Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Marathoner]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Biologically, what would you say we are, if not apes? What features distinguish us enough to put us biologically in a completely different category? Fun fact - humans and chimpanzees share significantly greater genome sequence similarity than rats and mice.

We are indeed apes from the biological perspective. Those who are familiar with biology understand this well. I'll share some of the criteria all apes share in common. Not exhaustive but sufficient for the task. 

• Large cranial capacity in relation to body mass (the largest of the terrestrial mammals)
• Highly developed visual acuity and the absence of the vomeronasal organ
• Binocular vision
• Five-fingered hands with fingernails adapted for grasping objects
• Advanced tool-making culture
• Extended lifespans and slow juvenile growth/development (extended childhood)
• Complex social groups
• Identical pattern of dentition
• Greater articulation of the shoulder joint than other mammals
• Lack of a tail

We share all of that in common with apes both modern and extinct. Furthermore we are bipedal apes, the only lineage extant on our world. It wasn't always this way; the Australopiths were bipedal apes with whom we share a great deal in common. Look at everything above and add the following:

• The largest cranial capacity of the apes
• Elaborate tool culture (the australopiths fashioned tools from stone)
• Fully erect posture which permits the greatest degree of shoulder joint articulation among the apes
• Feet adapted for efficient bipedal locomotion
• A wide, short pelvis adapted for an erect posture and bipedalism

Now for what makes us truly unique among the apes, including the extinct australopiths

• The greatest cranial capacity in relation to body mass
• Elaborately fissured cranium which makes live birth possible --- our heads are too large to pass through the birth canal
• "Flattened" faces (lack of prognathism)
• Chins (only we have them)
• Reliance upon material culture
• Tool-making which makes it possible for us to overcome physical limitations, geographical boundaries, and escape the confines of our world

  
 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Marathoner

[David1701]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Of course we have a common Creator. I never have and never will claim otherwise.

 

Deliberately missing the point...

The assumption behind your statement, "The evidence in anatomy, paleontology, and genetics strongly suggests that humans share a common ancestor with other apes.", is that similarities imply development from one to another.  My point was that a creator makes use of similar templates, when designing different things (e.g. the designer of the Porsche car also designed the original VW Beetle).

Quote

Biologically, what would you say we are, if not apes?

We are humans.  Apes are not humans.  Humans have always been humans, it's how we were created, in the Garden of Eden.  God created Adam directly from clay, on day 6 of the creation week, not by evolving something else into him, over millions of years.

 

Quote

What features distinguish us enough to put us biologically in a completely different category? Fun fact - humans and chimpanzees share significantly greater genome sequence similarity than rats and mice.

We are much more intelligent.  We are designed to walk uprightly.  We do not have prehensile toes.  We do not walk on our knuckles.  I'm sure that there are many more differences.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

The assumption behind your statement, "The evidence in anatomy, paleontology, and genetics strongly suggests that humans share a common ancestor with other apes.", is that similarities imply development from one to another.

That's what the evidence points to, friend.

Claims that "YEC scientists look at the same evidence, but just arrive at a different conclusion" really mean "YEC scientists must forego the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence because of an overriding commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture." Few are candid enough to say this, but some are.

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

My point was that a creator makes use of similar templates

The evidence supports common ancestry, rather than common design. If God created everything using similar templates, then one would expect near-identical anatomy allowing specific abilities like swimming, and flight. However, there are many examples of convergent evolution in which different structures have developed to achieve a common effect.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/converge.html

Additionally, the genetic evidence strongly supports common ancestry. Nearly 45% of the human genome is composed of interspersed repeat sequences, little of which has any function, with only 1.5% of the entire genome directly coding for the proteins necessary for structure and function. The genomic evidence shows the accumulation of large portions of unnecessary DNA - which argues against the common template model. Interestingly, even this unnecessary DNA has a very high degree of similarity between chimps and humans, further supporting the common ancestry model.

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

God created Adam directly from clay, on day 6 of the creation week, not by evolving something else into him, over millions of years.

This is certainly a possibility, along with the more mundane development of other humans.

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

We are much more intelligent.  We are designed to walk uprightly.  We do not have prehensile toes.  We do not walk on our knuckles.  I'm sure that there are many more differences.

Yes, mostly true (the toes are very much prehensile, especially for those with birth defects, etc that have NEED of prehensile toes). We clearly have many anatomical and physiological differences, yet the similarities are also quite obvious, especially at the genetic level.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That's what the evidence points to, friend.

