Gup20
First, I don't know if you have noticed yet, but I moved your offer to answer my information assertions to a new thread because the moderators seemed to indicate that they did not want the other thread to turn into a debate. It can be found here.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?
"
This is perhaps one of the biggest lies in evolution."
This is not a lie. As far as the past goes, are you telling me that it is not possible to make
any observations about a creature based on its fossil? It must be or else you have made a false statement. In fact we can make observations about a long dead creature from its fossil.
Form indicates function. From this we can learn a lot. For example, in the human ancestors certain features of the bones indicate whether the particular creature walked upright or not. From whale ancestors, we can test the ratios of oxygen isotopes to see which ones were aquatic and which ones were not. Certain features about bones can let you know whether a creature was warm-blooded or not. We can look at growth rates. The teeth will tell us what the creature ate. The amount of wear on the teeth may also indicate age. Studies of the front arms of theropod dinosaurs have shown that they used a certain motion when using those arms to grasp prey. Certain changes are recorded in the bones of these theropods that strengthened this motion. Later, some theropods adopted this very same motion as the powered upstroke in bird flight. So there are things we can observe about the past.
Of more concern for you would be the things we can learn about how the creature died from its fossil. There is a discipline, I think the name is something like taphony but that's not it, that is basically the study of the conditions under which a fossil formed beginning with its death. You have shown in the past that you appeal to the Ken Ham "millions of dead things buried by water" story to expalin the fossils and you accept the Baumgardner flood model and you accept the no predation before the Flood. There are implications.
First the flood model you support also says that the water over the continents flowed at hundreds of feet per second during the flood. This would have destroyed the delicate creatures rather than fossilize them.
Second, many fossils are found in conditions incompatible with being buried by a great flood. For a great example, look at all the bird and dinosaur fossils coming from China that are buried in volcanic ash. I suppose that in the middle of the Flood, with flood layers underneath, this whole ecosystem had not noticed that it was underwater and then got buried intact by ash which was then covered in more flood deposits. Sounds iffy. Other examples are just as incompatible even if they are more subtle. Many fossils are indded buried in water born sediment. But this can take many forms. For example, some fossils are found in very fine silt which can only settle out in extremely still water. This is not compatible with the flood model you endorse.
Finally, there is another aspect of the act of fossilization. Many fossils show evidence of the act of death itself. Many bones are found with actual bite marks or punctures or crushed bones from the predator that killed them. This goes against the no predation theory. Other fossils show evidence of scavenging. So I am expected to believe that while the flood was raging, some animals managed to hunt and kill other animals, dispite the lack of predation at the time, and even more amazingly, that some animals, after being killed by the flood, were then scavenged by other animals, again in violation of the no meat eating rules at the time.
We also have other means of making observations. For example I can take DNA from a whale, a dolphin, a hippo, a deer, and a pig and test them (along with some unrelated animals for control) genetically to see if the genetics agrees with the fossil record. In this case, it has been done and confirms the fossil record. And before you go running to your common designer (although, I must ask just why you would expect a whale to share DNA with a deer since you ususally assert that similar animals should have similar DNA) it was retroviral DNA inserts that were used. This is in the present.
Another example would be vestigals. Sticking with the whales, there are some pretty amazing vestiges to explain without evolution. Instead of going the normal route, such as the remains of legs, I am going to take a different route. The cetaceans contain scores of vestigal olfactory genes in their genome. They have all been rendered useless through mutation. Just why would a designer, if making one of the whale "kinds" (Whatever that may be. You AIG link suggested it should be at the taxomic level of "family" which puts humans in the same "kind" as chimps and bonobos and maybe gorillas. I cannot rememebr.) from scratch, would include genes for a sense of smell which the animal could never use. Common descent handles this well.
Do you have a recently created kinds reason that whales should have genetic vestiges of a sense of smell?
Since YEers roll all science they disagree with into evolution, let's take one more example. Astronomy. The universe is incredibly large and light has a finite speed. Therefore when we look out into space we are making direct observations of the past. And astronomy yields a billions of years history for the universe made possible by direct observation in the present.
"
In fact, no one was there at the beginning of creation. No one was there to observe it."
This has no bearing on evolution. As shown, we can make observation about how it happens and it happened.
"
Therefore, the uniformitarian worldview is invalid in determining pre-fall conditions."
Again, uniformitarianism is a geological concept that has no bearing on biology. Furthermore, you do not give us reason to believe that a physical process today would be expected to have a different result than a physical process in the past.
"
Here, the Bible compares the wearing out that happens to a garment with the biological systems in the earth - stating that they wax old wearing out, not evolving into something better."
You honestly believe that that verse was intended as a statement about the second law of thermodynamics. Really? REALLY??? After all you talk about how we should let the Bible speak for itself and should look for what was the intended meaning you want us to believe that a description of thermodynamics was the intent of this verse. You really will twist anyhting you can to fit your brand of exegesis won't you.
Now, looking above at the statements given of the second law of thermodynamics from a textbook on the subject, tell us what step in the evolution of man from its common ancestor with the other apes violoates the second law and how. Show your work!
"
Natual Selection is the only known possible mechanism for creating all the life on earth - according to evolution. However, natural selection is a blind killer - not a creator."
No there are others. Sexual selection for one. Mass extinctions for another. But, as shown above, life seems to fit better a design from tinkering rather than a recent, intelligent design. See the whale vestigal olfactory genes for an example.
"
Evolution is the equivalent to stating that a car evolved on it's own naturally without any human intervention or design."
Nope. A car shows a distinctly different set of optimizations and tradeoffs than what is seen in life.
"
You see... there was this giant magnetic explosion, and metal molecules started gathering together..."
As I have said before, you really need to either stop attempting to argue by analogy (which may be fallacious to begin with) or should at least come up with analogies that have a bearing on the topic.
BTW, looking forward to the information thread answer. You may want to address a few of the other threads in the Science section. They are looking awfully bare without any young earth answers. Of course I think that it is because young earthers have no logical, empirical answers.
