6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

Fossils are commonly found ‘out-of-place’ with the current evolution story. But once the finds are published, the range changes (gets extended or reduced) – i.e. the story gets reworked. So claiming no fossils out-of-place relies on naivety of the process. In some cases (such as the pollen spores in Mt Roraima rocks I mentioned in an earlier post), the fossils are found so far out-of-place that they are left a “paradox” and “an intriguing geological problem” (Stainforth RM (1966) “occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana”, Nature vol 210 p. 294).

Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:
There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests.

• What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
• Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
• Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.

Links:

Morton, Glenn, 1997. Precambrian pollen.http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html

References:

1. Chadwick, A. V., 1973. Grand Canyon palynology -- a reply. Creation Research Society Quarterly 9: 238.
2. Chadwick, A. V., 1981. Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon - a re-examination. Origins 8(1): 7-12.http://www.grisda.org/origins/08007.htm
3. Flank, Lenny, 1995. Does science discriminate against creationists

20 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Sharks don't seem to need this "anchoring" assertion”

 

Sharks are not whales. They are designed differently to fill different niches in their respective environments.

Demonstrate design. How do you prove a being did it? How do you falsify a designer designing?  Is this an unsubstantiated assertion per chance?

What are you thoughts on the dover trial?  Or any of the trials design v evolution?

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

“If you a Christian in this case yes. The machine of science doesn't have faith in the same way. We've not decided the end answers from day 1 from 1 book from authority then try intrepet evidence to fit it. Science operates from we don't know..lets find out and we will ditch if necessary whether it's evolution or anything else.”

 

This is naïve – and the main problem with the whole debate; i.e. that people advocating secular models don’t understand the influence presupposition has on the interpretation process

On the one hand we could just follow all of the bible period. We don't need to go find any evidence..we have the answers before we even ask any questions. We could just live by this faith and faith in supernatural stuff and how do you demonstrated and falsify that? How does scientific understanding do this? Interesting too many creationists now accept evolution if only micro. How the heck could you presuppose evolution from previously having no conception of it. How could you presuppose the germ theory of disease. It's purely following evidence. The fossil record could just show all life totally mixed together without any sequence at all but it doesn't. Dna evidence could disprove.. we may not have found fused human chromosome 2 but we did. 

1. The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence, and the evidence remains for all to see. Scientists know that their ideas must stand the scrutiny of other scientists, who may not share their preconceptions. The best way to do this is to make the case strong enough on the basis of the evidence so that preconceptions do not matter. And scientists themselves condemn preconceptions when they see them. (Stephen J. Gould, the most vocal recent crusader against preconceptions in science, was vehemently anticreationism.) 
   
   The history of science is filled with scientists accepting ideas contrary to their preconceptions. Examples include the reality of extinctions, the reality of meteors, meteors as causes of mass extinctions, ice ages, continental drift, transposons, bacteria as the cause of ulcers, the nature of prions, and, of course, evolution itself. Scientists are not immune to being sidetracked by their preconceptions, but they ultimately go where the evidence leads. 
   
   Scientists make deliberate efforts to remove subjective influences from their evaluation of conclusions; they do a good job, on the whole, of reducing bias. They do such a good job, in fact, that what creationists really object to is the fact that scientists do not interpret evidence according to certain religious preconceptions. 
    
2. The hypocrisy of this charge cannot be overstressed. Creationists state outright that they accept only what they already assume. Consider part of Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record" (AIG n.d.). The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith (ICR 2000). Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.

References:

1. AIG. n.d. Statement of faith.http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
2. ICR. 2000. ICR tenets of Creationism.http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_tenets

Anyways again..maybe look from the other side..how do you prove design? That a designer did it?  How do you prove kinds or species or whatever term just poof appeared? How would you define a species?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

3 hours ago, Teditis said:

The 6 (literal) days are clearly spoken in Genesis chapter 1... what's the need for discussion.

Seems clear-cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

 No need for discussion? Then we can just accept any claims by any religion that's ever been. 

[Tristen]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

From a geological time standpoint, 40 days is pretty much "all at once".

