Question for Creationists

[Christian Doc]

Reply to Immortal Flame
“Actually, it's both. If you don't understand that mutations can and do add information to the genome, then you do not understand evolution.”
I understand the proposed evolutionary method, don’t worry. I do understand evolution and you must get tired of people saying this but this is truly what I believe – there is a big difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Evidence that mutations change a species over time is not in contention. The theory that species change into another kind of species, thus explaining the vast complexity of life is what is in contention.
The most commonly used debating tool that I have come against is people arguing microevolution and then assuming victory. Sometimes they thought they were arguing for macroevolution but actually they hadn’t progressed from within species variation. This is thankfully not going to happen here, I trust.

“Well, the bacterial flagellum was the case held up by creationists as the kind of "posterboy" for irreducible complexity, and is often held on it's own as "proof" of irreducible complexity.

So, aside from the flagellum or the eye - both of which have been proven to not be irreducibly complex - can you provide any more examples of supposedly irreducibly complex biological systems?”

Well, I have just had a quick read of the proposed “proof” the blood clotting cascade is reducibly complex by the fact that one of the proteins is missing in whale. Is that it? Surely I’m missing something – that doesn’t actually address the issue. Can you attached the best counter argument against the blood clotting cascade being irreducibly complex – this is the one that I understand best (although it has now been 8 years since I studied in detail!)
The supposed proof that the flagella is reducibly complex by the fact that there is a similar very complex TTSS. But then where I have read it states that 40 proteins missing! 40 proteins! That is an awful lot!
“No, it doesn't. "Proven" means simply "demonstrated to be true". It is as proven that the sedimentary layers of the earth's crust were formed over long periods of time as it is proven that gravity is the force that keeps us all from floating into space.”
This is not true at all. You need to choose a better example. Sedimentary rock layers forming over millions of years – not observable.
Gravity is force that keeps us from floating into space – observable and repeatable.
Try again.
“But that's not what it's based on. Again, look into geochronology. There is a multitude of evidence that all points to the same clear conclusion. You have yet to present anything that refutes that evidence other than your own personal opinion that "what happened in the past cannot be known". Like it or not, we can still test it. It has been tested, and discovered to be true.”
The whole issue of radio-isotope dating is a whole other thread. I have looked at the geochronology issue. In order for these to be reliable, we need to know certain things that we can not know for certain – there will always be assumptions with error bars, some may be significantly large.

“I did, and found it is all loaded with the exact same logical fallacies as above. You ignore the evidence and just accuse us of "assuming" all the time. It's just a prolonged argument from ignorance.”
I am not ignorant. I merely disagree with you, there is a difference. I know the majority of your arguments, some better than others.
“This is a complete contradiction of your previous statement: "To assume that what happens now is definitely what happened in the past is an error."

Just because layers of rock can be formed by a volcano does not mean they all were, nor does it do anything to refute the mountains of evidence that they were formed over long periods of time.”
This is not a complete contradiction – what I am suggesting is that we have observed sedimentary rock layers being formed and it did not take a long time. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it MUST take a long time. The issue of whether the sedimentary rock layers took millions of years essentially goes on to the reliability of the dating techniques essentially. And I suspect that is where the discussion will lead us sadly.

“And how does the fact that they are "retrospective" do any harm to their conclusions? Science is about finding out the truth through carefully observing the facts in front of us - and those facts have all unanimously lead to the same conclusion. Your argument requires us to ignore this evidence purely on the basis that "it's not observed". It's a tired argument from ignorance.”
You do like the word ignorance don’t you?
Anyway, again, you still are not getting my overriding point that you must make assumptions to extrapolate data back in time. It is inevitable. That is what we must do. We just have to be aware that we must be more humble about our conclusions. If you start with the wrong assumptions and then apply them to the data, you will ALWAYS come to the same conclusion. You can then run it millions of times and think that your conclusion is correct due to sheer weight of numbers. That is not how science works. That is how science is humbled by later generations.

[FONT=&quot]Also, please can you stick to attacking my arguments and evidence rather than just insulting me. Thank you.[/FONT]

 

[DeitySlayer]

Christian doc, there have been observed examples of speciation. Creationists then shifted the goalposts to variation within a 'kind'. Could you please define 'kind'? Saying that micro-evolution can occur but macro-evolution cannot is like saying you can walk across your room but not to the nearest airport. Of course you can do the latter; all that is required- is time.

 

[Noaidi]

I don't accept these explanations but here are some links that may be helpful for you to understand the Young Earth Creationist's point of view on this:

The fossils say what?

Fossils—do they get more complex?

Hope this helps!

ZooGirl
Thanks for those. However, they are from AiG and, as such, don't count!
However, they do provide some light comedic relief....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand the proposed evolutionary method, don’t worry. I do understand evolution and you must get tired of people saying this but this is truly what I believe – there is a big difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.

