James Tour demolishes secular claims of solving the origin of life

[Job 33:6]

I did not clarify enough... should be "and yes temporal placement being associated with the passage of deep time is an assumption"

Ok, so you agree that in the following case:

tiktaalik transition - Google Search

Given that derived tetrapods are found in mid devonian strata, that fish are found in Cambrian strata and that tiktaalik (which has scales and fins like a fish, but also an unfused neck for turning it's head, which no fish has but tetrapods have) is found in strata in between...

It follows that tiktaalik is found temporally in-between fish and derived tetrapods.

Do you agree with the above?

 

[RTP76]

And regarding this statement:
"No transition (the process) was observed"
A transitional fossil is determined to be so based on it's relative temporal location (addressed in the previous post above) and morphological qualities.

Example:
Fish are found in strata of the Cambrian. Derived tetrapods are found in late devonian strata.

Between Cambrian which is superpositiomally deeper and late devonian which is superpositiomally shallower, we find tiktaalik which has scales and fins like a fish (such as fish in lower strata) and articulated wrist bones, robust girdles, robust rib cage, flat head with eyes on top, spiracles for breathing air etc. Which are traits found not in pre existing fish but in derived tetrapods.

tetrapod sequence - Google Search

Nobody has to observe a fish evolving into a tetrapod to be able to observe a sequence of fossils that are present today. That same goes for the reptilian jaw. If you collect fossils in order from older strata to younger, and you you sit them on a table side by side, you can see the jaw bones get progressively smaller and smaller and the middle ear become larger and larger.

And with that, you have transitional fossils.

Do you accept that fossils exist which over time change in shape and size in an order? See this example:

reptile jaw evolution - Google Search

CC: @Aussie Pete

Good, you're getting closer to reaching the conclusion you need to reach. Of course attaching links to tetrapod sequence and reptile jaw 'evolution' are more repeats of the same thought process (at least 7 repeats now). You're not substantiating the idea all life arose from a single universal common ancestor. It's like you're saying if a = b, then c is true... but with no reference to how c even fits into the repeated claims of a = b, thus it is a non sequitur.

You hit on the conclusion you need to reach (a little) with your statement "Nobody has to observe a fish evolving into a tetrapod to be able to observe a sequence of fossils that are present today."

In the 'world' of geology, and evolution, there are two kinds of 'science': observational/operational science, and the 'science' of imagining processes/events/actions producing an effect which is only now observable after the processes/events/actions have already taken place and cannot be repeated.

You want (and almost seem to expect) all people to accept your interpretation of the latter 'science' to being equal to what can be demonstrated, what can be observed as with operational science. As I told you quite a few posts back now, not all people accept interpretations from imagination as fact (especially when there exists an account of creation that states life being created in a different fashion, from God). As I have said, my 'conservative lens' is to have a bias towards God's word, which I take to be true on a spiritual level, as well as a historical level--I believe the people mentioned by name in the Bible are real people and that if Adam is indicated to be the first man created from the dust of the ground, that he was in fact the first, and God made him from the dust of the ground. Also, the beasts of the field were made from the dust of the ground (not each other). Similarly, I believe Jesus brought Lazarus back to life and that this was not by sophisticated medical equipment (that would have to be even beyond the ability of today's medical equipment), but rather was an immediate miracle that altered physical reality. All things were created by and through Him [Jesus], so there is no reason to presume only uniformitarian and purely materialistic processes created the heavens and the earth and created life, and made all the 'kinds' of life that God said He made.

Since the beginning I have made my position and reasons for my position clear and yet for reasons I cannot understand you have continue to bang your head on a wall thinking if you show enough (volume) examples of inferences made from cladistic and genetic comparison that you'll arrive somewhere or accomplish something. I'm not sure where the 'somewhere' is or what the 'something' is, but can I at least offer a pillow so as to soften the blow that you are merely operating under a different set of rules and have a different authority than the authority I (and Aussie Pete) adhere to (the Bible) as it relates to origins of life?

 

[Job 33:6]

"In the 'world' of geology, and evolution, there are two kinds of 'science': observational/operational science, and the 'science' of imagining processes/events/actions producing an effect which is only now observable after the processes/events/actions have already taken place and cannot be repeated."

I don't think you understand what I meant when i said that we didn't need a time machine to observe transitions in fossils. I'll try again.



Imagine if we have bones of a cambrian fish with a fused neck/skull. We have bones of tiktaalik which has fins and scales of a fish, but has an unfused neck, and we have a tetrapod such as ichthyostega which also has an unfused neck.

