Living Fossil's

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Since living fossils remain essentially unchanged, the argument is that either this is by Intelligent Design, or this is a case of random evolution.  If we believe (and I do) the myriad of dating methods used, one would have to believe these fossils are from a land much older than the Biblical date of Noah's Flood.  Two paths lead from there.  One path leads us to the conclusion that Noah's Flood was a large localized flood covering the lands and mountains around the Mediterranean and Black Seas.  The other path leads us to the conclusion that there was a prior flood let's call Lucifer's Flood that covered the whole land (Earth).  The second conclusion is best known as the Gap Theory.  The first assumption regarding Noah's Flood has some scientific validity comparing the Flood narratives of many diverse cultures and the physical evidence found.  Neither of which takes away from the Intelligent Designer, God.

Now, put away your tar, feathers, and pitchforks and recognize: I am a seasoned Christian believer; I do not believe in evolution; and I take the Bible literally.  I am not a teacher.  I am giving you my opinion which reconciles the Bible with science.  Are there anomalies?  Sure.  Most hypotheses have outliers and anomalies.  Neither the Gap Theory or Noah's Flood being a large "localized" flood depend on the acceptance of the other theory.  They are just that; theories that are independent of one another.  I happen to believe both.

[DARRELX]

21 hours ago, woundeddog said:

 

 

LOL silly mistake on my part.

I am a young earth creationist. 

I do not believe that there was a gap between God creating heaven and earth and saying, "Let there be light."

Or a gap between creating the heaven and earth and the earth being formless and void. That is just wishful thinking and the arguments for a gap are unconvincing.

The idea of an old earth came from atheists, just as evolution has. The dating method for rocks has been shown to be unreliable because newly formed volcanic rock can date in the millions of years. 

So this gap idea comes from Christians who want to reconcile atheistic reasoning with scripture. 

All atheist really have for an old earth that is actually credible is light from the stars. 

I have no doubt that when God commanded the light to shine out of darkness to be for times and seasons, He made it so we can see it.

If God commands the light from any star to be seen by earth, then it will be. 

Or God could simply have stretched the light from there to here immediately. 

God created light without any source at first so He can create the Stars to shine on the earth. 

Also creationist give plenty of evidence for a young earth so why would a Christian not take that evidence seriously?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

10 hours ago, DARRELX said:

LOL silly mistake on my part.

I am a young earth creationist. 

I do not believe that there was a gap between God creating heaven and earth and saying, "Let there be light."

Or a gap between creating the heaven and earth and the earth being formless and void. That is just wishful thinking and the arguments for a gap are unconvincing.

The idea of an old earth came from atheists, just as evolution has. The dating method for rocks has been shown to be unreliable because newly formed volcanic rock can date in the millions of years. 

So this gap idea comes from Christians who want to reconcile atheistic reasoning with scripture. 

All atheist really have for an old earth that is actually credible is light from the stars. 

I have no doubt that when God commanded the light to shine out of darkness to be for times and seasons, He made it so we can see it.

If God commands the light from any star to be seen by earth, then it will be. 

Or God could simply have stretched the light from there to here immediately. 

God created light without any source at first so He can create the Stars to shine on the earth. 

Also creationist give plenty of evidence for a young earth so why would a Christian not take that evidence seriously?

Correction: the idea of an old Earth predates Christ and has nothing to do with evolution, a theory in constant revision as new data reflects its unscientific basic.  Your ramblings are based on a false premise so I don't feel particularly led by the Holy Spirit to correct you.  This subject has been covered in detail elsewhere.  Check out the writings of my Christian brother Hazard.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 8:52 AM, Bonky said:

Except that evolution does not insist that an organism MUST evolve morphologically.   

But the problem is, NONE of them have evolved significantly.

[Tristen]

Hi Darrelex, you said “Living fossils are species that have been fossilized but still exist today”

I would narrow down this definition to something like – Living fossils are extant species that demonstrate no evidence of evolutionary change over evolutionary time when compared against their fossilised ancestor species.

