Jump to content


Photo

Atheists; Do We Have A Right To Believe In God?

Benefits of belief in God?

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

#61 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 03 June 2013 - 12:49 AM

So your point Megan is that in order for "modern" animals to be found at the time of the dinosaurs, they would have to be exact replicas of what we see today. Is that right? I mean, do you see the problem here? How is anything fossilized going to be classified as "modern"? What exactly is your definition of modern? I get the feeling that it goes along the lines of "anything that is not found in the lower layers".  



#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:37 AM

er

It is well known that there are many ancestral mammal fossils from the time of dinosaurs. I have not been able to find a specific source with photographs and information from where the claimed "modern" mammals have been found. I can find claims that mammal fossils that appear to be modern have been found, but nothing that I can specifically research. Do you have any other links which include this information?

Personally, I'd also like to see more on this. 

 

I think Dr. Carl Werner brought this issue up in his work

 



If I recall that rightly he mentions ducks, pelicans, possums, squirrels and the like, but no large mammals together with dinosaurs. 



#63 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 03 June 2013 - 02:59 PM

Right off the bat(about 5:30), he makes an untrue claim that "scientists can not figure out where trilobites come from". But there are other, older species that have been discovered that do give information about the origin of trilobites, as trilobites are not the oldest and most primitive species of arthropods that has been discovered. --http://www.trilobite.../triloclass.htm

 

I still have much more video to watch, so I will try to watch it all and address any more untrue claims. 



#64 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:08 AM

Small point perhaps, but as far as I can see, the article you posted merely suggests a possible ancestor for the trilobite. That is not equivalent to "figuring out where trilobites come from", it is figuring out where they might have come from.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#65 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 04 June 2013 - 08:39 AM

Got to agree with Uppsala. The alleged ancestors of trilobites are nothing more the speculation. The trilobite fossils stem from the supposedly early Cambrian layers, the supposed Precambrian fossils look pretty much as if they are trilobites as well. Not much of a difference there. I wouldn't be surprised, if it turns out that those alleged trilobite ancestors are actually the larvae of trilobites and no "ancestors" at all. 



#66 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 04 June 2013 - 10:21 PM

Sure, that is a good point. I just took notice of the way he made it sound like there was nothing like a trilobite and then *bam*--trilobites out of nowhere with no similar creatures, when that isn't the case. I do not know the exact extent of the arthropod fossil research and discoveries that have been made, so I can not currently refute the possibility that those other arthropods have nothing to do with the ancestry of trilobites. There is no proof, however, that those other arthropods are not ancestrally related to trilobites. Still have much more video to watch..


  • Mike Summers likes this

#67 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:47 AM

Ok, I have finished the first video. Something he mentions is no transition between invertebrates and vertebrates. This is not true. There has been a precursor to vertebrates discovered in several fossils called a notochord. Like you said, that doesn't mean that it is a fact that those are ancestral species. It just shows possible transition where he claims one has not been discovered. 

 

One thing I found interesting is that his entire idea of proving evolution wrong is based on finding mammals and other precursors to/or similar species of today's phyla in, specifically, "dinosaur fossil layers". But it is already well known and not denied by the scientific community that nearly all precursors of modern phyla are present in these specific rock layers.  http://www.fossilmus...aleobiology.htm

 

He speaks as if there are not other layers of rock discovered below dinosaur or "Mesozoic" aged rock layers that do not contain any mammal fossils or any large dinosaur fossils. He generalizes a lot when there has been much research and discovery in the many rock layers below the Mesozoic. This is not generalized information. There is extensive, very specific information on many distinct rock layers and their contents. It isn't simply "we dug real deep here and found some dinosaur and mammal fossils and it's all mixed together and that's all there is."  http://en.wikipedia....ogic_time_scale

 

He has done some great travelling and photography and I was particularly amazed by that huge, 4 foot, fish he swam with. But his entire premise is built on the idea that him finding something in specific rock layers where it has already been found, somehow proves his point and disproves evolution. Evolutionary theory has already taken his discoveries into account and it does not deny them. They fit right in. 

