Things or Animals that defy creation and evolution?

[-57]

It’s also worth noting that animals like plesiosaurs - marine reptiles - aren’t found alongside whales and dolphins, despite being just as seaworthy as them. They disappear right around the same time the dinosaurs did.

Same thing with animals like pterodactyls, which were probably just as capable flyers as any bird, are always found lower than them. Oh, and flightless birds are always found higher than birds that can fly, which would be weird if the column was showing the order of death.

And a bunch of other inconsistencies. The idea that the geologic column is ordered by death from the flood is one of my favorite creationist canards, because it’s so clearly wrong if you think about it for five seconds.

The idea that the geologic column is ordered by death from the flood...is a general view. Not a rule of thumb.

 

[-57]

The material you offered was not support. An appropriate peer reviewed article from a reputable journal is necessary to support your assertion. Your reluctance/inability to provide this is duly noted. The conclusion is that you are parroting questionable data from creationist sources that - by your own admission - you do not properly understand. Your aims would better served if you educated yourself on such topics properly before posting.

Why is it when an evo is defeated thay ALWAYS play the peer review card?

Here's another sandstone that covers a lot of the USA and even up into Canada.

 

[-57]

here's a video which pretty much explains it. start at the 30 min mark

 

[lasthero]

The idea that the geologic column is ordered by death from the flood...is a general view. Not a rule of thumb.

It fails as a general view. It pretty much doesn't work on any level. I could literally go on for hours with examples that defy it.

In my experience, creationists have a range of ideas on why the column is ordered the way it, and will just move to whichever one they think applies in any given situation. Sometimes they'll start out saying the column is ordered by survivability, and when that's shown to be wrong, they'll say its ordered by density, and when that's shown to be wrong, they'll say it's arranged by living environments, and so forth and so on. There's no consistency, no reasoning, it's just whatever explanation they think works best in any given moment.

And there's never any explanation for why the deeper organisms consistently show older ages through dating methods. If the dating methods are flawed, then there's no reason for that to be, but that's the case routinely.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is it when an evo is defeated thay ALWAYS play the peer review card?

Why don't you understand the importance of peer review? Why don't you understand that an amateurish claim, without benefit of any references is worthless.

I would not have been at all surprised to learn that the Tapeats sandstone was more extensive than I thought. However, despite several searches through google scholar I can find nothing to support your assertion.

Here's another sandstone that covers a lot of the USA and even up into Canada.

A sandstone that lies at a completely different level to the Tapeats sandstone. A sandstone that has a different character to the Tapeats. Your own non-peer reviewed references contradict themselves.
Give up while you are only behind.

 

[Ophiolite]

It fails as a general view. It pretty much doesn't work on any level. I could literally go on for hours with examples that defy it.

I have to disagree with you. I think months, at least. Probably years. When you consider all the research work that has been published that implicitly contradicts the flood claims it is centuries, if not millennia.

 

[USincognito]

Limestone is to pure. It must have formed fast during some sort of bloom. If it took as long as the OE's claim it would have been loaded with junk.

Did you ignore or not understand my point about the heat problem?

 

[Kylie]

There is much to say about it..and this forum is inadequate to explain all of it. But, scientist have looked at the enormous size of the sandstones as well as the deposition of the grains of sand and see angular direction with associated speed and determine they didn't settle over long times. That's just one point of many. As you being an atheist I understand it will be impossible for you to put down your text book and actually look for the truth.

You say that I do not want to look for the truth, yet you make grand claims and then refuse to back them up when asked to do so, saying some vague stuff about how the forums aren't adequate to explain it (despite the fact that you can post links to anything you want and you can have a thread with thousands of posts). All you can do is ask me to just believe you because of... reasons.

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not really going to go over every aspect of sandstones as i still have a lot to learn. But if interested you can look here.

Yeah, the article written by a creationist, who has zero scientific articles about geology that I could find.

I did find some articles written by Wesley R Barnhart on Google Scholar - but they're in the field of clinical psychology and eating disorders, NOT geology. So even if that is the same guy, he certainly isn't qualified to talk about geology.

 

[Strathos]

If you actually investigate the natural world, it soon becomes apparent that, in order to believe things like a global flood and a 6000 - year - old earth, you can't rely on physical evidence. That's why certain creationists here like to claim that God removed all of the evidence, or that the laws of physics and logic were completely different in the past.

If you are insistent on taking everything in Genesis literally, you should probably switch to a position like that, because claiming that natural evidence supports a hyper literal Genesis just doesn't work.

 

[jayem]

Then explain how it evolved through a process containing random chance.

Can you do that atheist?

Yes. Here's an article on that exact topic. Somewhat technical, but you might learn something.

Step By Step Evolution of Vertebrate Coagulation.

I'd like to know how your god can just will a universe into being. What is the mechanism by which matter/energy can be created out of who knows what? Was there nothing? Was there an earlier universe? By what specific process does light, and the Earth, and the sun and moon, and stars; and plants, animals, and the first human beings just suddenly appear?

Can you answer that?

 

[SelfSim]

If you actually investigate the natural world, it soon becomes apparent that, in order to believe things like a global flood and a 6000 - year - old earth, you can't rely on physical evidence. That's why certain creationists here like to claim that God removed all of the evidence, or that the laws of physics and logic were completely different in the past.

The latter 'claim' is opinion and not a claim made on behalf of the scientific position then. The claim is therefore inappropriately stated as being made on behalf of the scientific position and should, at best, be clearly stated as such .. Unfortunately, it rarely ever is.

If you are insistent on taking everything in Genesis literally, you should probably switch to a position like that, because claiming that natural evidence supports a hyper literal Genesis just doesn't work.

.. an explanation which merely shifts the emphasis onto the definition of 'natural evidence' (which is also rarely clearly stated).
If this is a physical science forum, then the reasonable expectation would be a default position of it being a scientifically based one.

 

[Caliban]

I heard that there are animals that defy evolution such as the giraffes. There are things are that defy evolution such as why there are females or why higher supposed evolve creatures have evolved developed two different genders?
I have my own theory. It is based on our common old enemy: crocodile. There have been recent studies and fossils that show them evolving their teeth and jaws, but not why they can’t chew meats? It shows unintelligent design or maybe they weren’t suppose to eat meat? If God design all animals to be vegans, the crocodile wouldn’t need to change or evolve since it dismembers his prey apart by rolling around.

There are no animals that "defy" evolution. Evolution is not a scary idea that some make it out to be. Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency over time.

 

[Yttrium]

I'd like to know how your god can just will a universe into being. What is the mechanism by which matter/energy can be created out of who knows what? Was there nothing? Was there an earlier universe? By what specific process does light, and the Earth, and the sun and moon, and stars; and plants, animals, and the first human beings just suddenly appear?

That's not exactly an equivalent question for the evolution of vertebrate coagulation, and it's really off topic for the thread. The equivalent question would be how the vertebrate coagulation came about through creation, and the answer of course would be creation by an omnipotent being who can create matter ex nihilo. You know that you're not going to get an answer of how God does that exactly, so there's no point in asking. Why would God create something so complicated and inefficient? I suspect a typical Christian answer would be that there is a purpose that we are simply not aware of at this time.

And as for your questions, yeah, omnipotent supreme being does whatever He wants.​

 

[jayem]

That's not exactly an equivalent question for the evolution of vertebrate coagulation, and it's really off topic for the thread. The equivalent question would be how the vertebrate coagulation came about through creation, and the answer of course would be creation by an omnipotent being who can create matter ex nihilo. You know that you're not going to get an answer of how God does that exactly, so there's no point in asking. Why would God create something so complicated and inefficient? I suspect a typical Christian answer would be that there is a purpose that we are simply not aware of at this time.

And as for your questions, yeah, omnipotent supreme being does whatever He wants.​

No doubt. I suppose my fundamental difficulty is understanding why religious believers have such a problem with uncertainty. They fabricate a mythological explanation, and cling to it tenaciously, rather than admit that there is no clear answer to many of the hard existential questions. But what's wrong with just saying "I don't know?" That's a far more intellectually honest response than to make up a fairy tale. And just because the correct answer isn't known now, and probably won't be known in our lifetimes, doesn't mean that it never will be.

 

[Strathos]

The latter 'claim' is opinion and not a claim made on behalf of the scientific position then. The claim is therefore inappropriately stated as being made on behalf of the scientific position and should, at best, be clearly stated as such .. Unfortunately, it rarely ever is.

.. an explanation which merely shifts the emphasis onto the definition of 'natural evidence' (which is also rarely clearly stated).
If this is a physical science forum, then the reasonable expectation would be a default position of it being a scientifically based one.

Obviously those approaches have their own problems, but they are at least more honest when it comes to acknowledging that nature doesn't support their interpretations.

 

[SelfSim]

Obviously those approaches have their own problems, but they are at least more honest when it comes to acknowledging that nature doesn't support their interpretations.

The honest approach is to declare that their interpretations are based on pure belief.
I have beliefs too .. but at least I try be aware of them and then not use them to undermine the consistency of the scientific viewpoint.

Making the wild claim that: 'the laws of physics and logic were completely different in the past' also assumes an understanding of such laws which is frequently and obviously absent, thereby calling into question the integrity of the claimant.
These laws are, more often than not, un- or counter-intuitive .. and honest scientific thinkers already appreciate that - it shows up as they explain them.

 

[Ophiolite]

No doubt. I suppose my fundamental difficulty is understanding why religious believers have such a problem with uncertainty.

I have long observed that there are two end positions in regard to uncertainty: some people fear it greatly; others embrace it lovingly. There is a continuum between the two positions.
So why the two end positions (and everything in between)? As is so often the case, some combination of Nature and Nurture.
From the religious believer point of view, one would ask "How can agnostics be so comfortable with their lack of knowledge about God?"

 

[Strathos]

The honest approach is to declare that their interpretations are based on pure belief.
I have beliefs too .. but at least I try be aware of them and then not use them to undermine the consistency of the scientific viewpoint.

Making the wild claim that: 'the laws of physics and logic were completely different in the past' also assumes an understanding of such laws which is frequently and obviously absent, thereby calling into question the integrity of the claimant.
These laws are, more often than not, un- or counter-intuitive .. and honest scientific thinkers already appreciate that - it shows up as they explain them.

I said more honest, as in, at least they're admitting that the available physical evidence doesn't support their positions.

 

[SelfSim]

... From the religious believer point of view, one would ask "How can agnostics be so comfortable with their lack of knowledge about God?"

Perhaps the issue comes back to the age-old issue of what 'knowledge' is then(?)

The standard that: to 'know' something it must always end up being 'true', (as exemplified by 'justified true belief' as an attempted philosophical definition), to me, is a classic example of what its proponents would like it to mean ... rather than what they really mean. See, this is a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, (eg: about God), or never use the word 'know' at all.

Scientific thinkers however would be more inclined to come up with an operational definition which might say: 'the test of knowing, (at least when restricted to testable outcomes), is akin to the odds a person would give on being right, (ie: 'I'm 95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they really 'know'.
(Note also that the suggested operational definition, makes use of science's concept of uncertainty .. as in: 'the odds').