 

“If evolution were true then no species supposedly living hundreds of millions of years ago would have stopped evolving”

I would firstly use Common Ancestry instead of your first instance of “evolution”. I avoid the term “evolution” as it can be equivocated to mean a variety of things including Natural Selection, speciation, genetic mutations etc. – all of which I, as a young-earth creationist, have no issue with. None of these proposed mechanisms are in logical conflict with scripture. However “evolution” can also mean Common Ancestry, which I do not subscribe to. Within the creationist paradigm, species do evolve (undergo change over time), but only within the same created kind, and only by way of a narrowing of the genetic pool. So all cats are related to an ancestor cat pair, as all dogs are related to an ancestor dog pair – likewise for parrots and bears and horses etc. Whereas the Common Ancestry of all life requires a mechanism for the mass accumulation of novel, functional genetic information (over massive time periods) such that dogs and cats and horses and every other form of life share a Common Ancestor.  The phrase Common Ancestry therefore makes a more accurate distinction from the creationist position, than does “evolution”

 

The problem for secular models arising from living fossils is the discrepancy between some paths of life undergoing copious change, whilst others seem to have undergone no change through the same period. The proposal is that, having found a niche, no environmental pressure required these unchanged creatures to adapt to new environments. I have two main issues with this solution; 1) genetic mutation and replication errors occur at background levels in every creature – such that some change should be evident over the millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of years of proposed evolutionary time. 2) Habitats also change over time, so the concept of a particular niche lasting hundreds of millions of years also defies credulity in my opinion.

 

The biggest problem for proponents of evolutionary theory with living fossils is logical. If evolution theory now predicts finding both change, and no change, then evolution theory now predicts the full scope of possible observations – and has thereby rendered itself to be logically unfalsifiable.

 

“Living fossils are visible proof that evolution is not true”

We should avoid using absolutes such as “proof”. Proof means unquestionable, unequivocal truth. That level of confidence isn’t legitimately applied in any scientific sense – it only really applies in mathematics. Evidence is a more appropriate term. Evidence means facts (i.e. observations/measurements/data) that have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as ‘evidence’ either for or against a position) – which is the context of your statement.

[hvnbnd]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 7:58 AM, kwikphilly said:

Blessings DARRELLX.....

    Interesting that you chose"fossils" to refute evolution since fossils are generally remains preserved for an(alleged)minimum of roughly 10,000 years of age,,,,,so would you consider yourself a young or old earth creationist ?    Just wondering,,,,                              With love-in Christ,Kwik

Hardly. Fossil's can be formed in a much shorter timeframe than that.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/long-fossil-form-f4f217114e4a0440
 

I would submit that there aren't any fossils 10,000 years old...

Evolution... fairy tale for adults...

[kwikphilly]

Quote

Fossil's can be formed in a much shorter timeframe than that.                                                                   hvnbnd

Hence the word "alleged"

[Enoch2021]

On 7/14/2016 at 8:30 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

the idea of an old Earth predates Christ

Really??

1.   Argument to Age Fallacy.

2.  "Ideas" aren't Scientific Evidence.

3.  Please post SUPPORT for your claim here (i.e., Who/What/When/Where/Why --- Citation of course).

 

Quote

and has nothing to do with evolution 

Well evolution doesn't exist "Scientifically" to begin with.

However, the "Just-So" Story (Myth) has as it's CORE FOUNDATION : "Billions of Years"  i.e., can't have the fairytale without it.

 

Besides,  

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
 

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "manipulated by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

2. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!!  So can you please elaborate: 

How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event (lol) without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.  

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to with a Kung Fu Death Grip then Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell...??? 

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me...you? It's mind numbing.


More Importantly, according to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 

Independent of EXISTENCE of the 'which-path information' ... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." 

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

Furthermore...

“It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.
 
So... unless you can provide The Name of the person who Observed these Rocks/Photons (Whatever), Date/Time Stamped and Recorded...

Can you please post the "Decay Rate or Speed" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!!!

 

Quote

a theory in constant revision as new data reflects its unscientific basic.

This doesn't even make sense; please clarify...?   Is English your first language ?

 

Quote

Your ramblings are based on a false premise so I don't feel particularly led by the Holy Spirit to correct you

DARRELX's points are actually ~ 98%, Right On Point!!  Let's keep it real, you don't "FEEL" like it because your position is a Trainwreck both Logically and Scientifically.

 

Quote

Check out the writings of my Christian brother Hazard.

I'm not interested in Comedies.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

On 8/29/2016 at 5:16 PM, Tristen said:

Hi Darrelex, you said “Living fossils are species that have been fossilized but still exist today”

I would narrow down this definition to something like – Living fossils are extant species that demonstrate no evidence of evolutionary change over evolutionary time when compared against their fossilised ancestor species.