And we took those three skeletons and put them on a table in temporal order in which they were discovered. Fish/Cambrian, then tiktaalik/mid devonian, then tetrapod/late devonian.

In this case, we have a fish from the Cambrian, a tetrapod from the late devonian and tiktaalik in between which is a fish but also has traits of a tetrapod which resides in between. Just as a pentagon with 5 sides would bridge the gap between a quadrangle with 4 sides and a hexagon with 6.

Tiktaalik doesn't have mammalian features or features of a bird. Tiktaalik morphologically bridges the pre existing fish and the post existing tetrapods.

It is therefore morphologically a transitional fossil. And nobody needs a time machine to see how these species lived. Because even someone who doesn't believe in darwinian evolution (or the modern synthesis) can recognize morphological transitions between species in a temporal order. And this is what makes a transitional species a transitional species, whether the fish gave birth to tiktaalik or the whether the fish went extinct is irrelevant to the morphological sequence that makes a transitional fossil transitional.

With the above said, we first have to establish if you believe in the fossil succession, irrespective of if you think it formed through common descent or if you think Satan did it (or any other alternative). This is what I want to know.

Do you accept that the fossil succession exists? And more specifically, do you accept that the transition that I have describe above, also exists?

 

[Job 33:6]

"Since the beginning I have made my position and reasons for my position clear and yet for reasons I cannot understand you have continue to bang your head on a wall"

All you have to do is answer the questions earnestly. There is no need to go off on tangents about Jesus raising the dead and abiogenesis.

 

[RTP76]

Ok, so you agree that in the following case:

tiktaalik transition - Google Search

Given that derived tetrapods are found in mid devonian strata, that fish are found in Cambrian strata and that tiktaalik (which has scales and fins like a fish, but also an unfused neck for turning it's head, which no fish has but tetrapods have) is found in strata in between...

It follows that tiktaalik is found temporally in-between fish and derived tetrapods.

Do you agree with the above?

Repteat... at least 8 times. I agree tiktaalik is found where it is found, but not the conclusion that it is a transition between fish and tetrapods. There is no conclusive evidence showing a transition, just the assumption that one became the other. The fossilized forms is similar to the different kinds of extant life today found within and around shallow water.

 

[RTP76]

"In the 'world' of geology, and evolution, there are two kinds of 'science': observational/operational science, and the 'science' of imagining processes/events/actions producing an effect which is only now observable after the processes/events/actions have already taken place and cannot be repeated."

I don't think you understand what I meant when i said that we didn't need a time machine to observe transitions in fossils. I'll try again.

Imagine if we have bones of a cambrian fish with a fused neck/skull. We have bones of tiktaalik which has fins and scales of a fish, but has an unfused neck, and we have a tetrapod such as ichthyostega which also has an unfused neck.

CC: @Aussie Pete

Yes, "imagine"... because there is no actual observation or data supporting this inference.

And we took those three skeletons and put them on a table in temporal order in which they were discovered. Fish/Cambrian, then tiktaalik/mid devonian, then tetrapod/late devonian.

In this case, we have a fish from the Cambrian, a tetrapod from the late devonian and tiktaalik in between which is a fish but also has traits of a tetrapod which resides in between. Just as a pentagon with 5 sides would bridge the gap between a quadrangle with 4 sides and a hexagon with 6.

Tiktaalik doesn't have mammalian features or features of a bird. Tiktaalik morphologically bridges the pre existing fish and the post existing tetrapods.

I don't think you understand... I know the dots being connected and I know that these connections are what supports the evolutionary paradigm. You seem to infer that because I don't agree with your assumptions, that it must mean I don't understand or am not aware of how the assumptions are derived. I do understand the assumptions and why they are formed in supporting the evolutionary paradigm; what I don't agree with is the validity of the assumptions.

It is therefore morphologically a transitional fossil. And nobody needs a time machine to see how these species lived. Because even someone who doesn't believe in darwinian evolution (or the modern synthesis) can recognize morphological transitions between species in a temporal order. And this is what makes a transitional species a transitional species, whether the fish gave birth to tiktaalik or the whether the fish went extinct is irrelevant to the morphological sequence that makes a transitional fossil transitional.

With the above said, we first have to establish if you believe in the fossil succession, irrespective of if you think it formed through common descent or if you think Satan did it (or any other alternative). This is what I want to know.

Do you accept that the fossil succession exists? And more specifically, do you accept that the transition that I have describe above, also exists?

"Morphologically a transitional fossil" simply means the alleged process of transitioning was not observed and cannot be repeated here in the present (not data-substantiated), so it is simply assumed to have occurred based upon things like relative positions and similar assumed functions (even the function is assumed given that the organism is extinct and cannot be observed).

