Philosophical / Logical problems with YEC, OEC and Theistic Evolution

[Job 33:6]

Geographically, it is reasonable to expect to see life with features that have characteristics suitable for both land and water. Again, it is a false dichotomy to assume this is only possible within the evolutionary paradigm. I believe tiktaalik roseae is found among other similar aquatic and shallow water life (that is, it is not found among fossils of mammals that tend to live more further inland), correct? The only reason there are ever fossils found is because there was an event (or events) that resulted in their rapid burial so it is of no surprise to find similar life forms buried together that co-exist geographically. To the "predictive" evolutionary paradigm, great job to the scientists who predicted finding these fossils near similar life found on land and in the water...

But... (<-- there it is)

...unfortunately later discovered footprints of tetrapods being found earlier in the geologic column (conventionally dated to be some 20+ million years older) - so the predicted finding the alleged transition from water to land was found in exactly the wrong place in the column???

@myst33 this is the "predictive" aspects of the evolutionary paradigm - suggesting fossils will be found where similar life forms are found (doesn't take a PhD to guess that) and getting it out of order with the footprints (and while this happened with tiktaalik, it has actually happened with other fossils as well where the footprints are found "millions of years" before the first known fossil that created the footprint - and so, the entire dating system of the geologic column comes under question).

Interestingly, there continues to be lobe-finned fish today... so animals like tiktaalik aren't a transition that happened some 375 million years ago, they in fact still exist today. Komatiite, As you indicated in another post (perhaps a different topic within CF), you said something to the effect that evolution makes sense as God's way as this allows for life to adapt to changing and different environments. Unfortunately, this (again) is a false dichotomy and is not exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm, but also fits within the view that God allows for variability of life, and that He is the author of life and already created the major groupings of life during the 6 days of creation - just as it says in His word.

This is almost amusing... okay, okay, since your view of God is that God is restricted to carrying out His plan by natural means that are known to scientists, explain this:

How did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead when He called him out of the tomb? My view is that God can and will work in supernatural ways and can create a universe that is billions of light years wide in a day, can create life in a day, can raise the dead to life, and does all with His living and all-powerful word... so while I cannot explain it in human scientific terms, I believe Jesus simply only had to call out, "Lazarus, come out!" that this is what raised Lazarus to life... but let's see how you scientifically explain this - or perhaps you tend to waffle back and forth: that Jesus did do miracles, but used only natural means for all of creation - even though His word tells us that creation was just as miraculous as raising the dead to life and both are written as matter-of-fact, it happened.

I'll address your E.Coli post separately :]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just completely clueless.

For example, you said "...unfortunately later discovered footprints of tetrapods being found earlier in the geologic column (conventionally dated to be some 20+ million years older) - so the predicted finding the alleged transition from water to land was found in exactly the wrong place in the column???"

Did you not read my post?

Here, i will just repeat.

"And there have been other shallow marine tetrapodomorph tracks also found in the early devonian as well in Poland. Between the two, along with a whole collection of Hybrid fossils, this lends credence to the suggestion that the Cambrian, ordovician and silurian were dominated by marine fauna, and sometime in the early to mid devonian they evolved to walk on land. Then by the late devonian we have domination of strata by tetrapods and salamander like fauna. Then by the Carboniferous you have reptile like amphibians and amphibian like reptiles, lizard salamander hybrids etc.


If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian."

I would like you to explain how it is that titaalik was predicted to be present in Canadian arctic shallow marine mid-devonian rock, and later discovered to be there, if not a product of a fossil succession left as remains of fish evolving into tetrapods."

 

[Job 33:6]

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

With regards to tiktaalik and the polish tracks, what we have are two different fossils being found, in a practical sense, at the same time. In a geologic succession that spans with complex organisms, over 650 million years of strata and over a billion years in fossils, you have tiktaalik and the polish tracks, found temporally in close proximity of one another in the early to mid devonian.

If we were to ignore the first 4 billion years of the geologic column and were to focus only on the most recent 650 million years of more complex fossils, if we were to divide 640 by 100 to break it down into percentages, the difference between 395 and 375 million years would be equivalent to 3% of the geologic column as it pertains to complex fossils. With that said, all of the following discussion revolves around literally this same 3%, which really is less than 1% of the column at large. Its a discussion revolving around a very fine tuned and specific part of the geologic column.

