pressure, they are much hotter than boiling). If that's where it came from, Noah and his cargo would have been steamed to death.

But you have a point. The heaviest two-day rainfall noted was less than 100 inches. So we're looking at maybe 2000 inches, or about 166 feet. Not nearly enough to do the job. And that super hot water would make things unbearable quickly.

 

[dcalling]

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

Genesis 9:11

Now it sounds like a cospiracy theory .

where did I say it is local?

 

[dcalling]

Sure. Want to see reptiles/mammals?

sure

It just shows you that there are so few gaps left that most creationists are quite reasonably unwilling to pick up the challenge. As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits all those transitionals are "strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

I already showed you that it is impossible to fill gaps....

That idea won't fly, because of genetic data. The relationships revealed by genes shows the same phylogenies as transitional forms.

You are so sure of it like we know all about genetics

 

[Job 33:6]

No, I cannot personally as a finance/process guy - for that, you'll have to visit places like ICR.org, or research by K. Wise., A. Snelling, T. Clarey, etc... for example, Snelling gives this response in an article:

Where erosion can clearly be seen to have occurred at these breaks between rock strata …, creationists maintain that the erosion was very rapid, facilitated in many cases by erosion occurring in soft, “non-hardened” rock. Consequently, rather than having a land surface exposed for enormous periods of time after an ocean retreated, the same Flood processes responsible for depositing the sedimentary layers were also capable of eroding significant thicknesses of both loose sediment and consolidated rock. (“The case of the “missing” geologic time,” Creation14:3,1992, pp. 30–35, online at www.answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/the-case-of-the-missing-geologic-time/.)

From this, Snelling seems to indicate that the angular unconformity occurred quickly as the rock had not fully lithified.

Just curious, if you did decide to research further and found details find within their research explaining in greater details, what would really be your response - God already told you He blotted out all of the life on the ground, so if you won't believe Him why would you believe them?...?...?

Your aig article does nothing to address my question on the unconformity. If you think it does, feel free to explain why you think so.

Also, we have already established that AIG is feeding people false information, if you recall, they claimed that t Rex DNA was discovered, even though it has not been. Aig is not afraid of giving out false information . They do it on a regular basis yet you keep sourcing them.

And because you're incapable of explaining how the unconformity formed, you're simultaneously incapable of making a case for the erosion of soft sediment.

Don't you understand that the existance of the angular unconformity itself is enough to demonstrate that your aig article is false? Just like the whole t Rex DNA article. They're just making stuff up. And you're just quoting them without understanding that what you're quoting doesn't make any sense.

The fact that you can't respond to the unconformity equstion, shows that...and I'll say this nicely, you don't know what you're talking about.

And to clarify, you suggested that an angular unconformity formed quickly before lithification, but this makes absolutely no sense at all.

Imagine trying to take loose layers of mud and silt, deposit them in say, a fish tank full of water , then turn the tank 90 degrees on it's side, then wash the top away and deposit additional sand, then turn the tank with both the old sediment and the new sediment 90 degrees back to its original position . There is no way the final product would maintain it's lateral continuity and equal bed thickness.

This makes absolutely no sense at all also because the pressures that have offset the unconformity by 90 degrees angles have also produced planar faults that can only form in hardened rock. You can't fault loose wet sand and we have had this conversation before but you keep repeating the same nonsense.

Your response literally makes no sense at all. Which is understandable because you're quoting false sources on topics that you don't understand.

 

[The Barbarian]

sure

Here's an easy one. Mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary/squamosal. Reptiles have the jaw joint at the quadrate/articular. So there's a very clear gap between them. And here's the transitionals:

At a point in the evolution of therapsids, both joints exist, with the new joint evolving in a stepwise fashion. Four steps do it.

I already showed you that it is impossible to fill gaps....

See above. Reality tops anyone's rationalizations.

(Barbarian points out that genetic analysis confirms common descent)

You are so sure of it like we know all about genetics

We can check on that, by examining the genes of organisms with known descent. Turns out, that validates the conclusion.

 

[Believerz]

The end conclusion that you (anyone reading this) should be able to come to is that there is only evidence of micro-evolution, aka adaptation. Darwin observed changes in species, however, he incorrectly inferred that many small changes in species would lead to changes in different "types" or "kinds" of animals. It doesn't matter how many changes occur and species are created as a result, a whale and its descendants will never cross the "kind" barrier into anything other than a whale.

You may get a big whale, a small whale, an oddly shapped whale, a different color whale, but it will always be a whale.

 

[The Barbarian]

The end conclusion that you (anyone reading this) should be able to come to is that there is only evidence of micro-evolution, aka adaptation.