 

“If evolution were true then no species supposedly living hundreds of millions of years ago would have stopped evolving”

I would firstly use Common Ancestry instead of your first instance of “evolution”. I avoid the term “evolution” as it can be equivocated to mean a variety of things including Natural Selection, speciation, genetic mutations etc. – all of which I, as a young-earth creationist, have no issue with. None of these proposed mechanisms are in logical conflict with scripture. However “evolution” can also mean Common Ancestry, which I do not subscribe to. Within the creationist paradigm, species do evolve (undergo change over time), but only within the same created kind, and only by way of a narrowing of the genetic pool. So all cats are related to an ancestor cat pair, as all dogs are related to an ancestor dog pair – likewise for parrots and bears and horses etc. Whereas the Common Ancestry of all life requires a mechanism for the mass accumulation of novel, functional genetic information (over massive time periods) such that dogs and cats and horses and every other form of life share a Common Ancestor.  The phrase Common Ancestry therefore makes a more accurate distinction from the creationist position, than does “evolution”

 

The problem for secular models arising from living fossils is the discrepancy between some paths of life undergoing copious change, whilst others seem to have undergone no change through the same period. The proposal is that, having found a niche, no environmental pressure required these unchanged creatures to adapt to new environments. I have two main issues with this solution; 1) genetic mutation and replication errors occur at background levels in every creature – such that some change should be evident over the millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of years of proposed evolutionary time. 2) Habitats also change over time, so the concept of a particular niche lasting hundreds of millions of years also defies credulity in my opinion.

 

Hey Tristen, long time.  Hope you and yours are well.

This is very well said: clear, concise, with attention to detail...quite refreshing actually.  

Doesn't the fact that 'evolution' lends itself to Equivocation (Fallacy) give the game away?

There is no REAL "Scientific Theory" of evolution...and never has been.

 

Quote

The biggest problem for proponents of evolutionary theory with living fossils is logical. If evolution theory now predicts finding both change, and no change, then evolution theory now predicts the full scope of possible observations – and has thereby rendered itself to be logically unfalsifiable.

1.  As discussed, there is no "evolution theory".

2.  And there are no "PREDICTIONS" with the Non-Existent 'theory'...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

Quote

We should avoid using absolutes such as “proof”. Proof means unquestionable, unequivocal truth. That level of confidence isn’t legitimately applied in any scientific sense – it only really applies in mathematics.

Patently False.  And quite preposterous.

1.  Then why did God admonish us to...

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Are you saying HE was only referring to equations ?

 

2. So we can only "Prove" Mathematics??    Mathematics is Immaterial --- Abstract.  According to Mathematics 2 - 4 = -2; can you "PROVE" -2 Apples ??

According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality".

 

Basically you're saying that we can PROVE (Absolute Unequivocal TRUTH)--- with the Abstract/Immaterial, but with 'Physical Reality' we're just left with questionable 'evidence'?? 

Perhaps you should consider RE-Considering your position here, Posthaste!

 

3.  Are you saying these are not Unequivocally True and "PROVED" (??):

a. Unless it is hindered "INTENTIONALLY", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)

b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.

c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.

d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.

e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.

f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!

g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE.

h. ONLY the Existence of "Which-Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.

i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.

j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.

 

I could go on for MONTHS !!

 

You need to apply 1/1000 of the rigor you used to this latter claim as you used with the former points you made.  If you do, your claim here implodes in a less than a Planck Time.

 

regards

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Hey Tristen, long time.  Hope you and yours are well.

This is very well said: clear, concise, with attention to detail...quite refreshing actually.  

Doesn't the fact that 'evolution' lends itself to Equivocation (Fallacy) give the game away?

There is no REAL "Scientific Theory" of evolution...and never has been.

 

1.  As discussed, there is no "evolution theory".

2.  And there are no "PREDICTIONS" with the Non-Existent 'theory'...

“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

 

Patently False.  And quite preposterous.

1.  Then why did God admonish us to...

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Are you saying HE was only referring to equations ?

 

2. So we can only "Prove" Mathematics??    Mathematics is Immaterial --- Abstract.  According to Mathematics 2 - 4 = -2; can you "PROVE" -2 Apples ??

According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality".

