How many times have you heard this? “The fossil record proves evolution!”
It doesn’t. Let me tell you why. Hey, I’ll even show you.
What the Geological Strata Charts don’t tell you.
Now, the picture we’re usually given to illustrate how evolution is demonstrated shows a cross-section of geological strata and some corresponding text to indicate that these strata represent specific ages. They’re all lined up nice and neat from beginning to end. Each slice has a group of representative fossils to show how life has allegedly progressed through the ages. The first few slices show jellyfish, worms and trilobites; the next shows fish; then amphibians and early reptiles; then dinosaurs; then mammals; and finally man. Nice and neat.
Of course, it’s just a drawing. Darwinists weren’t actually there, so it’s only their interpretation of what the fossil record means.
A few things these charts don’t tell you.
- These geological strata don’t always play ball with the claims of the Church of Darwin. Quite often the early strata are flip-flopped with later ages, so that allegedly younger fossils are found below older fossils. Evolutionists do explain these anomolies away when they can and chalk up the rest to “We don’t know yet, but we KNOW it WASN’T the result of a catastrophic global flood!” But you should be aware that their neatly laid out strata-age chart exists in full form nowhere in nature! It’s not observable. It’s inferred from their evolutionary presuppositions.
- All of the missing links are missing. The dots are only connected in their minds, not in the fossil record. By nature of the fossils themselves, which don’t come with pedigrees, birth certificates or identification tags of any sort, no one can state that one fossil creature is descended from another with absolute certainty. This is an important point. They can speculate, but their speculations presume Darwinism; they don’t spring forth naturally from the evidence. The fossil record simply shows, as Ken Ham has famously put it, “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.”
- The Cambrian Explosion makes a shipwreck of their nice neat chart. Rather than seeing simple life forms such as worms and jellyfish appear to be folowed by trilobites and fish and the like, we instead see representations of all major phyla appearing AT THE SAME TIME! This obvious slap in darwin’s face has caused not a few Darwinists to famously modify the theory. Punctuated equilibrium, or “punk eek,” suggests that life exists with only minor adaptations within established kinds [observable microevolution, which no one disputes], but then goes rapid changes in short spurts which leave behind no transitional forms! This is just another example of how the speculative [and imaginative!] nature of Darwinism makes it unfalsifiable.
- They don’t tell you that there are other alternatives [such as the one illustrated in the Walker chart below] to the Old Earth uniformitarian view assumed by Darwinists and Progessive Creationists [Compromisers would be a more appropo term] which not only address the same set of facts that Old Earthers have [we all ahve the same facts to interpret, but start with different assumptions] but also address the “anamolies” that Old Earth explanations create.
The Fossil Record Itself Shows that Rapid Burial and Preservation are Key factors in Fossilization
The fossil record is replete with examples of fossils which illustrate that the animals were swept up in some catastrophe and buried almost instantly!
We have fish that died in the act of eating another fish…
We have animals which died in the middle of giving birth…
We have large animals [which is a "sizeable" argument for rapid burial in and of itself!] which died seemingly in the midst of struggle…
We have huge, mass graves where dinosaur fossils are jumbled together like so much flotsam after a flood — and little wonder if the Biblicalaccount is true!
We even have soft-bodied animals and delicate structures such as dragonfly wings which were buried quickly enough to imprint themselves in mud before the decay made that impossible.
We even have trilobite tracks preseved in stone. How did that escape erasure if stone takes millions of years to form out of mud?
Add to this the puzzle [for darwinists] of polystratic fossils, tree fossils which run vertically through several strata of rock.
If these strata allegedly represent billions of years, how did the tree survive long enough [without rotting] to become fossilized? On an empirical level, the Mount Saint Helens eruption gave us a tangible example of how polystratic fossils might form. According to Answers in Genesis:
The volcano sent mud and debris hurtling down into Spirit Lake, sloshing a wave nearly 900 feet (300 m) up its initially tree-studded slopes. The wave sheared off trees with enough lumber to make all the houses in a large city! The trees were sheared off their roots and stripped of their leaves, branches, and bark. The “forest” of denuded logs floated out over the huge lake. As they water-logged, many sank vertically down into and through several layers of mud on the lake bottom.
These are anamolies [mass burials all over the Earth, evidence of sudden burial of living creatures and polystrate fossils] created by the Old Earth uniformitarian assumptions, but which are easily accounted for by the Young Earth Biblical Catastrophic model.
Ironically, Darwinists and Creationists both agree that in order to be fossilized, the subjects had to be buried completely and very quickly at that to keep the subject from total decomposition so that there would be anything to fossilize! In fact, the debate is not that flooding and rapid burial are critical elements in fossilization; the debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records.
Guess which one the Darwinists are promoting? Yep, the one that doesn’t lend credence to the Bible. It seems they would cut off their nose to spite their face, so long as they do not allow a Divine foot in the door. So much for parsimony.
–Sirius Knotts















Hi, Sirius
I have a question for you, and I’m not sure whether I read this somewhere or it just came from me alone, but I wonder how come we still have rivers and mountains and things if the earth is as old as some people like to think.
If the earth is really billions of years old, wouldn’t all the mountains have been washed away by all the rivers and the rain and wind a long time ago? Maybe this is naive, but it just doesn’t make sense to me that the earth isn’t a flat salt swamp by now (unless it’s young). What do you think?
Cindy
By: cindyinsd on September 8, 2008
at 1:59 pm
You’re trying to disprove evolution by quoting Ken Ham? Best of luck!
By: Tony Sidaway on September 8, 2008
at 6:21 pm
Nice job!
“All of the missing links are missing.” – that’s quite funny
By: Mike on September 8, 2008
at 10:23 pm
Tony,
Words fail me as I consider the incredible lack of depth, wit and comprehension your dismally banal comment evidences. I am torn between wishing to mock you to scorn for attempting an ad logicum cum ad hominem without bothering to qualify how the ad hominem is crucial to my argument exactly OR simply pointing out that the majority of my argument neither borrows from nor refers to Mr. Ham, but he is mentioned only one time for a rather famous phrasing of an idea I wished to convey.
It’s certainly nice to know where you stand on your personal feelings for Ken Ham. I do hope you have something more interesting to contribute. For example, would you care to comment on anything specific on the article you apparently did not read [or could not comprehend at any rate] except to note that Ken ham was mentioned once?
Probably not, since if you HAD read what I’ve written you would note that I’m not trying to disprove Darwinism by quoting Ken Ham, but rather I have demonstated, as Darwin himself acknowledged [and this is why he tried to dismiss it as notoriously "imperfect" in Origins], that the fossil record does not support Darwinian theory.
I should like to make one final note. My true name is also Tony. It’s a good name. If your comments on this blog are a true sampling of the piffulous tripe you habitually spew upon the virtual world, I do hope you’ll stop using that name, for the sake of all Tonys everywhere.
Best of luck,
Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 9, 2008
at 2:49 am
Sirius, forgive my impulse to mock your posting. Rather then get into a long explanation of your many errors, I’ll direct you to a website that refutes every single one of your credulous claims, and more.
For a basic introduction to evolution, so you’ll know in future what you’re arguing against, I recommend What evolution is by the late Ernst Mayr.
And if you want to argue against modern geology, stop telling nursery tales about global floods and read a modern geology text book.
By: Tony Sidaway on September 9, 2008
at 8:00 pm
Tony,
Why do you guys keep barking up my tree? or at the moon? or whatever? You guys always have something to say, but you really ain’t saying nothing. How come you guys never have the temerity to actually address the points of argument I’ve presented in the blog? [Oh, because you can't. You either lack the intellect to try or you possess intellect enough to know I've got your number.]
