• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where do the flood strata start and end?

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1) You don't need to be a young earth creationist to propose a Comprehensive Theory of Creation. You either think it can constitute a scientific theory or you don't.

2) My acceptance of the Book of Genesis and the creation of the universe by the YHWH of the Bible is my THEOLOGY. Unlike many young earth creationists, I do NOT claim it is SCIENCE. I know and readily admit that I cannot propose a comprehensive theory of creation and I have no reason to do so. My theology is not a scientific theory. I can't explain the evidence in the universe using the scientific method and explain it by a scientific creation theory so I have no burden of proof. But "creation science" proponents DO have such a burden. If their view is SCIENCE, it has to conform to the scientific method. If it can't, it is simply a theological and/or philosophical view.

Yes! Finally we totally agree on something. Thanks for being honest.

Paul
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
VS...I also believe in evolution and I do not even think the Bible can be used to support or refute such a claim (it is clearly NOT a book on science and never claimed to be though some people would like to represent it as such).

I see Genesis 1 as a very general outline of events couched in terms and language to communicate these generalities to ancient people who never even heard of science. But what I see there is that after Genesis 1:1,2 (which is like a thesis statement) God reveals that He brought this about in stages by bringing different levels of order out of previous levels of less order and even chaos...in the beginning the primary events involved sound (and He said) and light (what we call dark radiation being a reflection of that original radiance).

He then out of the formless chaos formed the stars and planets and then He focuses on the earth...for which He first had the seas (who knows after how long...yom or day is used in multiple ways in Genesis and before an earth Sun relationship, days 1 through 3 could have measured time in any number of ways)...He then separates the land from the sea, and divides the firmament (creating the atmosphere and the oceans, etc.,) life begins in the sea...He makes certain creatures directly but then adds and let the seas bring forth creatures after its own kind (who knows specifically what that means) same with the earth...there are living things He creates directly and also says let the earth bring forth living creatures after its kind...He starts with plant life....moves to various creatures (beasts, birds, etc.,) and then finally makes man...it is implied the way I see it in chapter 2 that He made a second set of animals that could be friends with man (animals that could be domesticated) and so on...so I do not see here a refutation of "evolution", i.e., changing and development in process

Now again about the Ham guy (and yes I must have confused him with Hovind who I also know very little about except I heard this boast) you said...

"Ken Ham's intention when he emphasizes the "same data; different interpretations and conclusions" mantra"

I did not get that from Ham, that is my own conclusion having done much reading...for example, most evolutionary biologists rallied over Lucy as a genuine pre-human ancestor of man...she was deemed an upright bi-pedal ape....but in a very short time (within a couple of years) rebuttals galore began to surface (some of which were equally refuted other could not be avoided or re-interpreted) and not by creationists but by other biologists andf researchers in this field...her wrist bones, enlarged knuckles. the rib cage, and oversized teeth, and much more finally proved she was a knuckle walking, tree swinging ape and nothing more. This is just one such example where different, as you would consider legitimate, scientists saw two different things with the same evidence. In her case at least I think it is finally established but their are groups of evolutionary biologists who media push there original conclusion and write rebuttals to the rebuttals, and so on it goes...

Selem from the Olduvian gorge in Africa is a great example of poor interpretation based on the theory rather than the real data speaking the theory and since the Leaky's published their conclusions many have pointed this out...

So I have given you one very commonly known example (and implied a second) where different scientists (all legitimate according to what I believe your definition would accept, and not creationists) came to different conclusions based on the same evidence (physical analysis is pretty concrete but even mathematical and logical speculation on data can and often does see with eyes looking for a particular thing...thus interpretation of data can easily include a element of the subjective)

Paul
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Papias...it would take a book to respond to your post so I will not be doing a point by point response...

Again I never said Gentry was a geologist nor was he commenting on geology as his subject in the articles in Science and Nature I directed you to...he was a nuclear physicist reporting something that his field knows about and understand that he had observed in many cases (not all)...