Its not like the polish tracks and tiktaalik are a 500 million years apart, or 300 million apart, or 100 million apart, or 50 million apart etc. You're down to 18 million in formations that are almost temporally back to back.

The mid eifelian with its polish tracks dates to 395 mya, while the fram formation with tiktaalik dates to 375. Both formations being subsections of the devonian, one being of the middle devonian and one of the late devonian frasnian, while the other in the eifelian, only separated by the givetian which is known for prehistoric lobed finned fish which host tetrapod traits, the first of their kind to ever exist.

Then you have those that suggest that the poland tracks might have been produced by a tetrapodomorph with similar features to tiktaalik, if not perhaps even tiktaalik itself. And there are those that suggest that the tracks might be of marine lobed fish such as those of the givetian.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprints

-----------------------------------
Regardless of any of the above, what we are seeing is people who are no longer debating over whether tetrapods evolved from fish and then later to reptiles. Fish (early devonian/400-390 mya) ==>> tetrapods (famennian/370-360 mya), so where would the fish evolve to tetrapods? between 400 mya and 360? Most tetrapod fossils are indicating the transition occurred somewhere between 395 now of the polish tracks and the 375 of tiktaalik. So somewhere in that fine space of time, is where would expect to find these fish to tetrapod hybrids. And we do. And the more fossils we find, the more that timespan zooms in on a finer level.

What we are seeing are camps debating...if the evolution from sea to land occurred in a stream bed, or in a tidal flat. And if the evolution from sea to land occurred around 395, 385 or 375? (3% of the column as it pertains to complex fossils, half of one percent as it pertains to the column at large)

If the geologic column were a 650 page book, this would be like making a blind prediction (based on the theory of evolution) that fish first evolved to tetrapods on page 375 and finding out that youre 20 pages off. One would have to wonder, if evolution were completely wrong, why wasnt the guess 50 pages off, or 100, or 300, or 500 pages off? Indeed, the full geologic column dates back billions of years. One could hypothetically be 1000 pages off. Or 2000, or 4000 pages off in this book.

But here we are, 18 pages off, if this is even the case. Assuming the tracks arent made by something like tiktaalik and assuming the tracks are not made by lobed fined hybrids.

The reason everyone is debating within such a fine tuned section of the geologic column, is because all of these are evidences for the same transition.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Which brings me back to repeating my first statement...

 

[Job 33:6]

"If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian."

I would like you to explain how it is that titaalik was predicted to be present in Canadian arctic shallow marine mid-devonian rock, and later discovered to be there, if not a product of a fossil succession left as remains of fish evolving into tetrapods."


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

And no, people dont just get lucky and randomly find a fish-tetrapod hybrid animal randomly hanging out in the canadian arctic fram formation.

This was a calculated prediction. It wasn't just some blind guess that turned out lucky because fish live in water, or whatever your comment was. This, as other predictions made by the theory, indeed only make sense in light of evolution.

If a flood laid down all these sediment, one would expect these fish-tetrapod hybrids to also be found in rocks of the cambrian, rocks of the ordovician or the silurian, or anywhere in the proterozoic or perhaps the ediacaran (anywhere from 650 to 400). One might expect the first tetrapod tracks to be randomly found perhaps in the mesozoic or the cenozoic, or the carboniferous or permian (350 mya to present day).

But none of this is the case. Indeed, both tiktaalik and the polish tracks and all the fish-tetrapod hybrid lobe finned prehistoric fish are found right where the theory of evolution predicts that they ought to be...thats 385 + or - 10 mya, which in geologic terms, 10 mya is like the blink of an eye. Its hard to even get margins of error at finer levels than perhaps 5 mya, let alone be able to differentiate between fossils just a few million years apart in temporally adjacent formations.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse "Komatiite, this will always be a difficult position for you because while I don't know much about geology and you can keep trying to use this to discredit me"


And yes, i will continue to use this to discredit you. You, time and time again have demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to talking about rocks.

Yet time and time again, you continue to make blind assertions without any real understanding of what you're suggesting.

For example, you still suggest that layers were deposited by a global flood, but logically such a flood could not form overturned angular unconformities of today. And i know that I've mentioned this to you before, but you still have yet to acknowledge this.

The above video is a hypothetical made to help simplify relative dating for laymen, but really the above features are all quite common worldwide.