Well, let's see what a YE creationist with scientific credentials has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

So there is strong evidence for macroevolution, and honest creationists admit it.

Darwin observed changes in species, however, he incorrectly inferred that many small changes in species would lead to changes in different "types" or "kinds" of animals.

As Wise admits, the evidence for the evolution of new types is "strong."

Would you like to learn about the evidence for such evolution?

 

[NobleMouse]

He's not. Nothing in scripture supports YE creationism, and some parts of YE are directly contradicted by scripture.

Wrong. I will invest no more time re-presenting you with biblical support for biblical creationism. You are simply making flippantly false statements.

God so created things that many rocks contain information as to their age.

Unsubstantiated - you cannot support this idea; you are simply trying to "spiritualize" your human reasoning and knowledge of conventional scientific philosophies. Strictly on a scientific interpretation, one could easily just measure the amount of helium atoms trapped in zircon crystals relative to their current rate of escape and see it indicates an age of thousands of years, not millions or billions... or one could use radiometric dating and come up with millions or billions of years... inconsistent results from the rocks - how about just taking God's word for it?

Populations evolve, not individuals. But of course fossils often contain evidence that they were descended from other kinds. Would you like to learn how we know this?

Fossils do not contain evidence that they evolved, you are simply repeating a biased interpretation of the fossils. This is a psychological phenomenon where we see what we want to (everybody does it), even when it is unfounded. You like to present the whale transitions often, so let's look at that:

First two are clearly land creatures, they don't look related, but we'll just be loosey-goosey here and say they from the same kind. Next two, big difference from the first two - now they're in the water, and I'll say these two look related - I could easily be convinced they are of the same kind. Last three, big difference again from the previous kind, but these three could conceivably be related in a single kind (though #5 and #6 seem closer in morphology than #7... that said, we do have a wide variety of the dog kind today, so we'll just lump the 3 of them all together here as a kind).

To you, I'm sure this looks like a perfectly natural and progressive series demonstrating the whale evolution; however, there are major differences between the first 2, the next 2, and the last 3. The fossil record generally speaking, shows an abrupt appearance of life, an abrupt extinction of life, with fossils remaining static from the position of apparent 1st occurrence to the position of apparent extinction. From my perspective, the above series most likely represents at least 3 distinct kinds.

So, evolution is either [1] slow and progressive with many many transitions between, or [2] there is many radical biological changes that suddenly happen quickly with long periods of stasis. PE concedes #1 is not happening, and there has been no observed phenomenon through natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift, etc... to support #2 (just scientifically speaking). To support the transitions illustrated above (thanks to the creative license of a hired artist), it has never been seen where significant changes including the addition of new body parts, the removal of old body parts, the movement and repurposing of other body parts (also with blood vessels, musculature, nerves, and changes to the brain to control all of the new apparatuses) occurs. Instead, we see natural selection, random mutation and genetic drift doing things like: finches with larger beaks - where they were smaller before, ecoli that living on citrate - where it couldn't before, and peppered moths - where they weren't before - each remains it's own kind, even after 10's of thousands of generations (ecoli).

What you should be careful to avoid, is to invent new miracles to clear up problems with your new beliefs.
1 Corinthians 2:14 seems to characterize you. You are the natural man who does not accept what scripture says, your mind is so polarized towards YE creationism that you only accept what you believe about the past from man's perspective.

As if you cannot see that YE assertions of origins are based upon modern reinterpretations of scripture, through a philosophical view to a man-made field of study. Shifting sands brother... your modern doctrines are not pointing to another thing... it's the reinterpretation of scripture pointing you astray.

Wise removed anything that he felt was contrary to science, but only contrary when viewed through the assumptions of YE creationism.

That alone should give you pause.

You don't even know what 1 Corinthians 2:14 is talking about - did you bother to read any exegetic commentary on it before responding back and just flipping around everything I said?

From Ellicott:
"Natural.—That is, literally, that part of our nature which we call “mind,” and hence signifies that man in whom pure intellectual reason and the merely natural affections predominate...."

From Benson:
"But the natural man — The man who has only the powers of nature, the faculties derived from Adam, but not a supernatural principle of saving grace; who has a soul in his body, (as the word ψυχικος, derived from ψυχη, a soul, implies,) but no divine inspiration in that soul; or who is not truly enlightened and renewed by the Word and Spirit of God, and therefore has no other way of obtaining knowledge but by his senses and natural understanding;..."

From Matthew Henry:
"The natural man, the wise man of the world, receives not the things of the Spirit of God. The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality..."