Thus you will not find geological articles posited by Gentry in these journals and periodicals they were articles on things pertaining to his field from the study of radio-metric halos...

Also you likewise have shown nothing that asserts your claim that he was blackballed for bad science or faulty claims regarding geology...his court case records are available and the conclusion he was a creationist and they would have none of that is apparent (of course you will only find these on creationist websites because his opposition would never publish things so indicative of their prejudice against this philosophical perspective)

see Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490

Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 – 566

Radiohalos; some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios of unknown Alpha Radioactivity, Science, 1971, 173:727-731

Hope this has helped

So he was not a physicist trying to pretend to be a geologist...he was a physicist commenting on something in his field of expertise...and so yes I would definitely want a brain surgeon to perform my brain surgery.

Paul
 
Upvote 0

MrsLurking

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.
Mar 2, 2013
208
2
✟376.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I looked back and didn't see any matching citations. 3. Could you please repost the articles about geology by Gentry in Science and Nature? Or at least tell me what post # they were in? .....

.....It's a parody using real data, and hence proves a real point. 4. Can you show +some reference or reason why you think it is "not really accurate"?

I like my husband's summary of young earth creationist obsessions with Gentry's Polonium halos:

"For young earth creationists to obsess on Gentry's work is like someone denying the Civil War happened because the author of some antique-collector's newsletter posted a blog suggesting that the "genuine lead bullet from the Battle of Gettysburg" (which was sold at a flea market held in a small town Walmart parking lot) might have been a fake. "
--- Professor Tertitus on the Bible.and.Science.Forum (a Gmail newsletter)
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thanks Mrs Lurking I liked that! Just want to let you know I do not obsess with Gentry's PO Halos as evidence of special creation. I personally do not even believe the Bible teaches creation in six literal 24 hour days. Thanks...

Be careful though...you may be deemed guilty of quote mining...and "might have been" obviously to your husband does not equal "is" (a very good point).

Paul
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Paul wrote:
Papias...it would take a book to respond to your post so I will not be doing a point by point response...

Um, it would take a book to explain why you think I'm a YEC? I'm sure some of the points don't require a book (if any). In fact, you already answered #5, and #4 is just asking what, if anything, you find wrong in the data for Project Steve. (let's call that Q 6.)


Again I never said Gentry was a geologist nor was he commenting on geology as his subject in the articles in Science and Nature I directed you to...he was a nuclear physicist reporting something that his field knows about and understand that he had observed in many cases (not all)...

OK, to clarify (Q2)- Gentry's YEC point is that A. based on the GEOLOGY of his samples, they rocks should preserve only an old age B. some rocks contain Po haloes, indicating a young age.

Do you and I (and the real geologists) agree that Gentry is likely wrong on point A? Being that Gentry is not a geologist, do we agree that he shouldn't be talking on point A?

As for point B - it looks like we agree that Gentry is right on point B, that there is no dispute on point B, and that the Nature and Science articles only support point B, right? And that his creationist argument falls apart with out point A?

as you say:
Thus you will not find geological articles posited by Gentry in these journals and periodicals they were articles on things pertaining to his field from the study of radio-metric halos...


Right. Which is why I pointed out:

Also you likewise have shown nothing that asserts your claim that he was blackballed for bad science or faulty claims regarding geology.

You are the one who asserted first that he was blackballed for ideas other than faulty science. I'm still waiting for any evidence of that. Remember, I wrote:


These defenders wrote about how good a geologist he was? links please. If they wrote about what a good physicist he was, or good person, or good accountant, they are irrelevant. Otherwise, we are back to your accountant doing brain surgery.



So do we agree on question #1: do you seriously think it is a good idea to have your accountant do your brain surgery, on the basis that he's a competent accountant?

(on to #3)

3. Could you please repost the articles about geology by Gentry in Science and Nature? Or at least tell me what post # they were in?

In response, you wrote:

see Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological Cosmological Perspective, from the 63rd annual meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo, in, Nature, 1967, 213:437-490

Spectacle array of 210po halo radiocentres in biotites: a Nuclear Geophysical Enigma, Nature, 1974 252:564 – 566

Radiohalos; some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios of unknown Alpha Radioactivity, Science, 1971, 173:727-731


Paul

Thank you. I apologize for not seeing them before. It's great to have actual citations.

Without access to these, I can't see if they express his GEOLOGICAL argument (point A) or just his PHYSICAL one (point B). If they only express point B, then they don't satisfy Q3, which asked for the articles about GEOLOGY. Do yo know if there is a place we can read these - or did you already read them and can scan them in ? Or do we agree anyway - that his point A is wrong, so his overall young earth argument is wrong?

that only leaves:
4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it is "not really accurate"?


5. What examples (of "problematic fossils" ) do you really mean (with citations)?



Papias
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Um, it would take a book to explain why you think I'm a YEC?

Sorry! You called yourself a "Young Earth Creationist Professor" so I assume now that this meant either you are a professor, who not being a "Young Earth Creationist" teaches this subject though not your field of expertise (like if a physicist tried to teach geology). Or else you are a professor who from your field teaches against YEC. So what are you a professor of?

Yes, Gentry published no articles about geology but about radio-metric halo phenomenon and that they appear in rocks only speaks to where they were observed.

Sorry you can no longer access some of these on line but perhaps you can access a couple in the Nature or Science archived editions sections of their websites.

By the way, I think the general picture Gentry posited is not correct, and it even could be correct in some cases, but I defend his right to continue his research, adjusting his hypothesis according to revealed data and carrying on with that which was demonstrable.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1.So do we agree on question #1: do you seriously think it is a good idea to have your accountant do your brain surgery, on the basis that he's a competent accountant?

The answer is of course not…neither would I want a geologist telling a nuclear physicist the meaning, cause, and presence of, Radio-metric halos, though he is free to give his insight into the nature of the rocks they may have been found in, but as for the how and why he is a bit outside his field of expertise (your very argument not mine).

4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it (project steve) is "not really accurate"?

Definition of PARODY
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

In other words it is constructed with the intent to mock and trivialize…thus is subjective in nature.

5. What examples (of "problematic fossils" ) do you really mean (with citations)?


Again I gave you two examples and though different ones are given any number of reasons or excuses for why they appear in the geological column they do, and those explanations CAN mean some of these explanations but CAN be seen differently (which does not mean they are incorrect).

A layer that took 1,000s of years to form cannot adequately explain the presence of fully formed struggling fish fossils which only take a few days to rot. If the layer formation process quickly covered these creatures and then continued to form they would all be present in the lower levels of the layer which is often not the case. If the explanation for why they appear in different levels of the same layer is that they were brought in at different times during a continuous allocthonous process forming the one larger layer this speaks to their being there as a result of massive flooding. Again I am NOT a geologist and NOT a YEC but these types of observations and questions are legiitmate and for many have not been satisfactorily answered (YECs aside).

The Poly-strata fossils can often be explained (mostly from flood geology and I did not say Noah’s) but they are not “myth” as the need to explain them away is so obvious (as real phenomenon not as rebuttal against YECs)…there are many photos of the tree example I gave accessible online.

Point being regardless of the various and reasonable speculations on how or why this can occur, in many cases the overall age of the trees creates a problem for the alleged length of formation time assumed for the layers they cross over into. These same layers in other areas of the world without these fossils present would probably be interpreted differently.

And I did give some sources regarding their reality in response to the accusation they are a myth. I mean why even write about them and publish articles if they do not exist (and I only gave you two or three which does not mean there are not many more) ? Why have a need to explain each case of them if they are not there?

Paul
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MrsLurking

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.
Mar 2, 2013
208
2
✟376.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it (project steve) is "not really accurate"?

Definition of PARODY
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2: a feeble or ridiculous imitation

In other words it is constructed with the intent to mock and trivialize…thus is subjective in nature.

You went through the motions of defining PARODY and considering SATIRE but then ignored the facts about them. They are NOT necessarily "subjective" and they certainly do not preclude being TRUE!

