The Creation Model, the Evolution Model, and the Evidence

[jb-creation]

Does the evidence fit better with the creation model (creation occured in six 24-hour Earth days approximately 6000 years ago, and geologic features and fossils are primarily a result of a worldwide hydrologic cataclysm [Noah's Flood]) or the evolution model (the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, life began within the next billion years [depending on the version of the model, this may or may not have been abiogenesis], sediments have been deposited gradually over an essentially uniform rate, and all forms of life on earth are modified descendants of this original form through the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation, including mankind)?

I would content that the evidence fits better into the creation model.

Evidence from the shape of sedimentary layers (such as the example of the Kaibab Upwarp), a lack of disturbance of sediments by living organisms ("bioturbation"), and polystratic trees indicate rapid deposition. Qualities of various fossils (such as turtles fossilized in the process of withdrawing into their shells, an ichthyosaur fossilized while giving birth, fish fossilized in the process of devouring other fish, etc.) indicate rapid death, burial, and fossilization. Living bacterial spores supposedly 25-40 million years old have been revived, cultured, and identified (an impossibility if they are truly that old).

 

[notto]

You are using a strawman of modern geology.
"sediments have been deposited gradually over an essentially uniform rate,"

Can you show us where geology claims this?

 

[Arikay]

1) Might I suggest citing claims (such as bacteria spores revival) so we can get more information about it?

2) Yes, rapid burial is possible, which was the conclusion of what happend to polystrat trees (over 100 years ago I believe). The problem is, you need to provide evidence that they were more likely caused by a single worldwide event and not local floods. If its a worldwide event, why don't we see more polystrat fossils? And since we are talking about strata, maybe you can explain how the flood organized it?

 

[Ron21647]

Ok, I will concede that you do not believe the current scientific theories concerning radioactive dating. So then, how did the flood cause material which dates older by that method to be in deeper layers than material which dates younger. Keep in mind that there are several dating mathods in use which agree in their results.

It would seem to me that in your model, radioactive material would be uniformly mixed, and we would find "old" and "young" rocks at all layers.


Ron

 

[lucaspa]

Does the evidence fit better with the creation model (creation occured in six 24-hour Earth days approximately 6000 years ago, and geologic features and fossils are primarily a result of a worldwide hydrologic cataclysm [Noah's Flood]) or the evolution model (the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, life began within the next billion years [depending on the version of the model, this may or may not have been abiogenesis], sediments have been deposited gradually over an essentially uniform rate, and all forms of life on earth are modified descendants of this original form through the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation, including mankind)?

I would content that the evidence fits better into the creation model.

Straight out of ICR in the 1980s. Wrong view of determining truth. This is the idea that you pile up evidence and the theory with the taller pile wins. Sorry, jb, but it doesn't work that way.

Instead, you try to falsify the theory. Each theory has consequences -- observations -- that should be there if true. When you look at consequences, you find that YEC (what you call "Creation Model") are opposite of what should be found if YEC were true. There are several threads here showing falsifications of young earth and Noah's Flood as an explanation of the geological record. Since true statements can't have false consequences, YEC is falsified. What you have given are supposed falsifications of old earth.

Evidence from the shape of sedimentary layers (such as the example of the Kaibab Upwarp), a lack of disturbance of sediments by living organisms ("bioturbation"), and polystratic trees indicate rapid deposition. Qualities of various fossils (such as turtles fossilized in the process of withdrawing into their shells, an ichthyosaur fossilized while giving birth, fish fossilized in the process of devouring other fish, etc.) indicate rapid death, burial, and fossilization. Living bacterial spores supposedly 25-40 million years old have been revived, cultured, and identified (an impossibility if they are truly that old).

1. Bacteria don't have spores. But I'd appreciate a citation.
2. The Kaibab Upwarp, polystratic trees, and the other fossils have other explanations. Most notably, local catastrophes and not a world-wide Flood.

Selective data. Instead of looking for supporting data, look for falsifying data!