I'll not belabor further. If we go back through all of your posts here, will we see you presenting your position from scripture and what God says, or Jesus , or Peter... or will we just see you presenting all arguments from an intellectual/scientific interpretation of evidence?? My view that creation occurred over 6 days is supported by the Bible - this is what God says, it's right there. Even if all the philosophical scientific literature and research showed otherwise, I would still believe in 6 days because this is what God has told us. I've referenced and quoted the Bible, repeatedly, on this point. These are the rules I 'play' by (God's word); you play by a different set of rules where only what is perceived through scientific interpretations of past events (never witnessed) define the past and you reinterpret scripture to fit these interpretations accordingly.

I think it's great to see scientists and organizations that want to show there is also scientific support showing reasons to believe what the Bible says is true regarding creation, but as I've also said, even if we do not find that the evidence unequivocally supports biblical creation, this does not mean it did not happen. As it relates to origins and creation, science can only make analogies of the past based upon interpretations in the present. Historians have no issue confidently speaking about an event that only happened just once in history... even though there may be absolutely zero scientific evidence in support of it. This is not to say that science does not or should not have a seat at the table as it relates to giving insights about historic events, but sitting at the head of the table is God and His word and it is (and will forever be) God's word that has the final say.

 

[Job 33:6]

You keep repeating this @NobleMouse

PE does not concede that say, sub species biological changes are not occuring which produce new species. Speciation being something that is slow and progressive with countless small changes in between. You won't see Gould or Eldredge ever suggest that evolution does not occur in a step by step biological process involving mutations and natural selection.

On the contrary, Gould and Eldredge cite allopatric speciation as a plausible mechanism for evolution.

And nobody considers allopatric speciation to involve "radical biological changes". Not gradualists not proponents of PE

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

To better explain, you said this:

"So, evolution is either [1] slow and progressive with many many transitions between, or [2] there is many radical biological changes that suddenly happen quickly with long periods of stasis."

Here, you present a false dichotemy. Either something is slow and progressive, or it is something "radical".

You suggest that PE perhaps disproves? the idea of slow and progressive?

But here

"The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution. It is a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record. It claims that an important pattern, continuous at higher levels—the 'classic' macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not—see Carson, 1975), but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond."

My same quote again, with Gould recognizing allopatric speciation. Which, being a species to species form of gradual evolution via mutation and natural selection, is something relatively gradual, though simultaneously we wouldnt consider it "radical" even though it is suggest to be plausible by Gould and Eldredge.

 

[NobleMouse]

You keep repeating this @NobleMouse

PE does not concede that say, sub species biological changes are not occuring which produce new species. Speciation being something that is slow and progressive with countless small changes in between. You won't see Gould or Eldredge ever suggest that evolution does not occur in a step by step biological process involving mutations and natural selection.

On the contrary, Gould and Eldredge cite allopatric speciation as a plausible mechanism for evolution.

And nobody considers allopatric speciation to involve "radical biological changes". Not gradualists not proponents of PE

I looked it up before posting:

 

[Job 33:6]

I looked it up before posting:
View attachment 231758

Unfortunately you have to actually read about these things rather than just basing your understanding on a single sentence.

Have you ever read Gould's works?

 

[Job 33:6]

Do you understand what I am saying, when I post those quotes from Gould suggesting plausibility of allopatric speciation?

And question number 2, have you read Eldredge and Gould's initial publication on PE? Its free online if you Google it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Both PE and gradualism present alternative views of how speciation occurs, or rates at which it occurs.

There is nothing "radical" or wild and crazy about PE.

In the other thread, I also posted published research from biologists who have observed rates of evolution that are faster than what was expected based on the fossil succession.

It's a discussion about rates of evolution at a sub species level and how those rates may or may not be manipulated by a species surrounding environment.

PE and eldgredge/Gould's research, has never suggested that evolution occurs in some sort of wild and crazy way that is unseen or unheard of in modern biology. They simply favor certain means of speciation over others.

 

[Job 33:6]

More on Allopatric speciation

"Observation of nature creates difficulties in witnessing allopatric speciation from "start-to-finish" as it operates as a dynamic process.[3] From this arises a host of various issues in defining species, defining isolating barriers, measuring reproductive isolation, among others. Nevertheless, verbal and mathematical models, laboratory experiments, and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the occurrence of allopatric speciation in nature.[4][1]:87-105 "

Allopatric speciation: the great divide

Allopatric speciation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Allopatric speciation has been the dominant geographic model for speciation processes since around 1950, although other models are currently gaining support. This dominance derived from the argument that development of genetic isolation would most likely occur if incipient species were physically isolated from each other for a time period, allowing the evolution of reproductive isolating mechanisms.

Allopatric speciation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics