Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[dhchristian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is really too much to address at one time. If you truly wish to discuss the science, could you pick a single topic for us to focus on?

Sure, Start with number 1 on the list...

[one.opinion]

17 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Sure, Start with number 1 on the list...

Sounds like a reasonable place to start :-) I should probably note before I start that my area of expertise is molecular biology rather than paleontology, but I'll attempt to respond fairly and completely.

Quote

If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms.

What data would you use to support this hypothesis? To use one example, it would seem to me that a fish and an early land vertebrate would be more stable than a transitional form (like Tiktaalik) between the two. There are many fish fossils and many fossils that are determined to be early land vertebrates, but the transition between the two is very rare. If I recall correctly, Tiktaalik fossils have been found in only one location. The Tiktaalik evidence shows us two important things. First, that there is indeed fossil evidence supporting the aspect of evolution hypothesizing that aquatic vertebrates had to transition to land vertebrates. Second, that the fossil record (as huge as it is) is only a minute fraction of all the animals that have existed on the planet.

Quote

Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true.

I guess it depends on your personal definition of "many", but I would have to say that there are many examples of transitional fossils. Tiktaalik is one, and the series of fossils leading from terrestrial mammal to whale is another common example. This includes several fossils such as Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Duradon. There are many other examples of fossils that appear to be transitional. There are much longer lists on the internet, but here is one site with a few good examples - http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Quote

What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

Not really... I'm not sure where you copied this from, but this is a really strange idea. A non-functional appendage would be very unlikely to exhibit a survival advantage, and thus would not be expected at all to be present in the fossil record. Although the theory of evolution would require the origination of novel structures, most transitional forms would involve an existing part altering structure and function, finally ending in a new part. Tiktaalik is another good example of this. Paleontologists and anatomists agree that it was a fish, but the bone structure indicates that the fins could be used as walking appendages, just as we see in some other fish today.

Quote

Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Why does the author expect trillions of fossilized transitional forms? This isn't very reasonable since the number of total fossils discovered to this point is considerably lower than that.

Quote

The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms).

The author is stretching an inference from the Biblical text. Of course animals reproduce according to their kind. If an alligator hatched out of a clutch of turtle eggs, that really would be a scientific problem. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that "kinds" could not change over time or that transitional forms do not exist. This is a purely human idea, not based on either science or the Bible.

Quote

So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

This is false. There are absolutely are transitional fossils. The author may not accept them, but denial of evidence doesn't mean that the evidence is lacking.

There are extremely few credentialed paleontologists that think the fossil record is a problem for evolution, while virtually all of them see the problems in the fossil record for Young Earth Creation. I'd be happy to discuss that with you further, if you wish, but don't feel obligated.

[dhchristian]

Rebuttal: I will keep these short, No need to comment just move on to the next point

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

The author is stretching an inference from the Biblical text. Of course animals reproduce according to their kind. If an alligator hatched out of a clutch of turtle eggs, that really would be a scientific problem. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible stating that "kinds" could not change over time or that transitional forms do not exist. This is a purely human idea, not based on either science or the Bible.

The Point of this was to show you that we have a myriad of Whole fossils of Known creatures such as mammoths and dinosaurs and Horses, We do not have the same number of transitional forms. the ones you list are exceptions. Evolution requires millions of steps along the path of creatures evolving from one "kind' to another "kind", but the fossil record does not support this. So in the 1970's They were forced to come up with "punctuated equilibrium" to replace phyletic gradualism. This alone should give one pause of the veracity of this theory. The Word of God does speak of something like Punctuated Equilibrium which is known as the Worldwide flood as well as the Fall of Man into sin and the entry of death into the fossil record. These significant events in history resulted in large changes to species according to the creationists, the most notable being the reduced size of many species, which was allowed by the pre-flood conditions on the earth and its atmosphere. Is there evidence of this? There certainly is, in that older species were much larger in scale than the modern ones alive today... a simple observation. The Bible even speaks of shortened overall lifespan of species in general Humans in particular due to the events of the flood.  

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

They were forced to come up with "punctuated equilibrium" to replace phyletic gradualism.

Evidence led to the new concept, not just imagination.

 

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

There certainly is, in that older species were much larger in scale than the modern ones alive today... a simple observation.

What do you think led to the change in scale, if not evolution on the molecular level?

There certainly are still questions about the fossil record, and the number of transitional species (remember, these actually do exist) is smaller than I'm sure paleontologists would prefer, but it is just plain false to claim that there is a "complete absence of transitional forms". That is what completely erodes the notion that "the fossils disprove evolution".

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

You really don't understand. I'll leave it to you.

Perhaps you could explain what I got wrong instead of simply claiming I don't understand and removing yourself from the conversation.

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

They were forced to come up with "punctuated equilibrium" to replace phyletic gradualism.

Evidence led to the new concept, not just imagination.

Point made...LOL Evidence from the earth...Led to concept that is more in line with scripture.

 

Just now, one.opinion said:

What do you think led to the change in scale, if not evolution on the molecular level?

There certainly are still questions about the fossil record, and the number of transitional species (remember, these actually do exist) is smaller than I'm sure paleontologists would prefer, but it is just plain false to claim that there is a "complete absence of transitional forms". That is what completely erodes the notion that "the fossils disprove evolution".

Unless DNA sets limits, a creature with a long lifespan can grow to extreme size. The Pre flood world had longer lifespans in general. Also, when the earth had waters above the earth according to scripture, this acted like a shield to block out more of the Sun's cosmic radiation which is a slow killer, if we don't have the magnetic shield we do today, no life would exist. By having that waters above, would increase O2 levels, thus sustaining larger creatures. if I remember correctly, has not science said O2 levels were higher in the past?

When this water shield was opened, Oxygen levels declined drastically, Cosmic radiation increased drastically, and life spans shortened drastically. Net result is smaller animals in general. A Punctuated equilibrium so to speak...  

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

As some point, you just have to believe the word of God over the word of men.

I would agree that the only reasonable objection to evolution is a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. However, based on the available evidence, I believe it is appropriate to consider a non-literal interpretation. This has been the case with Biblical passages that indicate a flat earth, a stationary earth with a revolving sun, and a solid dome sky supported by pillars. For each example, the evidence in God’s creation overwhelmed a literal interpretation. I believe it is appropriate in this case, as well.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Evolution has zero evidence, that's the point. It's all fallacy.

Todd Wood is a PhD-educated biologist that is also a Young Earth Creationist. He has this to say about evolution:

Quote

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Why do you think someone very familiar with the issue, yet maintaining a YEC view, says that there is "gobs and gobs" of evidence for evolution?

[dhchristian]

On 8/27/2019 at 7:17 PM, dhchristian said:

Spontaneous reproduction

What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

When You are ready, we can move to point number 2. 

[one.opinion]

18 hours ago, Abdicate said:

You can have 400 prophets of Ba'al with PhDs and I'm still going to believe the word of God, and no, there is no evidence of macro evolution.

You are missing the point. Wood is a PhD scientist. Wood is also YEC. Wood states there is “gone and gone” of evidence for evolution. He is basing is YEC beliefs in the Bible, not because there is “no evidence” for evolution. The claim of no evidence is absolutely false.