Well, at least you're right of me getting tired of people saying that. I also get tired of having to respond like this:

You're wrong. "Micro" and "macro" evolution are precisely the same thing, just happening over different periods of time. "Micro" evolution is caused by genetic variation and environmental attrition, while "macro" evolution is caused by... Genetic variation and environmental attrition. Saying that "micro" evolution can occur but not "macro" evolution is like saying it's possible to walk to the bathroom but impossible to walk the London marathon.

Evidence that mutations change a species over time is not in contention. The theory that species change into another kind of species, thus explaining the vast complexity of life is what is in contention.

Once again, you're wrong. There is no "contention" over speciation in the scientific community. The only objection to evolution above the species level comes either from fringe groups of religious fundamentalists or people who simply don't know the science (and are usually religious).

The most commonly used debating tool that I have come against is people arguing microevolution and then assuming victory. Sometimes they thought they were arguing for macroevolution but actually they hadn’t progressed from within species variation. This is thankfully not going to happen here, I trust.

Well, you're more than welcome to disprove any of the geological, archaeological and genetic evidence of above-species level evolution any time you like. By the way, evolution above the species level has been observed and is well documented (look into "ring species").

Also, you've changed the subject. I was addressing your claim about mutations not adding information to the genome. Since you are no longer supporting that argument, can I assume you are willing to correct yourself on that issue?

Well, I have just had a quick read of the proposed “proof” the blood clotting cascade is reducibly complex by the fact that one of the proteins is missing in whale. Is that it? Surely I’m missing something – that doesn’t actually address the issue. Can you attached the best counter argument against the blood clotting cascade being irreducibly complex – this is the one that I understand best (although it has now been 8 years since I studied in detail!)

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

The supposed proof that the flagella is reducibly complex by the fact that there is a similar very complex TTSS. But then where I have read it states that 40 proteins missing! 40 proteins! That is an awful lot!

Firstly, I did not say it was "proof", I said it was "proven". These words mean different things, and with you being a doctor I would of thought you'd of known the difference.

Secondly, yes, they took out 40 proteins. And the system still functioned. What is your point?

This is not true at all. You need to choose a better example. Sedimentary rock layers forming over millions of years – not observable.

It doesn't have to be observable - it is testable.

Gravity is force that keeps us from floating into space – observable and repeatable.
Try again.

We only observe the effects of gravity, which we can test and measure. We do not "observe" gravity. In the same way, we do not observe the age of the earth's crust, but we can observe the effects of it's age, which we can test and measure.

The whole issue of radio-isotope dating is a whole other thread. I have looked at the geochronology issue. In order for these to be reliable, we need to know certain things that we can not know for certain – there will always be assumptions with error bars, some may be significantly large.

You're continuing your argument from ignorance. "Because we don't know absolutely everything we can dismiss all evidence". This is a nonsense argument that no right-minded scientist would make.

I am not ignorant. I merely disagree with you, there is a difference. I know the majority of your arguments, some better than others.

I didn't call you ignorant, I said you were making an argument from ignorance. These are not the same thing.

This is not a complete contradiction – what I am suggesting is that we have observed sedimentary rock layers being formed and it did not take a long time. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it MUST take a long time. The issue of whether the sedimentary rock layers took millions of years essentially goes on to the reliability of the dating techniques essentially. And I suspect that is where the discussion will lead us sadly.

And where your argument inevitably falls down. Nobody is "assuming" that the layers of the earth "must" take the long time - it is simply what the evidence indicates. And until you can refute that evidence successfully, your objection to it all means nothing.

You do like the word ignorance don’t you?
Anyway, again, you still are not getting my overriding point that you must make assumptions to extrapolate data back in time. It is inevitable. That is what we must do. We just have to be aware that we must be more humble about our conclusions. If you start with the wrong assumptions and then apply them to the data, you will ALWAYS come to the same conclusion. You can then run it millions of times and think that your conclusion is correct due to sheer weight of numbers. That is not how science works. That is how science is humbled by later generations.

Once again, it is not an assumption when it is demonstrable and testable and all such demonstrations and tests lead to the same conclusion.

Yes, I do like the word ignorance, because every single part of your argument is an argument from ignorance. It really bears repeating.

Also, please can you stick to attacking my arguments and evidence rather than just insulting me. Thank you.

I have not insulted you once, and never have I failed to respond to your arguments.

 

[Christian Doc]

I better head to bed, I will aim to reply to what has been posted tomorrow.


Just a quick mention that I can not provide any links to any of the sites I have mentioned because I have not posted 15 posts therefore can not do so.

Goodnight one and all.

 

[Autodidact]

You are working on the reasoning that a global flood would result in one sedimentary layer.

“That is clearly false, since there is no uniform deep sedimentary layer recording such a flood.”

Why do you think that?

Because we can observe the effect that floods have. Furthermore, how could a layer of water and silt do anything else?

On what basis do you state that the global flood would produce a sedimentary layer? I think you will find it is problematic to try to simulate the global flood à I think this is one of the difficulties that Creationists have. It is difficult to simulate the processes of the global flood. There are people working on it but it is difficult because in order to do so you have to assume certain things about what the globe was like before the flood. Then you have to hypothesise what processes took place during the flood.

Not really. It's a flood. It would behave like a flood. For example, it would require quite a lot of water--more than exists on earth.

The latest theories amongst the Creationists is that there was a massive tectonic shift, resulting in the mid-Atlantic rift that we see on the ocean floor today. There are people working on this and some of it is interesting, but by no means conclusive à as I don’t think we will ever be able to know for sure. I prefer to be honest and humble about postulating about past events. We will never know for sure.

Creationists don't have theories, they have wild hallucinations and, having abandoned scientific method, no way to support or disprove them.

I suspect that you are going to write it off but remember that this is postulating on what might have happened without knowing what the world was like before the flood in terms of what tectonic plates were present and how many continents present. I am happy to assume that there is one continent – on the basis that the continents that we have currently do fit together very well.

There is no before the flood, because there was no flood.

Now, this does I feel go some way to answer your question. Your question was “How would a flood accomplish the fossil record that we see today?”.

Your question is assuming your position. You didn’t understand my point before so I will flesh it out a bit more.

You're wrong. Asking how a flood would produce what we observe doesn't assume anything.

Your assumption is that the fossil record took millions of years to form and that the lowest is the oldest.

The question does not assume that.

Therefore the “older, more primitive, extinct species always in the bottom”, “while the newer species, such as mammals, are always in the newer layers”.

Yes, that's what we in fact observe.

Can you not see that you are assuming your position in this question? If the majority of the fossil record was laid down during the global flood then the age of each layer is less crucial. The assumption then is that all the species found in the fossil record were alive at the same time.

It doesn't matter how it was laid down. Why are all the extinct flying creatures LOWER than all the mammalian burrowing creatures?

The exact mechanism of the global flood is not known so I therefore can not answer why the fossil record is layered as it is. However, can you not see that your question is loaded with assumptions that I do not accept?

No, I can't see why asking you to explain how your hypothesis accounts for what we observe assumes anything.

The dating of rocks is an entirely different subject and so I will leave that for another thread. However, it is important to note that we disagree over the age and dating of rocks.

Duh.

You wanted to know of the Mt St Helens eruption causing sedimentary deposits. Surely a creationist has referenced this before? It is one of the keys to understanding the Creationist view of the fossil record. Namely, that catastrophic processes, including volcanoes and other massive deposits of magma (such as when the tectonic plates were pulled apart – see global flood simulations) could account for the fossil record.

I don't want to know anything, since you don't know anything I don't. What I'm asking is for a peer-reviewed scientific journal article describing the thousands of SEDIMENTARY layers that you allege were produced by the Mt. St. Helens volcano. I can't wait to read them.

I think the proposed hypothesis is volcanic activity, massive mud slides and tectonic shifts were combined to produce massive shifts of earth deposits.

What proposed hypothesis? For what?

You say – “Fascinating, original and demonstrably false, as well as unbiblical.”

It is not unbiblical – it is extra-biblical but does not contradict what is in scripture. It is not original. It is fascinating. I don’t think it is demonstrably false although I know that you will not consider it feasible à that is not the same as false.

Well, it's not original, it's the fantasy of one of the looniest and most cowardly creationists ever to manage to write a book, Walt "Hydroplates" Brown.

I beg you to lay out the scenario in its entirety, not neglecting the continents skating around like a skater-boy in a pool, as well as the mega-meteors shooting off into space. I think people here will enjoy it greatly.

The majority of the geology work has been done by Steve Austin.
(For a biography goto CreationWiki and search for Steve Austin)

And what exactly is Mr. Austin's hypothesis?

His work on Mt St Helens has not been published in non-Creationist publications, but that does not affect that the sedimentary rock is there! He has other publications in non-Creationist publications, just not on Mt St Helens. My internet connection is SO slow that I am struggling to find images of this but I assure you that they are out there. My internet connection (currently says 6kb/s!! These stupid USB via mobile phone things!) is so slow that I can not watch this video but I suspect this probably has some evidence for you to consider
(I can not include websites - go to You Tube and search "Mount St Helens Steve Austin")

So I take it that in fact you cannot produce a single scientific article describing the sedimentary layers laid down by a volcano?

How can a volcano produce sedimentary rock?

This is really basic geology. Freshman geology.

Your account of fossil formation is fairly standard. The simple ingredients are:
Rapid burial, watery environment, burial in rock layers.

And time. Lots, and lots of time.

Can you not see how this is accomplished with a global flood?

So I suppose when the flood waters recede in Pakistan, we'll find thousands of fossils?

Do modern floods typically produce fossils?

You ask the questions – “What is your hypothesis for how we get many different species of organisms? Exactly how are you saying God created all the different species we see?”

Can we leave that for another discussion?

Actually, that's the subject of this thread.

Very briefly though – I believe that God created many different ‘kinds’ of organisms. Each kind has modified and each continent has their own variation of that ‘kind’. For example, a horse ‘kind’ was created. This has evolved (microevolution) over time and given rise to all the species of horse that we today, including zebra, mules etc. Which I would put under the umbrella of ‘kind’.

(Post to be continued)

Please be more specific. How did God create the "kinds?" Would this be accurate: About 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of organism into existence, one male and one female. You cannot tell us what a "kind" is, or how to tell whether any given set of organisms are the same or a different kind, but they gave rise to new species in the same way described by the Theory of Evolution.

Is that an accurate description of your hypothesis?

 

[Autodidact]

Response to Immortal Flame

“Irreducible complexity has already been disproved. Scientists removed several of it's components and found it was fully functional as a type-two secretory system. To date, there has been not a single successful or supported claim for the existence of any irreducibly complex biological system.”


I think we will have to disagree on the use of the word ‘disprove’. To disprove the argument of irreducible complexity, you would have to show that every single case of supposed irreducible complexity can be formed each step of the way.


“Are you really a medical student? This is, simply, flat-out false.”

That is correct – I am a doctor.


“I have read through the thread so far and the big assumption that you are all making is that Geology has PROVEN that sedimentary rock takes millions/billions of years to form.
They don't have to, they just did.”


Well – again, you are using the word “proven”, which is being used liberally in your posts. In order to prove that sedimentary rock took millions of years would require somebody to observe them, record the evidence and reliably deliver them to us. Everything else is postulation and hypothesis based on the best available data. This is a crucial difference between science that is testable and provable (science occurring in the present) and science that is attempting to show what happened in the past. I think it is an important concept. To assume that what happens now is definitely what happened in the past is an error.


“Are you suggesting that all the sedimentary layers of the earth were created in a couple of years? How many volcanoes do you think earth has?”

Please read what I wrote to Autodidact regarding tectonic plate and volcano deposits.



“It is a well established fact of geology that the sedimentary layers of the earth's crust formed over millions of years. Your "volcano" evidence is no different to me spilling a bottle of water and saying "this proves that oceans can be formed in a matter of seconds! We need to seriously re-evaluate the evidence!"

No, it doesn't need to be reevaluated. The evidence has been tried, tested and verified millions of times over and the fact remains. The fact that sedimentary layers can form rapidly (in extremely isolated incidents) does nothing to refute the mountain of evidence in favor of the conclusion that the vast majority of the earth's sedimentary layers did not.”


Excuse me but the volcanic eruption of Mt St Helens is the only OBSERVED event that has given rise to sedimentary rock layers and canyon formation. You have not shown observational scientific evidence demonstrating sedimentary rock layers. You are relying on postulations, radio-isometric dating and other retrospective analysis techniques. This does not beat the observational studies.


There are countless numbers of “established facts” in many branches of science that have been shown to be false. This would not be the first and it will not be the last.




I apologise for the very long post but I am trying to address your points.

God I'm tired. Please read the thread. I can hardly bear it.

EVIDENCE. NOT PROOF--EVIDENCE.

Would someone do me a favor and take over the duty of correcting these elementary errors for me next time? I must have typed that a thousand times in my life.

Volcanic rock is not sedimentary, by definition, and sedimentary rock is not produced by volcanoes, by definition.

Yes, many established facts have later been disproved. The age of the earth is not one of them.

 

[Autodidact]

Which sediment layers are you referring to? Are you referring to the global flood or Mt St Helens?


How did freshwater fish survive? I'm not sure. It is difficult to go back and think through what happened. I do wonder how salty the sea was before the flood - I think I remember reading that the sea is gradually getting more salty. I don't know I suppose is the short answer!

They didn't. Because there was no flood. Had there been, the freshwater and saltwater fish would all have died, as well as every plant on earth. That's one of the many, many ways we know there has never been a global flood.

How come the animals didn't freeze in the high altitudes you would need to be in to cover the highest mountain?
Just because they were buried at the top of mountains, doesn't mean that they lived at the top of mountains. It just means they were buried at the top of a mountain - they could have been moved significant distances. Hence, you can find animals and plants buried together without them necessarily living together. This is true of catastrophic burial - things are buried together that wouldn't necessarily be living together.

The size of ark and what animals went into the ark is discussed on many different websites - it is important to say that it is two of every kind. The term 'kind' doesn't necessarily equal species as we understand it now. As said in my long post above - the horse kind has given rise to varies species, which are all essentially from the same kind.

[/QUOTE] O.K., so what does it equal?

 

[Autodidact]

Regarding the fish issue - nobody knows the answers to these good questions.

Then your hypothesis just failed.

 

[Autodidact]

Reply to Immortal Flame
“Actually, it's both. If you don't understand that mutations can and do add information to the genome, then you do not understand evolution.”
I understand the proposed evolutionary method, don’t worry. I do understand evolution and you must get tired of people saying this but this is truly what I believe – there is a big difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Evidence that mutations change a species over time is not in contention. The theory that species change into another kind of species, thus explaining the vast complexity of life is what is in contention.
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Then by what process do you posit the "kinds" gave rise to the many different species we see today? For example, we know about something like 70 different living rat species, as well as many more extinct rats. Assuming you would consider rats a "kind", by what process do these new species emerge, in your hypothesis?

Or are rats and mice a single kind? Rats, mice and voles? Rats, mice, voles and shrews? How can you tell?

 

[Autodidact]

Doc: Would you please address the question that is the subject of this thread? How do you account for the fact that in every case, thousands of times, extinct flying creatures are found in lower geological layers than mammalian burrowing creatures?

 

[Alceste]

I will declare from the outset that I am a bible believing creationist. My scientific background include medical degree... when studying medicine the theory of evolution just didn't sit with ... genetics

[youtube]PtXnUEW_OXw[/youtube]

 

[Christian Doc]

Response to Immortal Flame's recent posts



”You're wrong. "Micro" and "macro" evolution are precisely the same thing, just happening over different periods of time. "Micro" evolution is caused by genetic variation and environmental attrition, while "macro" evolution is caused by... Genetic variation and environmental attrition. Saying that "micro" evolution can occur but not "macro" evolution is like saying it's possible to walk to the bathroom but impossible to walk the London marathon.”
Nope, that is not true. They really are not the same thing. If they were the same thing then there would not be two different terms.
You like your analogies and then choose analogies that are just not valid. How about I use an analogy, however flawed it may be. There is a big difference between saying statement 1 – a cow can produce a variety of different cows; statement 2 – a cow can produce a horse.
Thus, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I do understand the concepts. You like to think they are the same thing because otherwise you would have to recognise that you made assumptions about extrapolating observations back in time.

“Once again, you're wrong. There is no "contention" over speciation in the scientific community. The only objection to evolution above the species level comes either from fringe groups of religious fundamentalists or people who simply don't know the science (and are usually religious).”
Calm down, no where did I say that speciation is in contention within the scientific community. I am talking about our discussion. The area that we should concentrate on is the complexity of life being explained by evolution.


”Also, you've changed the subject. I was addressing your claim about mutations not adding information to the genome. Since you are no longer supporting that argument, can I assume you are willing to correct yourself on that issue?”
Nope – I think you will notice that I am trying to respond to a number of different pieces that are being brought to me by different posters and you will probably notice (if you look back through the thread) that a lot of questions that are off-topic have been asked of me by evolutionists on here. Which is a perfectly accepted part of internet discussions. My experience has been that people often site going off-topic rather than reading posts – I hope this doesn’t happen here.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified (the article you referred me to)
I’m afraid not – that is called moving the goalposts – you are basically saying that it is not irreducibly complex because we have found hundreds of examples of similarly complex systems. It doesn’t explain where the first complex system evolved and how.
It is like the evolutionists answers to the origin of life – “I don’t know but it happened. We have some theories and there is ongoing work”
But basically, it hasn’t actually addressed the issue of complexity, it has just moved it to the predecessor. All that is being shown is that there are lots of complex systems, it doesn’t address how they are formed. Essentially, there are potentially hundreds of steps in order to make one complex system. What this answer is saying is – “Look, we have shown one step, we don’t need to do the other 99 steps because it is obvious that it is possible given enough time.”
Well, I don’t think it is obvious. The more we study in the fields of biochemistry, the more we realise that it is far more complicated than anybody could ever have dreamt over a hundreds years ago. It keeps on getting more complicated. I personally find the theory of evolution does not provide satisfying answers to these problems.
The theory of evolution provides you with some evidence of how to make one step forward on earth and then asks you to jump to the moon. (I thought I would use your method of analogy here – hope you don’t mind)

“We only observe the effects of gravity, which we can test and measure. We do not "observe" gravity. In the same way, we do not observe the age of the earth's crust, but we can observe the effects of it's age, which we can test and measure.”
We observe the effects of gravity in the present. We can test the effects of gravity in the present. We can form theories about gravity in the present and test them in the present. Therefore it is observable and repeatable and testable.
However, sedimentary rock that has been formed in the past. We can look at the rock layers and come up with theories to explain them. We can attempt to date them.
However, we can not observe how they were formed and test the theories that we come up with.
Therefore, the sedimentary rock layers formed at Mount St Helens are important in this discussion. My understanding of this field is that this is not the only example but it is one that has been extensively studied.
You can not deny that layer sedimentary rock can be deposited rapidly such that the assumption that sedimentary rock layers are old is false. The actual age of sedimentary rock must be determined through other means.


“And where your argument inevitably falls down. Nobody is "assuming" that the layers of the earth "must" take the long time - it is simply what the evidence indicates. And until you can refute that evidence successfully, your objection to it all means nothing.”
Again, I have pointed out that there is evidence that layers of the earth have been formed rapidly. Therefore, it does not necessary take a long time. During times of massive geologic activity (such as volcanos and massive mud slides) large amount of sedimentary rock can be laid down rapidly. This has been observed and has not been refuted.
The wider scientific community do not contest that large amounts of sedimentary rock layers have been laid down in a short space of time. They concentrate on mocking the Creationist scientists. They mock them mostly regarding their use of dating techniques.

Why doesn’t the wider scientific community use the rock layers at Mt St Helens to calibrate the dating techniques? We know that the rock layers formed there were formed within the last 30 years, can we not use those to calibrate the dating methods?





Reply to Evolved Yet?


"The question - What would happen if there had been a global flood?
is actually more difficult that you might imagine. You have to know a mechanism before you can then predict the outcome of such an event."
Where did the water come from, where does it go?, I think we need a mechanism for that.
“Okay the mountains would be about 4500 inches lower. We have evidence for the Himalayas existing before 4500 years ago, climb in the Himalayas and then tell me if they could have formed in 4500 years.”
[FONT=&quot]Why are you assuming that the Himalayas have ALWAYS been increasing by 1 inch per year? That is a great assumption. It could well have been faster or slower in the past. I would not want to be arrogant enough to suggest that I knew the rate at which the Himalayan mountains have grown over the past 4,500 years. I am merely pointing out that it is crucial to understand that the mountains we see around us are dynamic and would not have been the same height. This does address the height of water required to flood the entire globe.[/FONT]

 

[Christian Doc]

Response to Autodidact:



“Because we can observe the effect that floods have. Furthermore, how could a layer of water and silt do anything else?”
You are assuming that a global flood would be exactly the same as a local flood.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Quote:
“Not really. It's a flood. It would behave like a flood. For example, it would require quite a lot of water--more than exists on earth.”
So, you’ve not bothered to read the theories of how a global flood might happen?
“Creationists don't have theories, they have wild hallucinations and, having abandoned scientific method, no way to support or disprove them.”
So I take it that you have not bothered to read their theories then?

“There is no before the flood, because there was no flood.”
That is the best way to approach a subject. Assume you are right and then continue you can dismiss everything else that might come your way.

“I don't want to know anything, since you don't know anything I don't. What I'm asking is for a peer-reviewed scientific journal article describing the thousands of SEDIMENTARY layers that you allege were produced by the Mt. St. Helens volcano. I can't wait to read them.”
Why don’t you just read what I have referred to? The sedimentary rock layers formed by Mount St Helens are there. They are discussed on the internet web pages.
They are not in the scientific journals that you might read because there is a significant publication bias – they will not accept publications from Creationists à this is well known. So if you only read evolutionist journals then you will never actually read Creationist work and so will sit comfortably in your theory. However, I would have thought you would want to read about this subject. It is useful to look at in the discussion of sedimentary rock layering.
“What proposed hypothesis? For what?”
This is the latest hypothesis on the mechanism of the global flood. In combination with rain fall, there would be massive tectonic plate movements resulting in widespread geological activity as described above.
“And what exactly is Mr. Austin's hypothesis?”
Go and look him up. It is very easy to do. Just search for Steve Austin Geologist. Not the wrestler. J
“So I take it that in fact you cannot produce a single scientific article describing the sedimentary layers laid down by a volcano?

How can a volcano produce sedimentary rock?

This is really basic geology. Freshman geology.”
Just go and look at the work that Steve Austin did on Mt St Helens. Until you do, you will go around in circles. Evolutionist geology journals will not publish his work. Not because of his work but because of who he is.
Just read his work. Then critique it. Stop making excuses for not looking at the sedimentary rock layers laid down at Mt St Helens.




“Actually, that's the subject of this thread.”
I think this thread is trying to address too many different topics. With everybody’s permission, I propose that we discuss the different topics separately.


Do people agree with this?


I am struggling to reply to everybody because there lots of questions that are going off topic. I am trying to stick to the topic of addressing the fossil record and how it might come about.

I freely admit the limitations of the theory that the global flood can account for the fossil record. My honesty in this is then being treated as an excuse for not exploring it.

My approach to internet discussions is that I am open and honest. I freely admit when there are limitations and when we don't have all the evidence.

I do wish that everybody would be the same in the way that they approach these discussions.


So, can I start a different thread for different topics?

 

[evolved yet?]

Please use the quote feature around your opponent's arguments, you are very confusing to quote.

 

[evolved yet?]

You are assuming that a global flood would be exactly the same as a local flood.

Well there wouldn't be too much difference, just length of time and extra pressure (since you seem to believe mountains didn't exist back then).

So, you’ve not bothered to read the theories of how a global flood might happen?

Yes Thunderf00t is really good at showing how pathetic they are [youtube]BdEZTdOlGss[/youtube]
YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3)..

So I take it that you have not bothered to read their theories then?

See Above.

That is the best way to approach a subject. Assume you are right and then continue you can dismiss everything else that might come your way.

You tend to do that after refuting it multiple times.

Why don’t you just read what I have referred to? The sedimentary rock layers formed by Mount St Helens are there. They are discussed on the internet web pages.

Sedimentary, does not mean ash, it means silt.

They are not in the scientific journals that you might read because there is a significant publication bias – they will not accept publications from Creationists à this is well known. So if you only read evolutionist journals then you will never actually read Creationist work and so will sit comfortably in your theory. However, I would have thought you would want to read about this subject. It is useful to look at in the discussion of sedimentary rock layering.