He also claims "animal fauna has not changed" but admits to not finding any of the modern large mammals in dinosaur layers. He then makes the claim that those with opposing views to his must be misinterpreting the rock layers that they have spent years and years studying and mentions another video which discusses that. 

 

He shows that he found what appears to be a modern coral fossil in a museum and goes out and finds a very similar living coral. I admit, the coral did look very similar and could be claimed to be "modern". 

But this also brings me to the question of coral reefs and how slow their formation is. I read a couple of young earth websites on coral age which claim that the oldest coral is less than 5000 years old. They claimed that was proof of young earth. But there are coral reefs that must be at least over a hundred thousand years old, which is a generously young approximation. This website explains exactly why one of the specific older coral reefs can not possibly be young. They made some very good points, so I really hope you have a few minutes to read it and tell me what you think.  http://www.ibri.org/...ts/reefstct.htm

 

Another question that was not brought up in the video:  How can conglomerates that contain round clasts be young?



#68 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 June 2013 - 08:20 AM

This video is a commentary on another video (series) called "The grand experiment". So I guess one would get far more and detailed information there. This video contains longer interviews with (Evolutionist) professors and researchers. So that's where he may have gotten those statements on trilobites and fish ancestors. 

 

On another note. At shouldn't really come as a surprise, when species are found that approximate types of other phyla or taxonomic families. This is simply the result of using up possible variety of design parameters. 



#69 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:44 AM

Concerning coral growth rates:

 

http://www.answersin...4/n1/coral-reef



#70 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:59 AM

One thing I found interesting is that his entire idea of proving evolution wrong is based on finding mammals and other precursors to/or similar species of today's phyla in, specifically, "dinosaur fossil layers". But it is already well known and not denied by the scientific community that nearly all precursors of modern phyla are present in these specific rock layers.  http://www.fossilmus...aleobiology.htm

 

Actually Megan, I don't think Mark posted that video primarily for the purpose of using modern phyla in dinosaur layers to "prove evolution wrong", but rather it was in response to your claim that modern animals are not found in these layers in an effort to prove evolution right (or creationism wrong). Now you seem to be doing a complete 180!



#71 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:57 PM

"Actually Megan, I don't think Mark posted that video primarily for the purpose of using modern phyla in dinosaur layers to "prove evolution wrong", but rather it was in response to your claim that modern animals are not found in these layers in an effort to prove evolution right (or creationism wrong). Now you seem to be doing a complete 180!"

 

Yes, but my claim was not that mammals have not been found with dinosaurs. My question was why aren't there modern animals in "deeper, older" rock layers. I'm sorry that I was not more specific. It is already known that small mammals and other species related to todays animals are found in dinosaur or Mesozoic aged rocks. I was asking about all of the previous layers where they are not found. Why are there only a few types of animals found in the entire Paleozoic Era of rocks, when the Paleozoic Era constitutes as much information as the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras combined? 

 

There are several things that the short answers in genesis rebuttal does not take into account about that reef. 

" The reef itself is 4,610 feet tall. Examination of the material from the bore holes reveals that this is a normal reef that formed from the cementing together of corals and lime-secreting algae."

 This shows that what answers in genesis suggests -- "For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours." is not the case with this particular reef. 

"In addition, three unconformities (discontinuities in the growth of the reef) were located at depths of 300, 1000, and 2780 feet. These unconformities contain pollen from seed-bearing shrubs and trees, which indicates there were periods when the reef surface was above sea level (and so no coral growth at the surface) which lasted long enough for land plants to colonize the surface."

 How else would these unconformities contain pollen if the reef was not above sea level during those times? 

"the age of the reef is calculated by dividing 4,610 feet by 8 millimeters (about .3 inch) per year, which is about 175,000 years. But this is a minimum age since we have not taken into account the time periods (represented by the unconformities mentioned above) when the reef was not growing. Nor have we taken into account the time necessary to form the volcanic base on which the reef grew."

How is this calculation inaccurate when even the answers in genesis site says "Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface." (50 meters is about 164 feet)  If the unconformities in this reef show that it was above sea level several times, how did that happen if the reef supposedly built so tall because of "ocean floor sink(ing)"? The evidence indicates that sea level fluctuated several times to construct the reef in this way rather than ocean floor sinking. There is also much more evidence all over the world that strongly supports the theory that sea level fluctuated numerous times in the past. 

"corals can grow as fast as five centimeters per year. This is true for unusual and isolated corals, not the ones that construct large reefs. One also needs to keep in mind that although some individual corals may grow this quickly, the reef as a whole grows much more slowly because such faster growing corals are easily broken by storm waves. In addition, reefs are constantly being degraded by storm breakage, weathering, and dissolution of calcium carbonate back into the ocean water. These competitive processes prevent the reef from growing faster than the rates cited earlier."

Though there are exceptions to the rule(which is slow growth), this does not mean that the exception becomes the rule. Just because certain types of coral reefs can grow faster, does not mean that this particular one grew fast. It seems as though answers in genesis is only pointing out specific cases in which coral reefs have grown quickly and then claiming that these cases apply at this reef, which is not true. Extensive study of this reef indicates that it is different from the fast growing reefs that have been discovered. But instead of accepting the fact that this reef is highly likely to be far older than 10,000 years, answers in genesis tries hard to make it appear even possible to fit in with young earth theory. 



#72 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:42 AM

Yes, but my claim was not that mammals have not been found with dinosaurs. My question was why aren't there modern animals in "deeper, older" rock layers. I'm sorry that I was not more specific. It is already known that small mammals and other species related to todays animals are found in dinosaur or Mesozoic aged rocks. I was asking about all of the previous layers where they are not found. Why are there only a few types of animals found in the entire Paleozoic Era of rocks, when the Paleozoic Era constitutes as much information as the Cenozoic and Mesozoic Eras combined? 

 

Well since I have already responded to this it seems a little futile have to respond to it again, but as I said before, the idea that depth is equivalent to age rather than areas that "modern animals" did not inhabit is nothing more than an evolutionist assumption.

 

There are several things that the short answers in genesis rebuttal does not take into account about that reef. 

" The reef itself is 4,610 feet tall. Examination of the material from the bore holes reveals that this is a normal reef that formed from the cementing together of corals and lime-secreting algae."

 This shows that what answers in genesis suggests -- "For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours." is not the case with this particular reef. 

"In addition, three unconformities (discontinuities in the growth of the reef) were located at depths of 300, 1000, and 2780 feet. These unconformities contain pollen from seed-bearing shrubs and trees, which indicates there were periods when the reef surface was above sea level (and so no coral growth at the surface) which lasted long enough for land plants to colonize the surface."

 How else would these unconformities contain pollen if the reef was not above sea level during those times? 

"the age of the reef is calculated by dividing 4,610 feet by 8 millimeters (about .3 inch) per year, which is about 175,000 years. But this is a minimum age since we have not taken into account the time periods (represented by the unconformities mentioned above) when the reef was not growing. Nor have we taken into account the time necessary to form the volcanic base on which the reef grew."

How is this calculation inaccurate when even the answers in genesis site says "Lack of light will of course kill a reef—no live coral growth takes place below about 50 metres under the surface." (50 meters is about 164 feet)  If the unconformities in this reef show that it was above sea level several times, how did that happen if the reef supposedly built so tall because of "ocean floor sink(ing)"? The evidence indicates that sea level fluctuated several times to construct the reef in this way rather than ocean floor sinking. There is also much more evidence all over the world that strongly supports the theory that sea level fluctuated numerous times in the past. 