Claims that "YEC scientists look at the same evidence, but just arrive at a different conclusion" really mean "YEC scientists must forego the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence because of an overriding commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture." Few are candid enough to say this, but some are.

You appear to have typed "candid", when you really meant "insulting".  The evidence points to no such thing; it's the secular (anti-God) INTERPRETATION of the evidence that points to  common ancestry.

Quote

 

The evidence supports common ancestry, rather than common design. If God created everything using similar templates, then one would expect near-identical anatomy allowing specific abilities like swimming, and flight. However, there are many examples of convergent evolution in which different structures have developed to achieve a common effect.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/converge.html

 

You have made two blunders here.

1) Straw man - there is no reason to expect "near-identical" anatomy, from using similar templates.  It doesn't mean that all the templates are similar, nor does "similar" mean "near-identical".  It's this kind of condescending nonsense that gives evolutionists a bad name.

2) Assuming the Consequent - In claiming that there are many examples of convergent evolution, you are assuming what you need to prove!

Quote

Additionally, the genetic evidence strongly supports common ancestry. Nearly 45% of the human genome is composed of interspersed repeat sequences, little of which has any function, with only 1.5% of the entire genome directly coding for the proteins necessary for structure and function. The genomic evidence shows the accumulation of large portions of unnecessary DNA - which argues against the common template model. Interestingly, even this unnecessary DNA has a very high degree of similarity between chimps and humans, further supporting the common ancestry model.

More and more of the genetic code, which was formerly thought not to have a function, is being discovered to have one or more important functions.  This is similar to the old "vestigial organ" argument that evolutionists used to use.  Those "vestigial" organs have since been discovered to have important functions and are not vestigial at all.

Quote

This is certainly a possibility, along with the more mundane development of other humans.

No: the Bible says that all humans are descended from Adam.

Quote

Yes, mostly true (the toes are very much prehensile, especially for those with birth defects, etc that have NEED of prehensile toes). We clearly have many anatomical and physiological differences, yet the similarities are also quite obvious, especially at the genetic level.

Right, so, the two possibilities are: creation, using similar templates, but with significant differences; or, both developed from a common ancestor.  Neither can be established from physical data alone, so the interpretation depends upon one's presuppositions.  Materialists support evolution: Bible-believing Christians support creation.

Edited August 16, 2020 by David1701

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You appear to have typed "candid", when you really meant "insulting".

I should have been more clear earlier. There are YEC scientists that are candid enough to admit what I've stated. I don't mean it as an insult, it's what YEC scientists like Todd Wood and Kurt Wise have already said for themselves. I have heard Georgia Purdom of AiG state flatly that there is no amount of evidence that would cause her to change her mind about young earth creation.

32 minutes ago, David1701 said:

1) Straw man - there is no reason to expect "near-identical" anatomy, from using similar templates.  It doesn't mean that all the templates are similar, nor does "similar" mean "near-identical".  It's this kind of condescending nonsense that gives evolutionists a bad name.

You are picking and choosing your evidence. If there is anatomical and genetic similarity, then "It is due to a template design!" But if a bat wing and bird wing have substantially different anatomy for the same purpose, then "God doesn't have to use the same template!" So regardless of the evidence, it always points to young earth creation in your mind. That is fine if you hold that opinion. It would just be nice to admit that it is opinion and not judge others as heretics for having a different opinion.

40 minutes ago, David1701 said:

2) Assuming the Consequent - In claiming that there are many examples of convergent evolution, you are assuming what you need to prove!

"Assuming the Consequent" would imply that there isn't evidence to support the assumption - which is absolutely not the case. Have you happened to familiarize yourself with the fossils that mainstream scientists accept for the development of the whale? It's a remarkable series of fossils that strongly support the hypothesis of a lineage of terrestrial mammals eventually developing into cetaceans.

45 minutes ago, David1701 said:

More and more of the genetic code, which was formerly thought not to have a function, is being discovered to have one or more important functions.  This is similar to the old "vestigial organ" argument that evolutionists used to use.  Those "vestigial" organs have since been discovered to have important functions and are not vestigial at all.

Certainly. The fact remains that a very large portion of the human genome lacks specific function. I'll be happy to discuss this in more detail with you, should you wish to provide a specific argument.

Vestigial structures are those that no longer have the original function - although some do certainly have some function. We can talk about those too, if you wish.

48 minutes ago, David1701 said:

No: the Bible says that all humans are descended from Adam.

Are you certain this could only mean in the procreative sense? I think it is more likely that Adam was the first to receive the Imago Dei, which was passed on to humanity through him.

51 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Right, so, the two possibilities are: creation, using similar templates, but with significant differences; or, both developed from a common ancestor.  Neither can be established from physical data alone, so the interpretation depends upon one's presuppositions.

The evidence that God has left for us in the form of the fossil record supports common ancestry, not a single creation event 6000 years ago. If God did create Adam and Eve as the only two humans 6000 years ago, then the evidence in genetics and fossils sure would qualify as misleading.

53 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Materialists support evolution: Bible-believing Christians support creation.

Good. I'm a Bible-believing Christian that supports creation.

Before you accuse me of intentionally missing your point, it might be something to consider that you are implying I am not a Bible-believing Christian. I'm certain God would not approve of that.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That's what the evidence points to, friend.

Claims that "YEC scientists look at the same evidence, but just arrive at a different conclusion" really mean "YEC scientists must forego the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence because of an overriding commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture." Few are candid enough to say this, but some are. ...

Hi One, I haven't read through the whole conversation, but thought some things you claimed in this (quoted) post required attention.

“That's what the evidence points to, friend”

Which “evidence”? Certainly not the testimonial “evidence” of the Creator who observed the events.

Ultimately, this statement is redundant. “Evidence” means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). Since “evidence” incorporates interpretation, it obviously being used to “point” to the desired conclusion. But independent of interpretation, the facts do not independently “point” to any particular conclusion.

 

“Claims that "YEC scientists look at the same evidence, but just arrive at a different conclusion" really mean "YEC scientists must forego the most parsimonious explanation of the evidence because of an overriding commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture." Few are candid enough to say this, but some are”

This is empty rhetorical bluster – and nothing more.

Where is the objective standard quantifying which interpretation of the facts is “the most parsimonious explanation”? I'd wager that I could associate any-and-all of the facts with the Biblical model using far fewer logical entities than any proponent of Common Ancestry (or Standard Cosmology, or Abiogenesis etc.).

And by “a particular interpretation of scripture”, you mean the most obvious reading of the text (i.e. the way pretty-mush everyone read the text before Charles Lyell introduced the possibility of long ages to science) – as opposed to dismissing most of the detail of the text in order to subjugate scripture under ancillary ideas (like “long ages”) - due to some perceived obligation (a.k.a. “an overriding commitment”) to the secular paradigm of history.

 

“The evidence supports common ancestry, rather than common design”

Only if you choose to interpret the facts that way. I interpret the very same facts in light of the Genesis account of history. Therefore, “the evidence supports” the Biblical model of reality (without having to appeal at all to ancillary concepts such as “long ages”).

 

“If God created everything using similar templates, then one would expect near-identical anatomy allowing specific abilities like swimming, and flight”

Surely it is an astounding arrogance for us to presume what we should “expect” from the eternal, omniscient Creator.

 

“However, there are many examples of convergent evolution in which different structures have developed to achieve a common effect”

Firstly, “convergent evolution” is not an observation, but an attempt to explain facts that don't fit the secular "evolution" paradigm (i.e. that similarities speak to relatedness).

Secondly, the concept of “convergent evolution” renders the secular paradigm logically unfalsifiable – since similarities equal “evolution” (i.e. relatedness) –----> until the similarities don't fit the secular “evolution” story. But then similarities still equal “evolution” (convergent). So no matter what fact we find, it will always fit the secular “evolution” story.

 

“Additionally, the genetic evidence strongly supports common ancestry”

O' mann. Yes, the facts can be interpreted to support the unfalsifiable conclusion of Common Ancestry. To claim that support is “strong” is rhetorical, subjective, objectively unquantifiable – and therefore meaningless.

 

“Nearly 45% of the human genome is composed of interspersed repeat sequences, little of which has any function”

You, of course, mean that we are yet to discover a “function” for these “sequences”. Because to claim that they have no “function” is a fallacious Appeal to Ignorance – especially considering the fact that we have only relatively recently started looking into the function of sequences beyond the protein-coding genes. Even if these sequences are only used for structural or transcriptional buffering (a perfectly reasonable proposal) – that would be a “function”.

 

“with only 1.5% of the entire genome directly coding for the proteins necessary for structure and function”

But what about the myriad of functional RNAs (and other transcription factors) that aren't translated into proteins? How do you know that any transcribed factor has no “function”? This is an error of logic.

 

“this unnecessary DNA has a very high degree of similarity between chimps and humans, further supporting the common ancestry model”

Good – though the use of "unnecessary DNA" is subjective and presumptive, this wording of the rest of the statement is properly hedged to reflect the justifiable levels of confidence.

 

EDIT:

“The evidence that God has left for us in the form of the fossil record supports common ancestry, not a single creation event 6000 years ago. If God did create Adam and Eve as the only two humans 6000 years ago, then the evidence in genetics and fossils sure would qualify as misleading”

Show me a fact (or collection facts) that can not be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical creation model (or what you call YEC). Until you can do so, the above statement is more meaningless rhetorical bluster.

 

[one.opinion]

Hey Tristen, good to see you.

The purpose of the OP was for people to voice scientific objections to the theory of evolution. In several threads, claims were made about scientific problems, so I made a separate thread to address these. I invited you at the beginning, as well as some others. Actual scientific objections to this point have been rather scant.

Regardless, I will take the time to address your post.

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Since “evidence” incorporates interpretation, it obviously being used to “point” to the desired conclusion. But independent of interpretation, the facts do not independently “point” to any particular conclusion.

Yes, evidence is observed, then interpreted, and then (often with corroborating evidence) conclusions are drawn. This is not heterodox.

16 minutes ago, Tristen said:

This is empty rhetorical bluster – and nothing more.

You seem to be attempting to dismiss my statement not because it is untrue, but (uncomfortably) because it is. I'm certain you've read Todd Wood's comments before:

Quote

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.

 

23 minutes ago, Tristen said:

And by “a particular interpretation of scripture”, you mean the most obvious reading of the text (i.e. the way pretty-mush everyone read the text before Charles Lyell introduced the possibility of long ages to science)

Yes. It is well known that scientific understanding of God's creation has changed the way "pretty much everyone read the text" in the past. It is my opinion that we have enough understanding of God's creation to do it again with the creation week.

27 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“If God created everything using similar templates, then one would expect near-identical anatomy allowing specific abilities like swimming, and flight”

Surely it is an astounding arrogance for us to presume what we should “expect” from the eternal, omniscient Creator.

It was an "if" statement, Tristen. Personally, I believe God did not need the assistance of templates.

30 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, “convergent evolution” is not an observation, but an attempt to explain facts that don't fit the secular "evolution" paradigm (i.e. that similarities speak to relatedness).

This is a problematic argument. You know very well why convergence fits VERY well with the evolution paradigm. You also know that superficial structural similarity does not necessitate genetic and anatomic similarity. This is a bad swing and a miss.

37 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Nearly 45% of the human genome is composed of interspersed repeat sequences, little of which has any function”

You, of course, mean that we are yet to discover a “function” for these “sequences”. Because to claim that they have no “function” is a fallacious Appeal to Ignorance – especially considering the fact that we have only relatively recently started looking into the function of sequences beyond the protein-coding genes.

Notice that I'm only referring to the interspersed repeats. There is substantially more of the genome that limited function. Researchers have known and explored functions for the interspersed repeats for over two decades. At some point, even the most ardent of believers will need to admit that there is a LOT of junk DNA in the human genome.

43 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“with only 1.5% of the entire genome directly coding for the proteins necessary for structure and function”

But what about the myriad of functional RNAs (and other transcription factors) that aren't translated into proteins?

Of course there are functional RNAs. I did not state or imply that only proteins can have function. Transcription factors are proteins, by the way.

45 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“this unnecessary DNA has a very high degree of similarity between chimps and humans, further supporting the common ancestry model”

Good – though the use of "unnecessary DNA" is subjective and presumptive, this wording of the rest of the statement is properly hedged to reflect the justifiable levels of confidence.

I could have used the term "junk DNA", but that carries a bit of baggage.

How do you explain the extremely high degree of DNA sequence similarity between human/chimp introns and intergenic regions?

47 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Show me a fact (or collection facts) that can not be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical creation model (or what you call YEC). Until you can do so, the above statement is more meaningless rhetorical bluster.