 

[Freodin]

"lack of bioturbation" - that would be evidence if it didn´t exist at all. But it does - just not everywhere (which noone would expect).

So if bioturbation exists, it falsifies the claim that the layer it was found it was laid by Noah´s flood. Yet creationists have never identifies which layer is the flood layer, nor have they given any explanation where the earlier layers would have come from.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Footprints in layers with water ripples in layers both above and below

Noachian flood falsified.

Q.E.D.

 

[Freodin]

Footprints in layers with water ripples in layers both above and below

Noachian flood falsified.

Q.E.D.

Not quite as simple. Footprints as well as water ripples may have been found in non-flood layers only. That only refutes the claim of "All layers have been laid by the flood".

Of course it leaves it to the YECs to explain how the other layers have formed, how long that took and where all the fossils in these layers came from.

Oh yes, and the have to identify which layer was the flood layer.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"ichthyosaur fossilized while giving birth"

Actually, the ichthyosaur did not die while giving birth. As with many animals that give birth to live young, if the mother dies close to the gime of delivery - the fetus will be expelled from her dead body. It is more likely that a dead pregnant ichthyosaur sank to the bottom of the sea where the baby was expelled from her body because of gas buildup. The pair of carcases could have easily been rapidly burried in a mudslide.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Do the fossilized remains of the hapless inhabitants of Pompii support a young earth?
(the casts of the bodies are considered fossil remains)

Of course not.

The volcanic explosion was witnessed and recorded by survivors, so we know the exact date. Yet an entire town was burried under volcanic as. A half cooked meal, was preserved as where the guests. Mothers were preserved in the act of protecting thier children.

Actually, I think that a recorded cases of rapid deposition of material from volcanoes and mudslides and flashfloods pretty well disproves the notion of a young earth.

 

[jb-creation]

Source for bacteria: Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, "Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber," Science, vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060-1064

Polystrate trees are not as exceedingly rare as might be thought. There are numbers of them in the world. They often cut through strata layers that evolutionary uniformitarian geologists would consider to have been deposited over millions of years.

www.answeringenesis.org/docs/456.asp
www.trueorigins.org/cfjrgulf.asp
www.trueorigins.org/walkergeo01.asp

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually, bacteria do form spores. Spores which can resist the sterilizing effects of an autoclave (120 C at 30psi). The fact that bacterial spores can possibly survive millions of years does not disprove an old earth. It simply means that - like the surviving spores on a doctor's scalpel after autoclaving - they are tough. Much tougher then the "highly evolved" Homo sapiens.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Correction noted Freodin. I probably should have specifically referred to the Grand Canyon nonsense.

 

[Phred]

IF... and that's a huge IF... the evidence actually fits the creation model better then tell me... why don't large oil and mineral companies use "flood geology" to find new deposits?

Because you realize, they don't.

But... here we go again... PRATT alert.

Evidence from the shape of sedimentary layers (such as the example of the Kaibab Upwarp), a lack of disturbance of sediments by living organisms ("bioturbation"), and polystratic trees indicate rapid deposition. Qualities of various fossils (such as turtles fossilized in the process of withdrawing into their shells, an ichthyosaur fossilized while giving birth, fish fossilized in the process of devouring other fish, etc.) indicate rapid death, burial, and fossilization. Living bacterial spores supposedly 25-40 million years old have been revived, cultured, and identified (an impossibility if they are truly that old).

Sedimentary layers: If there had been a flood, creatures would have been spread randomly throughout the strata. This is not the case. I refer you back to that oil company looking for new deposits. As they drill they are very conscious of three "index fossils". Microfossils found only in certain rock layers. After thousands and thousands of wells were drilled, it became obvious that certain microfossils were only found in certain rock layers. When you drill into a layer containing one of these index fossils, you are pretty sure you know the age of that rock. (http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/paleo/paleo_home.html)
So what? Well, this is a lot more important than you might think. This is because certain rock layers that may contain oil can now be more easily found. Let's say a well is drilled, and it goes through rock layers containing microfossil "A", then "B". As it goes deeper still, it encounters microfossil "C", then strikes oil. If a similar well is drilled nearby, and we hit microfossils "A" and "B", we can expect to see microfossil "C" next, and with it, possibly oil. This would not be possible if a flood had occurred, randomly distributing all the dead lifeforms.