Hi One,

“From a geological time standpoint, 40 days is pretty much "all at once"”

Only if you assume a secular model with its associated time frames. Age is not an observed geological fact. The facts from which putative ‘ages’ are derived are the chemical/isotope levels measured in the rocks. That data is then plugged into highly presumptive formulas to generate alleged ‘ages’. But the age itself is read into the sample, not observed from the sample.

 

“I understand it is very popular to brush away majority opinions with the "appealing to consensus fallacy". This might be suitable for disciplines in which it is much more difficult to find a "true" answer, like theology or sociology, but it doesn't pertain as well to science. When answers are derived by study and evidence, it really does matter what a vast majority of experts in a particular field agree upon”

Logic fallacies are called logic fallacies because they represent a departure from logic. There are no special rules exempting scientists. If conclusions are “derived by study and evidence”, then the “study and evidence” is what should be presented for scrutiny, not the consensus opinion. Majority scientific opinions are commonly overturned by new discoveries. And scientific logic encourages critical thinking. There is no provision in scientific logic for accepting consensus. That kind of uncritical trust turns scientists into prophets.

 

“Here is a link from a Christian organization with a quick summary of the fossil record: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record. I don't know how convincing you will find it, but it is short and probably worth reading”

This link just repeats the same just-so storytelling as any other explanation based on the secular model. It’s not a “summary of the fossil record”, but a parroting of secularist interpretations of a few choice facts.

 

“I agree that these assumptions are important to radiometric dating”

They are not just “important”, they are indispensable to the logic underpinning the method. If any one of these assumptions is shown to be untrustworthy, then the entire logic upon which the method is based is untrustworthy.

 

“Here is another relatively short article that mentions some creationist criticisms of dating and offers responses: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php.”

There is so much cherry picking and bias in this link that it’s borderline deception. If there is anything you find compelling here, I’ll be happy to give you my perspective.

 

“Even assuming there was a solid and complete navigable bridge between Asia and Australia, it seems incredible that only the marsupials would take this particular route, while the placental mammals did not”

Pseudomys vandycki is a native Australian placental mammal. But regardless, all your argument tells us is that no (almost no) placental mammals survived in Australia whilst the marsupials and monotremes thrived. Why is it so impossible that marsupials crossed to Australia at an opportune time, but fewer mammals dispersed in that same direction – until the land bridge no longer existed? Or maybe only a few placental mammals crossed, but their species didn’t survive in the harsh conditions they encountered.

 

“The secular model suggests that Australia became geographically isolated at a time before the development of placental mammals in other parts of the world. The mammals of the isolated continent remained marsupial, while placental varieties developed and spread everywhere else, a model consistent with observable fact”

But the facts themselves only speak to marsupial isolation in Australia, not the timing of that isolation (or mammal evolution). I do not contest that the facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the secular model. I do contest the implication that this is the only rational perspective from which to interpret the facts.

 

“I grew up with a YEC background and the factor that I have had the most difficulty coming to grips with in my transition to evolutionary creation is the Bible”

I have the opposite story. I grew up in a secular household and converted to Christianity as a young adult. I didn’t know such thing as creationism existed until I had been a Christian for nearly two years.

 

“The science (once many of the things I had been taught were proved incorrect) was easy to overcome”

I found the opposite – that the so-called “science” I’d been taught and thought I could trust actually exaggerated confidence in secular models beyond what can be logically justified by the scientific method, and with an overwhelming preference for the secular faith bias. Upon investigation, I found that if one looks at the same facts from a different perspective, they can be rationally interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model. There is no objective reason to consider one perspective more valid than the other.

 

“I don't think Genesis would have had the same impact or carried the same meaning to the original audience if it was bogged down with scientific details that the Hebrew people would have had no framework to understand”

The idea that our ancestors were animals is common among native peoples. And there is no basis for assuming people in the past were less intelligent than we are. I see no reason for God to have to contrive a false narrative, just to declare His sovereignty. God didn’t tells us the “scientific details” of how He created. Why not just tell us the truth?

 

“this is not a salvation issue”

I agree that it’s not a “salvation issue” in the sense that one can be saved without adhering to Biblical creationism – however, it does speak to the reliability of scripture providing a consistent world view. And that can have a direct influence over whether or not the “salvation issue” is seriously considered by a seeker of truth.

 

“It breaks my heart to see young people that were taught misleading and fallacious information about evolution (as I was) become confronted with the theory of evolution without the proper explanation and teaching to steady their Christian worldview”

But how many people outright reject the Bible because popular confidence in secular theory is over-exaggerated? And they falsely perceive the Bible at odds with some great bastion of truth they call “science”. I’d prefer all creationists understood evolution theory as well. But in reality, more non-Christians just accept it as unassailable truth, without a proper understanding of either the theory itself, or the scientific method in general.

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Logic fallacies are called logic fallacies because they represent a departure from logic. There are no special rules exempting scientists. If conclusions are “derived by study and evidence”, then the “study and evidence” is what should be presented for scrutiny, not the consensus opinion.

I see your fallacy of my fallacy and raise it with an "overgeneralization" fallacy. In all seriousness, ignoring the meaning of scientific consensus doesn't mean it isn't valid.

25 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Majority scientific opinions are commonly overturned by new discoveries.

Do you have any examples of recent majority scientific opinions that have been overturned?

27 minutes ago, Tristen said:

They are not just “important”, they are indispensable to the logic underpinning the method.

Agreed. Luckily, the assumptions have proved accurate. Otherwise, give some examples that they have been in error.

28 minutes ago, Tristen said:

There is so much cherry picking and bias in this link that it’s borderline deception. If there is anything you find compelling here, I’ll be happy to give you my perspective.

Please do, I'm not an expert in dating methods, but I'd be interested in hearing (other than from contamination) how it has been falsified.

32 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Pseudomys vandycki is a native Australian placental mammal. But regardless, all your argument tells us is that no (almost no) placental mammals survived in Australia whilst the marsupials and monotremes thrived. Why is it so impossible that marsupials crossed to Australia at an opportune time, but fewer mammals dispersed in that same direction – until the land bridge no longer existed? Or maybe only a few placental mammals crossed, but their species didn’t survive in the harsh conditions they encountered.

Thanks, I appreciate the correction. I would assume that placental mammal fossils would be found in Australia, if that were the case. As part of a bigger picture, both humans and animals (and plants, for that matter) would almost certainly have to have been miraculously transported to Australia and the Americas for repopulation of these areas to have occurred in the last 4,000 years. I'm not saying God couldn't have done so, but it seems out of His character to play games like that.

 

39 minutes ago, Tristen said:

There is no objective reason to consider one perspective more valid than the other.

Sorry, I will continue to side with the overwhelming scientific consensus. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. I never got into it, but many people enjoy "Antiques Road Show" and the like. If someone had a Civil War artifact and got 100 experts to look at it and evaluate it. Ninety-nine experts confirm its authenticity and assign it a value ranging from $7,500 - $10,000 dollars. One expert says it has all the appearances of age, but it is clearly not authentic and says it is worth 50 cents. Would you say "There is a difference of opinion, so obviously both opinions are equally viable!"?

 

46 minutes ago, Tristen said:

The idea that our ancestors were animals is common among native peoples. And there is no basis for assuming people in the past were less intelligent than we are. I see no reason for God to have to contrive a false narrative, just to declare His sovereignty. God didn’t tells us the “scientific details” of how He created. Why not just tell us the truth?

I never said that our ancestors (at least Biblical ancestors) were animals or implied anything about a lack of intelligence. In fact, I would posit that in some ways, their intellectual abilities surpassed modern ones, such as memory for oral tradition. What I said was that they didn't have the framework. Should the Bible have said "In about 5500 years, some guys named Hooke and van Leeuwenhoek will make some really important discoveries with this thing called a microscope... and then this will all make sense..."?

 

50 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I agree that it’s not a “salvation issue” in the sense that one can be saved without adhering to Biblical creationism – however, it does speak to the reliability of scripture providing a consistent world view. And that can have a direct influence over whether or not the “salvation issue” is seriously considered by a seeker of truth.

I maintain that the Bible is completely reliable in its message! I understand that many people have issues with it, but that's what teaching is for! The great Christian scientist, Francis Bacon, spoke of "two books". He wrote “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

 

52 minutes ago, Tristen said:

they falsely perceive the Bible at odds with some great bastion of truth they call “science”.

They perceive the Bible at odds with reality when people stick blindly to things like a flat earth and geocentricism based on misinterpretation of the Bible. And without a gentler way to put it, forgive me, adherence to young earth creation is falling into the same category.

[Enoch2021]

6 hours ago, da_man1974 said:

Are you just trying to troll or do you really believe the world is flat?

Again, I don't "believe" it's Flat, I "Know" it's: Flat, Non-Spinning, and Domed.

 

regards

[Kevinb]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Please do, I'm not an expert in dating methods, but I'd be interested in hearing (other than from contamination) how it has been falsified.

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.) 

With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line. 
 

For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:

K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products.40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.

The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.

Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.

There are dozens of different dating methods using different sources that overlap whereby one could be checked against others. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: 
 

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001). 
 

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). 
 

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999). 
 

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

 

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990). A creationist may site things like mussels being found to be alive and thousands of years old using carbon dating.. if there's been consumption of "old " carbon if you like such that it has already part decayed in limestone it will give a value like this. If you use dating techniques inappropriately you'll get erroneous results.. this is well known of course but a YEC especially cites this kinda stuff to attempt to chuck it all away.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

 No need for discussion? Then we can just accept any claims by any religion that's ever been. 

Christianity is NOT a Religion.

However, you are in a Religion...In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb and "Scientifically Falsified" 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/Realism, aka: atheism).   That's been explained and illustrated to you personally on this forum, ad nauseam.

 

Question:  How in the World can you use your Computer/Smart Phone which is enabled by Quantum Mechanics, and at the same time Stage 5 Cling to with a Kung Fu Death Grip that which Quantum Mechanics has Bludgeoned then Jettisoned into the Incoherent Oblivion...The Fairytale Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism, Religion?

Please, the floor is yours...?

 

regards

 

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage.

3 hours ago, Kevinb said:

On the one hand we could just follow all of the bible period. We don't need to go find any evidence..we have the answers before we even ask any questions. We could just live by this faith and faith in supernatural stuff and how do you demonstrated and falsify that?

 

Hi again Kevin,

“Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage”

So there were some experts who concluded, as you have, that the pollen must have entered the rocks subsequent to its formation. However, this is based primarily on their trust that the radiometric dates are “beyond question”, and an assumption that the fossils couldn’t have survived the metaphorphosing of the rock, not because of any extant fact. And even this group “admitted that entry of the pollen into its present site defies simple explanation”. The prevailing consensus was, “by no conceivable physical means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside. They are dense, impermeable rocks compressed by an overburden of hundreds of feet of overlying Roraima sandstones. The undercutting at Cerro Venamo suggests that the cliff has been steadily retreating, hence the face which was sampled must have been deep within the formation until quite recent times. The Roraima sandstones are quartzitic, of low permeability, hence carriage of extraneous pollen through them by percolating water seems highly improbable. Even if this process could occur, entry of such pollen and spores into the nonporous hornfels lacks an explanation. Furthermore, if plausibility of this process be granted, it would have been operative for a long period, and a mixed suite of spores and pollen should be expected.” (Stainforth (1966)).

 

“There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests”

The tests are largely irrelevant.

Reportedly “well-preserved” pollen and pollen spores were described independently by three palynologists (pollen experts) found in dense, impermeable rock dated to the Precambrian (i.e. 1.3 billion years before pollen existed according to the evolution story). Rather than consider the most obvious interpretation (i.e. that either radiometric dating is untrustworthy, or the evolution story is untrustworthy, or both), the lack of a plausible explanation caused the authors to simply conclude this an “intriguing geological problem”. As is the case with all past claims, evidence contradicting the model can simply be dismissed as “we don’t know, maybe we’ll figure it out some other time". This is a legitimately rational response – but it demonstrates the unfalsifiability of all claims of the unobserved past.