I do not believe a fossil succession from a universal common ancestor exists; rather, I view the fossil record as evidence of the kinds of life that were all alive at the same time period (not assuming that life forms did not exist where [in time] their fossils are not found and that they only existed [in time] where their fossils are found).

I believe in the past there was more variability in created kinds, and today there is less variability. The fossil record confirms this. Similarly, within the fossil record the morphology of extinct organisms accounts for the basic forms of extant organisms today, which is consistent with the biblical view that God created kinds, already complex and already in their fundamental/original form which evidence of the original form is found in both the fossil record and in existing life forms still present today.

At least 9+ repeats so far.

 

[Job 33:6]

"I view the fossil record as evidence of the kinds of life that were all alive at the same time period (not assuming that life forms did not exist where [in time] their fossils are not found and that they only existed [in time] where their fossils are found)."

So if we have a fossil succession such as the following:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mam...d=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=y-zTaXZhgy_syM:
Or a succession as described above with a fish succession to amphibians with tiktaalik in between, which you agree exists...see the following image:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fish to tetrapod transition&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CRZ31cq2JzUkIkBbDFD2dcKEC8FC8sPZYWkUsmz0eT7h87YC3cVsKsPOjnNhAP3FxyViw08XLA6mnvjVYZYAtD7b0uQa8GgO_1k88KhIJWwxQ9nXChAsR8_1pHXZ0ZWmkqEgnBQvLD2WFpFBEPH4ZjcUOdWioSCbJs9Hk-4fO2EefVsond-e4gKhIJAt3FbCrDzo4RKvDseUKPe14qEglzYQD9xcclYhFIJYH6c29HASoSCcNPFywOpp74EU0H-Faiyn2eKhIJ1WGWALQ-29IRSCWB-nNvRwEqEgnkGvBoDv5PPBFOh06LbgXqm2F7jRMJcSHOXA&client=ms-android-google&prmd=isvn&sfr=vfe&hl=en-US&ved=0CBIQuIIBahcKEwjIxr76rPblAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQHA&biw=412&bih=604#imgrc=mnTW-qdUtGRevM
Then do you believe that fish descended into amphibians? Or do you believe that God made fish, then God deleted said fish from existence and created fish with amphibian like traits such as an unfused neck, then deleted said fish with amphibian like traits, then created tetrapods with fish traits, then deleted tetrapods with fish traits, and then created tetrapods?

Or in the case of the reptile to mammal succession,

Do you believe that mammals descended from reptiles?

Or:

Do you believe that God created primitive synapsids (perhaps from dust), deleted the synapsids, created dimetrodon from dust, deleted dimetrodon, created therocephalian from dust, deleted therocephalian, created cynodont from dust, deleted cynodont, created morganucodon from dust, deleted Morganucodon, then created mammals from dust?

It sounds like you believe the latter in both cases. Which begs the question of why God would create:

reptiles, then delete reptiles and create mammal like reptiles, then delete those, then create reptile like mammals, then delete them and then create mammals...

In an order which makes it look as if mammals descended from reptiles but actually had not.

Did God dislike tiktaalik upon creation? Why create, delete, create, delete, create, delete, create, delete, over and over and over again?

https://www.google.com/search?q=fis...AAAAAQHA&biw=412&bih=604#imgrc=mnTW-qdUtGRevM

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Very enlightening! Thanks for posting these.

If I were on the fence concerning how life originated, Tour's point about the complexity of a single cell (far different from Darwin's conclusions about cells) would be enough to convince me that life could NOT have originated by chance. The only reasonable explanation points to design. It's sad that evolutionists tend to be too brainwashed or too narrow-minded to see this.

amen and halleluYAH ! MARANANTHA Return TODAY JESUS! We're LOOKING EAGERLY FOR YOU !

 

[Job 33:6]

"I believe in the past there was more variability in created kinds, and today there is less variability. The fossil record confirms this. "

Could you give an example of this?

 

[Job 33:6]

Repteat... at least 8 times. I agree tiktaalik is found where it is found, but not the conclusion that it is a transition between fish and tetrapods. There is no conclusive evidence showing a transition, just the assumption that one became the other. The fossilized forms is similar to the different kinds of extant life today found within and around shallow water.

What's significant about tiktaalik isn't just that it has fins and gills like fish today, or spiracles and articulated wrists or an unfused skull like tetrapods today.

Suggesting that tiktaalik has traits of extant life today is practically meaningless. Of course tiktaalik has fins and gills as fish do today, and of course tiktaalik has a neck as tetrapods do today.

