""Obviously" the point of Adam and Eve being created as "adults" shows "age" that is "needed" for the starting conditions to be successful."
And why are the starting conditions that I interpret as evidence of great age needed for the first life to be successful? The careful ratios of radioactive elements that show great age. Better yet, all the cosmic evidence for great age. How does making a pair of galaxies billions of light years away appear to have been colliding for hundreds of thousands of years help life here on earth?
"Rather - by the Creator's account time has passed and it has been at a somewhat uniform rate - aside from the flood. So going back 4500 years to the flood you would "expect" to see signs of steady state erosion."
Bob, it is not just that we have seen erosion. In your scenario, we would expect all of the volcanoes to show basically the same amount of erosion if most of the erosion were caused by the same event. We do not. We see differing amouns of erosion in a specific pattern. So the erosion must have been over time and not the result of a one time event. The data shows it. So you would need to compress 70 million years of mountain building and erosion into "4500 years" you said. Can you show anywhere today where either shield volcanoes can build at a sufficient rate (without boiling off the oceans trying to build over 100 of these things in a short period of time) to get volcanoes as big as we see (don't forget that most of them, even the 10000 footers, are underwater so they are HUGE) or to erode volcanic rock that quickly? You can't.
"What is "not apparent" is how you hope to "predict" or "account for" the rapid geologic changes that occur at the flood and shortly following it."
Fine, show us the physical evidence for the rapid changes and where enough heat came from rapidly enough to make that much rock and where that heat was then disippated to without violating rules of heat transfer and without boiling the oceans. Your assertion, your serve.
"Let's assume that we have a steady-state uniform progression extending back at the same rate that we see geologic processes occuring today"
You are free to give us evidence of rapid changes that you think save your position.
Again, you have basically denied evidence you do not like. You cannot show that any other scenario fits what we see better than the geologists interpretation.
"The "details" are that science today is forced to admit NON-uniformity in the expansion of the universe from the zero point."
And why do you think this is a problem?
"The "details" are that science is forced to admit that space ITSELF is spreading out like a curtain unfolding NOT having the energy dissipation wave form inversely proportional to the square of the distance as predicted in a classic explosion wave form from a "big bang"!"
Your whole premise is faulty. The BB is NOT an explosion. There is nothing for it to explode into. It is the expansion of space itself.
I don't know why I waste my time with the following, but here goes. Do you realize that it is thought that samall variations in the early universe are responsible for the large scale structure we see today? Scientists think that the very early universe vibrated with basically great sound waves. These waves would have created areas of compression and rarification that would be the differences in density that gave rise to later structure. Recently, we have been able to make high quality images of the CMB. You know what, the patterns show sound waves. Plotting the temperture deviation and angular frequency of the pattern and you get a large peak at the fundamental frequency of the young universe with smaller peaks at all of the overtones of this fundamental frequency. The sizes were predicted ahead of time due to inflation. The observations matched. Now, if you take the structure seen in the CMB and compare it to the the distribution of matter in the visible universe. When you plot it, you find that the distribution EXACTLY matches that shown in the CMB. This is extradinary proof of inflation. But I am sure you will deny this. "Creation science" does not have the ability to make such predictions that can be proven or disproven. As you show over and over, it refuses to tie itself down to anything so that you can claim that any set of data supports your assertions. But you are never quite able to actually demonstrate this. Your just happy to deny all the evidence around you.
"In the Creator's account (had you paid attention to the details of the text AS IF they were trustworthy)He states that He made TWO GREAT LIGHTS on day 4. "
Oh Bob. Still staying away from your literal reading. I believe the account forms earth on the third day, verse 9, and ade the stars on the fourth day, verse 14. So now that you are denying science and the Bible, what is your third way.
"I have never argued that the stars are the same age as the earth."
You said you had no problem if the stars were older when the literal reading shows that they were younger.
"In responding to your speculation that "SINCE God used DNA as the code for living organisms - THEN complex life forms evolved from simple ones" -"
I already showed you you have underestimated the detail of the evidence if this is what you think.
"A more "Speculative" position could hardly be imagined. Asked why the thumb is on the same side of the hand between Apes and humans "WHY because we all came from apes of course"??"
More speculative than ALL of the primate "kinds" got this exact same mutation and spread it through their entire populations? Hardly. And this evidence is not presented in a vacuum. It is presented along side all of the other genetic, physical, and fossil evidence that shows it to be true. If it were the ONLY piece of evidence, then you might be right. In context, it is a cog in a great wheel of evidence.
"And yet the Creator's CLEAR statement that God FORMED man in His own image"
You really think that means physical image? Then you really are missing the point in trying to maintain your literal interpretation and providing us with a demonstration of the problems with such. It is our soul that makes us in the image of God, not ten fingers and ten toes.