 

“Demonstrate design. How do you prove a being did it? How do you falsify a designer designing?  Is this an unsubstantiated assertion per chance?”

As framed, it is an unsupported assertion. Though the point was not garnish your uncritical acceptance, but to show that there is an alternative way to interpret the same facts. If something has a function (like fins), then there existence is at-least equally consistent with being designed for purpose, as it is with concluding it to be some evolutionary leftover.

 

“What are you thoughts on the dover trial?  Or any of the trials design v evolution?”

I haven’t familiarised myself with any. Did they present a convincing argument that you’d like me to consider?

 

“On the one hand we could just follow all of the bible period. We don't need to go find any evidence..we have the answers before we even ask any questions. We could just live by this faith and faith in supernatural stuff and how do you demonstrated and falsify that? How does scientific understanding do this?”

The scope of the scientific method is current, natural phenomena. A departure from the robust logic of the scientific method is required to investigate past or supernatural claims; namely, you contrive a model (i.e. a story of what might have happened), then you compare the model to the available facts for consistency between the two. Any fact that can be interpreted to support the model logically contributes reliability to the model (including those aspects which cannot be scientifically observed). It is the same logical method used by both creationists and secularists. But the secularists think theirs is the only valid perspective. No claim of the unobserved past is falsifiable. Even if some facts don’t seem to fit, it could just mean we haven’t figured out how they fit. We can’t go back in time to verify one model over the other. That’s simply a logical limitation of looking into the past.

Claiming scientific confidence in any past claim based on consistency between the facts and the model therefore commits the logic fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Confidence in past claims (as with supernatural claims) requires faith.

 

“Interesting too many creationists now accept evolution if only micro”

I have always accepted that that kind of change is observed. That has been the informed creationist position for as long as I have been a creationist.

 

“How the heck could you presuppose evolution from previously having no conception of it”

Since Darwin, western education has become exclusively saturated with the secular paradigm. I didn’t know creationism was even a real thing until well after I converted to Christianity.

 

“How could you presuppose the germ theory of disease. It's purely following evidence”

Current natural phenomena can be directly observed, and experimented upon. Results can be mathematically measured against positive and negative controls. Therefore, mathematical confidence can be attained for current natural claims through experimentation and analysis. Such is not the case for historical claims.

 

“The fossil record could just show all life totally mixed together without any sequence at all but it doesn't”

Which is irrelevant – since I’ve already provided an interpretation of fossil succession which is consistent with the Biblical flood account.

 

“Dna evidence could disprove.. we may not have found fused human chromosome 2 but we did”

Did we? Or did we just find a perfectly functional human chromosome organised in such a way as to contain similar information as found in two primate chromosomes. Early reports claiming an alleged fusion were based on molecular techniques with low resolutions (i.e. not genetic sequences). As sequencing resolution improved, it has become clear that the supposedly fused telomeres (chromosome ends) don’t actually look like telomeres, and the supposedly silenced centromere doesn’t look like a centromere. As early as 2002, a paper was released that described the telomeres, over and over again as “degenerate”. They claimed, “The arrays were originally true terminal arrays that degenerated rapidly after the fusion” – which is code for, ‘we still like to think that they are fusion points even though they have deteriorated beyond recognition’. (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.long ). See how an adherence to paradigm trumps the facts.

 

[one.opinion]

51 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Did we? Or did we just find a perfectly functional human chromosome organised in such a way as to contain similar information as found in two primate chromosomes. Early reports claiming an alleged fusion were based on molecular techniques with low resolutions (i.e. not genetic sequences). As sequencing resolution improved, it has become clear that the supposedly fused telomeres (chromosome ends) don’t actually look like telomeres, and the supposedly silenced centromere doesn’t look like a centromere. As early as 2002, a paper was released that described the telomeres, over and over again as “degenerate”. They claimed, “The arrays were originally true terminal arrays that degenerated rapidly after the fusion” – which is code for, ‘we still like to think that they are fusion points even though they have deteriorated beyond recognition’. (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.long ). See how an adherence to paradigm trumps the facts.

Quick question: is this your own analysis, or have you read this in someone else's analysis?