Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

I don't think an "official" date was ever established.

What would be your best guess?

That's a pretty big undertaking, proving it or disproving it...

Yes it was, and a major disappointment to many of them, but they had no choice in the face of the evidence.

...even today. Marine fossils in strange places is pretty interesting though.

Not strange to geologists. Another interesting thing is that while there are a handful of Evangelical Protestant geologists who argue for the flood, there are no professional geologists, including Christian professional geologists--and by "professional geologist" I mean geologists who have to find oil and minerals in order to make a living--who use "Genesis Flood" geology in their work.

 

[pitabread]

Another interesting thing is that while there are a handful of Evangelical Protestant geologists who argue for the flood, there are no professional geologists, including Christian professional geologists--and by "professional geologist" I mean geologists who have to find oil and minerals in order to make a living--who use "Genesis Flood" geology in their work.

Indeed. It's especially interesting to read Glenn Morton's account of working as a professional geologist as a YEC and uncovering real-world data which blatantly contradicted the YEC viewpoint: Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

 

[inquiring mind]

What would be your best guess?

You know, this may come as a surprise to you (as far as what I believe), but I have no idea on the flood date. I'm not really committed to one notion of how everything came about; I'm mostly a "God did it and I don't know how or when from my reference point" guy myself. Beyond that I like to entertain all the different possibilities, ask and answer questions, just to see what others think and where it goes.

Yes it was, and a major disappointment to many of them, but they had no choice in the face of the evidence.

You're including the disprovers too, right?

Not strange to geologists. Another interesting thing is that while there are a handful of Evangelical Protestant geologists who argue for the flood, there are no professional geologists, including Christian professional geologists--and by "professional geologist" I mean geologists who have to find oil and minerals in order to make a living--who use "Genesis Flood" geology in their work.

I'm sure they don't; now days that would be like a commercial pilot reporting a UFO. They'd have to look for another line of work.

 

[Speedwell]

You know, this may come as a surprise to you (as far as what I believe), but I have no idea on the flood date. I'm not really committed to one notion of how everything came about; I'm mostly a "God did it and I don't know how or when from my reference point" guy myself. Beyond that I like to entertain all the different possibilities, ask and answer questions, just to see what others think and where it goes.

So am I.

You're including the disprovers too, right?

Especially the disprovers.

I'm sure they don't; now days that would be like a commercial pilot reporting a UFO. They'd have to look for another line of work.

No, it's because the creation model wouldn't help them find oil or mineral ores. It would be more like a commercial pilot refusing to have anything to do with airplanes.

 

[sfs]

No, it's because the creation model wouldn't help them find oil or mineral ores. It would be more like a commercial pilot refusing to have anything to do with airplanes.

A commercial pilot who claimed that heavy-than-air craft couldn't fly.

 

[pitabread]

A commercial pilot who claimed that heavy-than-air craft couldn't fly.

And then flying them anyway.

 

[xianghua]

You keep saying you can explain it, but you keep avoiding the actual explaining part.

So again, go would one get 4+ billion years worth of evolution in the matter of only 100 million years or less?

Simply saying "rapid evolution" isn't an explanation. I'm asking to specifically detail how such rapid evolution could result in the same output as 4 billion years in less than 100 million.

So far it seems like you haven't actually thought this through...

can you show me that according to evolution its not possible to evolve most creatures in 100my?

 

[pitabread]

can you show me that according to evolution its not possible to evolve most creatures in 100my?

That's not how burden of proof works. You made the claim, you need to explain how it is possible.

 

[tas8831]

magma chambers and heat changing decay rates where dating has been concerned

I didn't see that one, but I did come across this that seems to render that moot:

Do Nuclear Decay Rates Depend on Temperature?

, and epoch differences that skew backward looking projections.

Hmmm...

So, even if magma-level heat altered decay rates, it would not matter since the decay involved in radiometric dating occur after ejection from magma chambers.

Guess they didn't explain that?

What about the discussions of DNA and how it is too intricate and complex to have just happened on its own.

What about them? These are just games and arguments via incredulity. DNA is just a molecule. A large molecule. I did a sort of exercise with a math professor colleague of mine when the ENCODE papers first came out, about how they had found all of these transcription factor binding sites in places originally not thought to contain genes. I had my math colleague generate 4 'artificial chromosomes' in a computer program, each was 100 million 'bases' long. I then ran these through several programs designed to find known binding sites in DNA. The returns were amazing - MILLIONS of them. Point is - given that there are basically 4 bases, and that genomes are huge, by chance alone, there are millions of 'functional' sites.
Point to ponder.

I'm not picking at you, just curious is all. I understand that you may not want to be that specific if it generally goes against your belief, we're all like that, but I'd enjoy your input.

Well, what you mentioned did not go against my belief at all - just given the vague descriptions you mentioned, it looks more like the folks that put that video together were either purposefully deceptive or simply relied on creationist sources for their disinformation. I should hope such antics go against your beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

Just from a common sense perspective there would have to be a "first" caring parent, one that could help an infant survive. Here we are supposedly millions of years later and an infant can't survive on its own. That seems more like regression than evolution. I just can't see the first transitional phases to human-like form, which requires an infancy period, in a world that would have eliminated it pretty quickly.

