Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Disprove Evolution.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#21 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:45 AM

Perhaps you should place a link to where you already posted to this. Actually I didn't see where they claim that the "Law of superposition" is wrong. What I recall is that they did demonstrate something concerning banks and layers. The claim was made that layers/banks do not represent ages. And that is something easily validated by two points:
* You do actually find fossils in the layers, which indicates rapid burial. 
* The sediment layers do consist of relatively homogeneous material. Something I wouldn't expect, if they were formed over "millions" of years.

But I don't want to derail the thread. What I just said may be more at home in the thread you are going to point out.

View Post


I made several posts over a period of weeks (if not months) and probably in a couple of threads. I would suggest searching on a keyword like "Berthault" or "superposition"...but with a change in the search function I think you can only pull up threads that cantain the keywordsthis way and not individual posts as could once be done. Scanman made a post about this months before I did, and it would be weeks again before I saw his post. I think most all were in conversation with AFJ. In one post I offered a very easy way to show that the experiment validates the principle that any individual can use.

Your points really do not address whether or not The Principle of Superposition is valid or not. This principle says nothing about how rapid sedimentation takes place. It could be on the order of minutes as in the experiment, or millions of years.

However, one point that I would make is that fossils do not always indicate rapid burial. Yes, that is commonly the case but their are exceptions. Also, the point about homogeneous material and the time needed for deposition is interesting, but hetereogeneous material can be deposited in the time frame of hours or days and homegeneous material is known to have been depositing in some modern environments for long periods of time, in some instances this has been witnessed over decades if not hundreds of years.

#22 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 April 2011 - 02:53 AM

...The video's goal was to comment upon evolution. My post was really to point out the very poor conclusions about geology that were drawn from geologic evidence. They dragged evolution into this. My comments would have been the same regardless of whether or not it was mentioned.

The evidence shown in the experiment does not go one way or the other in terms of the validity of evolution. No, I do not approach geology with this bias, but the makers of the video apparently are not concerned with whether or not the evidence shown on its own supports their YEC viewpoint and were forced to resort to distortions of valid science to smooth past this problem.

The content of the video touches on the question how layers (using the term boadly here) are formed. There would be different propositions.
a) layers form gradually over millions.
:lol: layers have formed rapidly over relative short periods of time.

The video showed a model that points to layers forming within relatively short periods of time.

Evolution relies on long periods of time ("millions of years"). Evolutionist think that this leaves enough space for new species to evolve and of course they can use it as a means to dodge testing their model, too.

Short periods of time would make this impossible, hence the implications for evolution from this part of geology.

...The claim to refute the Principle of Superposition is one of the worst examples of this that I have ever encountered.

View Post

Exactly where do they claim to refute the "Principle of Superposition" (or Law of Superposition, as you said previously)? What they've shown was concerned with embankments and there the lower sediments aren't necessarily older then the higher up ones. Do you disagree with this?

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:06 AM

You are the one that claimed to have responded to the issue at hand properly already.

I made several posts over a period of weeks (if not months) and probably in a ...Also, the point about homogeneous material and the time needed for deposition is interesting, but hetereogeneous material can be deposited in the time frame of hours or days and homegeneous material is known to have been depositing in some modern environments for long periods of time, in some instances this has been witnessed over decades if not hundreds of years.

View Post

That heterogeneous material could be deposited rapidly isn't in question. Homogeneous material could only be deposited in a layer of long periods, if it has got one homogenous source of material over a long period of time that supplies it with exactly that kind of material. Any additional different source of material would be a problem for this. Also point out where it is documented that layers are formed that way and if these layers are of the same character then sedimentary layers supposed to be millions of years old having formed over long periods of time.

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 03:55 AM

Yes, I am sure that what occured as chronicled by the writers of the flood that Noah encountered (and those of some other flood traditions) appeared to affect and essentially cover the world as they knew it.

View Post


Keeping in mind, that if God is who He says He is, the entire Earth was covered (as provided in the OT), thus rendering your limited and "a priori' (aka totally presupposed) opinion moot.

But, if you wish to continue believing in the religion of evolution, that's up to you.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 04:16 AM

This video gets posted quite frequently in this forum. I was not the first to comment upon the false claims made in it, but I as well wrote several posts last year about some of the baseless conclusions set forth, especially explaining why the experiment shown actually validates the principle or Law of Superposition instead of showing it to be wrong as is claimed. But this is not the only false claim made, and I commented upon others.

An informed viewer will be put on guard right from the very beginning. Right from the start a term not defined by geologists as given (“banks”) is used. These “banks” are explained in a photo with so-called “polystrate” tree fossils as if the stratigraphic units shown were deposited with clinoform depositional surfaces (shown in an overlay) when they were clearly deposited in horizontal units. The so called banks are separated by bedding surfaces that also are surfaces of essentially equivalent time. 

View Post

Geode,
You attempt to concern us with semantics and definitions. Why don't you try to falsify the actual principle of particle sorting in water currents, or that in places of stratafied rock, this principle is evident, rather than attempt to cloud the issue by accusations?

He also calls the "banks" facies, which "is a distinctive rock unit that forms under certain conditions of sedimentation, reflecting a particular process or environment." wiki That would be an applicable term, as the video concerns a particular process of sedimentation in the rock units.

A "cut bank" on a river is cut by water, and forms an outcrop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_bank If the outcrop with the polystrate trees was cut by water, why would it not be a "bank." Either way, it seems you like to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the “banks” have taken millions of years to deposit.  What is really true is that years before the video was produced geologists studying this stratigraphic section in which the fossil trees were found published findings and concluded that “catastrophic sedimentation events with high rates of deposition” were involved in the burial of the tree trucks.

View Post

The truth is Geode, you are strawmanning. You say "right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the 'banks' have taken millions of years to deposit." Then you talk about polystrate fossils which were not at the beginning. I just watched the first half of the video, and nothing at all was mentioned about polystrate fossils.

Whether or not geologists have concluded that polystrate fossils were covered in short periods of time is irrelevant. The belief is that the sedimentary record took millions of years. It is that belief the video is attempting to falsify, not one particular facies.

If feet and feet of sedimentation can take place before bacteria can disentegrate the wood, then we have evidence that it is possible that stratification can take place rapidly. Secular geologists want to make exception only where they have to, so they can deny the Biblical record of the flood.

If polystrate fossils can go through coal and other stratified rock, and show that rapid forming of strata is possible, then it is possible that the entire record can form rapidly. If the strata and 100 foot canyon at Saint Helens can form in less than a day, then ikt is theoretically possible, given a big enough catastrophe that the Grand Canyon could form by the same means.



Early on the video shows an outcrop limestone, shale and sandstone which the makers would have us believe was deposited in the same way as shown in the flume experiment even though it clearly is not progradational and is made up of a mixture of grains with different specific gravities and in the case of the limestone is not even deposited as clastic particles at all.

What do mean by this statement? First, there are different mixtures in limestone, you know that. There are sand size particles, and larger shelled organisms found in some limestone. And even if it is pure lime mud, made of microscopic organisms, are you saying this can't be deposited rapidly? The fact that limestone laggerstattes have some of the best preserved fossils argues for rapid transport and deposition of lime mud. If it can happen in one area, rapid depostion in any area can not be ruled out--even though it is done by assumptive default.

Again you attempt to divert attention from the obvious fact that even soft bodied preservation has taken place in a limestone matrix, by stating that limestone was "not even deposited as clastic particles." What difference does this make in the speed and manner of deposition?

#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 April 2011 - 06:19 AM

My position is just fine in terms of my concept of what is written in the Bible, whcih really says nothing about the subject of geology.


So, Moses statement 'all the fountains of the great deep were broken up' has no geological significance to you? So you cannot grasp that a world-wide series of earthquakes, volcanoes, and/or tsunamis changed the faceof the earth? I get you. Lyell and Darwins words mean more to you than what God inspired. It is not a matter of 'interpretation', geode. It comes down to whether one believes God's Words or doesn't believe them........because the evolutionary view is not found in scripture to begin with (either the theistic view or the atheistic view).

You are right, a literal interpretation of Bible verses that is shown to be impossible is not good enough for me. I will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened...


But the truth is you are ignoring scientific facts. The obvious fact of the flood began to be brought out clearly by Henry Morris a generation ago and continues through exposes like the video clip being discussed. That evidence has always been there; you're sitting on it. But those of your persuasion deliberately assign a uniformitarian understanding to it all...without justification.

#27 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 28 April 2011 - 06:56 AM

You are right, a literal interpretation of Bible verses that is shown to be impossible is not good enough for me. I will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened, and that has nothing to do with the important aspects of my faith in Christ and His teachings. God gave us a brain to use, and to seek the truth is His creation, not to hide our heads in the sand.

View Post


Hi Geode,

I am going to as politely as I can ask you to take your "head out of the sand".

I can admire your love for science, but I don't believe you really undestand it. You say that you "will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened, and that has nothing to do with the important aspects of [your] faith in Christ and His teachings." Yet your head is in the sand, because there are no such things as scientific facts! Facts are facts. period. A dino fossil is a dino fossil. That's it. The age of that dino fossil is not a fact. It is an interpretation of a fact. So is a large portion of information regarding that dino fossil.

So you and I are looking at the same rocks and fossils. It is your interpretation of those that leads you to believe that a flood interpretation couldn't have happened. So you are causing a category error when you say that scientific facts are something more reliable than someones interpretation of the scripture. They are both interpretations of facts.

#28 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 April 2011 - 07:37 AM

...Geode, you are strawmanning.  You say "right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the 'banks' have taken millions of years to deposit."  Then you talk about polystrate fossils which were not at the beginning.  I just watched the first half of the video, and nothing at all was mentioned about polystrate fossils.
...

View Post

The speaker talks about fossilized trees that go through multiple coal seams. I guess that qualifies as polystrate fossil.

This clearly points against the claim that these layers and coal seams were formed over "millions of years".
Posted Image

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:21 AM

Okay, let's get back on track.

1) How do living fossils disprove evolution?
2) How do living fossils support evolution?
3) Should not the fossil record have recorded fossils living up to this point instead of a gap between where they are found in the layers, and present time?

#30 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:32 PM

Okay, let's get back on track.

1) How do living fossils disprove evolution?
2) How do living fossils support evolution?
3) Should not the fossil record have recorded fossils living up to this point instead of a gap between where they are found in the layers, and present time?

View Post

Can we be specific? http://www.answersin...ossil-chart.pdf

Let's take the 'first' living fossil--blue green algae--cyanobacteria. It is found in the "oldest" layers many times in the form of stromatolites, yet it is found today in the same form. It is considered to be up to 3.5 billion years old (proterozoic), and is supposedly responsible for birthing our current oxygen atmosphere. So it would seem to be one of the "first" actually existing organisms (as opposed to RNA world creatures) in the evolution model.

I do not see cyanobacteria lending any support at all to evolution. There is no way to show from the rocks (without a biased chart) where divergence took place. How would speciation take place? What separated them and caused a separate population to deviate into multicellular organisms. From the fossil record, we go from bacteria to the Cambrian, complete with vertebrate fish, and multi-organed trillobites.

So how does one go about showing the step by step processes that supposedly took place to move separately (without mixing into the original population) into more and more complexity, if one does not see a step by step process in the rocks. It is only found in the minds of acedemia.

#31 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 02:18 AM

The content of the video touches on the question how layers (using the term boadly here) are formed. There would be different propositions.
a) layers form gradually over millions.
:) layers have formed rapidly over relative short periods of time.

The video showed a model that points to layers forming within relatively short periods of time.

Evolution relies on long periods of time ("millions of years"). Evolutionist think that this leaves enough space for new species to evolve and of course they can use it as a means to dodge testing their model, too.

Short periods of time would make this impossible, hence the implications for evolution from this part of geology.

Exactly where do they claim to refute the "Principle of Superposition" (or Law of Superposition, as you said previously)? What they've shown was concerned with embankments and there the lower sediments aren't necessarily older then the higher up ones. Do you disagree with this?

View Post


The matter of time involved in sedimentation, long or short, is not really a topic that the video addresses. The geology involved was not discussed in terms of absolute time. The only aspect touched upon was using fossils to date rocks and how this was not possible...due to the series of false assumptions I outlined in my earlier post.

If I remember correctly the video uses several minutes setting up the claim that the "Principle of Superposition" has been invalidated. That was the main conclusion that they attempted to make showing the experiment. There was a discussion of Walther's Law and the work of Steno leading up to this. You should watch it again, because what you claim they showed about "embankments" not being necessarily older than "higher up" ones was the failed attack of the Principle of Superposition. This principle was not applied properly. It is not a matter of just "higher" and it is not proper to measure wat is "higher" and "lower" with a lateral distance between the measurement points as was done to claim the principle did not hold. This was changing the basis the principle is founded upon.

#32 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 02:44 AM

You are the one that claimed to have responded to the issue at hand properly already.

That heterogeneous material could be deposited rapidly isn't in question. Homogeneous material could only be deposited in a layer of long periods, if it has got one homogenous source of material over a long period of time that supplies it with exactly that kind of material. Any additional different source of material would be a problem for this. Also point out where it is documented that layers are formed that way and if these layers are of the same character then sedimentary layers supposed to be millions of years old having formed over long periods of time.

View Post


I did respond at length to the video last year. I also responded in this thread at much greater length than I have seen anyone else do in this thread so far, and have supplied citations as well as an explanation for an experienced stratigrapher posted uniquely, just for this board.

Homogeneous material can be deposited in short periods of time if the supply to the system is limited to homogeneous sediment. Such a case is found in eolian systems where the sediment supply has been well sorted already before transport in migrating dunes that can deposit sand very quickly and in relatively sizable thicknesses. You can easily find pictures of building covered by sand deposited in this manner.

Once again, this was not an issue raised in the video and is really off topic in terms of what the video shows. They conveniently ignore the grain size issue. There are very well documented sequences of varves and marine limstones and shales that were deposited relatively slowly. The evidence that allows this conclusion to be reached is not only in direct observations in basisn, but by using fossils in cores through sediments in depositional basins as well as in outcrops and using electric logs. But there are also other independent means to use in a determination of the time it took a stratigraphic sequence to be deposited, such as using material that is temperature dependent. In subsiding basins this allows an indication of the timing in a process called "basin analysis"....

The fossils can be used to evaluate such rock sequences because of the Law of Faunal Succession, which has been well established as being correct. But since this runs against the death of all, or most all life in an universal worldwide flooding event one must have the openness of mind to look at the evidence in support of faunal succession and not simply reject it out of hand to accept what I am posting here.

#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:20 AM

While I would like to investigate the matter with you more thoroughly, Ikester has a point with staying on topic. That was also why I asked about the other threads where you claimed to have responded to it.

#34 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:28 AM

Geode,
You attempt to concern us with semantics and definitions.  Why don't you try to falsify the actual principle of particle sorting in water currents, or that in places of stratafied rock, this principle is evident, rather than attempt to cloud the issue by accusations?


There is nothing for me to falsify in terms of real sedimentation evidence. It is the conclusions that are falsely made that I object to, and have commented upon. The video claims one form of sedimentation in the formation of rocks. I have already falsified that conclusion by showing a braided stream example. I am not engaging in the semantic games that the viodeo does.

He also calls the "banks" facies, which "is a distinctive rock unit that forms under certain conditions of sedimentation, reflecting a particular process or environment." wiki  That would be an applicable term, as the video concerns a particular process of sedimentation in the rock units.


Then call them the term geologists use for such a unit, which is facies. But where is this term used in the video? I haven't watched most of it recently.

A "cut bank" on a river is cut by water, and forms an outcrop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_bank   If the outcrop with the polystrate trees was cut by water, why would it not be a "bank."  Either way, it seems you like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 


I was very careful months ago when I discussed the term "banks" in a reply I think was made to you. I did not say that it was not a term used by geologists in any application. You have found one of the the proper uses of the term in sedimentology. I work with sorting out features of river deposits almost every week. To apply it to facies is wrong. A cut bank may contain multiple facies. If a river eroded into rocks containing "erect fossil tree trunks" the rocks in which they are contained would be in a cut bank. The cut bank in question is an erosional term and not a depositional one as misused in the video.

No, I stick to proper terminology. I threw nothing usuable or worth having out with the bathwater. I just pointed out a strawman argument.

The truth is Geode, you are strawmanning.  You say "right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the 'banks' have taken millions of years to deposit."  Then you talk about polystrate fossils which were not at the beginning.  I just watched the first half of the video, and nothing at all was mentioned about polystrate fossils. 


The discussion of "fossilized trees" is in the very first thing covered in the video after the main title. Watch it again and you will find the presenter launches into this subject starting at 20 seconds into the video. Or is the place at 20 seconds not close enough to say "right at the beginning"...?

Whether or not geologists have concluded that polystrate fossils were covered in short periods of time is irrelevant.  The belief is that the sedimentary record took millions of years. It is that belief the video is attempting to falsify, not one particular facies. 


It is relevent because the presenter attempts to discredit geologists using this false claim. It backfires. for it shows either a lack of scholarship and knowledge of what was being published or it an example of dishonesty in making an argument, a strawman. I think the later is the most likely case. I suspect Dr. Betrhault wrote most of this and he should know better.

If feet and feet of sedimentation can take place before bacteria can disentegrate the wood, then we have evidence that it is possible that stratification can take place rapidly.  Secular geologists want to make exception only where they have to, so they can deny the Biblical record of the flood.


Some of the trees showed evidence of adapting to the sedimentation in their roots structures. But I commented on the fallaceousness of this decay assumption last year on this board. I said that anybody can go to a forest and see for themselves why this reasoning is false. I have seen logs lying on forst floor that are intach andmany years old.

Most geologists could not care less about the Biblical record of the flood in terms of geology and do not have this in mind when doing their work. We know that rapid sedimenation is often taking place for we see sediments forming rapidly in modern depositional analogues. That is how uniforimtarianism is really applied. not in the strawman construct YECs attempt tpo apply to us.

If polystrate fossils can go through coal and other stratified rock, and show that rapid forming of strata is possible, then it is possible that the entire record can form rapidly.  If the strata and 100 foot canyon at Saint Helens can form in less than a day, then ikt is theoretically possible, given a big enough catastrophe that the Grand Canyon could form by the same means.


The coals formed around them. They do not penetrate strata. It is of course possible that "an entire record" forms rapidly. It is theoretically possible that hundreds of feet of sediment can form rather rapidly. The Grand Canyon did not do so for the analysis of the rocks shows many units with unique fossil content. Independent dating of these shows that vast periods of time were involved in the deposition, and vast period of time are represented by unconformities.

"Early on the video shows an outcrop limestone, shale and sandstone which the makers would have us believe was deposited in the same way as shown in the flume experiment even though it clearly is not progradational and is made up of a mixture of grains with different specific gravities and in the case of the limestone is not even deposited as clastic particles at all."

What do mean by this statement?  First, there are different mixtures in limestone, you know that. There are sand size particles, and larger shelled organisms found in some limestone.  And even if it is pure lime mud, made of microscopic organisms, are you saying this can't be deposited rapidly?  The fact that limestone laggerstattes have some of the best preserved fossils argues for rapid transport and deposition of lime mud. If it can happen in one area, rapid depostion in any area can not be ruled out--even though it is done by assumptive default.


You are just making my case that there are different mixtures in rocks. The video wants us to believe that all sedimentary rocks are deposited "sideways" s in a progradation deltaic setting. The rocks shown in the picture are not of the very limited type used in the experiment. the results you see are because of that very limited set of sediment size and density as Dr. Julian explains.

Some limstones show relatively little difference in grain size. The fact that there are sometimes sand sized particles is true, I saw some in my thesis area. But you seem to just have missed my point.

Preservation of fossils does not always mean rapid transport, in fact it often indicates just the opposite. You do not need rapid deposition either. Some of the great preservation in laggerstattes is thought to be due to anoxic conditions.

Again you attempt to divert attention from the obvious fact that even soft bodied preservation has taken place in a limestone matrix, by stating that limestone was "not even deposited as clastic particles."  What difference does this make in the speed and manner of deposition?


The fact that limestones are usually chemically deposited means that they are not similar to the sediments used in the experiment, and that the experiment shows a form of deposition that would not be active in the formation of limestones except in very rare instances. The video attempts to imply that limestones are deposited in the same way as delta sands and clays.

#35 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:53 AM

The speaker talks about fossilized trees that go through multiple coal seams. I guess that qualifies as polystrate fossil.

This clearly points against the claim that these layers and coal seams were formed over "millions of years".
Posted Image

View Post


Perhaps a pang of conscience overcame the writer, since "polystrate" is a term only used by YECs and an attempt was being made to convert non-YECs.

The problem is that such a claim was not being made as I pointed out, even supplying the relevent citations from the workers doing the most recent work in the area before the video was made. I very carefully quoted them on the subject about rapid sedimentation. That is why it is a strawman argument to claim that non-YECs are making a claim of millions of years.

#36 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:59 AM

Keeping in mind, that if God is who He says He is, the entire Earth was covered (as provided in the OT), thus rendering your limited and "a priori' (aka totally presupposed) opinion moot.

But, if you wish to continue believing in the religion of evolution, that's up to you.

View Post


My opinion is just fine in terms of my beliefs. I do not believe that God dictated every word of the Bible and even if He had done so, His interpretation of a handful of words that YECs strain over may have been different than what lietralists think. Their version is shown to be wrong by mountains (liertal and otherwise) of geologic evidence.

I am a Christian and acceptance of evolution is not a religion to me. I do not even post on evolution very often. In this thread I was posting mostly about geology, which is what the video claims to be about. They wrongly dragged evolution into it at the end.

#37 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:02 AM

While I would like to investigate the matter with you more thoroughly, Ikester has a point with staying on topic. That was also why I asked about the other threads where you claimed to have responded to it.

View Post


So search on "superposition".and when you "seek" you will "find".......I am surprised that AFJ has remained silent on the subject of those past posts existing as he posted several replies to me last year.

But I was not the one who posted the video in this thread that gained, multiple replies. I also was directly challenged to comment upon the video in this thread which I did once again. Unfortunately the main points I have made in objection to the content have largely gone unaddressed as others went off on tangents.

#38 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:08 AM

This raises the question as to whether the author of Genesis wrote his account "as he knew it" or "as God knew it". I understand that the human perspective would, to some degree, influence how the scriptures were written, but on the other hand we can't presume that the writer was simply recording what he had "scientifically observed".

For example, there is no way the author could have observed creation, detailed how deep the flood waters would have covered the mountains, given any mention of its geographical extent, or recorded any of the events that occured during the flood (unless he was one of the eight on the ark).

Either we believe that this information was given through divine inspiration, or we don't.

Sure we can use our brains, just as we can use our hands or our feet. They are simply tools, and as tools they have boundaries in which they can serve us. Unless God gave us the same ability as the author of Genesis, to understand and have faith in things that we haven't "observed", then I would be inclined to do the very thing that you are doing - putting my brain on the highest possible pedistal imaginable and declaring it to be a "lamp for my feet and a light on my path".

But I do believe God has given us that ability. If that weren't the case I would never have become a Christian in the first place.

View Post


So one of the original eight did not leave a record behind? I think it is possible.

#39 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:15 AM

So, Moses statement 'all the fountains of the great deep were broken up' has no geological significance to you? So you cannot grasp that a world-wide series of earthquakes, volcanoes, and/or tsunamis changed the faceof the earth? I get you. Lyell and Darwins words mean more to you than what God inspired. It is not a matter of 'interpretation', geode. It comes down to whether one believes God's Words or doesn't believe them........because the evolutionary view is not found in scripture to begin with (either the theistic view or the atheistic view).
But the truth is you are ignoring scientific facts. The obvious fact of the flood began to be brought out clearly by Henry Morris a generation ago and continues through exposes like the video clip being discussed. That evidence has always been there; you're sitting on it. But those of your persuasion deliberately assign a uniformitarian understanding to it all...without justification.

View Post


In a sense you are correct, "the great fountains of the deep" is such a vague term I don't know what it means, and I have posted this before. I see it used as a "fudge factor" by YECs to fill in any gap their current idea lacks in terms of flood geology. I have seen widely varying explanations from creationists.

Do I believe that every word in Genesis describes a real geologic event? No, I do not. Henry Morris did very poor geology in what I have encountered in some of his musings. Like him, it is your belief that hinders you from seeing the truth in the stratigraphic record, not mine. You are the one ignoring scientific facts.

#40 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:33 AM

Hi Geode,

I am going to as politely as I can ask you to take your "head out of the sand".

I can admire your love for science, but I don't believe you really undestand it.  You say that you "will not willfully ignore scientific facts to allow for a interpretation of the Bible that could not have happened, and that has nothing to do with the important aspects of [your] faith in Christ and His teachings."  Yet your head is in the sand, because there are no such things as scientific facts!  Facts are facts. period.  A dino fossil is a dino fossil.  That's it.  The age of that dino fossil is not a fact.  It is an interpretation of a fact.  So is a large portion of information regarding that dino fossil.

So you and I are looking at the same rocks and fossils.  It is your interpretation of those that leads you to believe that a flood interpretation couldn't have happened.  So you are causing a category error when you say that scientific facts are something more reliable than someones interpretation of the scripture.  They are both interpretations of facts.

View Post


My head is already way out of the sand. By your own definition there are facts found in the pursuit of science. The difference is that my interpretation of geology has respect for geologic principles (unlike the makers of the video), and it is of no great surprise that the evidence found fits well with what has been formulated before using the same principles. I apply the Principle of Superposition and Faunal Sucession and the resulting conclusions make sense and allow predictions that are at least somewhat accurate depending on how much data is available. That is what I am paid to do. If this had not been successful in finding trapped hydrocarbons I would have been out of work 30 years ago. A YEC appraoch to structure and stratigraphy is useless because there is no consistency in general. A miracle is invoked here, a miracle is invoked there to fill the gaps that do not fit. Professional geologists working to find natural resources cannot take that approach.

I do not need faith to see that geologic laws and principles are correct. They are demonstrated over and over again in the study of the science.

I have known dozens of people who turned away from belief in a young earth after they started to study geology. I have never met anyone that went in the other direction, after doing such study. That is an indication of how an actual formal study of the science brings one to how convincing the evidence is of the earth being opf great antiquity in my opinion. I think I noticed somebody post on a different board why the ICR no longer does field studies with students. It was said that the students were turning away from YEC beliefs as a result of what they saw in the field.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users