The peer review process throws away about 60% or more of all scientific papers, many pro-evolution one are thrown away too.

This is the latest hypothesis on the mechanism of the global flood. In combination with rain fall, there would be massive tectonic plate movements resulting in widespread geological activity as described above.
Go and look him up. It is very easy to do. Just search for Steve Austin Geologist. Not the wrestler. J
How can a volcano produce sedimentary rock?

Another fail. And contradiction, you told us to look up sedimentary layers caused by Mt. st. Helens and then say sedimentary rock does not produce sedimentary rock.

Just go and look at the work that Steve Austin did on Mt St Helens. Until you do, you will go around in circles. Evolutionist geology journals will not publish his work. Not because of his work but because of who he is.
Just read his work. Then critique it. Stop making excuses for not looking at the sedimentary rock layers laid down at Mt St Helens.

He has many published works even Creation Wiki says so, just none on the flood.

I think this thread is trying to address too many different topics. With everybody’s permission, I propose that we discuss the different topics separately.


Do people agree with this?

I'll agree, I say right now we should discuss the viability of a flood.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, that is not true. They really are not the same thing. If they were the same thing then there would not be two different terms.

Which explains why scientist never use those terms, only creationists.

You like your analogies and then choose analogies that are just not valid. How about I use an analogy, however flawed it may be. There is a big difference between saying statement 1 – a cow can produce a variety of different cows; statement 2 – a cow can produce a horse.

I'm afraid your analogy is the false one, since that's nothing like what evolution claims at all. In fact, evolution is closer to your first statement - a cow can produce a variety of cows. It's not entirely accurate, but it's closer.

Thus, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I do understand the concepts. You like to think they are the same thing because otherwise you would have to recognise that you made assumptions about extrapolating observations back in time.

No, I like to think they're the same thing because they are the same thing. Unless you can provide the mechanism which prevents species from evolving above the species level, you have no basis on which to claim that they are not, while I have a lot of evidence that they do (for example, the fact that it's been observed).

Calm down, no where did I say that speciation is in contention within the scientific community. I am talking about our discussion. The area that we should concentrate on is the complexity of life being explained by evolution.

So you're willing to accept that there is no debate in the scientific community over the validity of speciation?

Nope – I think you will notice that I am trying to respond to a number of different pieces that are being brought to me by different posters and you will probably notice (if you look back through the thread) that a lot of questions that are off-topic have been asked of me by evolutionists on here. Which is a perfectly accepted part of internet discussions. My experience has been that people often site going off-topic rather than reading posts – I hope this doesn’t happen here.

This is a pretty poor excuse for changing the subject. "Other people do it, so so can I!" I'm asking you to either formulate a response or admit that you were wrong - which is it?

Irreducible Complexity Demystified (the article you referred me to)
I’m afraid not – that is called moving the goalposts – you are basically saying that it is not irreducibly complex because we have found hundreds of examples of similarly complex systems. It doesn’t explain where the first complex system evolved and how.

No, you're moving the goalposts here. Irreducible complexity claims that there are systems which cannot have formed over time because without every part they cease to function. The article I linked you to explained exactly why no examples of such systems are actually irreducibly complex, and thus irreducible complexity has been falsified as a hypothesis. Now you're claiming that we need to know the "first" complex systems and how they evolved, which has absolutely nothing to do with falsifying irreducible complexity.

It is like the evolutionists answers to the origin of life – “I don’t know but it happened. We have some theories and there is ongoing work”

Evolution isn't an explanation for the origin of life, it's the explanation for the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the leading theory on the origin of life, but is far from concrete.

Once again, you're committing the usual creationist fallacy of equating evolution and the origin of life. They are not the same subject. Once more, you are moving the goalposts.

But basically, it hasn’t actually addressed the issue of complexity, it has just moved it to the predecessor. All that is being shown is that there are lots of complex systems, it doesn’t address how they are formed. Essentially, there are potentially hundreds of steps in order to make one complex system. What this answer is saying is – “Look, we have shown one step, we don’t need to do the other 99 steps because it is obvious that it is possible given enough time.”

What a nonsense argument. Evolutionary biology has discovered lineage reaching back millions of years, and has proposed testable hypotheses that have all been met. Evolution does not have to - nor is it supposed to - explain how the first complex life formed. By definition, life has to exist before evolution can occur.

If you want to continue on this subject, look up one of the many threads of abiogenesis.

Well, I don’t think it is obvious. The more we study in the fields of biochemistry, the more we realise that it is far more complicated than anybody could ever have dreamt over a hundreds years ago. It keeps on getting more complicated. I personally find the theory of evolution does not provide satisfying answers to these problems.

That's why evolution is now called evolution, not Darwinism. Darwin laid the foundation, but had no grasp of genetics or anywhere near the amount of fossil evidence we now have today. Evolution was not just "dreamt up" a hundred years ago. It has been steadily worked on by thousands of scientists over the last hundred years, and continues to be the most widely accepted and evidenced theory in modern biology.

Just because it doesn't "satisfy" you does nothing to negate the mountains of evidence in it's favor.