As I’ve warned others in the past, please read the About Me page, as I have rules on my site. One of the more pertinent rules is that if you wish to make a comment, you must actually engage whatever small capacity you possess to form your own arguments in your own words. We call this independent thought. We’re big on it here even if you’re not. We don’t allow you to appeal to your own special higher powers like TalkOrigins. Instead, we use our blogsite as a benevolent excuse to make Darwin neophytes think and articulate for themselves, instead of appealing to authorities.
Thus far, you’ve appealed to science by consensus [hail science!] but you’ve not told me why I should consider their opinion better than the creationist view. Is it because they are supermen of whom we peons are not worthy [hail science!]? Is it because they’re right? If so, tell me how, if you can do more than parrot, if you can do more than express your faith in those who do your thinking for you?
If there are sooooo many errors in this blog, put your intellect at stake and actually try to formulate a coherent argument. Why should I accept Just-so story of Darwinism given the evidence I’ve presented over Biblical catastrophism? Are you just going to appeal to a consensus or to authority again?
Come back when your evolved enough to evidence sapience, you knuckle-dragging sheep,
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 9, 2008
at 10:00 pm
I’m not appealing to a higher authority, Sirius. Just asking you to read somehting about evolution before you parade your ignorance.
By: Tony Sidaway on September 9, 2008
at 10:27 pm
Hey, I wonder how many Christians he gets on his blog who just throw down a link followed by a suggestion to read the bible?
By: Mike on September 10, 2008
at 3:51 am
[Wow. This guy's mental midgitry knows no bounds.]
Tony,
It is you who has been parading your ignorance on my blog. Allow me to elucidate…
Mike’s comment succintly illustrates why throwing out a link [what we call "appealing to higher powers" around here - would you prefer "appealing to better men than you?"] displays a lack of intellectual integrity. In fact, failing to formulate a credible and lucid answer on this site is pretty much an admission of ignorance [because you don't know, but you have a hero who does your thinking for you that does! What faith! hail naturalism!]
I’ve read Dawkins, Hitchens, Darwin – the whole lot! In fact, it’s BECAUSE I’ve actually READ Origins that it’s filed under science fiction on my shelves. You’d know that if you’d bothered reading my actual post. I know all about Darwinism – and I don’t agree with it! And I’ve actually gone about systematically writing down why exactly I disagree. Unlike you and some of the other wannabes who’ve visited my site…
I’ve bothered to put my money where my mouth is and actually state my opinion in an intelligent manner, while you’ve hidden behind what I suspect is a false front of I’m-too-too-intellectual-to-be-bothered-with-being-brave-enough-to-actually-engage-the-subject-at-hand. But from where I’m standing it looks like your just another punk troll who shot off his mouth before he realized he was in over his head.
But that’s OK. If you CAN’T answer me, well, that’s par for the course for you Darwinist wannabes. But don’t put out a smokescreen about how I don’t know anything about evolution. Instead why don’t you demonstrate your alleged sapience [and my supposed ignorance] by addressing my actual post?
Can you manage to cranial output and the integrity to do that?
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 10, 2008
at 9:58 am
Hi, Sirius. I’ve simply asked your to study the subject before you try to attack it. Attacking my intelligence won’t make your problem go away or enable you to fool others into thinking that you’ve got your facts right when you come out and parade ignorant nonsense like the global flood.
Now enough posturing. If you’ve read anything on modern geology you’ll know that your comic book description of geological dating is ridiculously wrong. You misrepresent the Cambrian explosion, as a simultaneous appearance of all modern phyla, when it’s known to have taken at the very least tens of millions of years.
I don’t waste much time with you because you obviously, blatantly, know nothing of modern geology or evolution. You’ve read Dawkins? Really? You show no evidence of that.
Moreover you argue for a young earth. That’s a complete waste of time.
By: Tony Sidaway on September 10, 2008
at 8:40 pm
“Tony” [sorry, but your apparent lack of intelligence casts serious doubt as to whether that's your real name],
I’ve read Dawkins. Are you so enthralled by his snitty British accent that you could not comrehend how someone would not simply read his hubris and be instantly illuminated, convinced and converted [hail naturalism!]? Seriously, lad – you might believe everything you read uncritically, but we philosophers like to evaluate the evidence.
A couple points:
1. The argument for a young earth is only a complete waste of time if it’s not true. You’re begging the question, but you’ve not demonstrated why except to appeal to authorities. Science has a self-correcting mechanism wherein the previous paradigm [and the authorities who subsist off it and defend it] is always replaced by those willing to challenge the old paradigm through freedom of inquiry. A refusal to engage the debate is both arrogant and cowardly. It’s also demonstrably unscientific and even antiscientific. It’s essentially relaince upon dogma.
2. You don’t waste time with me because you have NOTHING intelligent to say. You bit off Waaaaay more than you could chew. You have demonstrated your ignorance by appealing to authorities [what we call appealing to a higher power] and claiming I’m ignorant without bothering to support your allegation. You have also not addressed any specific point of my argument. You’re a fartful dodger.
3. I’ve not misrepresented the Cambrian explosion any more than Stephen Jay Gould did. The point is simply that there was no a gradual progression from simple celled oragnisms to more and more complex organisms, but rather there appears a grand variety of life with no transitional forms evident [there never are] in an extremely tiny span of time [by geological standards]. This pretty much kills the idea of gradual evolution and forced any scientist who looked at data rather than dogma to come up with the idea that evolution comes in fits interupted by long boring periods where nothing happens. Of course, we haven’t seen macroevolution ever, but hail darwinism anyway, right “tony”?
4. How do they KNOW it took tens of millions of years? Were they there? Do you really want to go a round with me over how they date these rocks? Are you up for it? You certainly haven’t demonstrated an aptitude for argument thus far.
5. I have amply demonstrated that I understand evolution on this blogsite. I simply don’t agree with Darwinism. And I’m in good company. Mendel thought he was a blithering idiot. Origins is essentially one giant argument from ignorance relying upon argumentum verbosium and a good dose of imagination. But working out how something might happen if your theory is true isn’t the same thing as proving it, is it? Presuming it’s true because you’ve worked how how it might have happened IF it’s true at all is begging the question.
6. I’m not attacking your intelligence. I’m pointing out that you haven’t demonstrated any!
But since you brought it up, how would “Tony” define evolution, big boy?
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 11, 2008
at 3:56 am
Hi Knott!
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the global flood DID happen.
Have you considered the enormous amount of problems such an event would have with the observed facts?
To mention a few…
1. The ice caps on the poles would never have the chance to grow to their current size in 4000 years. These caps would have been destroyed if they were submerged in flowing water for months. We also have a way of dating ice, in which we count the layers of ice. Why doesn’t these layers show that they are less than 4000 years?
2. Fresh water fish. If the world was flooded, there would be no fresh water for the fish which require these conditions.
3. Diseases.. some diseases can only survive in humans. The human immune system fights these and makes it impossible for them to survive in populations of less than 10000 individuals, now imagine a group of 10…
4. We also know that “species” with a very low population has huge problems surviving. If a modern species is down to a handful of members, they will probably go extinct. There are also major problems with inbreeding.
The list goes on…
By: Stian on September 11, 2008
at 4:31 am
Hi Sirius. Please read some text books….
By: Tony Sidaway on September 11, 2008
at 6:09 am
“You guys always have something to say, but you really ain’t saying nothing.”
Wouldn’t that mean you are, in fact, saying something?
