Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PhilC

What Can We Agree On?

Recommended Posts

This is always a controversial one, so I will do my best to avoid any of the obvious areas of disagreement by only using relative terms. The terms I use and the details have been used to identify rocks (famously by the canal builders of England in the 18th century) and the system was developed by creationists.

 

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.

2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .

3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.

4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)

5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

 

What this means is that we can say categorically that in the Devonian the first trilobites and ammonites are found in the fossil record, and that after the Permian rocks there are no more trilobites and that after the Cretaceous there are no ammonites found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the question?

56373[/snapback]

I think the question is "What Can We Agree On?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just about sums it up. ;)

 

There are so many keyboards being bashed around because we have never found common ground.

 

No creationist that I have ever debated has actually admitted to me that there are particular fossils found in particular strata. It has been pointed out a couple of times excluding my comment above that the discovery of this fact or series of facts can be attributed to creationists, so I am always suprised that creationists shy away from accepting this which is obvious from even a casual glance at the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just about sums it up. ;)

 

There are so many keyboards being bashed around because we have never found common ground.

 

No creationist that I have ever debated has actually admitted to me that there are particular fossils found in particular strata.  It has been pointed out a couple of times excluding my comment above that the discovery of this fact or series of facts can be attributed to creationists, so I am always suprised that creationists shy away from accepting this which is obvious from even a casual glance at the evidence.

56377[/snapback]

Just a day ago my post in brief reference to this subject was ignored, and the reply made to me simply attempted to relegate any of William Smith's work to being meaningless because he wasn't "qualified".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a day ago my post in brief reference to this subject was ignored, and the reply made to me simply attempted to relegate any of William Smith's work to being meaningless because he wasn't "qualified".....

56380[/snapback]

 

That's criminal. He had enough trouble in his life with work being attributed to others and even now people can make claims about him like that.

 

The stupid thing is anyone can go to London and see his geological map of Britain, the first geological map anywhere in the world. To dismiss that amazing, lifelong piece of work that is fully verifiable and verified just because he didn't have a degree is doing him a huge disservice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's criminal.  He had enough trouble in his life with work being attributed to others and even now people can make claims about him like that.

 

The stupid thing is anyone can go to London and see his geological map of Britain, the first geological map anywhere in the world.  To dismiss that amazing, lifelong piece of work that is fully verifiable and verified just because he didn't have a degree is doing him a huge disservice.

56382[/snapback]

In my opinion Smith is in contention for being considered the most notable geologist in history. There are of course other giants such as Hutton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is always a controversial one, so I will do my best to avoid any of the obvious areas of disagreement by only using relative terms.  The terms I use and the details have been used to identify rocks (famously by the canal builders of England in the 18th century) and the system was developed by creationists.

This system you talk of was pioneered by Gap Creationists, not YEC's. Gap Creationists believe in an old earth, and some even believe in evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that, but you haven't dealt with the main issue on the first brannch of this thread, which is Smith's contribution to science. His legacy of the world's first geological map was a huge step forwards and a great scientific achievement whether he had a degree or not.

 

Also, you have not spoken about whether you agree with the OP or not? I am trying to find some common ground, but no creationist has yet to reply whether what I say is agreeable or not.

 

One more thing, in my introduction thread "Hi" we started talking about science in a bit more detail, I would appreciate it if you could continue that conversation, though feel free to ignore that if you feel that there is more than enough to keep you going elsewhere. This is a time consuming pastime and I do not want to put pressure on you at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

 

Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata. A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity:

 

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"â€â€ÂLarry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

 

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"â€â€ÂTom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

 

Also why would Young Earther Creationist's care about William Smith? Do you guys care about men like James Ussher or Flavius Josephus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata. A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity:

 

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"â€â€ÂLarry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.

 

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"â€â€ÂTom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66.

 

Most the points you made are based on circular reasoning. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks."

 

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up. You didn’t read my post. I never once mentioned dating of anything. This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

 

Please, read my post.

 

Also, you should care about insulting people that do not deserve that insult. I have read a bit of Josephus, and he is pleasant enough, but I know little about Ussher but would not make any negative comments about him until I knew more about my subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up.  You didn’t read my post.  I never once mentioned dating of anything.  This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

 

Please, read my post.

 

Also, you should care about insulting people that do not deserve that insult.  I have read a bit of Josephus, and he is pleasant enough, but I know little about Ussher but would not make any negative comments about him until I knew more about my subject.

56400[/snapback]

William Smith did not consider organic evolution when doing his work. His work only could be used to do relative dating, which does not allow room for any of the claims that young earth creationists make about circular reasoning. In doing so they present no logical basis for their claim.

