Question for Creationists

[Christian Doc]

Immortal Flame

Another person accuses me of lying. Well, I do not know how I can prove my credentials on an internet discussion page. I have discussed many things on many forums, this is the first one where people have accused me of lying in their opening sentences.

What credentials do you have?
How would you prove them to people here?

I currently work as a doctor in a hospital.

Well, I will return tomorrow. I need to go to sleep before I go to hospital to work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Immortal Flame

Another person accuses me of lying. Well, I do not know how I can prove my credentials on an internet discussion page. I have discussed many things on many forums, this is the first one where people have accused me of lying in their opening sentences.

Because you clearly do not understand the basics of the things you are talking about. I've not dismissed your arguments, I've addressed them. I just doubt you are being honest in your claims about your qualifications.

What credentials do you have?

I never claimed I had any - you did.

How would you prove them to people here?

Having a good grasp of the concepts involved would help. For example, if you actually displayed real knowledge about mutation and genetics rather than lies pulled from creationists.

I currently work as a doctor in a hospital.

Until you give me reason to believe that is true, I will continue not believing it.

 

[evolved yet?]

Be more specific, which university, from what you have said so far it sounds like you graduated from the same university as Kent Hovind.

I need to go to sleep before I go to hospital to work.

I have absolutely no suspicions after I read this sentence.

how were fossils formed?

Most were washed into rivers where they were buried, others like in the Gobi desert( it was still a desert back them) were buried in the sands or in flash floods.

there was no answer for irreducible complexity (ref Behe's work - Darwin's black box) and when studying medicine the theory of evolution just didn't sit with the genetics that I studied. Mutations are always loss of information resulting in loss of function. The "best" that evolutionists could come up with was sickle trait - which causes sickle cell disease with some protection against malaria. However, this again is LOSS of information.

There is many answers to irreducible complexity look up, blood clot evolution, and flagellum unspun. Genetics is one of the greatest supporters of evolution, look up the modern synthesis. Mutations do add information, look up insertions, gene duplication, and polyploidy. Sickle cell genes are not a big loss of information just a different allele. Some other examples are peppered moths and new enzymes like Nylonase, as well as bacterial resistance to drugs and insect resistance to pesticides.

 

[Meow Mix]

Just want to throw out there that credentials are irrelevant, I know you guys know this but... it's already been expressed that it's unlikely a doctor would lack basic knowledge about the issues, let's move on! I wanna see more fireworks that matter!

 

[Venatoris]

Just want to throw out there that credentials are irrelevant, I know you guys know this but... it's already been expressed that it's unlikely a doctor would lack basic knowledge about the issues, let's move on! I wanna see more fireworks that matter!

I second the Motion.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact - I am surprised by your open accusation of lying.

I do not know how you want me to prove that I am a doctor and also have a degree in Pharmacology. I can assure you that I do. I have a 2:1 from a well known university in London.

But, I shall continue on despite the unnecessary slur on my honesty.

Forgive me if I find your story hard to swallow, as well as irrelevant. The thread isn't about you--it's about your evidence, if you have any.

You should respond to me putting forward evidence that large amounts of geological strata was formed in hours!

Well I would, had you presented any. All that you presented was your bald assertion. You have declined to respond to my invitation to present your evidence of sedimentary layers forming from a volcano. If you have any, I would be fascinated, as well as shocked.

Back to your question.

First thing to note - your question is phrased in a way that ASSUMES you are right. A sign that you are not entirely objective in this, an unfortunate mindset if you are saying that you are being scientific.

A question asking you to present scientific studies assumes that I'm right? In what way?

If you re-read what I said you will notice that I am suggesting that multiple large volcanic eruptions could account for large depositions of strata.

Why don't you lay out your entire hypothesis for me. Actually, it's pretty far OT, so why don't we discuss it in a separate thread?

The flood account records months of global flood - which would also suggest months/years of tectonic activity with multiple deposits = multiple occurances of burials.

Let me get this. Your hypothesis is that during a global flood, there were also hundreds of massive volcanic eruptions that no one noticed or thought to mention? Fascinating, original and demonstrably false, as well as unbiblical.

Everytime these occured, potentially different ecosystems would be buried - they could be transported large distances.

Why?

So, where they are buried does not necessarily equate with where they lived. But it is suggestive that they are buried in close proximity with what they lived with.

What on earth are you blithering on about? You're not addressing the question at all, just hallucinating an impossible scenario that causes more evidentiary problems than it solves.

Try to focus on the question. All the pterodactuals are always lower than all the moles. Why?