The fossil record with layers upon layers of organisms no longer on the planet with more-recognizable organisms higher into the strata

The radiometric dating of rock samples

The geography of the planet with amazing features like the Grand Canyon, Himalayan mountains, and Appalachian mountains

The distance of galaxies and stars billions of light-years distant

These are just a few.

[HAZARD]

21 hours ago, Marathoner said:

We are indeed apes from the biological perspective. Those who are familiar with biology understand this well. I'll share some of the criteria all apes share in common. Not exhaustive but sufficient for the task. 

• Large cranial capacity in relation to body mass (the largest of the terrestrial mammals)
• Highly developed visual acuity and the absence of the vomeronasal organ
• Binocular vision
• Five-fingered hands with fingernails adapted for grasping objects
• Advanced tool-making culture
• Extended lifespans and slow juvenile growth/development (extended childhood)
• Complex social groups
• Identical pattern of dentition
• Greater articulation of the shoulder joint than other mammals
• Lack of a tail

We share all of that in common with apes both modern and extinct. Furthermore we are bipedal apes, the only lineage extant on our world. It wasn't always this way; the Australopiths were bipedal apes with whom we share a great deal in common. Look at everything above and add the following:

• The largest cranial capacity of the apes
• Elaborate tool culture (the australopiths fashioned tools from stone)
• Fully erect posture which permits the greatest degree of shoulder joint articulation among the apes
• Feet adapted for efficient bipedal locomotion
• A wide, short pelvis adapted for an erect posture and bipedalism

Now for what makes us truly unique among the apes, including the extinct australopiths

• The greatest cranial capacity in relation to body mass
• Elaborately fissured cranium which makes live birth possible --- our heads are too large to pass through the birth canal
• "Flattened" faces (lack of prognathism)
• Chins (only we have them)
• Reliance upon material culture
• Tool-making which makes it possible for us to overcome physical limitations, geographical boundaries, and escape the confines of our world

  
 

Don't be discouraged poor little fly, you'll be a chipmunk by and by,
Ages later we can see, you'll be a full grown chimpanzee,
Next we see with a prophets ken, you'll take your place in the ranks of men.
And then in the great sweet by and by, we'll all be angels you and I.
Why should I swat you, dear little fly? Prospective chum of my home on high,
This is what Darwin says, not I.

Author unknown.

[HAZARD]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Debunking Evolution

Scientific evidence against evolution - the clash between theory and reality

The top problems with evolution explained using scientific evidence against evolution. In the creation evolution controversy, it is clear not only that the theory of evolution is wrong, the theory of evolution is false, but that the theory of evolution is a lie.

The strongest scientific evidence against evolution:

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it - everything:

Sex, eye-hand coordination, balance, navigation systems, tongues, blood, antennae, waste removal systems, swallowing, joints, lubrication, pumps, valves, autofocus, image stabilization, sensors, camouflage, traps, ceramic teeth, light (bioluminescence), ears, tears, eyes, hands, fingernails, cartilage, bones, spinal columns, spinal cords, muscles, ligaments, tendons, livers, kidneys, thyroid glands, lungs, stomachs, vocal cords, saliva, skin, fat, lymph, body plans, growth from egg to adult, nurturing babies, aging, breathing, heartbeat, hair, hibernation, bee dancing, insect queens, spiderwebs, feathers, seashells, scales, fins, tails, legs, feet, claws, wings, beaver dams, termite mounds, bird nests, coloration, markings, decision making, speech center of the brain, visual center of the brain, hearing center of the brain, language comprehension center of the brain, sensory center of the brain, memory, creative center of the brain, object-naming center of the brain, emotional center of the brain, movement centers of the brain, center of the brain for smelling, immune systems, circulatory systems, digestive systems, endocrine systems, regulatory systems, genes, gene regulatory networks, proteins, ribosomes that assemble proteins, receptors for proteins on cells, apoptosis, hormones, neurotransmitters, circadian clocks, jet propulsion, etc. Everything in nature - according to evolution theory.

Full article + pictures here;

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

CHECK THIS OUT AS WELL.

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists 
is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet 
theory really works.  Here is a link to a roster of 
hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly
understand evolution theory.  They also have the 
courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding 
their names to a skeptics 
list against Darwinism.

LINK;

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The purpose of the OP was for people to voice scientific objections to the theory of evolution. ...

“The purpose of the OP was for people to voice scientific objections to the theory of evolution. In several threads, claims were made about scientific problems, so I made a separate thread to address these. I invited you at the beginning, as well as some others. Actual scientific objections to this point have been rather scant”

I found the OP a bit vague. For example, I find the term “evolution” itself to be highly equivocal. I contest Standard Cosmology, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry. But I have no issue with much of what is called “evolution”.

I also think the secular story is generally a rational story. I mean – I could point to logical weaknesses, but since all claims of distant history are unfalsifiable, my issues with the story are not technically “scientific”. My main objection in the whole conversation is the lie that we are somehow logically, or scientifically, obligated to that secular story. Once we remove all the rhetorical nonsense and fallacy from the discussion, what we are left with are the facts, and competing stories trying to explain those facts. Despite all the secularist propaganda, there is no objective reason to distrust the Biblical account of creation – as written.

Secondary to this objection are my concerns about an instinct that subjugates the authority of scripture to secular ideas, along with the resulting difficulties in reconciling the Christian world-view with the secular account of history. But we have discussed these at-length previously.

 

“Yes, evidence is observed, then interpreted, and then (often with corroborating evidence) conclusions are drawn. This is not heterodox”

It is an imprecise, equivocal use of language – which results in a muddy conversation. It is true that in common usage, many people confuse “facts” with “evidence”. But that is not helpful in this kind of discussion.

Facts (i.e. observations, measurements and recorded data) are, subsequent to their observation/recording, interpreted as “evidence” of a conclusion. Without the interpretation, facts are just facts – they only speak to (or “point to”) their own self-evident existence. Any claim that extends beyond the direct observation requires (of logical necessity) some application of interpretation.

 

“You seem to be attempting to dismiss my statement not because it is untrue, but (uncomfortably) because it is”

I did not “dismiss” anything. I explicitly criticised the “statement” for having no rational substance. I made no claim to either it's truth or untruth. As written, the statement had no meaning for someone who is secure in their own position (i.e. who can't be bullied by rhetoric and fallacy).

 

“I'm certain you've read Todd Wood's comments before”

Perhaps you have raised Todd Wood before in our conversations. I don't really follow the public discussion very closely. But I'll address the provided quote with the understanding that I don't have the context.

 

“There is evidence for evolution”

So what is meant by “evolution”? For example, I don't think anyone contests that populations can change over time, that mutations occur, that populations divide, adapt over time due to environmental pressures and speciate etc. etc. And yes, the facts can be interpreted to construct a model of history leading to Common Ancestry (given the premise that nothing supernatural necessarily interfered in the process). So what? I can interpret all of the very same facts to construct a model of history that is consistent with the Biblical premise of the Genesis creation account.

 

“evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory”

Well – since all claims about the unobserved past are logically unfalsifiable, this claim doesn't mean anything in terms of legitimate "scientific" confidence. The Genesis model of history has stood unfalsified for thousands of years.

Even then, I would still challenge the claim. What is called “evolution” theory has undergone significant fundamental changes due to new discoveries. Various details are constantly being revised. If it has to be constantly tweaked, in what sense is it “successful”? More rhetorical bluster. It all sounds good – until you investigate a bit.

 

“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”

As for me, I have extensively investigated both positions and found no objective reason to distrust God's Word as the highest authority. I contest Common Ancestry, but have no issue with much of what is labelled “evolution”. Maybe Todd didn't look into it enough to make that distinction.

 

“It is well known that scientific understanding of God's creation has changed the way "pretty much everyone read the text" in the past. It is my opinion that we have enough understanding of God's creation to do it again with the creation week”

The secular story and Genesis accounts of history are explicitly contrary. You feel so strongly obligated to the secular story that you need to relegate the early chapters of Genesis as “symbolic” in order to accommodate that perceived obligation. I cannot think of a more dangerous hermeneutical approach to scripture. '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 suspect (hope) you don't treat the rest of scripture this way – but to me, it's a very scary precedent to set for yourself. I'd be more comfortable with you just saying, “I don't know how to reconcile the two narratives' – rather than trying to make the Bible conform to something it clearly doesn't fit.

 

“This is a problematic argument. You know very well why convergence fits VERY well with the evolution paradigm. You also know that superficial structural similarity does not necessitate genetic and anatomic similarity. This is a bad swing and a miss”

There is no problem with the logic of my original statement (at least nothing you've provided). Just more empty words.