"corals can grow as fast as five centimeters per year. This is true for unusual and isolated corals, not the ones that construct large reefs. One also needs to keep in mind that although some individual corals may grow this quickly, the reef as a whole grows much more slowly because such faster growing corals are easily broken by storm waves. In addition, reefs are constantly being degraded by storm breakage, weathering, and dissolution of calcium carbonate back into the ocean water. These competitive processes prevent the reef from growing faster than the rates cited earlier."

Though there are exceptions to the rule(which is slow growth), this does not mean that the exception becomes the rule. Just because certain types of coral reefs can grow faster, does not mean that this particular one grew fast. It seems as though answers in genesis is only pointing out specific cases in which coral reefs have grown quickly and then claiming that these cases apply at this reef, which is not true. Extensive study of this reef indicates that it is different from the fast growing reefs that have been discovered. But instead of accepting the fact that this reef is highly likely to be far older than 10,000 years, answers in genesis tries hard to make it appear even possible to fit in with young earth theory. 

 

With all the conflicting claims made on either side it is of course difficult for a non coral expert such as myself to either verify or refute conclusions and estimates drawn by either camp. Evolutionary scientists are not exactly famous for advertizing the hidden assumptions they make when it comes to calculating age, and more recent studies than the ones in the article you posted (1982-83) seem to indicate variations in growth rates that seem to go beyond what would be considered rare and scarce "exceptions to the rule" and that scientists were not as aware of in the eighties as they are today:

 

http://www.guardian....t/2009/jan/01/1

 

http://planetearth.n...ory.aspx?id=670

 

http://amazingdiscov...al_growth_Flood



#73 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 June 2013 - 08:58 AM

Actually Megan, I don't think Mark posted that video primarily for the purpose of using modern phyla in dinosaur layers to "prove evolution wrong", but rather it was in response to your claim that modern animals are not found in these layers in an effort to prove evolution right (or creationism wrong). Now you seem to be doing a complete 180!

 

My point was that ducks, squirrels, flamingos, beavers etc. aren't shown in museum displays or books written by tax-funded Evolutionist academics. One may speculate about the reasons for this. One may be that it wouldn't fit the proclaimed theory of several geological ages. If absolute evidence against Evolution would be demanded, simply pointing to this won't be enough to do that. It's merely circumstantial.

 

Why aren't modern mammals or birds found in layers attributed below the proclaimed dinosaur age? I'd ask the question differently: Why aren't land animals found in those layers that are full of marine fossils? 



#74 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:52 PM

"Well since I have already responded to this it seems a little futile have to respond to it again, but as I said before, the idea that depth is equivalent to age rather than areas that "modern animals" did not inhabit is nothing more than an evolutionist assumption."

 

I have already shown that the geologic column is much more than assumption in the Geologic Column thread. Even without radiometric dating, most of the layers are distinct, non-flood deposits that could not have been all deposited at once. There are several important factors that must be completely overlooked in order to continue to maintain that all of the sediment in the Geologic Time Scale was deposited in one catastrophic event. I see how one can look at this data and still not think Earth is billions of years old. The evidence may not prove that Earth is that old. But what it definitely shows is that Earth is well over a few thousand years old.

 

It seems that just writing an article about how it is possible(though highly improbable) is enough for many people to go ahead and assume that a coral reef of a particular slow growing type actually grew extremely fast. 

The particular reef that we have been discussing is over 55,000 inches deep. So, if we divide that by the 3,500 years that the answers in genesis article is claiming the reef grew within, we get 15.7 inches per year that the reef had to grow. There is only one source where this rate has been cited and its from 1932. (I have not been able to find a copy of this source online to determine whether this growth rate is even referring to a reef or a lone coral, which makes a big difference because reefs grow much slower.) So, this reef would have had to grow about 16 inches per year up until very recently and suddenly slow to .3 inches per year. Do we have evidence that the ocean conditions drastically changed in the last few hundred years substantially slowing coral reef growth? I have not personally come across information suggesting this. Then there are the unconformities that have been completely ignored and not taken into account. Is there a reason that we should ignore the fact that there is pollen at 3 different growth levels of the reef?