What is significant is the fact that tiktaalik has both traits of fish and tetrapods, displayed in a single species for the first time, temporally right after fish but before derived tetrapods.

This is what makes the fossil succession a succession. Tiktaalik and it's tetrapod traits could have appeared in the cenozoic, and there would be no succession. Mammals could have appeared in the silurian and there would be no succession.

But in reality, these fossils appear in an order. Amphibians do not appear before fish. Reptiles do not appear before amphibians. Birds and mammals do not appear before reptiles. Even aquatic mammals do not appear before terrestrial mammal-like reptiles. And it just so happens to also be the case that fish with tetrapod traits also predate derived tetrapods. Mammal-like reptiles predate derived mammals. Basal bird/reptile hybrids predate derived birds. Basal marine mammals with terrestrial traits predate derived aquatic mammals.

You never find a case where the succession occurs out of order or backwards.

You suggest that God perhaps used old body plans to make new body plans such as using fish to make amphibians. In which case I'd defer back to my prior post of pondering why God would create and destroy, create, destroy, create, destroy, create, destroy ad infinitum, thousands or even millions of times over and over again.

 

[RTP76]

What's significant about tiktaalik isn't just that it has fins and gills like fish today, or spiracles and articulated wrists or an unfused skull like tetrapods today.

Suggesting that tiktaalik has traits of extant life today is practically meaningless. Of course tiktaalik has fins and gills as fish do today, and of course tiktaalik has a neck as tetrapods do today.

CC: @Aussie Pete

Good. So then, of what little can unequivocally be assessed regarding Tiktaalik is that it has traits common with other living organisms in the fossil record and it has traits common with extant life today. Beyond that; however, (and what Tour indicates in his lectures) is that equivocating is taking place for which only story-telling, conjecture, and presupposed ideas is what adds any inferred "significance".

What is significant is the fact that tiktaalik has both traits of fish and tetrapods, displayed in a single species for the first time, temporally right after fish but before derived tetrapods.

This is what makes the fossil succession a succession. Tiktaalik and it's tetrapod traits could have appeared in the cenozoic, and there would be no succession. Mammals could have appeared in the silurian and there would be no succession.

Your reference to "significance" here only means that your perception presumes one life form became a different one.

But in reality, these fossils appear in an order. Amphibians do not appear before fish. Reptiles do not appear before amphibians. Birds and mammals do not appear before reptiles. Even aquatic mammals do not appear before terrestrial mammal-like reptiles. And it just so happens to also be the case that fish with tetrapod traits also predate derived tetrapods. Mammal-like reptiles predate derived mammals. Basal bird/reptile hybrids predate derived birds. Basal marine mammals with terrestrial traits predate derived aquatic mammals.

You never find a case where the succession occurs out of order or backwards.

And what order is that? Is it that "1" led to "2", to "3", to "4", to "5", etc..., and of course scientists labeled them and made the associations accordingly because of the order they appear in rock layers as:

5 <-- top
4
3
2
1 <-- bottom

The "succession" you portray is merely presuming the life forms that originally existed in 1 evolved into 2, evolved into 3, evolved into...

There is a great deal of variability and shared traits across all life and what you're repeating, at least for the 9th time without any means to substantiate, is the assumption that one form eventually evolved into the next. One can just as well argue that life is devolving with time, there is clearly more variability that once existed, and we have fewer forms and fewer varieties today.

You suggest that God perhaps used old body plans to make new body plans such as using fish to make amphibians. In which case I'd defer back to my prior post of pondering why God would create and destroy, create, destroy, create, destroy, create, destroy ad infinitum, thousands or even millions of times over and over again.

I never suggested that God used a fish to make an amphibian.

Also, God did destroy life--that's what He said to Noah He would do and why Noah was to build the ark. Your taking what God said and imagining a create-->destroy ad inifinitum process is an application of the ad absurdum fallacy to simplify a concept [imagined in this case] to such an extreme that it seems so absurd that it appears nothing but logical to dismiss. So, you create a false argument, dismiss it, and in doing so, also continue to dismiss the truth... Ok. You, in fact, presume if God didn't evolve everything from a bacterium that that the only other option is create-->destroy repeatedly (the false dichotomy fallacy). Have you not considered that God's special revelation (His word) was given such that we would know truths that are otherwise not attained by assumptions from general revelation (observation of the created universe and world around us)? You would never conclude creation if He hadn't told you, you would never conclude a mass judgment of all life on land if He hadn't told you, you would never conclude there is a Holy Trinity if He hadn't told you, etc...

When I have discussions about origins of life with atheists in other forums, would you be surprised to find their logic is much like yours? In their [a]theistic evolution paradigm, they have to explain the origin of life, though, they have no demonstrable and data-substantiated way to support an unguided, purely materialistic process creating life. When I point to the billions of base pair amino acids and the information contained in DNA, they do exactly what you do: first there is quibbling about terminology (and don't you know they try to skirt around by equivocating and trying to assert that DNA doesn't actually contain information... citing [to their chagrin] Claude Shannon's definition of information... only to find out that yes DNA does in fact have encoded information intended to convey a message to it's RNA counterpart). Next, they try repeatedly with conjecture and rescue devices to invoke some mysterious way that information would have arisen, albeit with no data to stand on. I can throw logic at them, I can throw mathematical probabilities at them, I can throw contradictory empirical evidence at them, makes no difference--they have simply chosen to believe, by faith, that God does not exist.

Your line of reasoning is no different to me. You cannot substantiate your beliefs without having to paint a picture of never-before observed levels of change happening, story-telling analogies of kids leaving footprints in show to bridge the gaps, and no mechanisms demonstrated to support this view. You can continue to view creation as a run-on parable or as some figurative framework, and that's fine--as I said, I don't expect to change opinions - I'm just here to encourage and be encouraged by others that share the biblical worldview.

I'll await your repeat #10+

 

[Job 33:6]

All I see above is a lack of a response.

We have a fossil succession. Which you agree exists.

You do not accept that fish gave rise to amphibians, which gave rise to reptiles and then mammals.

Instead you believe that God created and destroyed species countless times over.

But when I point this out, you seem to reject this idea.

reptile to mammal - Google Search

reptile to mammal jaw - Google Search

In the above images we have reptile to mammal successive fossils.

If you do not believe that one descended to another, then you must believe that God made each from dust and created and destroyed over and over and over and over again.

There is no third option. And if there is another option which you believe, then clearly state it. No need to go on tangents about atheism and abiogenesis, just explain your belief.

Otherwise I can only assume that you don't know what you believe and can only provide vague responses.

 

[Job 33:6]

All you replied with in your above post was this:

"Have you not considered that God's special revelation (His word) was given such that we would know truths that are otherwise not attained by assumptions from general revelation (observation of the created universe and world around us)? "

But this doesn't say anything about what you actually believe.

And no it's not a false dichotemy. Either life descended from one another or it didn't and was individually created.

You dont believe in descent of life observed in the fossil record as provided in examples of reptile to mammal and fish to amphibian sequences. You therefore believe that the subject lifeforms were individually created one after another after another after another after another, over and over and over again.

And if this is not what you believe, then clarify. What was and was not individually created?

And if you think there is a third option, then clarify.

 

[RTP76]

All I see above is a lack of a response.

CC: @Aussie Pete

I'll presume this was intended for me... next time make a quote or use the "@" symbol in front of my alias otherwise nobody knows for certain who you're addressing.

You're so close to the conclusion you need to reach, yet it seems no matter how many times you repeat the exercise with different individuals on this forum you don't seem to learn... and so you appear to become frustrated when your responses are like, "all I see above is a lack of a response" or other times like when you write, "you're not actually responding to my words..." sound familiar?? Yes, that is you and what you do. When you start to realize you aren't going to change someone's framework of thinking no matter how much conjecture you throw at them, you start down this path. Though I've ignored your posts in other threads and do not reply to them, I've seen this countless times with you replying back to others who likewise have a biblical worldview.

We have a fossil succession. Which you agree exists.

You do not accept that fish gave rise to amphibians, which gave rise to reptiles and then mammals.

Instead you believe that God created and destroyed species countless times over.

But when I point this out, you seem to reject this idea.

reptile to mammal - Google Search

reptile to mammal jaw - Google Search

I do believe there is a general sequence of life forms as found in the fossil record, but I do not believe this sequence is a succession representing an evolutionary relationship over vast periods of time. Instead I see it as a rapid burial of life forms as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively.

Also, I do not believe God created and destroyed species countless times over... that was your idea--I called that out in the last post (remember, "ad absurdum" and "false dichotomy" are the words I used in describing your "create-->destroy" hypothesis).

In the above images we have reptile to mammal successive fossils.

If you do not believe that one descended to another, then you must believe that God made each from dust and created and destroyed over and over and over and over again.

There is no third option. And if there is another option which you believe, then clearly state it. No need to go on tangents about atheism and abiogenesis, just explain your belief.