People who believe that the geologic column is the product of a giant global flood really have no ability to logically produce sections of rock such as those described in the above video. Because the processes detailed in the above video take independent and individual steps to form the final product. Each set of faulting is only possible in hardened strata, and this especially clear in scenarios in which we have propagating faults which break perpendicular to primary faults, and things like cataclastic faulting and the formation of fault gouge. These are all products of the faulting and motion of hardened rock layers.

Which means that, throughout multiple areas in the geologic column, you have deformation of hardened stone, prior to the deposition and later deformation of more hardened rock at a separate period of time, over and over and over again. Along with erosion of hardened layers, followed by further deposition and later more erosion of hardened layers, over and over and over again.

We also have things like the strain of originally bilatterally semetric objects like bivalve and trilobites.

Further demonstrating that rock was hardened prior to deformation, just as an animals shell is hard, prior to being deformed and bent with the rock.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these factors make it quite clear that the earth is extraordinarily old, the geologic column is not the product of some giant chaotic flood, and tetrapods evolved from fish, as per the column therein at about 385 mya + or - 10 mya.

 

[NobleMouse]

@NobleMouse "Komatiite, this will always be a difficult position for you because while I don't know much about geology and you can keep trying to use this to discredit me"


And yes, i will continue to use this to discredit you. You, time and time again have demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to talking about rocks.

Yet time and time again, you continue to make blind assertions without any real understanding of what you're suggesting.

For example, you still suggest that layers were deposited by a global flood, but logically such a flood could not form overturned angular unconformities of today. And i know that I've mentioned this to you before, but you still have yet to acknowledge this.

The above video is a hypothetical made to help simplify relative dating for laymen, but really the above features are all quite common worldwide.

People who believe that the geologic column is the product of a giant global flood really have no ability to logically produce sections of rock such as those described in the above video. Because the processes detailed in the above video take independent and individual steps to form the final product. Each set of faulting is only possible in hardened strata, and this especially clear in scenarios in which we have propagating faults which break perpendicular to primary faults, and things like cataclastic faulting and the formation of fault gouge. These are all products of the faulting and motion of hardened rock layers.

Which means that, throughout multiple areas in the geologic column, you have deformation of hardened stone, prior to the deposition and later deformation of more hardened rock at a separate period of time, over and over and over again. Along with erosion of hardened layers, followed by further deposition and later more erosion of hardened layers, over and over and over again.

We also have things like the strain of originally bilatterally semetric objects like bivalve and trilobites.

Further demonstrating that rock was hardened prior to deformation, just as an animals shell is hard, prior to being deformed and bent with the rock.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these factors make it quite clear that the earth is extraordinarily old, the geologic column is not the product of some giant chaotic flood, and tetrapods evolved from fish, as per the column therein at about 385 mya + or - 10 mya.

Everything you just posted was the most beautifully illustrated piece of nonsense - millions or billions of years is not a fact-driven conclusion - you are making assumptions that are unfalsifiable and untenable from A to Z and just repeating how you were taught to interpret rocks. Think about what you actually know - do you know decay rates have always been the same, do you know the exact parent/daughter starting position... do you know what the effect of sin and the flood have had on rocks? Do you KNOW? No, you don't. Right there in Genesis God said that the ground was cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin - what are all the implications of that? You don't actually know anything more than anybody else. All you know about fossils is geographically where they died, not when they died, and much less when they actually lived or how they came to be. To KNOW that, you'd have to have been there.

Much like the inane belief that although radiometric dating often doesn't work on rocks of known age, it magically is correct on rocks of unknown age; you're rationalization of supporting the age of the earth being billions of years old is based on metaphysics (abstract thinking with no basis in reality) and you stand upon this in an effort to argue against the only thing that is always true - God's word. You seem to not even be able to hold a conversation about God's word and instead instinctively just run to your rocks because that's where your faith is - you have successfully proven my point, you have placed man's word over God's word as the authority. This, I believe, is why you have zero comments to make regarding God referencing the 6 days of creation in His commandments and having no response to how Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead - you keep these truths at a distance because they directly confront and call your unsupported faith in geology to the table.

 

[Job 33:6]

Everything you just posted was the most beautifully illustrated piece of nonsense - millions or billions of years is not a fact-driven conclusion - you are making assumptions that are unfalsifiable and untenable from A to Z and just repeating how you were taught to interpret rocks. Think about what you actually know - do you know decay rates have always been the same, do you know the exact parent/daughter starting position... do you know what the effect of sin and the flood have had on rocks? Do you KNOW? No, you don't. Right there in Genesis God said that the ground was cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin - what are all the implications of that? You don't actually know anything more than anybody else. All you know about fossils is geographically where they died, not when they died, and much less when they actually lived or how they came to be. To KNOW that, you'd have to have been there.