 

Basically you're saying that we can PROVE (Absolute Unequivocal TRUTH)--- with the Abstract/Immaterial, but with 'Physical Reality' we're just left with questionable 'evidence'?? 

Perhaps you should consider RE-Considering your position here, Posthaste!

 

3.  Are you saying these are not Unequivocally True and "PROVED" (??):

a. Unless it is hindered "INTENTIONALLY", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)

b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.

c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.

d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.

e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.

f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!

g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE.

h. ONLY the Existence of "Which-Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.

i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.

j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.

 

I could go on for MONTHS !!

 

You need to apply 1/1000 of the rigor you used to this latter claim as you used with the former points you made.  If you do, your claim here implodes in a less than a Planck Time.

 

regards

 

Hi Enoch,

Nice to hear from you.

You said, “Doesn't the fact that 'evolution' lends itself to Equivocation (Fallacy) give the game away?”

Only in terms of semantics. The term “evolution” just means change – but it is most often used deceptively to imply the entire secular model – including cosmology. Nevertheless, an honest ‘evolutionist’ could still claim to advocate for Common Ancestry. And using this more precise language would eliminate from the debate references to almost all claims of evidence for “evolution” – which are predominantly based in observations of Natural Selection and mutations etc. – and not Common Ancestry.

 

“There is no REAL "Scientific Theory" of evolution...and never has been”

As you are aware from previous discussions, I understand that historical claims are at-least one logical step removed from the scientific process. And so I understand why you see it as debatable whether the term “scientific” could legitimately be used of the theory. I see this as mostly semantic. Some misuse the term “Scientific” as though science represents some unequivocal bastion of objective truth. They therefore think that adding the term science/scientific bolsters the street-cred of their position. So it may, in some contexts, be worth the argument – i.e. to set people straight on the true nature of scientific investigation.

But ultimately, the secular scientific community does have a suite of theories (whether “scientific” or not) which they apply to account for the current diversity of life on earth. I went against my own rule and used “evolution theory” as a catch-all phrase for all those theories.

 

Regarding Proof, you said, “why did God admonish us to... (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Are you saying HE was only referring to equations ?”

I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof. Conceptually, I agree with translators who render the word “test” or “examine” rather than “prove”.

 

“So we can only "Prove" Mathematics??    Mathematics is Immaterial --- Abstract.  According to Mathematics 2 - 4 = -2; can you "PROVE" -2 Apples ?? According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality". Basically you're saying that we can PROVE (Absolute Unequivocal TRUTH)--- with the Abstract/Immaterial, but with 'Physical Reality' we're just left with questionable 'evidence'?? Perhaps you should consider RE-Considering your position here”

I include logical algorithm under the purview of mathematics. And yes, correctly defined, proofs are only available in the abstract. Proofs represent abstract absolutes, not physical “Unequivocal TRUTH”. Proof is not correctly used in the scientific sense – as though facts can render an issue logically beyond contention – which itself is logically contrary to the critical nature of scientific inquiry. The term prove/proofs are commonly misused to artificially amplify confidence in ideas beyond what can be justified by the scientific method.

 

“Are you saying these are not Unequivocally True and "PROVED" (??): …”

The logic underpinning the scientific method is critical/skeptical. Correct scientific reasoning makes no provision for any idea being “unequivocal”.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think you are using incorrect terminology.

Observations in science are called facts. But, for a variety of reasons ranging between human error, mechanical error and natural variation, observation cannot always be trusted. Even confidence in natural laws is founded on having not observed any exceptions to the rule. If we claim it impossible for there to be inconsistency since we have only ever observed consistency, we commit the fallacy Affirming the Consequent. And so we cannot maintain logical consistency with the scientific method, whilst claiming absolutes. Science deals in confidence based on analysis of the facts – BUT NOT claims of ultimate truth (which is intrinsic to the terms proof/prove).

Some of your examples are general descriptions of facts. Some of them use absolutist terminology (i.e. “ALWAYS” and “ONLY”) which cannot be justified by scientific reasoning. In the latter, scientific editors would require your language to be hedged to reflect what is actually observed. For example for point g., “Biological life has been exclusively, abundantly, observed to arise from biological life, and has never been observed to arise independently of biological life”. That is scientifically accurate. You might then conclude, “We therefore propose, based on this overwhelming weight of evidence, that Biogenesis represents a biological law of nature.”