 

Why bring up Bishop Ussher or Josephus unless one either does not understand the question at hand, which is very possible, or one wishes to dodge the issue?

 

But on the other hand one has to marvel at somebody who could use the same source material available to all of us and yet be able to precisely calculate the beginning of the universe even though so many thousands of years have past. "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, which beginning of time, according to this chronology, occurred at the beginning of the night which preceded the 23rd of October in the year 710 of the Julian period.†(4004 BC) This is either inspired genius or evidence of a great imagination.

 

I honor Josephus as an important historian, recording events in an important time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am beginning to get a bit fed up.  You didn’t read my post.  I never once mentioned dating of anything.  This is just another piece of dogma that gets posted without thought, like dogs just beget dogs or evolution is not science.

Heres is what you wrote:

 

''1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.

2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .

3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.

4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)

5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.''

 

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

 

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

 

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres is what you wrote:

 

''1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.

2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .

3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.

4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)

5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.''

 

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

 

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

 

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

56405[/snapback]

You sure have interjected a number of assumptions not made in the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these points are either evolutionist assumptions or forms of circular reasoning, or atleast lead to circular reasoning. For example number 2, is a blatent lie which leads to the evolutionist assumption that since certain fossils are always in certain rocks they can be dated (i am refering to Index fossils by the way).

 

Point 3 is also false, and is based on uniformatarianism. YEC's don't subscribe to the concept of different strata divisions which were layed down millions of years apart. The evolutionist Devonian geologic period is imagined as having spanned from 416 to 359.2 million years ago.

 

YEC'S believe the earth is around 6,000 years old, why would we agree with something that changes the figure to millions?

 

When did I mention dating; Geode talked about relative dating, but I haven’t? When did I say millions of years? You are not reading the points that I made.

 

The naming of the rocks as Devonian etc was made before any idea of the age of the Earth was established.

 

Please, read the post and answer the points made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I mention dating; Geode talked about relative dating, but I haven’t?  When did I say millions of years?  You are not reading the points that I made.

 

The naming of the rocks as Devonian etc was made before any idea of the age of the Earth was established.

 

Please, read the post and answer the points made.

56411[/snapback]

Are you basically asking if we can all agree that certain types of fossils are found only in certain layers of rock, and the naming of the layers and their age is neither here nor there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I mention dating; Geode talked about relative dating, but I haven’t?  When did I say millions of years?  You are not reading the points that I made.

 

The naming of the rocks as Devonian etc was made before any idea of the age of the Earth was established.

 

Please, read the post and answer the points made.

56411[/snapback]

You really don't have a clue what you are typing...

 

The Devonian age was invented by geologists who believed in an old earth. Then you expect YEC's to agree with it. Then you moan when we refuse it or don't agree with it and say re-read your post.

 

This is a waste of time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you basically asking if we can all agree that certain types of fossils are found only in certain layers of rock, and the naming of the layers and their age is neither here nor there?

Yes. Please note this, Cassiterides.

 

 

You really don't have a clue what you are typing...

 

The Devonian age was invented by geologists who believed in an old earth. Then you expect YEC's to agree with it. Then you moan when we refuse it or don't agree with it and say re-read your post.

 

This is a waste of time...

56413[/snapback]

It isn't a waste of time. Please, for the sake of argument I am willing to accept the 6,000 year time frame for now.

 

I am willing, for now, to drop any pretensions to evolution or any theory. Look at my points again.

 

Are certain fossils always found with other certain fossils? No dating, no evolutionary assumptions. If I now go to Lyme Regis, and crack open a few rocks, I will find ammonite and icthyosaur fossils. Whereever icthyosaur fossils are found you will also find ammonites.

 

This is either true or false. No theory is involved in this. The fossils are either found in particular places or they are at random. I am not attempting to explain anything by this, just trying to find out if you are able to see this.

 

Do not get hung up on terminology. Just use Devonian as a convenient label without using any presupposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are certain fossils always found with other certain fossils?  No dating, no evolutionary assumptions.  If I now go to Lyme Regis, and crack open a few rocks, I will find ammonite and icthyosaur fossils.

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.

 

This is either true or false.  No theory is involved in this.  The fossils are either found in particular places or they are at random.

They are found in random places, hence why evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know they are out of place? they cannot be random because if they were then there could be no out of place fossils.

 

Well done for actually starting to look at the evidence, though.

 

There are huge amounts of refuted out-of-place fossils. I am not going to trawl through all of them.

 

The next step in looking at this is to consider these:

 

1) How can fossils be defined as out-of-place if fossils are random?

 

2) Produce reliable evidence of an out-of-place fossil that we can discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.

They are found in random places, hence why  evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.