The TRUTH of the Project Steve is that the VAST MAJORITY (over 99%) of professional biologists and the biology academy AFFIRMS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION such that the long-ago-debunked lists of "creation science" affirmers are trivial and irrelevant. THAT IS THE TRUTH. It is fact.
 
Upvote 0

MrsLurking

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.
Mar 2, 2013
208
2
✟376.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A layer that took 1,000s of years to form cannot adequately explain the presence of fully formed struggling fish fossils which only take a few days to rot. ...... Again I am NOT a geologist......

The Poly-strata fossils can often be explained (mostly from flood geology and I did not say Noah’s) but they are not “myth” as the need to explain them away is so obvious (as real phenomenon not as rebuttal against YECs)…there are many photos of the tree example I gave accessible online.

Correct, you are NOT a geologist and that is part of the reason why you don't understand that there are phenomena (widely published) which prevent the fish from "rotting" in a few days.

And polystrate fossils are myths promoted mostly by young earth creationists. Even the few ambiguous citations which get posted on creationist websites fail to expose any problems with the geologic column. If you have made a major discovery which defies the current understanding of the column, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and make your mark!
 
Upvote 0

hiscosmicgoldfish

Liberal Anglican
Mar 1, 2008
3,592
59
✟19,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I see Genesis 1 as a very general outline of events couched in terms and language to communicate these generalities to ancient people who never even heard of science.

that's what i think.

it's sumerian or al ubaid cosmology, it's the ancient world's understanding, which was false, but i suppose we have to accept that it would have taken a major divine intervention to explain to them what the universe is like in reality.
some people say that genesis 1 was spoken by god, but i doubt that a lot, as god wouldn't have said that which we know isn't true.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You went through the motions of defining PARODY and considering SATIRE but then ignored the facts about them. They are NOT necessarily "subjective" and they certainly do not preclude being TRUE!

The TRUTH of the Project Steve is that the VAST MAJORITY (over 99%) of professional biologists and the biology academy AFFIRMS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION such that the long-ago-debunked lists of "creation science" affirmers are trivial and irrelevant. THAT IS THE TRUTH. It is fact.

Well great because I believe in evolution also (just not the neo-Darwinian spin). As for science debunking creation theory it has never happened, and you know as well as I that it can never debunk it.

Science simply cannot deal with such a moment other than to invent theoretical possibilities (like the big bang, the singularity, quantum transversions within the multiverse, and other such fictional notions (though I love them all and find them very creative)...

So if "creation" is true, it would by necessity be outside of the ability of science to examine or explore since science can only deal with this universe with any probable exactitude and "creation" implies the moments of its coming into being...therefore it is outside the scope of "nature" which we can study, gain understanding of, and even discover with science.

Listen, whether you know it or not, most of the fathers of modern science were themselves creationists. But "creation science"? Hah! It's not possible.

However, scientific discoveries can imply the possibility (as much as any other) and many can contradict the concept of random coincidence...like the mystery of disulfide bonds in protein folding...there is no reason why they will only reunite with the exact same sulfides originally linked to and not any of the other possibilities in the unfolded chain being reformed. Unless we actually assume that sulfide molecules can actually think and choose or nature can intelligently select there is no scientifically discernible reason why they behave as they do. Such an occurrence (which absolutely happens every time you allow them to re-fold naturally can only be described objectively by "design". All other explanations fail in the crucible of intelligent reasoning.

In His name

Paul
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ChetSinger
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Correct, you are NOT a geologist and that is part of the reason why you don't understand that there are phenomena (widely published) which prevent the fish from "rotting" in a few days.

And polystrate fossils are myths promoted mostly by young earth creationists. Even the few ambiguous citations which get posted on creationist websites fail to expose any problems with the geologic column. If you have made a major discovery which defies the current understanding of the column, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and make your mark!

Wrong on both counts...!

I do understand the possible phenomenal explanations (which may be agreed upon but does not necessarily mean they are all correct) and have read many explanations for one instance or another of things that upset the applecart.

And no, they are present in the geological column...the controversy is in explaining them only. If young earth creationists (which I am not) attach explanations that border on possible myth (like creating the Universe in 6 literal 24 hour days with the appearance of age built in and other such conclusions) that's their problem not mine.

I stand by what I said and I do not have to be a geologist to declare the possibility that my understanding is just as plausible. Their explanations explain some of these perfectly reasonably, but others pose some mystery. That does not mean there is not a perfectly reasonable natural explanation (why wouldn't there be they are a naturally occurring phenomena).

For nearly 100 years it was a fact allegedly confirmed in the geological column and supported by Geologists as well as Paleontologists (in consensus) that the coelacanths went extinct 80,000,000 years ago (after thriving for 400,000,000 years) but now we know they are an alive and well species in various seas such as off the coast of Madagascar, Sulawesi, Mozambique, and Comoran. and most interesting is that now after 500,000,000 years (according to the gradualistic geological model) there has not been the slightest indication of change or transformation (they are exactly the same creature). This means they were incorrect and now have had to adopt a better explanation (they never went extinct, the situations or conditions under which they were previously fossilized simply have not occurred again, whatever those were).

So as one example, something like "agreement" by 99% regarding apparent extinction is basically meaningless. Nautilus appears all at once fully formed in the Cambrian yet here it is, exactly the same...crayfish are another great example of their being mistaken in their interpretation of what they found (not their discovery or their hard data). So by these and other examples I have given, I believe it is okay to question the "interpretations" of what geologists, or anyone else finds, though I trust their physical data pretty much (the dating thing however is still basically guess work within variable probabilities, though we are getting better and better as time goes on...thanks be to God because it is such an essential and useful tool).

Science has proven that the geological column does not display support for uniformitarianism previously agreed upon by the majority and more and more IMO and that of many scientists it demonstrates a lack of support for neo-Darwinian type gradualism we had pushed on us in school for generations (which still is more or less agreed upon).

So I guess we disagree. By the way, are you a geologist?

Paul
 
Upvote 0

MrsLurking

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.
Mar 2, 2013
208
2
✟376.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For nearly 100 years it was a fact allegedly confirmed in the geological column and supported by Geologists as well as Paleontologists (in consensus) that the coelacanths went extinct 80,000,000 years ago (after thriving for 400,000,000 years) but now we know they are an alive and well species in various seas such as off the coast of Madagascar, Sulawesi, Mozambique, and Comoran. and most interesting is that now after 500,000,000 years (according to the gradualistic geological model) there has not been the slightest indication of change or transformation (they are exactly the same creature). This means they were incorrect and now have had to adopt a better explanation (they never went extinct, the situations or conditions under which they were previously fossilized simply have not occurred again, whatever those were).

Glad to see you discredited your own argument.

The coelacanth is not a single species of fish. It is an entire taxonomic ORDER----a HUGE collection of related fish species!

The two modern species of coelacanth discovered in the Indian Ocean are VERY DIFFERENT from the long extinct coelacanth's found in the fossil record. What made them amazing was that scientists thought the ENTIRE ORDER was gone. But no. Evolution continued to work on the few surviving genetic lines. So the FOSSIL coelacanths are GONE. It is only a few DESCENDENTS which have very different genetics and structures which are living today.

This example wonderfully demonstrates your ignorance of the theory of evolution and its implication. You probably are one of those people who think that if a dinosaur colony was discovered somewhere in Africa, it would somehow topple the theory of evolution. Of course not! And if someone understands the ToE they would realize that it would be a fun discovery but it would say NOTHING that would deny the age of the earth or the evolution of dinosaurs. It would simply indicate that some genetic line(s) continued to survive in their environments and their changing environments. (And we would study them and find many differences between the modern dinosaurs and the ancient ones in the fossil record----just as we do with the order Coelacanth!)

And by the way, someone lied to you when they told you that "there has not been the slightest indication of change or transformation (they are exactly the same creature)." You probably got that from some creationist website. Zoologists have been very emphatic about the changes in the MODERN SPECIES (which have different names from the fossil species) precisely BECAUSE of the lies of various creationists, objectors who have NO STANDING in the relevant fields which study the coelecanth species!

Indeed, that is one of the reasons I left the YEC camp long ago: I got fed up with the lying and the dishonest quote-mining. I suggest you go to TalkOrigins.org and "shed" yourself of the countless lies you've picked up, such as that coelacanth story.

But thanks for making my job easier.
 
Upvote 0

MrsLurking

Retired Biblical scholar; Verysincere's wife.
Mar 2, 2013
208
2
✟376.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Science has proven that the geological column does not display support for uniformitarianism previously agreed upon by the majority and more and more IMO and that of many scientists it demonstrates a lack of support for neo-Darwinian type gradualism we had pushed on us in school for generations (which still is more or less agreed upon).

No. Somebody lies to you. Also, you need to learn the meaning of "uniformitarianism" and "gradualism" and dump the creationist cliches and straw-man versions.

Evolution continues at varied "paces" depending on whether or not there are major changes in the environment. If conditions remain stable ---including no major changes in competitors and food chains---there is limited change in the organisms. But if conditions change rapidly, evolution can bring about rapid changes. If you learn the basic mechanics, you will understand why. There is NO CONFLICT between "gradualism" and "rapid change" as well as "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" ----the latter of which were buzz words largely promulgated by my former colleagues Dr. Morris & Dr. Whitcomb of THE GENESIS FLOOD days (probably before your time.)

Cliches and untruths won't get you far in science.
 
Upvote 0

troodon

Be wise and be smart
Dec 16, 2002
1,698
58
40
University of Iowa
Visit site
✟24,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Science has proven that the geological column does not display support for uniformitarianism previously agreed upon by the majority
That will come as a great surprise to all of the geologists I know. Uniformitarianism is not an absolute, but it is a general guiding principle.

By the way, are you a geologist?l
I am! :wave:

but you said earlier in the thread that you were done talking to me :(
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Glad to see you discredited your own argument.

The coelacanth is not a single species of fish. It is an entire taxonomic ORDER----a HUGE collection of related fish species!

The two modern species of coelacanth discovered in the Indian Ocean are VERY DIFFERENT from the long extinct coelacanth's found in the fossil record. What made them amazing was that scientists thought the ENTIRE ORDER was gone. But no. Evolution continued to work on the few surviving genetic lines. So the FOSSIL coelacanths are GONE. It is only a few DESCENDENTS which have very different genetics and structures which are living today.

This example wonderfully demonstrates your ignorance of the theory of evolution and its implication. You probably are one of those people who think that if a dinosaur colony was discovered somewhere in Africa, it would somehow topple the theory of evolution. Of course not! And if someone understands the ToE they would realize that it would be a fun discovery but it would say NOTHING that would deny the age of the earth or the evolution of dinosaurs. It would simply indicate that some genetic line(s) continued to survive in their environments and their changing environments. (And we would study them and find many differences between the modern dinosaurs and the ancient ones in the fossil record----just as we do with the order Coelacanth!)

And by the way, someone lied to you when they told you that "there has not been the slightest indication of change or transformation (they are exactly the same creature)." You probably got that from some creationist website. Zoologists have been very emphatic about the changes in the MODERN SPECIES (which have different names from the fossil species) precisely BECAUSE of the lies of various creationists, objectors who have NO STANDING in the relevant fields which study the coelecanth species!

Indeed, that is one of the reasons I left the YEC camp long ago: I got fed up with the lying and the dishonest quote-mining. I suggest you go to TalkOrigins.org and "shed" yourself of the countless lies you've picked up, such as that coelacanth story.

But thanks for making my job easier.