By: airtightnoodle on September 11, 2008
at 9:54 pm
Stian,
Whether the list goes on or not, I’ll address your specific objections:
1. The Biblical picture of the Flood and the subsequent evidence we have for THE Ice Age [i.e. - flash-frozen mammoths] suggests a rather sudden onset to the Ice Age [which only covered approx. 1/3 of the Earth not its entirety]. You’re assuming gradualism or uniformitarianism, whereby current processes [and rates] are assumed to account for all past phenomenon. Current catastrophism models add vulcanism to the picture. Volcanic eruptions would have blocked the sun’s heat to a great measure, creating a drastic temperature drop. Vegetation would have created the necessary carbon dioxide to alleviate this problem and warm the earth back up after a couple hundred years.
Also: the Biblical model suggests a uniform climate made possible by a vapor canopy [which fell to earth at the Flood when the "windows of heaven opened."] that produced a greenhouse effect. The subsequent post-Flood lack of said canopy would have then allowed the climate differences we see now.
2. ICR’s website puts it succinctly:
In other words, there are possible answers.
3. Again, you need to look at the Biblical model. First, we don’t know whether said diseases mutated and specialized into what they are now by the time of the Flood. Considering the evidence, it would seem to be a later development.
4. This has been answered many times over. Humans [per the Biblical account] lived much longer lives and we may postulate that they were more genetically robust. The animal kinds were likely as robust. Current Catastrophism models also stress that Noah only needed to carry the representative uber-”kinds” which would have adapted into the variety we see now through observable microevolutionary processes. The problems you’re refering to would not have been applicable with such genetically robust specimens. It is only now, after many harmful mutations, that we have problems with inbreeding.
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 11, 2008
at 9:57 pm
How many Creationist websites did you mine this dreck from? Your condescending attitude only makes it more ridiculous. Please, please check your facts before you write things like this.
By: forknowledge on September 11, 2008
at 10:04 pm
forknowledge,
It’s pretty funny that you’d comment on MY condescending attitude, considering you started your comment on a Christian site with a blasphemous hyperbole [deleted], yet even with this omitted your arrogance is quite evident. If you think it makes ME look rediculous, how rediculous do you look – especially since [like "tony"] you can’t seem to articulate your specific objections.
You see, the ad hominem about Creationist sites merely masks the fact that you’ve said nothing specific. You may as well have written, “Nuh-uh!”
Having said that, care to be specific about which facts I should have checked? Or are you all mock and no substance?
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 11, 2008
at 10:28 pm
[...] This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. [...]
By: …. « For Knowledge! on September 11, 2008
at 10:28 pm
With all respect, you’re grasping at straws here…
All you creationists can do is try to find “possible” alternatives for the evidence. You never pick the one the evidence suggests, because it contradicts the bible.
The evidence does NOT suggest a “Vapor Canopy”. In fact, it’s not only extremely unlikely and unsupported by evidence, it also brings a lot of new problems to the table. The pressure of such a canopy alone would add 0.1 bar/meter of rain. It would have to contain enough vapor to add at least 5 km of water on the earths surface, which adds a whopping 500 bar to the pressure at sea level. How would this INCREASE life expectancy? It makes no sense. Add this to the fact that such a vapor canopy would absorb nearly all the sunlight, leaving very little for the plants and photosynthesis. The “vapor canopy” theory is pure nonsense with no credibility and no support by evidence.
Then, to number 1.
On earth, we have ice layers that are ~4000 meters thick. How would you suggest that these could regrow in 4000 years? You would agree that the climate when Jesus was alive was similar to todays? There is no mention of cold periods in the bible, is it? If a volcano were to create a 4000 m thick ice layer, one would surely notice it in Israel too? I don’t even know where to start pointing out inconsistencies. It just doesn’t add up! The evidence points in a completely different direction…
While we’re at it.. how do you explain that the pyramids seem untouched by a flood? Most are dated pre-flood. If you claim that they are post-flood, when would you date them?
How could we repopulate earth in only 4000 years, and evolve from only a handful of israelis to blacks, whites, asian, indian etc…? We know that the africans have been where they are for some years now… and the mayas have a lot of structures dated at least 3000 years back…
There is no way the mayas could have left israel 4000 years ago, reached south america (how?), started their very own culture and populated the land. In the same time they changed from israelis to indians. What happened to their israeli ancestry? Why have we not found any relics from israel or references to their culture?
It just doesn’t add up, no matter how hard you try to bend the truth. It makes NO sense and is completely unsupported by evidence.
I can not understand how you can defend this…
Science does not yet have all the answers, but at least they make a conclusion based on evidence…you just make evidence based on a (impossible) conclusion…
By: Stian on September 12, 2008
at 12:32 am
Sirius, I have a question: Is there anything in flood geology that provides accurate, consistent dating of fossil fauna all dating apx. during a bible-inspired flood date that’s been corroborated by other date sources? (For example, radioactive dating’s been corroborated not only by different dating methods, but also, in the case of Renee et. al, 1997, by historical records of Mt. Vesuvius (sp.?) volcanic eruption, which has, and I’ve read this article myself, consistent and independent results from multiple radiometric datings which are amazingly consistent with the historical account of the volcanic eruption, that is, about 1800 years ago)
I must admit that I cannot truly answer how come there’s trees buried vertically, for example. Geology’s not my speciality, though I’m quite curious to hear about young earth arguments. I’m a biology undergrad, so my (currently partial) knowledge is in Biology.
By: freidenker85 on September 12, 2008
at 12:32 pm
Cindy,
No one seems to be addressing your point, so I’ll give it a whirl: the Earth is not flat because of plate tectonics. Mountains are indeed eroded, but new ones are formed due to the buckling of the Earth’s crust.
Sirius,
Here is my refutation to the points you raise. I’m not an expert, so please don’t take my word on any of this- I encourage you to do independant research to verify (or falsify) what I write here.
Those charts showing geological strata are made that way for the purpose of clarity- scientists are not actually suggesting that the strata are always so neat and orderly. It’s just a conceit to present information in a more understandable way, just as planets in a school textbook will be shown lined up perfectly, when in reality they never actually do this.
As to why the column isn’t perfect, plate tectonics is again the answer- various processes warp the Earth’s crust, so that older plates are pushed or newer ones lowered. This is why absolute dating methods are handy.
Ah, the “no transitional fossils” fallacy. There are transitional fossils- many of them. I can’t really give an in-depth answer to this without linking to outside sites, but suffice it to say, there is a wealth of information about transitional fossils out there, if you care to look for it. The evolution of land mammals to whales, for example, is well-documented in the fossil record.
You’re actually correct here that scientists can’t look at two fossil and state with certainty that this species evolved into that one. But they can trace th evolution of broader groups of species. For example, there’s a statue of a small mammal in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington. It’s thought to be related to the ancestor of all living mammals, because it’s the first mammal with the requisite traits that appears in the fossil record. But the museum doesn’t state that this particular species is our ancestor, because we can never know that with certainty.
As to Ken Ham’s comment, I’m curious as to what he means when he says that the rock layers were “laid down by water”. Most of the rock that we find fossils in was created by intense pressure found at the bottom of the ocean, but I fail to see how this connects with the flood, as I’m assuming he claims it does.
One point I’d like you to consider: How could all of these species have existed side by side at the same time before the flood? Even today, with a relative scarcity of animal life, competition is fierce and small disruptions to an animal’s enviroment can cause it to go extinct. The scenario Ham is presenting, and which you seem to be endorsing, would have led to the rapid extinction of the majority of living species long before the flood occured.
The Cambrian Explosion? Really? Let’s get this over with quickly.
All major Phyla did not appear in the Cambrian explosion- at least six have been identified as Pre-Cambrian. Jellyfish and sponges appeared before the Cambrian explosion (and yes, we have the fossils to back this up).