Much like the inane belief that although radiometric dating often doesn't work on rocks of known age, it magically is correct on rocks of unknown age; you're rationalization of supporting the age of the earth being billions of years old is based on metaphysics (abstract thinking with no basis in reality) and you stand upon this in an effort to argue against the only thing that is always true - God's word. You seem to not even be able to hold a conversation about God's word and instead instinctively just run to your rocks because that's where your faith is - you have successfully proven my point, you have placed man's word over God's word as the authority. This, I believe, is why you have zero comments to make regarding God referencing the 6 days of creation in His commandments and having no response to how Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead - you keep these truths at a distance because they directly confront and call your unsupported faith in geology to the table.

As usual your response is void of any technical information. Go learn about the earth, and when you are familiar with geology, come back with a response. Until then, your layman opinion is meaningless.

What is your actual response to anything I've said? What do you make of say, the overturned angular unconformity of the Martinsburg and Tuscarora ?

Indeed there is nothing you can say.

 

[Job 33:6]

"you are making assumptions that are unfalsifiable "

Actually they are falsifiable and I even went a step further and gave ways that these ideas could be falsified.

Here, I will copy and paste again.

"If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian."

I would like you to explain how it is that titaalik was predicted to be present in Canadian arctic shallow marine mid-devonian rock, and later discovered to be there, if not a product of a fossil succession left as remains of fish evolving into tetrapods."

 

[NobleMouse]

As usual your response is void of any technical information. Go learn about the earth, and when you are familiar with geology, come back with a response. Until then, your layman opinion is meaningless.

What is your actual response to anything I've said? What do you make of say, the overturned angular unconformity of the Martinsburg and Tuscarora ?

Indeed there is nothing you can say.

Yes, technical information doesn't automatically equal truth. You expected a technical response, but why? Who told you that only technical responses are true responses. Is that possibly why you reject Genesis as truth? God's word is truth, the fact you reject Genesis is of no bearing on it being true.

Here's where your faith in geological assumptions fails: you have a narrative, a story of events that have happened in the past to explain the present. This narrative; however, doesn't actually have any evidence that was observed at the time it was created or were changed by events, nothing that actually steps along with your narrative. You say "x" happened over millions of years but have never observed a process over such a time span and therefore make uniformitarian assumptions, analogies, and apply abstract thinking to formulate the initial cause of things that were not observed.

Perfect example where you use analogies - you've likened the evidence in geology to the evidence of a crime scene. You say, you know what has happened because of the evidence left behind just like a crime scene investigator knows what happened by the evidence left at a crime scene. This is an analogy you have used before, right? This is one of the ways you make your view of past events "true" --> because it's true for crime scenes and thus it is true for you. The problem you don't seem to see; however, is that when a crime has taken place, the evidence doesn't actually tell the investigator what happened... what they do is line up the evidence and compare it to other cases where the evidence was similar AND the crime from those cases is presently known. How is it known?: By eye witness accounts, corroborated statements, testimonies, and confessions made from those other cases. In other words, it was observed previously and the crime scene investigator can draw similar conclusions if the evidence is similar.

Maybe it would help the light turn on for you if I asked you to present the major geological events that scientists observed and cataloged from 10,000 years ago, from 500,000 years ago, from 50,000,000 years ago, from 2,000,000,000 billion years ago. See how what you have that is truly known amounts to nothing?

Going back to the crime scene analogy you've used before, imagine you are the prosecuting attorney presenting your geological evidence in support of the crime you believe occurred but you have nothing to corroborate your narrative, no eye witnesses, no testimonies, nothing but your guess-work uniformitarian assumptions, analogies, and conjecture. You would literally be laughed out (or possibly thrown out) of the courtroom for wasting everyone's time. That kind of "evidence" you call fact does not stand up under God's word, rational thought, or logic.

Beyond the fact you have never observed the events that have led to the geological conditions present today, you obviously don't believe when God's word says that events happened that would have had geological implications, yet you believe in the stories of people who were not there and have no documentation to refer to of what did happen--simply incredible (in a bad way). You repeatedly want to go 100 miles deep into the granularity of geological topics, but seem to be blind to seeing the implications to high-level and broad-spanning truths. These high-level and broad-spanning truths (God's word) should be the guiding principles to how you interpret the evidence... but you have it backwards.