Your welcome glad to be of help and yes I made a mistake not including the idea that there are many species but yet here we do have those thought to be extinct still alive as well (and I know there are reasons why such a judgment error such as there definite extinction can be implied when it is made only from evidence we have at the time...scholars have done the same thing repeatedly sadly believing in the Documentary Hypothesis as if it is a fact) and there being cases like living mollusks dated to be dead for 1,000s of years and other such mysteries, which cause people to question (and I say questioning is a good thing in science).

Creation science websites and mills like TalkOrigins do not impress me, and neither are these where I got my "story". It is quite convenient however when one cannot explain something adequately to say the conveyor of another view is a liar or deceived...

I love the way your side applies "guote-mining" as well...you never apply it to authors who support your side only to those who point out disagreements (even from non-creationists)...I gave SoM and recently VS, examples of "your side" scholars (one a world class geologist) who used quotations of others to support his point...but that was okay, right? Uh-huh! Of course. But when someone quotes people demonstrating they do not quite agree that's a no no! You see sadly I call that prejudice and bigotry and find such accusations should have no such place in open discussion between two intelligent people even if they disagree (and I am sure we agree on much more than the questions I impose imply) but I will not give up my right to reason and pose questions.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No. Somebody lies to you. Also, you need to learn the meaning of "uniformitarianism" and "gradualism" and dump the creationist cliches and straw-man versions.

Evolution continues at varied "paces" depending on whether or not there are major changes in the environment. If conditions remain stable ---including no major changes in competitors and food chains---there is limited change in the organisms. But if conditions change rapidly, evolution can bring about rapid changes. If you learn the basic mechanics, you will understand why. There is NO CONFLICT between "gradualism" and "rapid change" as well as "uniformitarianism" and "catastrophism" ----the latter of which were buzz words largely promulgated by my former colleagues Dr. Morris & Dr. Whitcomb of THE GENESIS FLOOD days (probably before your time.)

Cliches and untruths won't get you far in science.

No I don't, I understand the terms perfectly well and I believe evolution in the column supports sudden explosions as well as varied paces. And no, "catastrophe theory" is a legitimate scientifically possible explanation, and uniformitarianism and gradualism are not their "buzzwords"...you are not being honest here.

And by the way...you are slowly revealing yourself...you are not who you bill yourself as are you...I think we have spoken before...certain phrases and styles of argument seem to be specifically familiar. I could be incorrect on this but it is peculiar...it is as if one spirit speaks through two mouths. Sorry I have never read Morris and Whitcomb but maybe I should, maybe there is some truth buried therein if it merits such condemnation from your side (as I have been pointed to this book before but have previously ignored it). Hmmm?

Paul
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,027
620
✟86,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That will come as a great surprise to all of the geologists I know. Uniformitarianism is not an absolute, but it is a general guiding principle.

I am! :wave:

but you said earlier in the thread that you were done talking to me :(

First of all I was speaking to another earlier and secondly I did not ask you if you were a geologist I asked MrsLurking...sorry Troodon! But I am glad you are a geologist that's great. You really need to contribute more specific data (not just opinion regarding the data though that is also fine here...as it is a discussion) here so we all can be edified....

Paul
 
Upvote 0

troodon

Be wise and be smart
Dec 16, 2002
1,698
58
40
University of Iowa
Visit site
✟24,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You really need to contribute more specific data (not just opinion regarding the data though that is also fine here...as it is a discussion) here so we all can be edified....
I'd love to, the entire point of this thread was to give me enough information so that I could do precisely that. Unfortunately everyone's answer has been "we have no specific explanation for how or when these rock formations were formed". I can't present evidence and refute explanations that don't exist!

there being cases like living mollusks dated to be dead for 1,000s of years and other such mysteries
:)

I'll ask you the same thing I ask every creationist who brings this sort of thing up: have you ever noticed that these "craaaaaazy radiocarbon date" examples almost always involve marine organisms? Why are they testing mollusks and sea otters? Why not a cow or a cat? It's because they're part of a different carbon cycle than terrestrial organisms, and if you don't correct for that you're going to get older dates (because they're ingesting old carbon).
 
Upvote 0