In terms of the examples you have given, do you want to provide exact examples of this order? i.e. particular excavations that gave such layering? It is difficult to comment on such a general statement that lacks any concrete examples - just a few examples is what I ask for.

All of them. Always. Every time. Every discovery of every pterodactyl fossil in history is always lower than every fossil of every mammal ever discovered.

And then we can discuss whether a global flood with the mechanisms I have suggested could account for the appearances or not. I suspect that actually you may not be able to imagine quite was going on at the time of the global flood.

I can imagine Oz, but that doesn't really explain tornadoes.

But here is another question for you - how were fossils formed?

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. As the encased bones decay, minerals seep in replacing the organic material cell by cell in a process called "petrification." Alternatively the bones may completely decay leaving a cast of the organism. The void left behind may then fill with minerals making a stone replica of the organism.
from here.

The creationist argument is clear - they were buried rapidly during the global flood.

That is clearly false, since there is no uniform deep sedimentary layer recording such a flood. That's one of the many ways we know it didn't happen. Oh, and the fact that there isn't near enough water.

How do you account for them?

See above.

So, again, your hypothesis for the great variety of species?

 

[Christian Doc]

Ok, a lot has been posted since I was away and I apologise for the delay in replying, my internet connection is slow and I’ve been at work all day – I don’t know what time zone everyone is.

Anyway, I want to clarify why I put my credentials on – only as part of an introduction. It was my first post on this discussion group and thought it was only polite to introduce myself and my background. I did not want a discussion about it to be honest as I would rather discuss evidence, interpretations etc. I have not said anything in my posts that would suggest I do not understand evolution or its processes. The issue is not understanding, the issue is acceptance.

To answer one of the questions – I graduated in 2003 with my Intercalated BSc in Pharmacology from King’s College London. I graduated in 2006 with my MBBS. I have been working as a doctor in the NHS for the past 4 years. If we were not on the internet, I would provide you with my GMC number but I don’t think that would be appropriate nor necessary.

That is as much as I will say and I don’t think I need to say anymore.


I will reply to as much of everything that has been posted as possible but I don’t want to bore people so I shall try to stick to the main points as much as possible.


Firstly, my response to Autodidect:


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? 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.

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.

(I had referenced it to a website but apparently I can not do so until I have posted 15 post)

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.


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.

Your assumption is that the fossil record took millions of years to form and that the lowest is the oldest.
Therefore the “older, more primitive, extinct species always in the bottom”, “while the newer species, such as mammals, are always in the newer layers”.

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.

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?

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.


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

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.


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


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")


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

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


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? 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)

 

[Christian Doc]

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.

 

[evolved yet?]

If the sediment was all laid down at once, how come we can see layers of volcanic ash in between layers of sediment? How did freshwater fish survive the flood? How come the animals didn't freeze in the high altitudes you would need to be in to cover the highest mountain? Where did the water come from? Where did it go? And here is another thought:
Titanic
Height: 175 ft
Length: 882 ft
Width: 92 ft
Construction: Steel
Capacity: 3547 people and provisions for a few weeks
Ark
Height: 45 ft
Length: 450 ft
Width: 75 ft
Construction: Wood
Capacity: 3000000 animals( two of every animal) (1.5 million+everything we have not yet discovered) and enough provisions for a year.

San Diego Wild Animal Park
3000 animals
1800 acres
500 employees
Ark
Millions of animals
1 boat
8 people

 

[Christian Doc]

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!


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.

 

[Wotan]

". . . which are all essentially from the same kind. "

Define "kind" and show how you know that a particular organism is of one "kind" and not another "kind".

 

[evolved yet?]

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!

Well then where did the salt water fish survive?

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.

No the ones on Noah's Ark, that would be floating higher than everest.

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.

Define kind, besides there is still 1.5 million species, and how many kinds would there need to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, a lot has been posted since I was away and I apologise for the delay in replying, my internet connection is slow and I’ve been at work all day – I don’t know what time zone everyone is.

Anyway, I want to clarify why I put my credentials on – only as part of an introduction. It was my first post on this discussion group and thought it was only polite to introduce myself and my background. I did not want a discussion about it to be honest as I would rather discuss evidence, interpretations etc. I have not said anything in my posts that would suggest I do not understand evolution or its processes. The issue is not understanding, the issue is acceptance.

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.

To answer one of the questions – I graduated in 2003 with my Intercalated BSc in Pharmacology from King’s College London. I graduated in 2006 with my MBBS. I have been working as a doctor in the NHS for the past 4 years. If we were not on the internet, I would provide you with my GMC number but I don’t think that would be appropriate nor necessary.

That is as much as I will say and I don’t think I need to say anymore.

For the sake of argument, I'll take it your word for it.

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.

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 – 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then demonstrate that all the facts of geochronology are false.

 

[Noaidi]

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.

The problem is not with the freshwater fish. The deluge of rainwater from the sky would have diluted the salinity of the seas significantly (don't forget - the water rose to cover "the highest mountain tops", thus Everest would have been covered. Quite a rainstorm occurred, apparently). I think you need to address the osmotic problems faced by the marine life, rather than the freshwater organisms.

 

[Christian Doc]

Regarding the fish issue - nobody knows the answers to these good questions. The problem of course is that an event such as the global flood is a non-reproducible event. There is nothing in observable science that gives us a model to compare with. We are therefore having to construct models (none of them perfect) to simulate what might have happened during a global flood.

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.

However, I think it would be safe to say that you would have millions/billions of dead animals and plants buried all over the world.

I think you can work out what I am going to say next so I will leave you with that one.


Regarding the animals freezing on the ark - well, it very much depends when you view the mountains to have been formed. My understanding is that everest was not at its current height 4,500 years ago. We know that everest and the himalayas are getting higher as the Indian sub-continent pushes up.

Well, perhaps the Indian sub-continent started pushing up at the time of the global flood and formed the himalayas at that point? I do not know, nobody knows for sure. BUt it is not unreasonable to assume that the mountains would have been much lower.

This also addresses the amount of water issue, that has been raised on this thread.

 

[Noaidi]

Regarding the fish issue - nobody knows the answers to these good questions. The problem of course is that an event such as the global flood is a non-reproducible event. There is nothing in observable science that gives us a model to compare with. We are therefore having to construct models (none of them perfect) to simulate what might have happened during a global flood. quote]

Can you provide us with a link to these global flood models so that we can assess them for ourselves?

 

[evolved yet?]

Regarding the fish issue - nobody knows the answers to these good questions. The problem of course is that an event such as the global flood is a non-reproducible event. There is nothing in observable science that gives us a model to compare with. We are therefore having to construct models (none of them perfect) to simulate what might have happened during a global flood.

Untestable= Not Science.

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.

Regarding the animals freezing on the ark - well, it very much depends when you view the mountains to have been formed. My understanding is that everest was not at its current height 4,500 years ago. We know that everest and the himalayas are getting higher as the Indian sub-continent pushes up.

Well, perhaps the Indian sub-continent started pushing up at the time of the global flood and formed the himalayas at that point? I do not know, nobody knows for sure. BUt it is not unreasonable to assume that the mountains would have been much lower.

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.

This also addresses the amount of water issue, that has been raised on this thread.

Not if your ideas are wrong.

 

[DeitySlayer]

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

I have a strange feeling were this said about evolution, you wouldn't find that a very satisfactory answer.

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.

However, I think it would be safe to say that you would have millions/billions of dead animals and plants buried all over the world.

I think you can work out what I am going to say next so I will leave you with that one.

Buried in an order of morphological progression? Somehow I don't think water is that good at sorting out animals. Do you know what else would have happened? Soils would have been degraded way past agricultural productivity, and we would not be able to grow ANYTHING at all.

Regarding the animals freezing on the ark - well, it very much depends when you view the mountains to have been formed. My understanding is that everest was not at its current height 4,500 years ago. We know that everest and the himalayas are getting higher as the Indian sub-continent pushes up.

Well, perhaps the Indian sub-continent started pushing up at the time of the global flood and formed the himalayas at that point? I do not know, nobody knows for sure. BUt it is not unreasonable to assume that the mountains would have been much lower..

By the Biblical literalism from which the Flood story derives, the Flood occured around 4,000 years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that the Indian subcontinent was disconnected from Asia 4,000 years ago, and that the Himalayas did not exist?

As an added point; lower sea levels prior to the Flood would have caused insufficient pressure levels in the lower depths to allow deepsea creatures to thrive. When brought to the higher levels of the sea, these creatures simply 'explode' due to the decreased pressure.

 

[Noaidi]

However, I think it would be safe to say that you would have millions/billions of dead animals and plants buried all over the world.

I think you can work out what I am going to say next so I will leave you with that one.

I take it you are going to refer to the sequence of fossilisation. If so, why don't we see humans with some of the slower animals in the fossil sequence? Humans, as animals, are not renowned for their speed, so if they were trying to out-run rising floodwater, why don't we find human corpses preserved in the same lower strata as other less nimble species? Why are human fossils always restricted to the upper strata?

 

[ZooGirl02]

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!