"Hello!! You have conveniently "Forgotten" the "modification with descent" argument that claims to "aggregate new genetic data into the DNA sequence" such that organism GAIN genetic information over time."
What part of modification is unclear? The DNA that codes for a wolf is no longer there. The DNA for a poodle has been selected for. Speaking more generally, when things evolve, it is not normally because some new piece of DNA has appeared alongside the old, it is because the old has been changed into something new. (I had to do that in general terms because the case of dogs is a little different. Here the certain traits in the natural variability within wolves have been selected for. The time frame is too short for much of it to have been from actual mutation, though some traits would be expected to be from mutation. As these traits get repeatedly selected for, the genes for the other traits are selected against and removed from the gene pool. The gene pool of poodles no longer contains the same diversity as that of wolves. It is one reason pure breeds more often have health problems. The variation is no longer there to get a wolf.)
"Are you reading this?
Are you paying attention to the points?"
Yes, now identify the fallacies I am using. Point out what I said, how it was a fallacy, and which fallacy it was. You accuse. You prove.
"Test case - go back to your Hawaiian island example and SHOW how rapid one-time geologic changes are "shown" by the story you tried to tell?"
I do not need it to tell the story. But if you want to get into it, there are catastrophes in the geologic record of Hawaii. Many large landslides for example. Geologists have no proble looking at the debris are concluding correctly that it was the result of a catestrophic landslide. They do not try to explain the debris in some long term, slow process as you imply.
"River delta sedimentation rates CHANGE as the river ages. NEW river formation would involve high impact turbidity currents massively impacting sedimentation rates of the delta AND YET all major river deltas of the earth - show a "start" point less than 6000 years old EVEN if we do NOT account for rapid deposition during start up as would be "expected"."
Bob, you have been repeatedly shown how your river delta problem is false. It gets boring after a while. BUt you need to show that river deltas from differently today than they did in the past if you want to use this as proof against uniformatarianism.
Bob, you managed to ignore all the evidence I presented. Congrats on that. I am still waiting for why primates and apes share all the things I suggested. That is a lot of one time events all tied together. Common descent predicts such things. Created "kinds" would be expected to predict the opposite, yet we find it. Explain again the vitamin C and the LTRs and the other shared mutations. Why don't you go after the whole twin nested heirarchy? Maybe because the facts support it?
And why are the starting conditions that I interpret as evidence of great age needed for the first life to be successful? The careful ratios of radioactive elements that show great age. Better yet, all the cosmic evidence for great age. How does making a pair of galaxies billions of light years away appear to have been colliding for hundreds of thousands of years help life here on earth?
"Rather - by the Creator's account time has passed and it has been at a somewhat uniform rate - aside from the flood. So going back 4500 years to the flood you would "expect" to see signs of steady state erosion."
Bob, it is not just that we have seen erosion. In your scenario, we would expect all of the volcanoes to show basically the same amount of erosion if most of the erosion were caused by the same event. We do not. We see differing amouns of erosion in a specific pattern. So the erosion must have been over time and not the result of a one time event. The data shows it. So you would need to compress 70 million years of mountain building and erosion into "4500 years" you said. Can you show anywhere today where either shield volcanoes can build at a sufficient rate (without boiling off the oceans trying to build over 100 of these things in a short period of time) to get volcanoes as big as we see (don't forget that most of them, even the 10000 footers, are underwater so they are HUGE) or to erode volcanic rock that quickly? You can't.
"What is "not apparent" is how you hope to "predict" or "account for" the rapid geologic changes that occur at the flood and shortly following it."
Fine, show us the physical evidence for the rapid changes and where enough heat came from rapidly enough to make that much rock and where that heat was then disippated to without violating rules of heat transfer and without boiling the oceans. Your assertion, your serve.
"Let's assume that we have a steady-state uniform progression extending back at the same rate that we see geologic processes occuring today"
You are free to give us evidence of rapid changes that you think save your position.
Again, you have basically denied evidence you do not like. You cannot show that any other scenario fits what we see better than the geologists interpretation.
"The "details" are that science today is forced to admit NON-uniformity in the expansion of the universe from the zero point."
And why do you think this is a problem?
"The "details" are that science is forced to admit that space ITSELF is spreading out like a curtain unfolding NOT having the energy dissipation wave form inversely proportional to the square of the distance as predicted in a classic explosion wave form from a "big bang"!"
Your whole premise is faulty. The BB is NOT an explosion. There is nothing for it to explode into. It is the expansion of space itself.
