Mutations do not produce real change

[Guest]

Scientists Through The Ages And Around The Earth Know The Glory Of God And See His Works

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

Yet There Remain A Few Scientists And Their Groupies Who Will Not

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2 Peter 3:5

So, What Will It Take

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:22-31

What....

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OES, I just want to confirm something at this point to make sure we're still even on the same page, because I don't know whether you're serious anymore. Are you trying to argue that polystrate fossils debunk geological evidence against a young Earth, or do you just want me to concede that you scored a point off me? Because if it's the latter, I've repeatedly told you that I'm happy to admit you got the better of me. Wear it with pride, or do whatever you want with it. But if it's the former, have you really read the links I posted instead of simply jumping on a sentence and triumphantly going "ah ha!"?

OK, I appreciate your willingness to offer a concession. Thank you.

All I was saying was that it demonstrates that sedimentary deposits are laid down rapidly, and that's accepted irrespective of whether or not you're an old earth evolutionist or a young earth creationist. That's all that my comment was designed to do in the first place. Everyone agrees that sedimentary deposits can be laid down rapidly, and 75% of the earth's surface is covered with such sedimentary deposits so again everyone agrees that there has been large scale flooding over the earth. So if we know the earth has been flooded, and we know that the sedimentary layers can be deposited rapidly, and Mt. St. Helens demonstrated that so too can ash and that erosion that used to be interpreted as taking long ages was also demonstrated to be possibly in catastrophic conditions at that eruption, then what we see is that classic uniformitarianism that used to reject all these things has made huge concessions to catastrophism.

So much so that philosophically the evidence is supporting a single flood event since proposing a single flood does not compound postulates beyond necessity, whereas multiple, local floods that all lithified to preserve fossils (even though the conditions for lithification require very specific chemicals and therefore unique circumstances which couldn’t often be expected), is compounding postulates beyond necessity.

Now, what I think emerges here is the internal consistency of the creationsits’ postulates.

By contrast, I find evolutionary postulates to be ad hoc (multiple floods, each with the unique conditions to enable lithification, etc.) and often contradictory (sedimentary deposits must be interpreted to be laid down slowly, unless there’s a fossil running through multiple layers, then the strata was simply layering that occurred rapidly).

So it wasn’t so important that I scored some kind of point. I just need to have the acknowledgement that the point landed so that I can continue with my cumulative case.

And as to your question: yes, I read the links. I've responded to their particulars on a number of occasions.

Please don’t fall victim to the misconception that just because I disagree with you that then I’m misinformed as to what you believe.

It’s not a matter of me requiring better education on the specifics and then I’ll accept them, or that I’m deceiving myself. I’ve agonized over this issue and have simply emerged from my studies a Young Earth Creationist.

There's no element of ad hominem whatsoever regarding my comments regarding Behe. He is a sham who has been repeatedly defeated by both the courts and the scientific community. If I were really resorting to ad hominems, I would have simply dismissed his research out of hand instead of constantly asking you to link us to his work so we can read and discuss it. Why haven't you done that, by the way?

For two reasons. First, because I had been refusing to engage with you until we got past that first hurtle, and second, because I've looked carefully into these issues in order to provide good arguments to rationally support the faith that leads to eternal life and community with the Creator. As far as I understand it you're now asking me to provide you with persepective that you want to use to try to dismantel other people's faith. That's entirely contrary to my purposes here.

I think it's clear that I have a near compultion to share what I think, and I have a lot of trouble holding back, but your intentions for my arguments force me to walk a very fine line at best.

What you're asking me to do, from my position, is not to help you, but to help you hurt others.

How could I consider that the right thing to do?

[Valoran]

OK, I appreciate your willingness to offer a concession. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All I was saying was that it demonstrates that sedimentary deposits are laid down rapidly, and that's accepted irrespective of whether or not you're an old earth evolutionist or a young earth creationist. That's all that my comment was designed to do in the first place. Everyone agrees that sedimentary deposits can be laid down rapidly, and 75% of the earth's surface is covered with such sedimentary deposits so again everyone agrees that there has been large scale flooding over the earth. So if we know the earth has been flooded, and we know that the sedimentary layers can be deposited rapidly, and Mt. St. Helens demonstrated that so too can ash and that erosion that used to be interpreted as taking long ages was also demonstrated to be possibly in catastrophic conditions at that eruption, then what we see is that classic uniformitarianism that used to reject all these things has made huge concessions to catastrophism.

The glaringly obvious flaw in your logic is that you assume that just because SOME sediments are rapidly deposited, ALL of them are.

Just to satisfy myself that you're actually aware of what the geological evidence against YEC-ism is, here's a brief primer: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html

I'm sure you're capable of googling whatever other details you might need to know, or raise them in the form of questions/challenges here.

So much so that philosophically the evidence is supporting a single flood event since proposing a single flood does not compound postulates beyond necessity, whereas multiple, local floods that all lithified to preserve fossils (even though the conditions for lithification require very specific chemicals and therefore unique circumstances which couldn’t often be expected), is compounding postulates beyond necessity.

I'll need to ask you to explain in further detail, since I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant on how local floods and fossils are incompatible with each other.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

[The glaringly obvious flaw in your logic is that you assume that just because SOME sediments are rapidly deposited, ALL of them are.

I was only answering your question, which was specifically was there evidence that sedimentary deposits can be laid down rapidly.

I was not saying that since they can, therefore they are.

I was saying that since they can, then without any conflicting background information it's a possibility that they are.

From that point I can continue to build the case to demonstrate that the supposedly contraditing background information is insufficient to rule rapid global sedimentary deposits out. The expanse of some of the deposits is a good example of support for catastrophism and strong disconfirmation of uniformitarianism - but if we were going to go into it, I'd simply build my case from generalized supports and then narrow down to specific to demonstrate that the ad hoc postulations of uniformitarianism are compounded beyond necessity and so frequently contradict each other that it just doesn't hold up as a good bias.

Just to satisfy myself that you're actually aware of what the geological evidence against YEC-ism is...

I've seen more than my fair share. I've spent a good deal of time talking to people about talkorigins and other such sites.

If you look up Itinerant Lurker here or at other sites you'll see that he presented similar information as you are here, the main differences being that he used a lot of graphics and he articulated the arguments found in the links at length and defended them at length, and simply used the links are references.

I have been in threads with him that literally exceeded 1,000 posts wherein we would go back and forth from his links and discuss the implications.

This is not my first rodeo. I'm well aware of what the mainstream interpretations.

I'll need to ask you to explain in further detail, since I'm afraid I'm quite ignorant on how local floods and fossils are incompatible with each other.

It has to do with the uniqueness of the conditions than enable lithification. A friend of mine is a successful evolutionary Geologist and we've discussed the implications at length and he acknowledge the quandary for the evolutionary interpretation... but again, you see my dilemma in providing you ammunition which you'll turn around and fire at the faith.

[Valoran]

I was only answering your question, which was specifically was there evidence that sedimentary deposits can be laid down rapidly.

I was not saying that since they can, therefore they are.

I was saying that since they can, then without any conflicting background information it's a possibility that they are.

Some types of sedimentation can obviously be deposited rapidly. Some types can't, and this conflicting background information was precisely what the link I gave you explains, which you might have found out if you'd bothered to read it.

As for the rest of your post, all you seem to be trying to do is claiming that you have good and sound arguments, it's just that you're not going to show them. Well - as usual, that's your choice.