56416[/snapback]

I think you will have to acknowledge that the phrase "out of place" fossils was coined by creationists. This is not what a geologist or paleontologist would say. Google it and see, I'll bet all you get is links to creationist sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know they are out of place?  they cannot be random because if they were then there could be no out of place fossils.

It's not me saying they are out of place, evolutionists are. Creationists don't believe their is a pattern in fossils.

 

How can fossils be defined as out-of-place if fossils are random?

I said evolutionists have the problem of ''out of place fossils'', not creationists (see what i wrote just above).

 

Produce reliable evidence of an out-of-place fossil that we can discuss.

'complex' fossils have been found at the lowest levels. an example: trilobites.

 

''And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginningâ€â€Âto have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes."â€â€ÂNorman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

 

Extremely complicated creatures at the very beginning, with nothing leading up to them; that is the testimony of the rocks and fossils...this is why there are many geologists who believe in creation and that all fossils from all strata were deposited during the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you have obviously never gone fossil hunting.

 

I have been to Lyme Regis, and found parts of an icthyosaur spine, ammonites by the dozen and some Gryphaea.

 

I would advise that you go and examine some fossil hunting sites.

 

Also, using the Cambrian explosion as an example of out-of-place fossils is unbelievable.

 

Please, if you feel that you don't understand the evolution point of view, I can talk you through it. You don't have to accept it, but it would mean you would be talking from a position of an educated creationist.

 

But this conversation ends here. There is no possible way that any reasonable debate can be held with someone such as yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists all over the world have been collecting and studying fossils for hundreds of years.

 

In all their research, this is what they discovered:

 

(1) There is no evidence of one kind of animal having changed into another one. (2) There are no transitional or halfway forms between animals.

 

We find in the very lowest fossil stratum, complex plants and animalsâ€â€Âand lots of them, with no evidence that they evolved from anything.

 

"It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."â€â€ÂGeorge G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

 

Even Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book.

 

". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."

 

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds.

 

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."â€â€ÂD.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, p. 467.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we cannot agree is that one side would have to compromise what they believe happened. And because people who believe evolution believe that their theory is based on all facts. The one that will always have to compromise to agree will always be the Christian.

 

Because even the theistic-evolutionists has to deny:

 

1) The Biblical time-line.

2) The 6 days of creation.

3) Creation itself.

4) The flood being worldwide or happening at all.

etc....

 

This is why one will never see a evolutionist-theist. The only thing compromised in a scientific sense is abiogenesis (Replaced by a Creator). Problem is, when man is able to dictate to God how it happened, God is no longer God. Man becomes god because doing this means Man knows more than God's word. So the bases of this supports humanism, which does not glorify God.

 

Since creation idea existed first. Evolution is either going to be some support, or no support. Since the idea was thought up by a person who had a theology degree and had decided that God lied. It would be feasible to conclude that his idea would be the exact opposite of creation so that his idea can be totally against God. So let's test this.

On moral issues...

 

God's word says........................................Evolution says............

1) God is absolute.........................................There are no absolutes.

2) The word is true.......................................Truth is relative.

3) God does not lie........................................God is a liar.

4) God created man.......................................Man created God (out of need).

5) Man brought death into the world.................Death brought man into the world.

6) Man has a soul..........................................Man has no soul.

7) There is life after death..............................There is no life after death.

8) God is the supreme being............................Man top of food chain.

9) Sin will condemn you..................................Sin all you want.

 

On origin of life and universe issues...

 

1) Light before sun.......................................Sun before light.

2) Earth before sun......................................Sun before earth.

3) God created life.......................................Lighting created life.

4) Oceans before land...................................Land before oceans.

5) Land plant first........................................Marine life first.

6) Fruit tree before fish.................................Fish before fruit tree.

7) Fish before insects...................................Insects before fish.

8) Plants before sun.....................................Sun before plants.

9) Land animals before marine animals..............Marine animals before land animals.

10) Bird before reptiles..................................Reptiles before birds.

11) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water.......Atmosphere above water.

 

Reproduction issues....

 

1) Reproduction within a kind.......................Reproduction within and outside of kind.

2) Life only comes from life..........................Life comes from death and life.

3) Man is a separate creation.......................Man is an animal.

4) All life was created fully formed.................All life from single cell organism.

5) God creates life......................................Lightening creates life (abiogenesis).

 

To agree means Christians will have to compromise, not atheists.

 

And the reason evolution has to be the exact opposite of creation, God, and the Bible. Is because it was started by those who either rejected God, or were already admitted atheists. And it will continue in that direction because it's main support is by the same group that believes the same way.

 

To say as an excuse that many Christians believe in evolution as a means to make it okay, also needs to apply to evolutionists believing in God makes God okay. But as we know that is never said or implied because what's deemed right will always be one-sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms