Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[The Barbarian]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:20 PM, Retrobyter said:

As an advocate for evolution and evolutionism, of COURSE you're going to say, "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." But, I see exactly the opposite! It SHOULD be "teetering on the verge of collapse!"

But that was from a YE creationist who happens to be familiar with the evidence.   He thinks the Earth is about 6000 years old, but is honest enough to concede that the evidence says otherwise.

Here's another honest YE creationist (Dr. Gerald Aardsma) with a different way of explaining the evidence:

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago. Since my work is designed to defend the historical truth of the Bible against charges that what it reports as history is in fact fiction, I have not had much cause to talk about the ice-ages so far. (In my understanding of virtual history and the past, one can just accept what the scientists specializing in these fields are telling everyone is their best understanding/reconstruction of these past events. These reconstructions do not attack the historical integrity of the Bible in any way once one understands the concept of virtual history.)

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.

https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

[The Barbarian]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:00 AM, teddyv said:

This creates problems. Certainly God can make it how he wants. I don't dispute that. I do have a problem with an effectively deceitful God because that is what is being implied by such a view. This is Biblically problematic and I am surprised that it is suggested.

This is what kills YE for me.   I do think that Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" explanation is a reasonable way to get around the issue, but my thought is "why not just accept it, as He made it?"

 

[RV_Wizard]

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

 So far, in my career as a geologist, I have not seen compelling evidence for a global flood, nor for any reason to deny the earth is quite ancient.

Nor have you discovered evidence which precludes God creating the earth it a mature state, as He did with everything else in the six day creation.  Consider the trees bearing fruit on day for, and having to be at least seven years old to do so.  Had Adam felled one of the trees, I'm quite certain the tree would have rings because, after all, mature trees have rings.

There are marine fossils on mountain peaks.  You can attribute it to uplift, but the fact remains that those peaks were underwater at one time.  You can attempt to calculate a rock's age, but you can't know what it's beginning state was.  I agree you can interpret evidence to show long ages, and you can make compelling arguments.  Before all is over, the evidence will be considered irrefutable even by many clergymen.  Faith is not easy.  It will get far more difficult as time goes on.  The truth of creation lies with the Creator, not with the created.

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

Scripture does not demand a literalistic approach, and I would argue, doing so is a modern contrivance.

You would be wrong.  The Fourth Commandment assumes a literal six day creation.  That was recorded by Moses.

9 hours ago, teddyv said:

My goal would be that Christians be well-informed on those matters they take issue with rather than make terrible arguments, build strawmen, or outright falsehoods.

Well constructed arguments are always more productive.  The trouble is, your side usually demands that we see the same evidence from your perspective; not ours.  We value the word of God over the science of man.  That doesn't mean we don't understand your position.  We just don't accept your interpretation.

 

[Retrobyter]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:24 AM, teddyv said:

How could you possibly assume that I am not looking at the bigger picture? On what basis can you even make that claim? That I don't agree with the YEC interpretation of Scripture? Anyway...

The reason why I said that "you're not looking at the bigger picture" is because of the INTERPRETATION placed upon the various rock layers! "Deeper" doesn't means "older" (except in how the rock layers were laid during and immediately after the Flood)!

On 11/8/2023 at 11:24 AM, teddyv said:

Let's talk specifics then. The country of Ghana is well-endowed with gold resources. I worked for about 6 months on a project there hosted with the Birimian metasediments. These sediments were primarily multiple sequences of greywacke, sandstone to siltstone, sometimes well-bedded, other times more disturbed. These finer sediments were overlain by conglomerates of the Tarkwaian formation. Overprinting both these units, in the deposit I worked on, was a metamorphic event that produced garnets. The interesting thing was in the upper conglomerates, instead of garnets, it was magnetite. As we would log down the drill core, the magnetite would suddenly transition into the garnets. This is due to a metamorphic reaction creating "skarn". Further into the sediments, sulphides would appear indicating hydrothermal action. Our gold deposit was located in a rich skarn zone (or zones) of large pink garnets, green amphiboles and pyrrhotite (a sulphide), along with quartz veins that were often mineralized with visible gold. As work progressed it was understood that the deposit was structurally hosted within a steep thrust fault.

In these sediments, no fossils are found, either in the fine sediments (which would have been conducive to preservation) or the conglomerates (less so). The finer sediments were deposited likely on a coastal shelf, with the later conglomerates overlain during uplift of the area.  They also show multiple sequences of various fineness of the sediments.

So, I need to have a good idea of how to explain all these issues, for one small gold deposit, within the 1 year Flood event. If you go with "it was created that way" well, that's fine, I guess.

This is all very interesting! However, it may be explained, as you say, "created that way." Consider:

Genesis 2:10-14 (KJV)

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Thus, this gold, bdellium, and onyx was "created that way."