Trees fossilized thru more than one strata are explained here.

Rapid fossilization is explained here.

Bacterial spores encased in amber revived detailed here.

This is what happens when you choose ignorance over knowledge. The United States, once known as a bastion of education, is becoming a laughing stock all over the world. Why? Because of nonsense like this.

 

[Arikay]

Can you provide us with evidence that polystrat fossils cut through (not grow into) layers that geologists consider to be million of years apart?
I often hear this claim, yet the "millions apart" is always creationist strawman.

Source for bacteria: Raúl J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, "Revival and Identification of Bacterial Spores in 25- to 40-Million-Year-Old Dominican Amber," Science, vol. 268, 19 May 1995, pp. 1060-1064

Polystrate trees are not as exceedingly rare as might be thought. There are numbers of them in the world. They often cut through strata layers that evolutionary uniformitarian geologists would consider to have been deposited over millions of years.

www.answeringenesis.org/docs/456.asp
www.trueorigins.org/cfjrgulf.asp
www.trueorigins.org/walkergeo01.asp

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You are using a strawman of modern geology.
"sediments have been deposited gradually over an essentially uniform rate,"

Can you show us where geology claims this?

Bingo. It is a typical strawman. All it takes is one feature that could not have formed rapidly or during a continuous global flooding event to disprove the argument from showing some features that formed relatively quickly (and some that creationists claim did but actually could not have). As most of us know, there are an abundance of such features.

Can you provide us with evidence that polystrat fossils cut through (not grow into) layers that geologists consider to be million of years apart?
I often hear this claim, yet the "millions apart" is always creationist strawman.

Seconded. I've heard the claim numerous times myself, but it's never been substantiated. Furthermore, we don't see such drastic cross-cutting of sedimentary rock layers as creationists claim. If they could show a significant example that couldn't easily be attributed to a lahar or swamp environment from evidence or attributed to growth, then it might matter. But I don't see tree trunks cutting through limestone, shale, and sandstone layers all together anywhere.

 

[jb-creation]

The reason creatures are not distributed uniformly is that, if you think carefully of how the flood would have played out, different creatures belong in different habitats.

"There is also the question of how bacteria biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period."—R. John Parkes (Source: Nature, vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844-845)

 

[Arikay]

And that doesn't explain the organization. Why were there no modern bunnies buried with dinosaurs? Did the bunnies live in trees so that they got buried after the dinos?

The reason creatures are not distributed uniformly is that, if you think carefully of how the flood would have played out, different creatures belong in different habitats.

"There is also the question of how bacteria biopolymers can remain intact over millions of years in dormant bacteria; or, conversely, if bacteria are metabolically active enough to repair biopolymers, this raises the question of what energy source could last over such a long period."—R. John Parkes (Source: Nature, vol. 407, 19 October 2000, pp. 844-845)

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

They are organized in the sedimentary rock record in more ways than by their environment. Age is one other example of their organization. However, habitat can falsify your position when we see marine fauna in one strata vertically below a stratum that gives indications of desert fauna. That is inexplicable by a continuous flooding event. We also have examples of creatures that can exist in the same environment, yet are not found together.

 

[Split Rock]

The reason creatures are not distributed uniformly is that, if you think carefully of how the flood would have played out, different creatures belong in different habitats.

Why don't we find icthyosaurs, pleisiosaurs, extinct whales (such as Basilosaurus) and extinct sharks together with modern whales and sharks?

Why don't we find pterodactyls (flying reptiles) with seagulls and pigeons?

Why don't we find flowering plants before the Cretaceous layers? There are very few habitats they do not occupy today.