Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[David1701]

1 minute ago, JohnR7 said:

I am glad you asked how I explain "it".  The world we are talking about is Adamah or Eden. This is what science calls cultivated plants and domesticated animals. We are not talking about wild plants and animals. To understand this we need to understand Science and what an ecosystem is. 

"Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. You are to take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and seven pairs of every kind of bird of the air, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of all the earth." (Genesis 7:1,2)

A worldwide flood is impossible. How did Noah get the Kangaroos from Australia on the Ark? How did Noah get the Panda bears from China on the ark? What about the Polar bears? He would have had to sail all over the world. Pick up all the plants and animals and after the flood take them back to the exact place he got them from. 

Also wild plants can not be put on an ark by definition. Only cultivated plants can be transported by man. That is what makes them a cultivated plant. This is what we call Botany and there are experts with PhD's at the universities in Jerusalem. They have written some books about the domestication of plants and animals in the middle east. Usually they keep to themselves though. 

I could write a book about all of this. God is infinite. Even John tells us all the books in the world would not be enough to contain what Jesus did. Noah's flood is an archetype of a worldwide flood that took place at the time of Pangea. That is why the story is written the way it is. Jonathan Cahn's book: "The Paradigm" explains what archetypes are.

Science tells us  900 thousand different kinds of living insects are known.  Do you really think Noah collected that many insects on the Ark? 

You are making so many assumptions it's incredible!  Kangaroos from Australia and pandas from China? Are these supposed to be serious comments?

In any case, the animals came to the ark, Noah did not have to go to fetch them!

Kangaroos almost certainly migrated TO Australia, after the flood.  The point is that the geography of the world would have been completely different, before the flood (probably one giant continent); and, even after the flood, there is evidence that some areas that are now cut off by water, were possible to reach by land, for a time.

Regarding plants: you are talking about the situation we have now, not the relatively unknown situation, at the time of the flood.

Regarding insects, are you referring to species, because a created kind is not equivalent to a species?  Again, I have to point out that Noah did not "collect" them.

[JohnR7]

50 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

is not relevant to the validity of the arguments here.

I do not have any problem with the Biology book. Lots of people devote themselves to keeping Biology books as accurate as possible. If it is not in the Biology book then it is open for discussion as to how accurate it is. Of course textbooks are constantly being revised so they are a work in progress. 

[JohnR7]

8 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You are making so many assumptions it's incredible!  Kangaroos from Australia and pandas from China? Are these supposed to be serious comments?

In any case, the animals came to the ark, Noah did not have to go to fetch them!

Kangaroos almost certainly migrated TO Australia, after the flood.  The point is that the geography of the world would have been completely different, before the flood (probably one giant continent); and, even after the flood, there is evidence that some areas that are now cut off by water, were possible to reach by land, for a time.

Regarding plants: you are talking about the situation we have now, not the relatively unknown situation, at the time of the flood.

Regarding insects, are you referring to species, because a created kind is not equivalent to a species?  Again, I have to point out that Noah did not "collect" them.

You just do not know enough about science to have a conversation. You are correct that the world was one big continent before the flood. So do you believe there were dinosaurs on the earth at the time of Noah? 

[HAZARD]

3 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

You just do not know enough about science to have a conversation. You are correct that the world was one big continent before the flood. So do you believe there were dinosaurs on the earth at the time of Noah? 

Scripture teaches that there were dinosaurs on earth at the tike of noah!

Job 40:15-24, v. 15, Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16, Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17, He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18, His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19, He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20, Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21, He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22, The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23, Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24, He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The fact that behemoth was chief of the ways of God (V. 19), suggests that he was something more than an elephant or a hippopotamus.

What ever the animal was, it was made when Adam was, according to this statement to Job where God said;

 

"WHICH I MADE WITH THEE," meaning He made behemoth when he created man (V. 15).

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by HAZARD

[HAZARD]

Dinosaur tracks with human tracks.

[Tristen]

On 8/18/2020 at 1:10 PM, one.opinion said:

Agreed. I started the OP to specifically address claims that there are scientific problems with the theory of evolution - I took this to mean evolution in the encompassing sense of common ancestry. I invited you in case you had specific issues you wanted to discuss.

 

Do you contest them due to scientific evidence? If so, let's talk about it. ...

“Do you contest them due to scientific evidence?”

What do you mean by “scientific evidence”? We are discussing claims about the past which are logically unverifiable/unfalsifiable. These claims about the past can not be directly tested using the Scientific Method – i.e. by performing experiments in the past to directly test what happened in the past against a control group, or alternative story of the past. Therefore, we also can not perform any statistical analysis on the experimental results that gives precise, mathematically quantified, levels of confidence (i.e. not the way we can with hypotheses about current, natural phenomena).

The best we can do, in terms of investigation methodology, is take the currently available facts, then generate a possible story of the past, necessarily incorporating faith assumptions about ultimate reality, in an attempt to explain what might have happened in the past to produce those facts. This is not me being critical of the method, but merely recognising the method's logical limitations. This 'historical' method is infinitely less logically robust than the Scientific Method. And therefore any confidence generated by this historical method is essentially anecdotal (i.e. faith dependent), and should be considered as such. However, the world lies to us and convinces many that these stories deserve near-absolute confidence – and we are therefore somehow intellectually obligated to them.

Therefore, I “contest” the secular stories because I have absolutely no logical, or “scientific” obligation to attribute any confidence to them, and because God's Word (in which I place my faith) tells a different story. Now all models of the past have their weaknesses which I suppose we could discuss. But even a seemingly insurmountable weakness today could just mean we don't have enough information yet – such is the unfalsifiable nature of past claims.

I do not “contest” that the available facts can be interpreted to support/evidence the secular account of history (so my issue is not with the facts - or what you call "scientific evidence"). However, all of the very same facts can be interpreted to support/evidence the Biblical creation (a.k.a. YEC) model of history. So I strongly “contest” that the secular use of this historical method is somehow automatically superior to the creationist use of the very same method - and that the conclusions reached in the secular story are somehow more valid than the conclusions reached by creationists.

I don't care that Biblical creationists and secularist disagree about history. But I object to the deceptive rhetorical bluster that tries to position the secular position as the natural default in the discussion - because that claim of self-superior legitimacy does not hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

“After about 70 years of research attempting to offer a solid explanation, the evidence supporting any hypothesis is still very thin”

It's a claim about the past that can never be falsified. So yes, they can simply claim they don't have enough information yet. Or they can claim that the existence of life is all the evidence they need, and propose that one day, when that information arrives, it will simply be a matter of us again changing our “scientific understanding of God's creation”.

 

“I know you enjoy semantic arguments. I don't really wish to engage in those. My point is easily understood regardless of your approval of my word choices”

I don't actually “enjoy semantic arguments”. I try to insist on precise language because, in my experience, using equivocal language often leads to messy discussions that waste a lot of time and effort.

 

“I used Todd Wood as an example of a YEC scientist that is very forthright about the evidence for evolution and his personal beliefs that force him to look for alternative explanations”

You perceive him as “forthright” because he agrees with you. Perhaps you think I am being not “forthright”? I perceive him (again – only going by what you have provided) as uninformed as to the true nature of the discussion.

Also, I fully recognise and acknowledge the role my faith plays in interpretation. Are you ignorant of the role Philosophical Naturalism plays in the generation of the secular stories? You may subsequently choose to squeeze God into the knowledge gaps of the secular stories, but the driving paradigm-agenda use to construct these stories is a desire to generate an explanation of nature without appealing to any God.

 

“If I don't like what the Bible says, I'll just assume it's symbolic – and dismiss the detail of God's Word on this basis'.

I thought you didn't like strawman arguments? ”

In previous discussions I've asked you to explain to me what you mean when you say the Genesis account of creation is “symbolic”. Your response was to suggest some nebulous idea about it simply saying that God is the Creator – or some such. Perhaps your position has evolved since that discussion. But I can't read your mind.

 

“Ok fine - let's assume that you really don't understand the error of your statement. When a particular function evolves in different lineages, it is unsurprising that over long periods of time, evolution would work to optimize that function - whether it be flying, swimming, etc. Therefore a superficial resemblance to a bat wing and a bird wing does not require that the genetics and underlying anatomy of the feature be highly similar. There is nothing AT ALL contrary to to the theory of evolution in convergence”

I never claimed there was anything “contrary to to the theory of evolution in convergence”. In fact, I claimed almost the opposite. Adding Convergent Evolution to evolution theory renders the theory logically, insurmountably unfalsifiable – since every possible observation can now be accounted for by “evolution”.

 

“If you have evidence that "junk DNA" does not exist, bring it forward so we can discuss it. ”

Are you seriously asking me to 'prove a negative'? You permit yourself the right to base your argument on the lack-of-evidence fallacy (Argument from Ignorance) – but now I have become somehow obligated to rebut your fallacious argument with actual facts (or “evidence”)? That is not fair-minded.

The best I can do (if you like) is point to papers showing regions, previously characterised as “junk DNA”, now characterised with biological functions (or alternatively, any example of a discovered function for anything previously characterised as useless). That would show the assumption to be potentially erroneous (invalidating any obligation to trust it). We could go down that path, but the problem with your argument is a matter of flawed, basic logic. You can not logically characterise any region as functionless until you have exhaustively tested for every possible biological function.

 

“Is your belief that God used a template model that simply has the exonic sequences nearly identical, but fiddled with intronic and intergenic sequences enough to make it LOOK like those regions aren't as conserved? Did He just strike a happy medium that shows similarity, but not too much, in order to just make it look like we share a common ancestor? ”

I'm still not sure this makes much sense. I assume by “template model” you mean the basic idea that God didn't have to rewrite a whole new gene every time He placed the same gene in a different creature? So if God places the same gene in two creatures, over time, the more conserved regions (i.e. those regions more important to fitness; e.g. exons in protein coding regions), will remain better conserved, and the less functionally important regions may demonstrate more variation (I mean – that is kind-of the definition).

 

“OK – so there is a general pattern of fossil succession (which itself is being constantly eroded and revised by discoveries of fossils beyond their expected ranges (but that is an aside).

Is your argument here that new evidence should be discarded and hypotheses and theories should never be adjusted? That would be a pretty poor way to conduct science”

No – that is not my “argument”. I am happy with my “argument” as stated in my own words.

 

“What presumptions are made and what evidence do you have that the presumptions are false?”

All dating methods require;- assumptions about the starting conditions of the sample, assumptions about the rate of change of some internal mechanism, and the assumption of a generally closed system (i.e. closed to outward influences that may undermine the integrity of the 'rate' mechanism over time).

Surely, since you are the one wanting me to accept your method as reliable, the the onus is on you to demonstrate why I should trust that these assumptions are unequivocally true.

Nowadays, generated 'dates' that don't match expectations aren't usually published. But in an earlier (more honest) time, “non-acceptable” dates generated by nearly all methods were commonly published. There are also examples of;- 'dates' not being accepted because they didn't match the fossils; 'dates' from different methods not agreeing with each other; 'dates' from the same methods not in agreement; 'dates' of strata in the 'wrong' order; 'dates' of newly-formed rocks that are 'wrong' (e.g. contain unexpected amounts of daughter isotopes), evidence that both alpha and beta decay rates can be externally influenced; knowledge of the instability of rare-earth mineral integrity, the ease with which 'wrong' dates can be dismissed as contamination, the empirical inability to determine the difference between a contaminated sample and non-contaminated sample (except, of course, whether or not it matches up with the secular expectation) etc. etc. - i.e. plenty enough to justify rational scepticism.

Now, if you like, I could track down the papers reporting these, but the reality is, in order for me to trust in the 'dating' methods, you are asking me to trust in your preferred version of history – that you somehow know (with seemingly absolute confidence) both the starting conditions at the time of rock formation, and the conditions of the tested samples through millions-to-billions of years of history. I instead choose to trust the history as reported to humanity by the One Observer who was present at the time of the events?

But either way, my original conclusion stands – radiometric dating is a formula-based methodology, not a fact.

 

“When scientists match the fossil layers to the dated surrounding rock, we can get a pretty good idea of what was buried when”

How can we independently test the fundamental assumptions required to generate the supposed 'date'? How do we treat the generated 'date' when it doesn't match the expected secular range of the fossil? How often is this 'dating' even performed – given the expense of dating methods? In reality, most rock layers are dated by fossil content. Whether or not a generated 'date' gives us a “pretty good idea” of anything is entirely dependant upon one's preferred faith premise (i.e. whether or not we trust the assumptions required by the 'dating' methods).

 

“Why do you suppose swimming creatures are in different fossil layers - for example, plesiosaurs in a different, older layer than cetaceans?”

There's quite a bit strange about this question;

Firstly, how do you know that one layer is older than another? Fast flowing water stratifies sediment horizontally. Even if the stratification was vertical, in a flood on this scale, the time difference would be at-most, a matter of months.

Second, how can you presume to know what must be found in association (i.e. what fossils will be found with other fossils) if the flood model is true? That is, given that fossilisation is a rare event, and given that we only have fossils from a few pinpoints over the globe (relatively speaking), why would you assume that swimming creatures would be found with land-dwellers? They existed in vastly different habitats, and would likely to succumb to inundation at different locations and times during the flood.

Thirdly, “swimming creatures” are found throughout the fossil record (i.e. in every putative time period); including those containing fossils of land-dwellers.

 

“Why do you suppose mammals that can be found in younger rock layers were ALL (I mean each and every one) able to outrun therapsids and velociraptors”

Fourthly, you mean 'lower' “rock layers”?

Fifth, mammal fossils are common in the putative Late Cretaceous (i.e. the same assumed period/layers as the raptors).

Six, even going by the fossils alone, “therapsids” look cumbersome.

 

“Why did flying animals like pterosaurs or archaeopteryx not make it as far as the mammals? It really just doesn't add up.”

Finally – there are so many possibilities

You are acting like we have an exhaustive survey of the fossil record. The reality is, we have about a dozen “velociraptors” and “archaeopteryx” fossils, and about 15 “pterosaur” fossil specimens (mostly partial). So it's absurd to jump to any conclusions about who must have survived for how long during the flood. All we know is what we've found, and that only tells us that some of these creatures succumbed to a wet, sedimentary grave that promoted fossilisation conditions. We don't know that others of the species didn't survive longer – only that they either weren't fossilised, or we haven't found them yet. We don't know their population numbers at the time of the flood. We don't know their instincts or behaviours. I, for example, imagine it would be difficult for a large winged creature to fly through torrential rain. So maybe they instead sought shelter at lower altitudes at an early stage of the flood – who knows? Alternatively, many may have stayed in the air long enough that their bodies collapsed onto the water later in the flood - where they decayed or were eaten. To say “It really just doesn't add up” is at-best unthoughtful.

 

“Because it takes much more than 6,000 years to form them - unless we invoke a miracle”

You mean “a miracle” like a global-scale flood event? Actually, there are many large-scale geographic features cause by natural catastrophes in our time. Scale those up and it's easy to imagine larger geographic features developing quite quickly (seismic activity, deposition, erosion etc.).

And yes, the flood was supernaturally invoked. Or is that “symbolic” as well? Is any of Genesis history? If so, where exactly does the symbolism stop and the real history begin? What about Exodus – was Moses a real person – I ask because who needs all those pesky moral commandments? What about Jesus, was He real or symbolic – because I'm not always comfortable with everything He said and did (I mean - supposedly said and did)?

 

“So light waves must travel differently in other parts of the universe? Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?”

It's not my “hypothesis”. I'm not obligated to defend something you randomly attributed to me. I notice you like to do that a bit.

 

“Sure, we could invoke miracles whenever something we claim isn't supported by evidence”

I have all the same facts as you. The facts do not independently “support” any conclusion about the distant past until they are interpreted to do so. And all the facts we have are exactly what I'd expect to find if the simple model I proposed is true. My faith premise doesn't seem to have the same aversion to “miracles” as yours.

 

“the best evidence we have available is inconsistent with a 6,000-10,000 year old earth”

Lol - “best evidence”. See how you fluff your claims with subjective rhetoric?

All of the available facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the YEC model of reality. But, to be fair, most of them can also be interpreted to be consistent with the secular materialistic model as well. The determining factor is the starting faith premise.

You're trying to position yours as superior by default – but we both use exactly the same methodology; only starting from a different faith perspective (i.e. Biblical creationism vs Philosophical Naturalism).

 

“- at least, without numerous specific miracles that only make it LOOK like the earth and universe are much older than they really are (which of course, I cannot rule out)”

The “earth and universe” only “LOOK” as old as your faith premise demands.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

15 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

We do not have to imagine we can look at the Oroville Dam crisis to see how much water pressure it took to form the Grand Canyon. Gradualism has its place but it takes a lot of water pressure to move a lot of earth.

No.   Entrenched meanders don't take much pressure at all.   They require running water, not lots of pressure.   And geologists know exactly how they form.   And old, meandering river has lots of bends because it slows down, and the difference in erosion on the outside curve and inside curve tends to loop the channel into bends.   Then, if the land is uplifted (as the land through which the Colorado River runs was uplifted) the stream is "rejuvenated" and runs faster.   Which means it now cuts deeper into the existing channel, locking the river into place.    And then it can only cut deeper and deeper into the existing channel.    A sudden rush of water is unable to produce such a feature.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by The Barbarian
Spelling

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Dinosaur tracks with human tracks.

The Paluxy River "Man Tracks" were debunked by YE creationists from Loma Linda University a long time ago.   Some of these were found to have been chiseled out of the rock by a local creationist who was selling them.    Others were merely eroded dino tracks.

The Paluxy river region soon became a Mecca (or holy pilgrimage site) for young-earth creationists (though some young-earthers like those at Loma Linda University, had cross-sectioned some of the original limestone slabs and wrote a report early on that said they were just carvings, not genuine human prints). By the mid-1980s the existence of “man tracks” in Paluxy was being questioned even by the two largest and most influential young-earth institutions, The Institute for Creation Research or ICR (that Henry Morris himself had founded), and Answers in Genesis or AiG.

John Morris Of ICR Speaking In 1986 On The Paluxy Data:

“It would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order.” (Jan. 1986)

https://etb-creationism.blogspot.com/2012/04/paluxy-mantracks-story.html

 

 In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also.

...

Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order.

https://www.icr.org/article/255

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

What do you mean by “scientific evidence”? We are discussing claims about the past which are logically unverifiable/unfalsifiable. These claims about the past can not be directly tested using the Scientific Method – i.e. by performing experiments in the past to directly test what happened in the past against a control group, or alternative story of the past. Therefore, we also can not perform any statistical analysis on the experimental results that gives precise, mathematically quantified, levels of confidence (i.e. not the way we can with hypotheses about current, natural phenomena).

Of course they can.   We can, for example, see today how entrenched meanders and old meandering streams are formed.   Hydrology very clearly shows how those things happen under specific condition, which can be shown to happen in the area of the Colorado river.  Would you like to see some more detail on those things that can show us why the Colorado River formed as it has?

 

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

You perceive him as “forthright” because he agrees with you. Perhaps you think I am being not “forthright”? I perceive him (again – only going by what you have provided) as uninformed as to the true nature of the discussion.

Also, I fully recognise and acknowledge the role my faith plays in interpretation. Are you ignorant of the role Philosophical Naturalism plays in the generation of the secular stories? You may subsequently choose to squeeze God into the knowledge gaps of the secular stories, but the driving paradigm-agenda use to construct these stories is a desire to generate an explanation of nature without appealing to any God.

Todd Wood happens to be a PhD scientist who is also a YE creationist.   He's merely being honest about the evidence, and prefers his understanding of scripture to the evidence.    The key for you, is that neither your (nor Todd Wood's) presuppostions make any of the evidence go away.   Wood is honest about this, but he also knows the evidence which is what it is, as he freely admits.  

If not for his presuppositions, he'd accept the evidence as it is.   There are many YE creationist scientists who admit this.   Kurt Wise and Harold Coffin come to mind.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

The speed of light is not consistent and they can not measure it accurately. 

The problem for anyone believing that the speed of light has changed significantly is that it tied to other physical constants like radioactive decay.    If it had been significantly faster in the past, the increase radiation would have fried all living things on Earth.