I've highlighted the suggestions of hydrodynamics above in your quote. But, the upheavals of the land were GREATLY affected by the Flood! With every underwater explosion of magma and every shift of the waves, more silt and sand and other deposits could be laid upon each other.

On 11/8/2023 at 11:24 AM, teddyv said:

We need disposition of the finer sediments, uplift, deposition of the coarse conglomerates, structural deformation including folding and faulting, metamorphism, hydrothermal processes. We like to know the timing of these events because it can (and has) led to the identification of additional deposits with the same characteristics.

I'm sure the good folk at AiG would quote me "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" but even their own people concede that they cannot deal with the heat problem that process involves.

Are you kidding me? underwater earthquakes and volcanos were happening throughout the year of the Flood. The weight of water upon a land not able to support it CRACKED the sea bottoms! "The valleys went down, and the mountains went up!" (Psalm 104:8) It was ALL underwater, and thus, the volcanos could pop up anywhere, introducing hot magma into the surrounding areas! The great heat at the equator and the heat of the volcanoes along with the pressure of the water could produce all sorts of 

On 11/8/2023 at 11:24 AM, teddyv said:

Dr. Todd Wood is a creationist who believes fairly the same as you. As far as I am concerned he has credibility to criticize or object evolutionary theory because he actually understands it, and probably far better than me, not being a biologist. 

You have a lot of work ahead of you to demonstrate this. We do not find jumbles of different species of fossils in the rocks. Certain fossils are expressly limited to certain formations. Around my home are ammonites and bivalves in the Jurassic-aged rocks. There is also a fossiliferous outcrop containing fish, wasps, and metasequoia from an ancient Eocene lake. We do not find intermixing of any of these fossils and they almost literally on top of each other.

Which should tell one that they all DIED together! But, you're using the words "Eocene" and "Jurassic-aged"  which are words already being used in the geologic ages, suggesting evolutionism is true! See how subtle it's become? One can't even speak of the levels of rock formations without its influence! Since 1859 when Darwin published On the Origen of Species, we've had millions of supporters who developed the Geologic Column and the associated time lines for the various ages and eras.

A history of chronostratigraphy

Gian Battista Vai

Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e Geologiche-Ambientali, Università di Bologna – Alma Mater Studiorum,
Via Zamboni 67, I-40127 Bologna, Italia
email: vai@geomin.unibo.it

ABSTRACT: Chronostratigraphy has a “prehistory” beginning with Leonardo’s and Steno’s twofold relative geologic time division. It developed further with Marsili’s (1728), Lehmann’s (1756), Arduino’s (1759-60) and Werner’s (1787) threefold, fourfold, and fivefold divisions respectively. Meanwhile, the initial steps were being taken in understanding Earth’s chronometry. Geological mapping exponentially increased the number of lithostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic units and forced the need for a common language and practice by international agreement. That objective became feasible with the establishment of the International Geological Congress (IGC), and the bipolar or dual classification of chronostratigraphic and chronologic units was formally established during the 2nd IGC in Bologna in 1881.

For more, see A history of chronostratigraphy at researchgate.net.

Only the last date was after Darwin's book. So, this nonsense in dating the rocks is something that started BEFORE Darwin! Also, they use index fossils to date the rocks, but they will take the rock strata and date it by the index fossils found there! Seems to be some circular reasoning going on. Besides, there are times when a rock strata contains TWO index fossils:

We use index fossils to identify periods of geologic history and to match up pieces of rock strata that have been separated by large distances. When one outcrop contains two index fossils from two different time periods, it acts as a 'missing link' between other outcrops that have only one of the two fossils. See relative dating with fossils.

If the same index fossil is found in different areas, the strata in each area were likely deposited at the same time. Thus, the principle of faunal succession makes it possible to determine the relative age of unknown fossils and correlate fossil sites across large discontinuous areas. See dating rocks and fossils using geologic methods.

It turns out that ultimately is it "the bipolar or dual classification of chronostratigraphic and chronologic units that were formally established during the 2nd IGC in Bologna in 1881" that take PRECEDENCE over either the strata or the index fossils! Go figure!

[Retrobyter]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But that was from a YE creationist who happens to be familiar with the evidence.   He thinks the Earth is about 6000 years old, but is honest enough to concede that the evidence says otherwise.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

And yet, the evidence does NOT say otherwise! It is merely the TWIST on the INTERPRETATION that says otherwise! EVERYONE, even some YE Creationists, GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATE A GLOBAL FLOOD! When one realizes that ALL of the rock layers were laid down in a short time period, it changes the INTERPRETATION of the evidence! ANY LAYER that contains death and decay was the result of the FLOOD!

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Here's another honest YE creationist (Dr. Gerald Aardsma) with a different way of explaining the evidence:

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago. Since my work is designed to defend the historical truth of the Bible against charges that what it reports as history is in fact fiction, I have not had much cause to talk about the ice-ages so far. (In my understanding of virtual history and the past, one can just accept what the scientists specializing in these fields are telling everyone is their best understanding/reconstruction of these past events. These reconstructions do not attack the historical integrity of the Bible in any way once one understands the concept of virtual history.)