This is the false dichotomy, on your part, which I'll tell you how you built it. You first presume the fossil record represent a successive layering of fossils, and each layer represents long periods of time and that the fossil collections found in each layer represents life that existed at that 'window' of time... then millions of years later in the next layer above represents life forms at that time, and so on. So, in order to adhere to that framework, YOU presume I think God would have to destroy the life that existed in the lower layer, then create new (yet similar) life forms as evidenced in the layer above. This is how you formed that hypothesis, but your underlying presumption is the "sequence" of fossils over long periods of time. This initial presumption is not how I view the fossil record so your starting position was wrong, thus you formed an incorrect conclusion, then you saw it was nonsensical and dismissed it accordingly, then you presumed I must think this way, then you felt God was compelling you to correct the err of my thinking... though this was never my thinking.

Otherwise I can only assume that you don't know what you believe and can only provide vague responses.

I believe what is written in the Bible regarding the origins and creation of life. I explained this very early on, but your mental block is to keep inserting your beliefs on top of my (and others) beliefs and when it results in nonsensical conclusions you in turn presume I don't know what I believe (as opposed to realizing that layering one framework on top of a different framework doesn't work). My beliefs are founded on the Bible and biblical doctrines that do not change with time, do not change with equivocating and story-telling about fossils, genetics, and unfalsifiable ideas, and do not change with every changing wind of false doctrine.

Now you're still free to assume I don't know what I believe, after all, other things you believe are built on nothing more than assumptions so this would be no different. All that matters is I know what I believe and and I'm going to continue basing my beliefs on the only reliable source of truth that has ever existed (God's word).

 

[Job 33:6]

CC: @Aussie Pete

I'll presume this was intended for me... next time make a quote or use the "@" symbol in front of my alias otherwise nobody knows for certain who you're addressing.

You're so close to the conclusion you need to reach, yet it seems no matter how many times you repeat the exercise with different individuals on this forum you don't seem to learn... and so you appear to become frustrated when your responses are like, "all I see above is a lack of a response" or other times like when you write, "you're not actually responding to my words..." sound familiar?? Yes, that is you and what you do. When you start to realize you aren't going to change someone's framework of thinking no matter how much conjecture you throw at them, you start down this path. Though I've ignored your posts in other threads and do not reply to them, I've seen this countless times with you replying back to others who likewise have a biblical worldview.


I do believe there is a general sequence of life forms as found in the fossil record, but I do not believe this sequence is a succession representing an evolutionary relationship over vast periods of time. Instead I see it as a rapid burial of life forms as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively.

Also, I do not believe God created and destroyed species countless times over... that was your idea--I called that out in the last post (remember, "ad absurdum" and "false dichotomy" are the words I used in describing your "create-->destroy" hypothesis).


This is the false dichotomy, on your part, which I'll tell you how you built it. You first presume the fossil record represent a successive layering of fossils, and each layer represents long periods of time and that the fossil collections found in each layer represents life that existed at that 'window' of time... then millions of years later in the next layer above represents life forms at that time, and so on. So, in order to adhere to that framework, YOU presume I think God would have to destroy the life that existed in the lower layer, then create new (yet similar) life forms as evidenced in the layer above. This is how you formed that hypothesis, but your underlying presumption is the "sequence" of fossils over long periods of time. This initial presumption is not how I view the fossil record so your starting position was wrong, thus you formed an incorrect conclusion, then you saw it was nonsensical and dismissed it accordingly, then you presumed I must think this way, then you felt God was compelling you to correct the err of my thinking... though this was never my thinking.


I believe what is written in the Bible regarding the origins and creation of life. I explained this very early on, but your mental block is to keep inserting your beliefs on top of my (and others) beliefs and when it results in nonsensical conclusions you in turn presume I don't know what I believe (as opposed to realizing that layering one framework on top of a different framework doesn't work). My beliefs are founded on the Bible and biblical doctrines that do not change with time, do not change with equivocating and story-telling about fossils, genetics, and unfalsifiable ideas, and do not change with every changing wind of false doctrine.

Now you're still free to assume I don't know what I believe, after all, other things you believe are built on nothing more than assumptions so this would be no different. All that matters is I know what I believe and and I'm going to continue basing my beliefs on the only reliable source of truth that has ever existed (God's word).

" I do not believe this sequence is a succession representing an evolutionary relationship over vast periods of time. Instead I see it as a rapid burial of life forms as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively."


You used the phrases "rapid burial" in regards to what you believe, and "vast periods of time" in relation to what I believe, which you disagree with.

So what you're saying is that you're a young earth Creationist, and that millions of years have not passed between strata? That's your escape from the alleged false dichotomy?