I don't know why I waste my time with the following, but here goes. Do you realize that it is thought that samall variations in the early universe are responsible for the large scale structure we see today? Scientists think that the very early universe vibrated with basically great sound waves. These waves would have created areas of compression and rarification that would be the differences in density that gave rise to later structure. Recently, we have been able to make high quality images of the CMB. You know what, the patterns show sound waves. Plotting the temperture deviation and angular frequency of the pattern and you get a large peak at the fundamental frequency of the young universe with smaller peaks at all of the overtones of this fundamental frequency. The sizes were predicted ahead of time due to inflation. The observations matched. Now, if you take the structure seen in the CMB and compare it to the the distribution of matter in the visible universe. When you plot it, you find that the distribution EXACTLY matches that shown in the CMB. This is extradinary proof of inflation. But I am sure you will deny this. "Creation science" does not have the ability to make such predictions that can be proven or disproven. As you show over and over, it refuses to tie itself down to anything so that you can claim that any set of data supports your assertions. But you are never quite able to actually demonstrate this. Your just happy to deny all the evidence around you.
"In the Creator's account (had you paid attention to the details of the text AS IF they were trustworthy)He states that He made TWO GREAT LIGHTS on day 4. "
Oh Bob. Still staying away from your literal reading. I believe the account forms earth on the third day, verse 9, and ade the stars on the fourth day, verse 14. So now that you are denying science and the Bible, what is your third way.
"I have never argued that the stars are the same age as the earth."
You said you had no problem if the stars were older when the literal reading shows that they were younger.
"In responding to your speculation that "SINCE God used DNA as the code for living organisms - THEN complex life forms evolved from simple ones" -"
I already showed you you have underestimated the detail of the evidence if this is what you think.
"A more "Speculative" position could hardly be imagined. Asked why the thumb is on the same side of the hand between Apes and humans "WHY because we all came from apes of course"??"
More speculative than ALL of the primate "kinds" got this exact same mutation and spread it through their entire populations? Hardly. And this evidence is not presented in a vacuum. It is presented along side all of the other genetic, physical, and fossil evidence that shows it to be true. If it were the ONLY piece of evidence, then you might be right. In context, it is a cog in a great wheel of evidence.
"And yet the Creator's CLEAR statement that God FORMED man in His own image"
You really think that means physical image? Then you really are missing the point in trying to maintain your literal interpretation and providing us with a demonstration of the problems with such. It is our soul that makes us in the image of God, not ten fingers and ten toes.
"Hello!! You have conveniently "Forgotten" the "modification with descent" argument that claims to "aggregate new genetic data into the DNA sequence" such that organism GAIN genetic information over time."
What part of modification is unclear? The DNA that codes for a wolf is no longer there. The DNA for a poodle has been selected for. Speaking more generally, when things evolve, it is not normally because some new piece of DNA has appeared alongside the old, it is because the old has been changed into something new. (I had to do that in general terms because the case of dogs is a little different. Here the certain traits in the natural variability within wolves have been selected for. The time frame is too short for much of it to have been from actual mutation, though some traits would be expected to be from mutation. As these traits get repeatedly selected for, the genes for the other traits are selected against and removed from the gene pool. The gene pool of poodles no longer contains the same diversity as that of wolves. It is one reason pure breeds more often have health problems. The variation is no longer there to get a wolf.)
"Are you reading this?
Are you paying attention to the points?"
Yes, now identify the fallacies I am using. Point out what I said, how it was a fallacy, and which fallacy it was. You accuse. You prove.
"Test case - go back to your Hawaiian island example and SHOW how rapid one-time geologic changes are "shown" by the story you tried to tell?"
I do not need it to tell the story. But if you want to get into it, there are catastrophes in the geologic record of Hawaii. Many large landslides for example. Geologists have no proble looking at the debris are concluding correctly that it was the result of a catestrophic landslide. They do not try to explain the debris in some long term, slow process as you imply.
"River delta sedimentation rates CHANGE as the river ages. NEW river formation would involve high impact turbidity currents massively impacting sedimentation rates of the delta AND YET all major river deltas of the earth - show a "start" point less than 6000 years old EVEN if we do NOT account for rapid deposition during start up as would be "expected"."
Bob, you have been repeatedly shown how your river delta problem is false. It gets boring after a while. BUt you need to show that river deltas from differently today than they did in the past if you want to use this as proof against uniformatarianism.
Bob, you managed to ignore all the evidence I presented. Congrats on that. I am still waiting for why primates and apes share all the things I suggested. That is a lot of one time events all tied together. Common descent predicts such things. Created "kinds" would be expected to predict the opposite, yet we find it. Explain again the vitamin C and the LTRs and the other shared mutations. Why don't you go after the whole twin nested heirarchy? Maybe because the facts support it?