The theory of evolution provides you with some evidence of how to make one step forward on earth and then asks you to jump to the moon. (I thought I would use your method of analogy here – hope you don’t mind)

No, it doesn't. It has provided far more than that.

We observe the effects of gravity in the present. We can test the effects of gravity in the present. We can form theories about gravity in the present and test them in the present. Therefore it is observable and repeatable and testable.

We observe the effects of evolution in the present as well. Genes, fossils, vestigial features, continental drift, ring species. All of these are observable evidence of evolution reaching back millions of years, all observable, all repeatable, all testable.

However, sedimentary rock that has been formed in the past. We can look at the rock layers and come up with theories to explain them. We can attempt to date them.
However, we can not observe how they were formed and test the theories that we come up with.
Therefore, the sedimentary rock layers formed at Mount St Helens are important in this discussion. My understanding of this field is that this is not the only example but it is one that has been extensively studied.

Do you realize that sedimentary rock, by definition, is formed through the process of sedimentation, right? A volcano cannot form sedimentary rock.

Also, this is still an argument from ignorance. No matter how many times you repeat it, "we never observed it, therefore we can discount the evidence" is a pathetic argument.

You can not deny that layer sedimentary rock can be deposited rapidly such that the assumption that sedimentary rock layers are old is false. The actual age of sedimentary rock must be determined through other means.

I've said this a hundred times already:

We can test the age of sedimentary rock layers - it is not an assumption.

Again, I have pointed out that there is evidence that layers of the earth have been formed rapidly.

Then please present it.

Therefore, it does not necessary take a long time. During times of massive geologic activity (such as volcanos and massive mud slides) large amount of sedimentary rock can be laid down rapidly. This has been observed and has not been refuted.

I didn't say it was "necessary", I said it was what the evidence indicated. For your assertion to be correct requires us to ignore any and all such evidence and simply assume that because a volcano could form rock deposits it's reasonable to assume all rock deposits were formed this way. This is a nonsense argument that you need to stop making.

The wider scientific community do not contest that large amounts of sedimentary rock layers have been laid down in a short space of time. They concentrate on mocking the Creationist scientists. They mock them mostly regarding their use of dating techniques.

Why doesn’t the wider scientific community use the rock layers at Mt St Helens to calibrate the dating techniques? We know that the rock layers formed there were formed within the last 30 years, can we not use those to calibrate the dating methods?

Why should they? Dating methods are already extremely accurate and it is trivial to tell the difference between layers formed through sedimentation and layers formed through volcanic activity. They know the difference, and that's why they also know that the sedimentary layers of the earth were not formed through sudden volcanic activity, and their dating confirms this.

Can you name a single scientist at Mt.St Helens who claims we should recalibrate all dating methods to fit it?

 

[David M]

Just because layers of rock can be formed by a volcano does not mean they all were, nor does it do anything to refute the mountains of evidence that they were formed over long periods of time.”
This is not a complete contradiction – what I am suggesting is that we have observed sedimentary rock layers being formed and it did not take a long time. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that it MUST take a long time. The issue of whether the sedimentary rock layers took millions of years essentially goes on to the reliability of the dating techniques essentially. And I suspect that is where the discussion will lead us sadly.[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Which sedimentary rocks have we observed volcanos forming? Can the material from a volcano form into limestone, chalk or sandstone for example. Can eruptions underwater produce ash layers?

No they cannot. Not by any means possible.

So present evidence which sedimentary rocks have already been formed in the area around Mt St Helens.

 

[Christian Doc]

The next few posts should be ignored.

I am just getting very frustrated by the fact that I can not quote people nor can I include links until I have posted 15 times.

So what I will do will be to post a few posts to get me above 15 then I can start new threads of different topics, that seem to be getting confused on this thread - most notably as I am trying to tackle a number of topics from a number of contributors.

 

[Christian Doc]

I propose the following threads to be formed:

1) The latest proposed mechanisms of the flood and how this relates to the fossil record. (This will mostly focus on the idea that the global flood involved a number of geological events including massive tectonic plate shifts, massive amounts of new earth deposited when magma came up through the gaps in the earth's crust, massive mud slides, and of course significant amounts of rainfall).

2) A thread specific to the claims of Steve Austin around the geology of Mount St Helens, which I hope will make more sense when I am able to provide links for his work.

3) Possibly a thread on how going from A level biology (where I believed in evolution) to medical school (where I saw how the mechanism played out in a species - humans, this led me to question the mechanism of evolution, thus leading me to Creationism). This will be low on my list of threads, because basically this would be about my background, which is not important in the context of the discussions. However, a lot of questions have been asked and a lot of false allegations have been made against me so there would be questions to answers and I can show myself to be honest about my background.

4) Potentially a thread on the age of the earth.
This is basically the most important topic. If the earth is very old (billions of years) then it opens the door for evolutionary theory to be possible. However, if there is not billions of years then the theory of evolution is shown to be false. A long amount of time is required for evolution to account for the massive amount of diversity we see all around us.


Any other threads that I should include?