You're speaking a million words yet still aren't clarifying on what it is you actually believe.

I see you still aren't giving examples to clarify either, despite my repeated requests for clarification.

One other thing. You said:
"as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively"

But a lot of sequences are found essentially right on top of one another at varying depths within the earth for example, pakicetus, ambulocetus, dorudon, kutchucetus, maiacetus, rodhocetus, and basilosaurus have all been found in Pakistan.

The Evolution of Toothed Whales (Skeletal Study)

And not only are they found in the same geographic location, but they're found as one would expect to find them, if common descent were true.

Which is to say they begin with more terrestrial traits in older strata and by the end of the sequence, they strongly resemble modern whales. So it isnt necessarily a matter of "various regions" nor different areas.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Guess what you'll find in two completely unrelated computer programs that were developed separately, by different people in different companies, but they perform somewhat similar tasks and were both written on the programming language of C++? Answer > Similar code. "

@RTP76

This also still isn't analogous, as it doesn't account for the sequence of fossils.

If you took two programmers working with C++, only if one copied the other would you have what appears to be a derived program. Otherwise you would be just as likely to have someone produce a mammal program predating a reptile program, or a reptile program predating amphibian program etc. But we never find programs going in a derived to basal order. Rather the programs always go from a basal to derived order. As if the programmer was continually making newer and newer versions of that which was old.

And while I agree that each program could be of common design, it still is more specifically suggestive of an intentional succession. If mammals appeared before reptiles, we could still have common design without succession. But that's not the case. In reality what we see is a clear succession from basal to derived programs, as if program 2.0 was derived (or descended) from program 1.0.

Which of course makes perfect sense if we observe mutations and speciation in modern day times.

 

[Job 33:6]

"there is clearly more variability that once existed, and we have fewer forms and fewer varieties today." -RTP

This is actually a statistically false claim. We could look at any other time in which there have been mass extinctions and could observe far more species today than in those times of the past. If you're speaking of overall phyla, were about equal to what we were in the past, ever since macro forms of life existed in an environment of stressed predation. At best someone could point out that mankind is destroying countless species by cutting down forests, but that wouldn't do your position justice.

Examples:

biodiversity graph earth history cambrian - Google Search

biodiversity graph earth hisyory - Google Search

Multimedia Gallery - Marine biodiversity changed significantly in hundreds of millions of years of Earth history. | NSF - National Science Foundation

cambrian biodiversity graph - Google Search

Regardless, descent with modification doesn't mandate an increased number of species, families, phyla etc. It is simply a suggestion that that which came later in time, is a derived form (through descent) of that which came before it. Which is logically consistent with the evidence, be it the fossil succession or observed speciation today.

 

[RTP76]

" I do not believe this sequence is a succession representing an evolutionary relationship over vast periods of time. Instead I see it as a rapid burial of life forms as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively."


You used the phrases "rapid burial" in regards to what you believe, and "vast periods of time" in relation to what I believe, which you disagree with.

So what you're saying is that you're a young earth Creationist, and that millions of years have not passed between strata? That's your escape from the alleged false dichotomy?

CC: @Aussie Pete

I think of myself as a biblical creationist, but for your purposes, yes one of the distinguishing characteristics between your framework and mine is the passage of deep time. I'm not bent on a 4004 BC date, but also believe there is no evidence supporting large gaps in the genealogy between Adam and Jesus such that one could insert millions of years. Worth pointing out is that the Discovery Institute, Reasons To Believe Ministries (possibly others) adhere to the "old earth" view (even Dr. Tour has indicated he is less clear on the time horizon as it relates to creation), yet all of these scientists find the claim of all life arising from a universal common ancestor to not be credible. The issue isn't that there's not enough time, the issue is that there's no data-substantiated evidence--primarily conjecture.

You're speaking a million words yet still aren't clarifying on what it is you actually believe.

I see you still aren't giving examples to clarify either, despite my repeated requests for clarification.

I made it clear from the beginning that I believe what is written in the Bible. The Bible is clear on what is written. Is there something I can clarify from the Bible?

One other thing. You said:
"as they existed in various localities/regions and the types of life that existed in each area respectively"

But a lot of sequences are found essentially right on top of one another at varying depths within the earth for example, pakicetus, ambulocetus, dorudon, kutchucetus, maiacetus, rodhocetus, and basilosaurus have all been found in Pakistan.

The Evolution of Toothed Whales (Skeletal Study)

And not only are they found in the same geographic location, but they're found as one would expect to find them, if common descent were true.

Which is to say they begin with more terrestrial traits in older strata and by the end of the sequence, they strongly resemble modern whales. So it isnt necessarily a matter of "various regions" nor different areas.

And there it is, repeat #10 (at a minimum)

I can just as well say there are a lot of sequences with creatures and organisms essentially not right on top of one another. Further, there are marine fossils found in every strata. So what?? All that we can really be certain of is the fact that there was a mass extinction of many varieties of life forms and this extinction was the result of rapid burial such that scavengers and decay could not take effect before fossilization occurred.

This result is exactly what one would expect knowing what God said to Noah when He told him He would destroy all life off the face of the earth... with a flood.

I am not concerned with what scientists interpret regarding origins because God's word is what is ultimately true. Mark Twain said it well of science:

"That is the 'fascinating thing' about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

And this is exactly what the claim of all life arising from a universal common ancestor over millions/billions of years is built upon (large quantities of conjecture from just a few observable phenomenons).

 

[Job 33:6]

CC: @Aussie Pete

I think of myself as a biblical creationist, but for your purposes, yes one of the distinguishing characteristics between your framework and mine is the passage of deep time. I'm not bent on a 4004 BC date, but also believe there is no evidence supporting large gaps in the genealogy between Adam and Jesus such that one could insert millions of years. Worth pointing out is that the Discovery Institute, Reasons To Believe Ministries (possibly others) adhere to the "old earth" view (even Dr. Tour has indicated he is less clear on the time horizon as it relates to creation), yet all of these scientists find the claim of all life arising from a universal common ancestor to not be credible. The issue isn't that there's not enough time, the issue is that there's no data-substantiated evidence--primarily conjecture.


I made it clear from the beginning that I believe what is written in the Bible. The Bible is clear on what is written. Is there something I can clarify from the Bible?



And there it is, repeat #10 (at a minimum)

I can just as well say there are a lot of sequences with creatures and organisms essentially not right on top of one another. Further, there are marine fossils found in every strata. So what?? All that we can really be certain of is the fact that there was a mass extinction of many varieties of life forms and this extinction was the result of rapid burial such that scavengers and decay could not take effect before fossilization occurred.

This result is exactly what one would expect knowing what God said to Noah when He told him He would destroy all life off the face of the earth... with a flood.

I am not concerned with what scientists interpret regarding origins because God's word is what is ultimately true. Mark Twain said it well of science:

"That is the 'fascinating thing' about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

And this is exactly what the claim of all life arising from a universal common ancestor over millions/billions of years is built upon (large quantities of conjecture from just a few observable phenomenons).

If you're a young earth Creationist, then something like evolution of course could never make any sense. Paleontology and geology could never really make any sense to you either. If you would like examples, I could share.

Anyway...

I wrongfully assumed that you believed that the earth was millions of years old. Hence why I was presenting what you view as a false dichotomy. With that said, there is nothing really more to be said on the topic of evolution. Evolution really requires an understanding of geology and even a position of an ancient earth.

If you would like to talk about geology, feel free to let me know, I am a geologist. Otherwise i suppose I'll move on. Common descent and the idea that life evolved over time really is incompatible with young earth global flood beliefs.

All the best.

 

[RTP76]

"Guess what you'll find in two completely unrelated computer programs that were developed separately, by different people in different companies, but they perform somewhat similar tasks and were both written on the programming language of C++? Answer > Similar code. "

@RTP76

This also still isn't analogous, as it doesn't account for the sequence of fossils.

If you took two programmers working with C++, only if one copied the other would you have what appears to be a derived program. Otherwise you would be just as likely to have someone produce a mammal program predating a reptile program, or a reptile program predating amphibian program etc. But we never find programs going in a derived to basal order. Rather the programs always go from a basal to derived order. As if the programmer was continually making newer and newer versions of that which was old.

And while I agree that each program could be of common design, it still is more specifically suggestive of an intentional succession. If mammals appeared before reptiles, we could still have common design without succession. But that's not the case. In reality what we see is a clear succession from basal to derived programs, as if program 2.0 was derived (or descended) from program 1.0.

Which of course makes perfect sense if we observe mutations and speciation in modern day times.

The sequence you reference here is inferred and while I do not ignore and do understand the data used in making this inference, I still see it as just an inference. Further, reptile remains have been found in the stomachs of mammals so if we infer 'this' led to 'that' as a succession, I can equally infer that 'this' and 'that' existed at the same time, and I would add that reptiles and mammals, at least in these few cases, apparently also existed in the same locality. That said, I can conclude they co-existed at the same time... with a fairly high confidence level, leaving little to support by inference.