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.

https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

I just chalk him up as another example of someone who has GREATLY UNDERESTIMATED the GLOBAL FLOOD!

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Nor have you discovered evidence which precludes God creating the earth it a mature state, as He did with everything else in the six day creation.  Consider the trees bearing fruit on day for, and having to be at least seven years old to do so.  Had Adam felled one of the trees, I'm quite certain the tree would have rings because, after all, mature trees have rings.

There are marine fossils on mountain peaks.  You can attribute it to uplift, but the fact remains that those peaks were underwater at one time.  You can attempt to calculate a rock's age, but you can't know what it's beginning state was.  I agree you can interpret evidence to show long ages, and you can make compelling arguments.  Before all is over, the evidence will be considered irrefutable even by many clergymen.  Faith is not easy.  It will get far more difficult as time goes on.  The truth of creation lies with the Creator, not with the created.

You would be wrong.  The Fourth Commandment assumes a literal six day creation.  That was recorded by Moses.

I will address some of this but don't have time at the moment.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Well constructed arguments are always more productive.  The trouble is, your side usually demands that we see the same evidence from your perspective; not ours.  We value the word of God over the science of man.  That doesn't mean we don't understand your position.  We just don't accept your interpretation.

The only reason I might be construed as "demanding" you view it through my perspective is because so many creationists here and elsewhere demonstrably do not understand what they criticize. As I said previously, many arguments are strawman, or arguments from incredulity, and for some here (not you), just random ad hoc explanations with no Scriptural basis and no physical evidence.

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

This is what kills YE for me.   I do think that Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" explanation is a reasonable way to get around the issue, but my thought is "why not just accept it, as He made it?"

 

The ad hoc nature of creationism, especially from Answers in Genesis, is super frustrating because they contradict themselves all the time. No attempt at any coherent story - every branch of science is compartmentalized to find the so-called cracks, but then do not apply those across all disciplines. As well, continue to proclaim certain hypotheses when their own people say it's impossible without some magical physics.

 

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

This is what kills YE for me.   I do think that Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" explanation is a reasonable way to get around the issue, but my thought is "why not just accept it, as He made it?"

Shalom, The Barbarian.

I disagree; Gerald Aardsma's concept of a "virtual history" doesn't quite cut it. And, he is being disingenuous with the Scriptures.

Why DON'T you accept it, as He made it?

1. He SAID He made it in six days, each consisting of an evening and a morning. (Exodus 20:
2. He SAID that it was the same six days that comprise our work week, with Shabbat (the 7th Day) set apart to the LORD.
3. All of the layers of rocks that contain dead animals (and plants) were those formed in the LONG results of the GLOBAL FLOOD. This includes the oil deposits and coal deposits around the world.
4. The only people (and land animals and birds) that survived were those aboard the Ark during that year-long period.

Exodus 20:1-11 (KJV)

1 And GOD SPAKE ALL THESE WORDS, saying,

2 "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

He LITERALLY and AUDIBLY SPOKE THESE WORDS!!! After He spoke audibly the first Ten Commandments, we read this:

Exodus 20:18-21 (KJV)

18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses,

"Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die!"

20 And Moses said unto the people,

"Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not."

21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

They were SCARED TO DEATH to HEAR GOD ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THEM!!

I wonder, how would you react?

[Retrobyter]

32 minutes ago, teddyv said:

The ad hoc nature of creationism, especially from Answers in Genesis, is super frustrating because they contradict themselves all the time. No attempt at any coherent story - every branch of science is compartmentalized to find the so-called cracks, but then do not apply those across all disciplines. As well, continue to proclaim certain hypotheses when their own people say it's impossible without some magical physics.

Shalom, teddyv.

This is unfortunate, but we have no "organization" or "compendium" or "society" which governs what should be said, because we're still so young, but who is really to blame when those who claim to be Christians can't even believe the Bible?!

[The Barbarian]

This is what kills YE for me.   I do think that Gerald Aardsma's "virtual history" explanation is a reasonable way to get around the issue, but my thought is "why not just accept it, as He made it?"

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Why DON'T you accept it, as He made it?

If one just goes with Genesis as it is, one doesn't need to add all that stuff about YE and global floods or even "virtual history."  

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

They were SCARED TO DEATH to HEAR GOD ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THEM!!

I wonder, how would you react?

I hear that a lot.  If you really put Jesus first, and He walked into the room, you'd see two responses.   Most people would hang back in fear.    But those who have accepted Him would go to Him immediately; that would be just what we have been waiting for.   

The old hymn puts it best: 

"Be not afraid.   I go before you always.   Come follow Me.   And I will give you rest."

Romans 8:15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).

That's the informal term, used by children for their fathers.   "Dad."    If you're afraid of Him, you haven't got it yet.