Religion of Evolution

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Fascinating! Probably an example of "data" that the doctrines and myths of evolutionism would not "tolerate" for long.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

I think I already covered that above. Did you read it?

If not, read the following for a more detailed reason why polystrate trees are not only not a problem for an old earth, but are in fact a problem for a young earth. Link Not only does this show how polystrate trees are formed, but young earthers then have the burden of explaining how you can get multiple layers all on top of one another of such trees all shown to have been grown in place.

I have to admit - I fail to see the problem this poses for the YEGF (i.e. Bible believing) group.

And by "YEGF - is Bible Believing" I just mean it in the way that Darwin stated it.

Basically "the concept" is that IF the polystrate tree trunk arrangement is "explained away" such that the layering does NOT represent ages of time (using whatever rationale you like) - then the SAME LAYERING without the trees - does the same. I don't see that the argument is even addressed in your link.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This is obfuscation and not actual debate. IF you can show that the "doctor" quotes "himself" as "an authority" or as the "source" of proof for any point made in the argument - THEN you would have a point that an appeal to HIMSELF is not valid because you object to his credentials.

So - show the statement that relies on the author's education as "its proof".

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Bob. He calls his website "Dr."Dino. Its right there in the domain name for his site.

Again - "show" the YEGF FACT that he is arguing - where he is using as his "PROOF", nothing more than his own claim to a PHD!" - you seem to be stalling here UTEOTW.

UTEOTW --
If I wanted to obfuscate I would have simply attacked the man.

err... ummm.. yeah! Exactly!

So - getting to the "salient point of the YEGF proofs" which "proof" did you find "based on a PHD degree RATHER than data, or a reference to accepted sources"?

Still waiting.

As for Patriot University - thanks for the info.

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 18, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[UTEOTW]

This is nothing more than standard geology. If you want to use this as proof for a young earth then you are going to have to show what is wrong with the interpretation of the geologic evidence AND give a better interpretation.

Let's go through this. You have evidence for a layer of peat that has collected over time. You have evidence of a forest of trees that are growing on top of this layer. You then have evidence that all this, trees and peat, were buried rapidly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this first one on how the stuff was buried. So all this begins to fossilize and otherwise turn to stone. First, the part of the trunk that eventually becomes your "polystrate" fossil in buried in layers of sediment. Any geologist would be able to tell you how these layers came to be. Now, as they turn to rock, these layers, especially the peat, are going to compress amking it look like there are even more layers around your tree. Again, any geologists should be able to see this in the field. Common sense should even tell you that as loose sediment compresses into rock that it will lose volume. But, again, I give you the benefit of the doubt on that first layer.

But not the subsequent layers. Where do these come from in your scenario? The process is again repeated. Slow accumulation of peat, a forest grows on top, everything buried in place. I think, this is from memory, that there are places with "polystrate trees" with maybe five or six different coal seams layered on top of one another with these trees in them. In addition, you have another problem in that the chemistry to turn dead plants into coal takes a long while. I think we would still have nothing but peat if they were buried recently.

Finally, if you cannot see that there is a problem with "Dr." Dino puting doctor in his domain name and calling himself doctor in public when he has a degree purchased from a diploma mill whose only accreditation is bought from an accreditation mill then I give up. You'll ignore anything inconvenient to you.

Anything more on the trnasitional subject on the other thread?

 

[DHK]

I went after the good "doctor" not to counter the argument but as a warning against the reliability of the source to any who may be reading this.

Bob. He calls his website "Dr."Dino. Its right there in the domain name for his site. And you are ignoring the same thing that DHK did. I countered the argument first. Only then did I show the source to be a problem in itself. If I wanted to obfuscate I would have simply attacked the man. But I first went after the argument itself. I went after the good "doctor" not to counter the argument but as a warning against the reliability of the source to any who may be reading this.

Your argument is quite frankly ridiculous. It doesn't matter to me where he got his doctorate. A person from a third world country man have a doctorate from one of their accredited universities, and yet in education only have an education equivalent to a B.A. to one of our universities over here. That really doesn't matter to me, nor should it matter to you. What does matter is a person's ability to apply himself in the field that he is studying.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not finish his education, yet went on and established a Bible College of his own and trained other preachers. He was the most renowned preacher of his day.

William Carey was only a cobbler. God called him to India, and he translated the Bible into over 20 different languages, a feat that most holding doctorates today cannot do. Carey was only a cobbler--sold out to God.

"I went after the good "doctor" not to counter the argument but as a warning against the reliability of the source to any who may be reading this."
Basically that is a red herring and has nothing to do with his research. This is you casting aspersions upon a man who has done his homework, and you are having trouble refuting him; therefore you attack the person, not the message. How anemic a ploy is this.
DHK

 

[UTEOTW]

Fine, then let's get back on topic. I think I have shown that he lacks the "ability to apply himself in the field that he is studying." Apparently claiming a doctorate from a mill doesn't matter to you and you haven't seen the other "Dr." Dino thread on the BB. Link

But you have still failed to address how geologic dating is circular. You failed to address why we do not find the different types of fossils mixed together in a way consistent with a young earth. You failed to define what you think a "kind" is. You failed to discuss how you think marine fossils get to the tops of mountain ranges and how to explain the geologic folding, faulting, and other characteristics that go along with it. You failed to answer whether we can learn anything about the life of an animal from its fossil. You failed to show where polystrate fossils support your position. You failed to give us the evidence that dinosaur and human fossils have been found together in the same geologic layer.

[ April 18, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
In addition, you have another problem in that the chemistry to turn dead plants into coal takes a long while. I think we would still have nothing but peat if they were buried recently.

Coal can be produced in a matter of months not years in the lab. So although there is a long timeline to making coal if done one way - there are also very short ones.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


But you have still failed to address how geologic dating is circular.

Notice the way they date fossils found in sand (sand has no "date") they use their own previous "Assumptions" about "other fossils" also found in nearby sand.

The layering that is "supposed to have occured" is never found anywhere. The depth predicted is over 100 miles ... never found.

You failed to address why we do not find the different types of fossils mixed together in a way consistent with a young earth.

Given the sorting actions of a global flood AND the sorting actions of turbidity currents - what do "you claim" YEGF "has to show"?

You failed to define what you think a "kind" is.

Huh? Evolutionism denies present data WITHIN a kind not just BETWEEN them.

Notice that breeding poodles until you get a wolf - is not possible.

You failed to discuss how you think marine fossils get to the tops of mountain ranges

Huh?? Global flood that covers mountains, fountains of the deep opening up - geological upheavals of the earth during the flood! Hello!

You failed to answer whether we can learn anything about the life of an animal from its fossil.

What are you talking about???

As Gould observes - a cochroach is a cochroach going back as far as you want in the fossil record. We see staysis.

But the religion of evolutionism must "deny the data" to the point of "eventing transitions" that take place at the MACRO level.

You failed to show where polystrate fossils support your position.

You are kidding right!??

Rapid deposition is NOT YEGF now??

The religion of evolutionism "needs" to deny the data in the fossil record.

It "needs" to deny its own contradiction to the Gospel IF it is done by a Christian evolutionist. If it is done by an atheist they actually proclaim the obvious contradictions between the humanist religion of evolutionism and Christianity.

This has already been shown with both Darwin and Hawkings.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Notice the way they date fossils found in sand (sand has no "date") they use their own previous "Assumptions" about "other fossils" also found in nearby sand."

If you have a specific objection to the use of index fossils please spell it out. What I have "noticed" is that the proper use of index fossils seems to be a very logical method based on what we find in the fossil record.

"The layering that is "supposed to have occured" is never found anywhere. The depth predicted is over 100 miles ... never found."

Where does any scientist say that the entire geologic column should be found in one place? Never. Where does any scientist predict a hundred mile column in a given location? Never. You are arguing against a strawman. In reality layers erode and layers subduct among other things. Where do you think the material for new layers comes from?

"Given the sorting actions of a global flood AND the sorting actions of turbidity currents - what do "you claim" YEGF "has to show"?"

I want you to show how we get the particular pattern that we see. Let me quote myself from another thread:

I can look out my window and see conifers and angiosperms and grasses. If I walk over into the woods I can find ferns growing among the other three. So they exist in the same ecology, at least here. Now, if we look into the fosil record, we see that there was a time when we only found ferns. Then ferns and conifers. Then ferns, conifers and angiosperms. Then, finally, all four. How did they get sorted this way consistently? Why do we not find creatures with similar habitats and abilities to flee together? Never any elephants with sauropods. Never any whales or dolphins with ichthyosaurs or plesiosaurs or mosasaurs. Why no graases with any dinosaurs? For that matter, no primates with any dinosaurs? Just how did this sorting take place again? It seems hard to get what we actually have this way.

Why are ammonites and nautilus not sorted together despite having extremely similar bodies? Why are the ammonites sorted in such a way that suggests evolution from simple to complex of their internal structures? How were they sorted that way? Why are brachiopods not all sorted into the same layer instead of being distributed throughout the fossil record as we actually find? Why did birds not end up in the same layers with the flying reptiles like Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus since they all had similar ability to escape? I really want to see those grasses and angiosperms running to high ground.

"Huh? Evolutionism denies present data WITHIN a kind not just BETWEEN them."

What in the world does that mean?!

And, what is a kind? Please.

"Notice that breeding poodles until you get a wolf - is not possible."

And why should it be? Strawman.

"Huh?? Global flood that covers mountains, fountains of the deep opening up - geological upheavals of the earth during the flood! Hello!"

Let me tell you a little story. Recently my wife and I took a trip up to Chattanooga. We did the cheesy tourist traps of Rock City and Ruby Falls just to kill a day. (Rock City is a high overlook on Lookout Mountain. The claim is that you can see seven states. Ruby Falls is a waterfall in a cave inside Lookout Mountain.) So here we are inside a cave looking around. I made the most of it. But I have to ask you some questions. Was all that limestone laid down in the flood? Or did the "upheavals" of the flood uplift the limestone? Or did the flood erode the limestone mountains? (I have read that the geology indicates that the Appalachians were once as high as the Himalayas!) Or did the flood dissolve the limestone to make the caves? Pick one! But then answer how the rest happened.

That seems easier then getting into a detailed discussion of the geology of uplift.

"What are you talking about???"

The absurd claim that there are no observations for an old earth or for evolution and therefore it is not real science. To show this, you would have to show that we can learn absolutely nothing from a fossil. Not even that it indicates that something was once alive. Otherwise you are admitting to observations.

"As Gould observes - a cochroach is a cochroach going back as far as you want in the fossil record. We see staysis."

Reference please.

So what. Things find a niche and if they can exploit it, they stay in it. Look around, most things do not remain in stasis. While we are talking about Gould, he also said "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, 1983, Norton, New York.

"You are kidding right!??

Rapid deposition is NOT YEGF now??"

Read what I actually said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the FIRST layer. But it is up to you to show how the multiple other layers could be stacked on top complete with all the evidence that the clay, the peat, the fossils and the trees all are in their original places. It has not been done.

"The religion of evolutionism "needs" to deny the data in the fossil record."

One, there is no "religion of evolutionism." That is like saying the religion of chemistyism or mathism. It is meaningless.

Second, I think we have seen that it is not me who is denying the data.

"If it is done by an atheist they actually proclaim the obvious contradictions between the humanist religion of evolutionism and Christianity.

This has already been shown with both Darwin and Hawkings."

Bob, you are the one arguing for the atheists. You can do the best job in the world of showing how you think that an old earth is incompatible with your interpretation of scripture (and you do a decent job) but without showing how all of the science that points to an old earth is wrong AND giving a better explanation of the data, you are doing nothing but helping the atheists convince people that they either should not join our religion or that they should turn from it.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
"The layering that is "supposed to have occured" is never found anywhere. The depth predicted is over 100 miles ... never found."

UTEOTW said --
Where does any scientist say that the entire geologic column should be found in one place? Never. Where does any scientist predict a hundred mile column in a given location? Never. You are arguing against a strawman. In reality layers erode and layers subduct among other things. Where do you think the material for new layers comes from?

Evolution has more bad science to offer in its many-storied efforts to deny the data.

As a start, let us examine more fully what Morris and Parker actually said about the geologic column:

‘The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ... almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages.

Fascinating - IF all things were stable the average depth due to nomral deposition is "expected to be" over 100 miles. 4 Billions years of sediment (or 3.5 billion - take your pick) - distributed across the entire planet.

So we "should see" hundreds of miles of it in some places and 10's of miles in others as things shift around.

But "low and behold" the article continues...

However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]).

gulp! Said the believer in evolutionism - "how in the world will I come up with a story to explain away THIS data too!".

And yet the many-storied efforts - to bolster the failed religion of evolutionism continue "in spite of the data".

So ignoring the "low average" evolutionism faithfully plods on with its own "methods"

The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities.’ [7] (Emphasis in original.)

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, according to Glen Morton, the entire geological column does exist in a few remaining places on the earth, one of them in North Dakota.

You can read the details here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

 

[BobRyan]

Is Glen a YEGF Bible believing Christian arguing that point OR is he an evolutionist claiming that point?

Notice that I have given a number of quotes showing where evolutionists make MY case for me.

Have you been able to give ONE quote where a YEGF source makes "yours"?

No?

hmm.

Now lets look at that North Dakota example of 100 miles of sediment "as predicted" by the evolutionary tales.

Here is Morton

"Now the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence. Even the walls of the Grand Canyon included only five of the twelve major systems (one, five, six and seven, with small portions here and there of the fourth system, the Devonian." (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 163)

They are saying that there is no place on earth where all twelve of the periods are found.

The North Dakota example is a good case of having less than 1% of the actual "predicted" 100 Mile geologic column sediment.


Here is an interesting - objective quote from a Bible believing YEGF site

There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective. It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions. Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Anyone who has swallowed the half-truths found at talk origins should consider giving the Word of God a fair hearing in terms of science by reading every bit of the TRUE ORIGINS web postings.

Feel free to go here - http://www.trueorigin.org/ and disabuse yourself of the myths, stories and half-truths of talkorigins.

And then you need not fear the Bible as it obivously uses distinctly YEGF terms to describe creation and the flood.

Even your own evolutionists see that you are compromised on this point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Paul has handled the one subject you cared to respond to. I believe you did a lot of quoting from someone arguing against a strawman. What about the rest? What is wrong with index fossils? Just how did "the sorting actions of a global flood AND the sorting actions of turbidity currents" give us the pattern we see in the fossil record? What is a "kind?" How specifically do you handle the geology of limestone deposit, uplift, erosion, and cave formation? Can we make observations about the past through the use of fossils (or telescopes or...)? How do you explain the in situ formation of many layers of coal on top of one another? Or the old question of explaining the needed time for the chemistry of coal to happen?***

____________
***This is much like the cooling granite that you will never give me a straight answer on. Different types of coal can be shown to be formed by being exposed to different temperatures for different lengths of time. YECers like to suppose that this can be handled by a short time at a higher temperature and pressure. But the real chemistry does not work that way. Different chemical changes happen at different temperatures and specific chemical characteristics can tell you that the coal never got above a certain temperature. I saw a nice graph on this the other day in regard to how the maximum temperature the coal achieved during its formation affects the mix of gasses in coal bed methane recovery. At work, we burn a lot of coal from an area that also recovers a lot of coal bed methane, the Powder River Basin. To remind you, in granite, the chemistry dictates what types of crystals form at different temperatures. By looking at the types and sizes of crystals in the granite you can estimate what the cooling curve is. You can also use heat transfer calculations to back it up. They tend to agree. Now rapid cooling does not form any crystals at all so we can check for the kind of rapid formation you would require and dismiss it both on the chemical evidence and the physical evidence of what cooling rates are actually possible in a given situation

 

[UTEOTW]

"The North Dakota example is a good case of having less than 1% of the actual "predicted" 100 Mile geologic column sediment."

Did you read the source given you. He listed all the llayers for you. Which 99% of expected layers were missing? You are just proving that Morris and Parker are arguing against a strawman and not reality.

"Feel free to go here - http://www.trueorigin.org/ and disabuse yourself of the myths, stories and half-truths of talkorigins."

I have spent A LOT of time at trueorigin. It is one of your better YEC websites but it is still not very factual once you get into it.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Now lets look at that North Dakota example of 100 miles of sediment "as predicted" by the evolutionary tales. . .

Bob

Oh, I see, you don't admit that sometimes the layers can be constructed thinly and therefore be complete.

A 100 mile mountain could never survive on this planet. It would be crushed by its own weight to become smaller, and that has in fact occurred over and over on our planet - its called plate tectonics, you know. But when the layers are not maximally fat - are laid down relatively thinly - they are able to survive. Glen Morton listed 26 places in the world this happened.

Evidence that vindicates the lifeworks of hundreds and thousands of geologists whose collective work has given us these results.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Anyone who has swallowed the half-truths found at talk origins should consider giving the Word of God a fair hearing in terms of science by reading every bit of the TRUE ORIGINS web postings.

Amen!!

 

[UTEOTW]

I have read quite a bit of it though not all. Anything specific at trueorigins that you are particularly fond of? If so, why don't you summarize it for us and give us a link to the original?

Maybe you can answer some of those unanswered questions a few posts up. Well I guess they have been unanswered for a couple of pages.

 

[Gina B]

bump

 

[The Galatian]

The first place I went on "True Origins", I found this jewel:

The problems are illustrated by Dr. Theobald’s use of the human coccyx (which he describes as “the four fused tail vertebrae of humans”) as an example of a vestigial structure. It has long been known that the coccyx serves as a point of attachment for ligaments and several important muscles. So why think the coccyx was not specially designed by a Creator to fulfill that function?

The coccyx has no function. There is a muscle attached to the coccyx, the extensor coccyx. However, it is attached to a fused and immovable vestigial bone, and no longer has any function.

Which brings up another major error. "Vestigial" does not mean "has no function." It means "no longer has it's original function." The coccyx happens to be both vestigial and functionless. People born without one (coccygeal agenesis) normally live their entire lives without realizing it. In fact, both the coccyx and a portion of the sacrum can be missing with no adverse effects.

Another example are the perfectly formed wings of certain beetles that no longer serve any purpose, since they are permanently sealed under fused elytra (wing covers).

It seems incredible that anyone with any understanding of biology could take a position as foolish as the one advocated by "True" Origins.

More to come...