...cont. from my last post
We have galaxies 12 billion light years away that some believe provide support for a 6000 year old universe. You get people proposing that the speed of light must have been different without any idea of how such a change would alter the universe or change the heat from our own sun.
Regarding a decrease in the speed of light: First, that theory is not at all currently favored within creationist circles. Secondly, many secular theorists have proposed changes in the speed of light as well, so it's hardly a criticism that can be uniquely leveled against creationists. See Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation
by JoÃƒÂ£o Magueijo. Also, read Andrew Sibley's review of the book in TJ, Variable speed of light research gets a boost
Speaking of galaxies, we have fully formed, mature galaxies that are billions of light-years away that have no business, according the the Standard Model, being at that stage of development. Such galaxies were expected - indeed predicted - to be in the early stages of development. Does this shake the establishment's faith in their model? Of course not.
We have marsupials like koala bears that walked from the ark to Australia without their food sources to reach the land of their fossil ancestors, without leaving a fossil record and somehow all these marsupials crossed oceans to get there.Ã‚Â
First, you're assuming (in the Flood model) that there weren't any land-bridges that would have enabled marsupials to trek to Australia. What is the basis for this assumption? Second, there are marsupial fossils in places other than Australia. Terry Mortenson, in his article National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin
Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.
Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia Ã¢â‚¬Å“because they evolved there.Ã¢â‚¬Â And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:
Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5
But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of WoodmorrappeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book, Studies in Flood Geology.
5. Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science302:1899Ã¢â‚¬â€œ2, 2003
Your assumption that the Koala Bear diet must
consist of eucalyptus leaves is in error. In his article Cuddly cold-cures counter critics
, Carl Wieland points out:
It now looks as if the koalaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s well-known exclusive diet of gum leaves is really a behavioral addiction, rather than a genetic inability to eat or digest other types of food.
It certainly seems true that koalas reared in the wild feed exclusively on eucalyptus leaves and die without them. Their bodies become literally saturated with the pungent eucalyptus oils until they smell like furry cough sweets.3
But according to Roland Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA, this dependence on these intoxicating substances is learnt in early infancy; the baby koala literally becomes Ã¢â‚¬ËœhookedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ through its motherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s eucalyptus-flavoured milk. Yet orphan koalas reared away from any contact with these substances Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcan thrive on a diet of cowÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s milk, bread and honey.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢4
Koalas may have only become addicted to an exclusive gum-leaf diet in this way well after arriving in Australia.
3- Spinney, L., Animals seeking oblivion, New Scientist 143(1945):29, 1994.
4- Spinney, Ref 3.
Eucalyptus is known from the fossil record from Washington St. to Austrailia and even more species existed in the past than there is now.Besides,where is the experimental data that proves koalas' can only survive on eucalyptus.
It's worse than that Jason. As seen above, there is experimental data the prove that koala's can
survive on food other than eucalyptus.
We have 5000 species of frog, 2000 species of snake, various species of elephants, cats, rodents, new world monkeys, old world monkeys. But there is no evidence of a 5000 year old genetic bottle neck.
This list goes on and on. We haven't even touched on the geological evidence for the age of the earth. Do you have any idea how much volcanic material is on top of sedimentary layers and what this means for the amount of sulfur that would be in the air if this occurred in the last few thousand years?
I'm not aware of any material in creationist literature that addresses the bottleneck issue. That's not to say it isn't there, I'll have to look. I'm curious though, what would constitute such evidence? As for volcanic material atop sedimentary deposits, extreme volcanism and global scale sedimentation are integral components of Flood Geology. Regarding the amount of sulfur in the air, this would have to be examined in the context of a global cataclysm with its attendant storms and what effect extreme precipitation, for instance, would have on the sulfur concentration of the atmosphere. Again, I'm not aware of such a study at the moment.
Speaking of lists, there is also much evidence of a global flood. Andrew Snelling has a series of articles that address this:
- High & Dry Sea Creatures
: Fossils of sea creatures are found in rock layers high above sea level.
- The WorldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a Graveyard
: Fossil graveyards found in rock layers around the world are evidence of the global Flood.
- Transcontinental Rock Layers
: Every continent contains layers of sedimentary rocks that span vast areas. Many of these layers can even be traced across continents.
- Sand Transported Cross Country
: We find layers of thick sandstone around the earth. Where did the sand come from? Evidence indicates it was carried across entire continents by water circling the globe.
- No Slow and Gradual Erosion
: Today we see the effects of weathering and erosion all around us. But where is the evidence of millions of years between rock layers? There is none.
- Many strata laid down in rapid succession (not yet available on the web): Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places, we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening.
Regarding this last point, there is also the fact that most rock layers have smooth, flat boundaries between them. In other words, they lack the erosion surfaces which would have formed had their been any significant period of time between the their deposition. In his book The Great Turning Point
, Terry Mortenson discusses this, along with the other geological objections that the 'Scriptural Geologists' advanced against the long-age uniformitarianism then being promoted:
Young and Fairholme especially, and to a lesser extent Gisborne, argued that the insensible transitions between the different mineralogical formations were a dominant feature of the geological record. This characteristic of one kind of mineral deposit gradually changing into another kind, without evidence of erosion or soil at the transition line, shows that the strata were deposited in rapid succession (as expected in a global flood), while the subjacent strata were still rather soft and moist. There, they reasoned, the notion of long ages during deposition of a single mineralogical layer (the uniformitarian view) or between the deposition of two different strata (the catastrophist view) was erroneous.
Many geological writers recorded their observations of this geological feature. William Smith alluded to this fact many times in his 1816 work on identifying strata by their fossils. The mineralogical transitions were so smooth, said Smith, that frequently the fossils provided the only means of dividing them. In describing the secondary formations from the transition rocks up through the Oolite found in Gloucestershire and Somerset, Thomas Weaver frequently remarked on the gradual intermingling, or "reciprocal incorporation", of different minerals at the contact boundary of two different adjacent formations.
Buckland and Conybear described how the strata of the Greywacke up to the coal measures and the New Red Sandstone up to the Oolite "graduate so insensibly" into each other as to make it very difficult to assign the precise limits of each.
- pp. 203-204
Mortenson goes on to recount other instances of geologists of the day recording similar observations. The other objections he discusses are polystrate fossis, shells and dating the strata and the infant state of gelogy.
That last point is important because the idea of long ages and uniformitarianism was being promoted when the science of geology was in its infancy. The Scriptural Geologists pointed out that it was then far too early to be offering comprehensive theories of the earth with so little observation and data on hand; indeed with much evidence to to contrary. They were ignored...
Ok, fine. Show me where to look. The creationist journals appear to have an odd collection of ideas. Some accept the geologic column, some do not. Some accept the age of the universe as 12 billion years, some think it is 6000 years. Some still think the earth is the center of the universe. Some accept significant evolution since the flood (to create all the species alive) - most do not.
It seems to would impose a standard upon creationists that doesn't hold for evolutionists. You have the gradualists vs. punctuated equilibria-ists, the metabolism first crowd vs. the RNA-world theorists, you have Stephen Jay Gould who loved to point out that if nature had to do it all over again, nothing would be the same vs. Simon Conway Morris, the title of whose book says it all Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
. You also have those who still cling to the 'Tree of Life' notion first promulgated by Darwin vs. those, like Carl Woese, who reject the 'tree' metaphor in favor of a 'web of life' or a 'ring of life'. Further, you have those in the camp of Lynn Margulis who excoriate those who rely almost exclusively on mutation and natural selection as the 'engine of evolution' in favor of lateral gene transfer.
The reason such - often mutually exclusive - differences (i.e. details) are tolerated within the evolutionary establishment is the same reason they are tolerated in creationism: All agree on the philosophical/historical framework within which they are working (i.e. the big picture); for evolutionists, it is materialistic naturalism, for creationists it is the historical framework of Genesis.
If Schweitzer wanted to understand why genetically related marsupials were found in Australia, where would she go to see the Creationist theory so she could compare this with the evolutionary theory?
Well, she could read up on Baraminology (the creationist biology). Understanding the Pattern of Life: Origins and Organization of the Species
by Wood, Wise & Murray would be a good place to start. She could visit the website of The Creation Biology Study Group
, read the available papers and perhaps even attend one of their annual conferences.
There is a whole raft of papers and articles in recent creation science journals on this subject and in particular how it relates to the rapid diversification (not evolution) and migrations that took place after the Flood. A presentation given by Dr. Kurt Wise & Dr. John Whitmore at the 2008 ICC entitled Rapid and Early Post-Flood Mammalian Diversification Evidenced in the Green River Formation
might also prove helpful.
No offense James, but your knowledge of the current state of creationism seems to be rather lacking.