 

“Notice that I'm only referring to the interspersed repeats. There is substantially more of the genome that limited function. Researchers have known and explored functions for the interspersed repeats for over two decades. At some point, even the most ardent of believers will need to admit that there is a LOT of junk DNA in the human genome”

The distinction of “interspersed repeats” doesn't effect my provided argument.

The general concept of genes being inactivated by mutations is not a problem for Biblical creationism. The Argument from Ignorance fallacy should be a problem for everyone.

 

“I could have used the term "junk DNA", but that carries a bit of baggage”

Right – both terms (“unnecessary DNA” and “junk DNA”) assume something beyond what is observed. So the “baggage” is that they are both examples of logic fallacy.

 

“How do you explain the extremely high degree of DNA sequence similarity between human/chimp introns and intergenic regions? ”

I don't see why this is any different to sequence similarities in other regions (unless you assume there is absolutely no function to those regions). Even if they are only padding (without any other function), by what logic is God obligated to change the padding sequence between different kinds of creatures? If the same gene is present in two creatures, why is God obligated to randomise the introns in that gene between each created kind? I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something.

How are we quantifying “extremely high … similarity”? The genomes of both are also massively different in many respects; including chromosome number (which I think you'd have to admit is a significant structural/organisational difference).

 

The following is your list of so-called facts that you think are impossible in a YEC reality.

“The fossil record with layers upon layers of organisms no longer on the planet with more-recognizable organisms higher into the strata”

And by “layers upon layers” you must mean 2 to 3 fossil-containing layers that show a general pattern of overlap with other structure at disparate locations which, usually characterised by index fossils which are assumed to have been slowly deposited around the same time during “geological history”. Because you, of course, know that the drawing you see in the text book isn't actually reflected anywhere on earth?

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). The existence of a general pattern is indeed a fact. So can I explain that fact from the perspective of Biblical creationism?

Let say there was a global flood that drowned every land animal on earth. I would expect that flood to move massive amounts of sediment around the globe. Where and when that sediment came to rest would determine the fossil record (NOTE: given that majority of the animals would not be fossilised, and given that our fossil record is only built on observations from a very small surface area of the globe). I would expect the lowest fossils in the record to be of creatures that lived under the deep ocean surface (e.g. deep ocean worms), then (moving up) those creatures that were stuck to the ocean floor (e.g. plants), then those that could move across the ocean floor (and maybe swim to avoid the initial deluge of sediment), then the same for shallow water, then the same for terrestrial creatures – and finally, at the upper layers, things that could climb mountains and tall trees to escape the floodwater (birds, people and other mammals etc.).

 

“The radiometric dating of rock samples”

Radiometric dating is not a fact. It is a conclusion that starts with facts (recorded chemical levels in rock samples). But then those levels are fed into a highly presumptuous formula to generate a supposed date of origin. If any of the fundamental assumptions of the formula happen to be wrong, then the method fails. Now a) we have no way to go back in time any verify that the assumptions are correct for the stupendous magnitudes of time required, and b) all of the assumptions have been found to be sometimes incorrect in testable samples (i.e. newly formed rocks). So on a basic point of logic, all dating methods are fundamentally unreliable. No one is obligated to trust them. But back to the point – the dating methods are not facts.

 

“ The geography of the planet with amazing features like the Grand Canyon, Himalayan mountains, and Appalachian mountains”

Yes, these are facts. I'm not sure why you think the existence of canyons and mountains would be impossible under the YEC paradigm.

 

“The distance of galaxies and stars billions of light-years distant ”

Why couldn't God create a big, mature universe? He created a mature planet with mature people who ate from mature plants? NOTE: this is not my preferred model (which is more complex), but it's a very simple (and logically valid) response to your claim.

As a matter of principle, I would also point out that the “distance” of these “galaxies and stars” relies very heavily on assumptive interpretations over stupendous magnitudes of time and space (based on limited facts). The only facts we have is the energy (e.g. light) recorded as it encounters our instruments either on, or around, the earth. The rest is an unverified story of the light's history. NOTE: I am not challenging the claimed distances (creationist models don't require them to be challenged), but it is important to examine the logic behind the claims.

 

“These are just a few”

So, in conclusion, you have thus far failed to provide any facts that would be impossible in a YEC reality.