Ok... Uh... Before there were modern humans, there were 'pre-humans' with names like Homo erectus, who likely cared for their infants much the same way we do.

Non-human Primates demonstrate all manner of infant care. Even non-primate mammals care for their young to some extent.

It is not as if offspring care arose from nothing with the first humans.

We are not all that special when it comes to basic survival traits and behaviors.

 

[tas8831]

you know what? lets focus in a single claim before we will go on. in such a way it will be easy to test any claim in more details. so lets start with the robot issue. if i will made a robot that made from organic components. you will consider it to be a robot or not in this case?

You must not be smart enough to make this robot or you would have done so by now. Isn't that your criterion? Or only for others?

 

[tas8831]

Good point, but maybe Noah was in an area far enough away from the major releases of energy, and the violent fast-moving water between him and the nearest eruptions dissipated the heat to a tolerable level.

Who am I?

Good point, but maybe Noah was in an area far enough away from the major releases of energy, and the violent fast-moving water between him and the nearest eruptions dissipated the heat to a tolerable level.

 

[xianghua]

There is a range at which a given species can survive, and having organisms experience the extremes of that range will result in that range shifting such that the conditions can be changed more, and so on and so forth. Inevitably, though, physiology MUST change in order to continue adapting.

first: its possible that the internal morphology of the rabbit is different, but you cant tell since we are talking about a fossil. secondly: what about 300 my rabbit? in this case it will not be a problem since it will have a similar modern environment?

Different radioactive dating methods rely on different isotopes, and contamination by every single isotope we use (or the daughter products of it) is so insanely improbable that no one would take such a claim seriously.

in the past: several different methods for checking the age of the earth gaves similar (wrong) result. so even if several different methods give a similar age it doesnt mean that its correct.

There are no entire identical genes shared by separate lineages

yes there are. here is one example with the alx3 gene:

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...hordate-evolution-After-the-two_fig2_51478159)

 

[xianghua]

I'll allow an exception for things constructed from dead and preserved organic components.

Will you not use machine terms for anything that still lives?

so if this object will have the ability to reproduce like aliving thing you will consider it to be awatch or not?:

 

[xianghua]

Those are articles about changes in the particulars of evolutionary theory... not in any way evidence that it didn't happen.

and arent these particulars a part of the evolution theory?

 

[xianghua]

So what does the paper actually say? "However, we find molecular divergence-age estimates (‘dates’) difficult to evaluate, and not only because many results differ strikingly from the fossil data. Molecular dates are extremely sensitive to placements of calibrating fossils at stem vs crown nodes (see Box 1) and to choices of methods and calibration scenarios." In other words, we can't tell whether a molecular clock (which isn't really a prediction of evolution anyway) is valid, since measurements are so filled with error.

if the molecular clock (means that the genetic different represent the evolutionery distance) isnt a part of the evolution theory, then we cant know which species is colser to who. by this logic its possible that a cat is closer to a dino than to a human. any phylogenetic tree should be meaningless.

This (a) hasn't been published, and hadn't even been presented in a conference yet, and (b) suggests that some genes use a more primitive version of an evolved genetic code, something that in no way conflicts with evolution.

tell this to prof dawkins:

Richard Dawkins: Universal DNA Code Is 'Knockdown' Evidence of Evolution

 

[xianghua]

That's not how burden of proof works. You made the claim, you need to explain how it is possible.

you also made a claim: that all creatures cant evolve in about 100-200 my. so can you show how to prove your point?

 

[xianghua]

Yet we observe evolution occurring.

so you have seen a dog changes into non dog? impressive.

 

[Jimmy D]

so you have seen a dog changes into non dog? impressive.

What?

I shouldn’t even dignify that with a response.

But no, I haven’t witnessed anything like that idiotic strawman you present.

 

[inquiring mind]

I didn't see that one, but I did come across this that seems to render that moot:

Do Nuclear Decay Rates Depend on Temperature?

Good article... it's hard to dispute the Curies, even a hundred years later. But even within this article you can see that someone is always thinking differently.

So, even if magma-level heat altered decay rates, it would not matter since the decay involved in radiometric dating occur after ejection from magma chambers.

Guess they didn't explain that?

They must have seen it differently.

What about them? These are just games and arguments via incredulity. DNA is just a molecule. A large molecule. I did a sort of exercise with a math professor colleague of mine when the ENCODE papers first came out, about how they had found all of these transcription factor binding sites in places originally not thought to contain genes. I had my math colleague generate 4 'artificial chromosomes' in a computer program, each was 100 million 'bases' long. I then ran these through several programs designed to find known binding sites in DNA. The returns were amazing - MILLIONS of them. Point is - given that there are basically 4 bases, and that genomes are huge, by chance alone, there are millions of 'functional' sites.
Point to ponder.

Certainly, and I agree on the games... both ways.

Well, what you mentioned did not go against my belief at all - just given the vague descriptions you mentioned, it looks more like the folks that put that video together were either purposefully deceptive or simply relied on creationist sources for their disinformation. I should hope such antics go against your beliefs.

They all had PhDs, so I listened... intently.