God's word, for example, says He created Adam on day 6 of creation and this was alongside other animals the same day with other creatures of the sea and birds of the air the day before. Is this the same story evolution presents? Obviously not. The Bible also gives the lineage from Adam to Jesus and in that lineage there is no evidence that millions of generations are being skipped, in fact where the lineage is presented and corroborated elsewhere in scripture, the lineage is direct descendents from parent to child. You think all of that; however, is just one grand allegorical text--such low regard held for God's word.

I really try to present that God's word is true as simply and as directly as I can to you. Do you not believe God's word is ultimately true? God said He caused a flood and was sorry He created man and He was going to destroy ALL flesh on the earth (that's God's words, not mine, not the YEC's... not Kurt Wise, not Ken Ham, etc... it is God's word), and now we see literally billions of fossils all over the earth (not just a locality). Still you insist this could not have happened. You clearly don't believe God's word is God's word, from God - even when it would appear the geological evidence seen today still bears witness to a world-wide catastrophe causing the death of... all flesh on the face of the earth. Who told you it didn't happen? Man's word or God's word?

Spiritually & Philosophically: Your position is in disagreement with what God's word says (for someone who proclaims to be a Christian, this is bewildering).

Logically: Your concrete thinking that the geological evidence fits only the story given by men (having never observed what they ardently insist happened) you go along with this giving no critical or rational thought about whether this even makes sense on a fundamental level, not to mention contradicts God's word (but again, you seem to not believe it is God's word). This is illogical.

==================================================
In summary you go about touting unsupported views of the geological evidence, and because of your apparent lack of faith in God's word you consider this appropriate and permissible for dissuading other believers from their faith in God's word, in a free public forum called Christian Forums. How noble. It would seem you feel no shame that almost every single post you have in this forum is completely devoid of any reference to God and His word. This fact; however, will hopefully clue others in not to take what you say with much interest as your ideas and views are clearly not rooted in the truth of God's word. In any event, while many will just ignore you, expect to continue to be confronted.
==================================================

 

[Job 33:6]

"You expected a technical response, but why? "

Because if you dont understand the material, then you aren't in a position to judge it. If you do not have knowledge of the evidence, then you arent in a position to judge its likelyhood or lack thereof.

"The problem you don't seem to see; however, is that when a crime has taken place, the evidence doesn't actually tell the investigator what happened..."

I typically use the example of something like a car accident.

But sure, we can take say a murder investigation as an example.

If a person is lying on the ground with a bullet in their leg, and a gun on the ground, then the logical conclusion is that said person has been shot in the leg.

In the case of geology,

We have mountains that are rising such as the himilayas. They are rising as the indian subcontinent presses into asia.

It is logical to conclude that this is how the himilayas formed, as opposed to suggesting that the himilayas simply appeared out of thin air with the appearance as if they had simply been lifted by tectonic compression.

Indeed, much of the himilayas consist of extrusive magmatic features and exposed ophiolites, which arent features that form in mountains at all.

Whether someone was physically there to see the person get shot in the leg, is irrelevant, as the person being shot in the leg is the likely conclusion.

Your alternative of young earth creationism is analogous to concluding that the person with the bullet in their leg is actually a professional surgeon that cut their own leg open, inserted the bullet, sewed themselves back up and had their skin instantaneously heal over to make it look as if they were shot and had not actually cut their own leg open. And they all did this over lunch break, so quickly that one cannot discern how they actually pulled it all off.

And if thats what you want to believe, that everything instantaneously formed, or was created instantaneously, with the logical appearance of age, thats fine. Just as someone could believe that the dead man with the bullet in his leg is actually a professional surgeon with mutant healing powers that pulled off the greatest showman stunt of all time. But dont expect others to agree.

 

[NobleMouse]

"You expected a technical response, but why? "

Because if you dont understand the material, then you aren't in a position to judge it. If you do not have knowledge of the evidence, then you arent in a position to judge its likelyhood or lack thereof.

"The problem you don't seem to see; however, is that when a crime has taken place, the evidence doesn't actually tell the investigator what happened..."

I typically use the example of something like a car accident.

But sure, we can take say a murder investigation as an example.

If a person is lying on the ground with a bullet in their leg, and a gun on the ground, then the logical conclusion is that said person has been shot in the leg.

In the case of geology,

We have mountains that are rising such as the himilayas. They are rising as the indian subcontinent presses into asia.

It is logical to conclude that this is how the himilayas formed, as opposed to suggesting that the himilayas simply appeared out of thin air with the appearance as if they had simply been lifted by tectonic compression.

Indeed, much of the himilayas consist of extrusive magmatic features and exposed ophiolites, which arent features that form in mountains at all.

Whether someone was physically there to see the person get shot in the leg, is irrelevant, as the person being shot in the leg is the likely conclusion.

Your alternative of young earth creationism is analogous to concluding that the person with the bullet in their leg is actually a professional surgeon that cut their own leg open, inserted the bullet, sewed themselves back up and had their skin instantaneously heal over to make it look as if they were shot and had not actually cut their own leg open. And they all did this over lunch break, so quickly that one cannot discern how they actually pulled it all off.

And if thats what you want to believe, that everything instantaneously formed, or was created instantaneously, with the logical appearance of age, thats fine. Just as someone could believe that the dead man with the bullet in his leg is actually a professional surgeon with mutant healing powers that pulled off the greatest showman stunt of all time. But dont expect others to agree.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote as you missed the thrust of my response and/or instead of addressing the key issues you continue to dodge the subject. I guess I'll just have to make it a point to caution people I see you interacting with that you have no interest in things like God's word and are simply here just to profess your false faith in contrast to what God's word says.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another analogy here that ill go back to.

Lets say youre driving down the road and you see two cars smashed up. One has its rear end smashed in, and the other right behind it, with its front smashed.

Ok. And lets say we were not present in the past to see how such a thing formed.

It is possible that there are some really fancy mechanical technicians who manufactured this accident.

Just as we could believe that God instantly created mountains with the appearance as if they were elevated by compressive forces, we could also believe that people manufactured this accident with the appearance as if the hood of the car on the left was lifted by compressional forces.

The cars really are directly analogous to mountains in this situation.

Now, young earthers believe that...well, some of them believe that these mountains formed in...a year.

The himilayas are miles high, so to propose that they formed in a year, is to suggest something analogous to the two cars smashing into one another at 1000 miles per hour and having the accident occur in something like a fraction of a milisecond.

The physics behind such a collision would incinerate the vehicles or the pressure of the collision would blast them into the atmosphere. But in this case, most of the cars are still in tact, so it gives the appearance of just a regular, everyday rear end accident that perhaps happened just at 30-40 mph or less.

In the real world, mountains arent utterly obliterated and give the appearance as though they have been pushing into one another at slow rates, hence why we have things like ductile deformation and regional metamorphoses of rock. The world isnt blanketed with komatiites.

Someone doesnt need to be present to derive this logical conclusion.

Yes it is possible that there are really well skilled mechanical engineers who simply built this to make it look "as if" a collision had occurred. But really this is just an unreasonable conclusion that isnt grounded in any form of reality based evidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote as you missed the thrust of my response and/or instead of addressing the key issues you continue to dodge the subject. I guess I'll just have to make it a point to caution people I see you interacting with that you have no interest in things like God's word and are simply here just to profess your false faith in contrast to what God's word says.

When you have an actual technical response to my words, then ill pay more attention to your words. Until then, all you have done is demonstrate that you have a lack of knowledge of the material, but think that youre still in a position to judge it.

 

[NobleMouse]

Well, you're ignoring my post by not actually responding and changing the subject, so i dont see why you have a problem now with me not parts acknowledging yours (whatever parts they may be).

What's the topic? Nothing to do with the details of secular geological assumptions, but the fundamental philosophical and logical problems with the different views. Try to keep to the topic and then folks can have a conversation with you. Plus, the views of geological assumptions are of zero importance in light of eternity, but what we believe about God is of immense importance. What as waste of everybody's time to entertain your nonsensical geological rhetoric and so I'm not going to waste mine on that. Now if you want to step up and talk about real matters of faith and what God's word says then I can engage with you on that.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Who told you it didn't happen? Man's word or God's word?"

The difference between your position and mine, is that I am looking directly at the cars.

In this case where we look at the two cars, it is blatantly clear to me that there has been a collision.

You are turning to scripture, and you are saying that scripture says that there was a world wide flood that caused these cars to move at lightening speeds that defy physics and chemistry and that the flood waters pushed them together at lightening speeds which defy physics and chemistry...while still not actually obliterating the vehicles.

Other young earthers suggest that layers and fossils were deposited based on their densities. But of course this doesnt make any sense.

Everything that young earthers suggest, defies reality and isnt evidently true.

So all i can do is say that, it is more probable that your manmade interpretation of scripture, ie what you envision in your mind when you read it, is more likely to be false, than what physically exists in the real world. Because what physically exists, is what it is, and it is Gods most blatently clear creation.

Right, no man has manipulated physics. They are as they are. As God has created them. But your interpretation that the cars were manufactured to look "as if" there was a collision, this is something that really only exists in your mind and there isnt any physically real evidence to backup your ideas.

 

[Job 33:6]

What's the topic? Nothing to do with the details of secular geological assumptions,

You are the one that started talking about science first. I simply responded.

"A false dichotomy - what is actually observable about fossils, genetics, and geology is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm."~Noble Mouse

Sounds like youre bringing science into the discussion and youre taking a stab at geology by suggesting that there is mutual evidence for both YEC and OEC, but unfortunately for you, there is only evidence for an old earth.

 

[NobleMouse]

"Who told you it didn't happen? Man's word or God's word?"

The difference between your position and mine, is that I am looking directly at the cars.

In this case where we look at the two cars, it is blatantly clear to me that there has been a collision.

You are turning to scripture, and you are saying that scripture says that there was a world wide flood that caused these cars to move at lightening speeds that defy physics and chemistry and that the flood waters pushed them together at lightening speeds which defy physics and chemistry...while still not actually obliterating the vehicles.

Other young earthers suggest that layers and fossils were deposited based on their densities. But of course this doesnt make any sense.

Everything that young earthers suggest, defies reality and isnt evidently true.

So all i can do is say that, it is more probable that your manmade interpretation of scripture, ie what you envision in your mind when you read it, is more likely to be false, than what physically exists in the real world. Because what physically exists, is what it is, and it is Gods most blatently clear creation.

Right, no man has manipulated physics. They are as they are. As God has created them. But your interpretation that the cars were manufactured to look "as if" there was a collision, this is something that really only exists in your mind and there isnt any physically real evidence to backup your ideas.

Another bad analogy. You failed again! Car crashes are observed all the time, you didn't observe a million years ago. Keep trying (or failing, I guess).

 

[NobleMouse]

You are the one that started talking about science first. I simply responded.

"A false dichotomy - what is actually observable about fossils, genetics, and geology is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm."~Noble Mouse

Sounds like youre bringing science into the discussion and youre taking a stab at geology by suggesting that there is mutual evidence for both YEC and OEC, but unfortunately for you, there is only evidence for an old earth.

OK, so talk about faith then and why you don't have any in God's word as it relates to origins. We'll see if you can talk about God and the Bible or if you just go running back to your ultimate faith (not God's word).

 

[Job 33:6]

Another bad analogy. You failed again! Car crashes are observed all the time, you didn't observe a million years ago. Keep trying (or failing, I guess).

But we can indeed observe the himilayas rising as a result of tectonic compression today. So it is observable, right now. Nobody has a time machine to see the whole thing happen from the beginning, and nobody has a time machine to see the accident happen either. But the conclusions of each are justified by physical reality and how it exists. Cars dont get smashed against eachother without there being a collision. Why do you think God would create the cars to look "as if" they have collided, but have not?

 

[Job 33:6]

Heres another analogy.

Volcanoes, are known to have many layers. Formed by many eruptions, hundreds of independent eruptions at times.

We see today, eruptions happen, and the magma cools forming yet another new layer.

Yes, it is true that we dont have a time machine to see the volcano form from the very beginning, but what we physically see today, logically makes sense as a conclusion for what has formed the layers in the past.

Its not like God would just create 20 layers instantaneously "as if" they were formed by eruptions and then say "Ok, ill let the rest physically happen that way the volcano simply looks old but actually is not".

 

[Job 33:6]

And before anyone says "oh well magma layers can form quickly, so maybe all the layers formed in 100 years during a flood or something"

Well first off, theres no pillow lava or evidence that the eruptions of many volcanoes have occurred underwater, but regardless of this...

stratigraphically, magmatic layers, dykes and sills, are tied up in strata of varying age. How do we know this? because the oldest layers are on the bottom, else they would be floating in space.

With that, we have dyke "L" being younger than all layers, while dyke "M: is only younger than fault N, else it would be faulted.

And so now, these same layers of magma, be them within volcanoes or throughout the subsurface, are tied up stratigraphically, with features that take thousands of years to form, if not longer.