“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”

[ARGOSY]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Cambrian Explosion is not a puzzle without a full set of answers. What I am arguing against is the persistent claim that there is no evidence for the existence of ancestors. That is just plain not true.  There is substantial evidence of fossils that pre-date the Cambrian, which is strong evidence of life forms present on the planet over millions (and even billions) of years, and not all coming into existence in a 144-hour period.

There are no ancestors. Only under evolutionary assumptions would you see an early primitive eukaryote or bacteria and assume it's an ancestor without seeing transitional fossils. It's an earlier fossil sure, but the evidence of it being an ancestor to millions of organisms that appeared later is frankly missing. 

 

A lack of evidence is not evidence. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

It's really simple.  Radioactive decay means energy has to be released.   If the decay is speeded up, more energy is released.    There's no way to abolish the laws of thermodynamics.    You don't actually have any data for air pressure or magnetic fields affecting decay of radioactive isotopes, do you?

 

I'm not saying decay will be speeded up, I'm saying decay slowed down. 

If the planet is producing a steady flow of radioactive igneous rocks,  the radiation will be at equilibrium, decay equals production. This equilibrium will be reached no matter the speed of decay. 

Then during a period of stunted decay, it takes time to reach equilibrium again, with a dangerous build up of radioactivity.  Just because it will be dangerous to suddenly decay the build up of radioactivity, does not mean it was dangerous back then at equilibrium levels when no build up existed. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, enoob57 said:

no we are of a different mind and no amount of wrangling of words will change this...

It is obvious that what you are stating is actually not taught in the Bible. I'm not wrangling words, I'm just telling you that this doctrine of your is in your mind, not in the Bible.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

There are no ancestors.

The Ediacaran shellies are very good candidates for ancestors of Cambrian arthropods. Simply claiming there is no evidence does not make the claim true.

 

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Only under evolutionary assumptions would you see an early primitive eukaryote or bacteria and assume it's an ancestor without seeing transitional fossils.

I brought up the evidence of earlier fossils not as examples of clear transition to Cambrian organisms, but as strong evidence that God created over a much longer time frame than 144 hours.

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm not saying decay will be speeded up, I'm saying decay slowed down.

This is speculation, without any supporting evidence. I think you will find it rather difficult to find evidence that radioactive decay rates were significantly different in the past. The creation scientists that spent a few million dollars on the RATE project sure did. They couldn't offer anything other than speculation, either.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I'm not saying decay will be speeded up, I'm saying decay slowed down. 

If the planet is producing a steady flow of radioactive igneous rocks,  the radiation will be at equilibrium, decay equals production. This equilibrium will be reached no matter the speed of decay. 

Then during a period of stunted decay, it takes time to reach equilibrium again, with a dangerous build up of radioactivity.  Just because it will be dangerous to suddenly decay the build up of radioactivity, does not mean it was dangerous back then at equilibrium levels when no build up existed. 

If it slowed down, the world would look much younger than it is.   So if you're right, the world is a lot older than radioisotope dating would suggest.    Do you understand how this works?

The planet is not "producing a steady flow of radioactive igneous rocks."    The decay is ongoing, even in melted rock.  The only reason we can date rocks is that the daughter isotopes are trapped in rocks in certain cases, allowing an analysis to take place.

But it's a moot point, since the isotopes we use do date rocks don't vary by more then a tiny fraction, even under conditions that would have killed all living things on Earth.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

There are no ancestors. Only under evolutionary assumptions would you see an early primitive eukaryote or bacteria and assume it's an ancestor without seeing transitional fossils. It's an earlier fossil sure, but the evidence of it being an ancestor to millions of organisms that appeared later is frankly missing. 

As you have become aware, there are many, many transitional fossils.  Even honest creastionists acknowledge that fact. 

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.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Young Earth Creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of  Transitional Forms

[JustPassingThru]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But you don't have any evidence for this belief?    I think I know why.

So are you saying I'm lying?

Are you saying the pastor didn't show us the newspaper clipping?

Are you saying the whole congregation was/is deceived?

The American Judicial system is based on eye witness testimony, ...are you saying we shouldn't believe eye witnesses in a courtroom any more?

Man, ...to me that is just as ridiculous as not believing millions, maybe billions of eye witnesses that live next to the ocean who say the ocean level hasn't risen 1 millimeter!

But hey, that's me, I believe the Bible and what the Holy Spirit has taught me, ...He is a perfect Gentleman and He won't/doesn't force anyone to believe what He has said.

One thing is certain thought, ...time will tell if all of this "climate change," "evolution principles" are true or not, ...I can peacefully wait for that day to see if the "scientists" were correct or if what God has said is correct...

Lord bless

  

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

But you don't have any evidence for this belief?    I think I know why.

 

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

So are you saying I'm lying?

 

I'm pointing out you were fooled.   As you see, stalagtites from concrete form much, much faster than those from limestone, because the chemical reactions are not the same.   

 

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

Are you saying the whole congregation was/is deceived?

Yep.  Whether the guy who wrote that piece was lying, or simply didn't know what he was talking about, he fooled all of them.

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

The American Judicial system is based on eye witness testimony, ...are you saying we shouldn't believe eye witnesses in a courtroom any more?

I'm saying that your guy either didn't know the facts, or he lied to you about it.

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

Man, ...to me that is just as ridiculous as not believing millions, maybe billions of eye witnesses that live next to the ocean who say the ocean level hasn't risen 1 millimeter!

Actually, lots and lots of people are having to move or change their lives because of rising sea levels.   Would you like me to show you that?

17 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

One thing is certain thought, ...time will tell if all of this "climate change," "evolution principles" are true or not, ...I can peacefully wait for that day to see if the "scientists" were correct or if what God has said is correct...

Turns out, they are both right.   But lots of people misrepresent what God and science says.    And therein is the problem.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by The Barbarian

[ARGOSY]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The Ediacaran shellies are very good candidates for ancestors of Cambrian arthropods. Simply claiming there is no evidence does not make the claim true.

 

I brought up the evidence of earlier fossils not as examples of clear transition to Cambrian organisms, but as strong evidence that God created over a much longer time frame than 144 hours.

The time frames are under dispute due to the many reasons brought up in this thread and many more reasons. 

You say Ediacaran fossils are good candidates for the ancestors of Cambrian arthropods. My response is :

1) where's your phylogenic analysis. Can you refer me to any studies where they have confirmed links between any particular Ediacaran small Shelley and a particular early Cambrian athropod

2) Ediacaran small shellies also lack fossil precursors, that's the main problem

3) even if you find that one Cambrian organism has a fossil precursor in the Ediacaran, what about the other millions of organisms? You still have a huge problem.