 

 

"Why aren't modern mammals or birds found in layers attributed below the proclaimed dinosaur age? I'd ask the question differently: Why aren't land animals found in those layers that are full of marine fossils?"

 

That is a good question. Lets check out some of the contents and layers at the Grand Canyon:

 

Kaibab Limestone- brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth

Directly below it:

Coconino Sandstone- invertebrate tracks, fossilized burrows

Directly below it:

Hermit Shale-  ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians

Directly below it:

Supai Formation- fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward

Directly below it:

Redwall Limestone- brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites

Directly below it:

Temple Butte Limestone- freshwater limestone, some marine fossils

 

It appears that the reason animals are not found in the layers that are full of marine fossils is that they are ocean deposits. My question is why are the contents of each layer separated into layers of marine deposits/fossils with layers of reptile and amphibian fossils directly in between more thick layers of marine deposits? Geologists have found an answer/theory that fits these findings well: Several periods of ocean transgressions and regressions. This theory also fits the unconformities where pollen is found in the reef we have been discussing. If this theory is completely incorrect, why does it explain the evidence so well?



#75 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 06 June 2013 - 10:26 PM

I have already shown that the geologic column is much more than assumption in the Geologic Column thread.

 

What???? That might be your assessment Megan but as far as I can see there are points made on either side in that thread that provide evidence challenging the claims made by each others worldview and I can't seem to find anyone conceding that you won that particular debate. If it could be argued that during a global flood the entire process consisted of an event that gradually deposited sediments uniformly then you would be able to make some very strong points. If such an event was completely tumultuous then, again, you could make some equally strong points. If on the other hand the event was a combination of both where we see a general pattern broken up by anomolies then you would get what you see today. The evolutionists explanation is much more problematic as far as I can see since its claim of entirely "gradual" deposition leaves gaps of hundreds of millions of years that according to you suddenly got washed away leaving the other layes intact.

 

 

It seems that just writing an article about how it is possible(though highly improbable) is enough for many people to go ahead and assume that a coral reef of a particular slow growing type actually grew extremely fast.

 

Well hello there! Why then is it acceptable to write articles that assume that since we can measure certain rates today then these rates must have always been constant? Why are you less critical towards these articles? And why base your entire worldview on the fact that it is "possible (though HIGHLY improbable" that something can come from nothing and that lightening bolts can hit swamps and create life? You believe in far greated improbabilities than I do and yet you don't even blink. You believe in uniformitarianism despite the fact that we can see how changes in the environment can effect the different clocks we use to measure time. I on the other hand believe in catastrophism which gives an explanation for such irregularities and in many cases accounts for the slowing down of such clocks. So if you have an argument in favor of uniformitarianism then be my guest and present it, rather than assuming that what you are assuming is right and what others are assuming is wrong.

 

 

Do we have evidence that the ocean conditions drastically changed in the last few hundred years substantially slowing coral reef growth?

 

I had no idea that we have been measuring ocean conditions and the rate of coral reef growth that extends back for several hundred years, let alone thousands, but please be my guest and provide the information that you obviously have about this and we can discuss it! Of course, there is information that points to different conditions in both the atmosphere and the oceans, but gee, these conditions are dated back to an environment that existed millions of years ago, so I guess that doesn't count!


 


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#76 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:06 AM

Atheism is unscientific because the outcome is assumed without employing the the scientific premise. Evo is  similarly assumed true without having observed any living transitionals--bad science, very bad science.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#77 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 07 June 2013 - 11:08 AM

I found this article and thought it was pretty good.  It doesn't relate to the original topic but to the posts as of late (fossils, how evolution always changes its science to fit the theory, the flood, etc)

 

I thought it fit okay in this thread.  If not, mods or admin, please move if you deem necessary.

 

http://creation.com/slow-fish-in-china



#78 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:37 PM

This has gone way off topic. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of gods. For all an evolutionist may know if the Christian God doesn't exist(Impossible proposition by the way.) then it would not rule out a general theistic god or even polytheism or deism. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users