Let’s look at Chordata, the phylum that humans and all mammals belong to. It’s representative in the Cambrian explosion is a very small, simple creature. Getting from this proto-chordate to humans and whales and what have you requires…. well, evolution!
The Cambrian explosion was indeed an explosion, but in geological time. The phyla did not appear at the same time- the “explosion” still took millions of years.
I don’t know enough about the chart you posted next to comment on- can you give me a link to follow?
Rapid burial. No one denies that this occurs- but there’s no reason to invoke a world-wide flood to explain it. Landslides, the collapse of cliff faces, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions- all of these events can explain perfectly well how species are often entombed quickly.
Your final point is a little odd- Why should scientists lean towards the explanation that lends credence to the Bible?
By: Penguin_Factory on September 12, 2008
at 1:46 pm
Having said that, care to be specific about which facts I should have checked? Or are you all mock and no substance?
You should have checked all of them. You’re wrong about the geological column, about the Cambrian explosion, about missing links…the list goes on.
By: forknowledge on September 12, 2008
at 2:00 pm
forknowledge,
Not another “…the list goes one…” comment! Ech! Weren’t you the one who caqlled ME cliche? You’ve essentially said nothing, except, “You’re wong, man! You just friggin…. wrong!” You’re a credit to Darbots everywhere, pal.
Care to tell me WHY you think I’m wrong, like the intelligent dissenters who comment on my site?
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 12, 2008
at 8:55 pm
As I said already, I’m getting to it – but on my own blog, where others are more likely to see it. My intention is not to set straight every Creationist on Earth individually, even ones who may as well be condensed versions of Creationism itself. Rest assured that you won’t have to wait long for the explanation, either, since you’ve brought nothing new to the table.
By: forknowledge on September 12, 2008
at 9:33 pm
[...] Geological Column Another one for Sirius Knott today, this time concerining the geological column. As ever, and I cannot stress this enough, criticism or corrections are welcomed – if you know more [...]
By: The Geological Column « For Knowledge! on September 12, 2008
at 10:38 pm
Sirius:
Well, yes, they do include dates that are billions of years old. This is because the accumulated evidence of centuries of research supports the idea of a multi-billion year old Earth.
As for reductionism…. you do have a point here, but again, reductionism is a necessary conceit. In nearly every subject I studied at the secondary school level, information had to be simplified for the simple reason that students would have trouble understanding it if it wasn’t. Evolution is almost never explained properly to young people or scientifically illiterate members of the general audience, but this is because it’s the only way to introduce them to the idea, rather than some sort of nefarious indoctrination.
Plate tectonics describes only the past? Slow down there. Plate tectonics is occuring right now- it’s effects are occuring all around us and scientists can detect them directly. The Himilayas increase in height every year, just as the pacific increases in size, due to tectonic activity. Earthquakes, volcanoes and subduction are all processes created by plate tectonics.
And yes, I’m talking about radiocarbon dating. Well, not really- radiocarbon dating gets the most attention for some reason but it isn’t the only such method of radioMETRIC dating scientists use. I will reply to your comments on this matter at a later date.
I believe I’ve already stated that science doesn’t deal in absolutes when it comes to transitional fossils. What they can do is look at the facts and decide which theory best explains those facts.
What we find (the facts) is a geological column containing fossils that show a clear chronological progression from one type of animal to the next.
Evolution (the theory) best explains these facts.
So yes, the evolution of land mammals to whales is “speculated on”, as are all other evolutionary lineages, but it’s speculation that’s based on evidence, and it’s status is based on continued adherence to that evidence.
It is absolutely incorrect to say with certainty that any one species is defintely our ancestor, unless we can bring genetic evidence into the picture, but it is NOT begging the question to infer evolution, because evolution and evolution alone explains the facts. We do not need to know every exact step in an evolutionary chain to be able to infer evolution, any more than a detective has to be able to trace the every exact step of a suspect in order to conclude that he has killed someone.
You don’t seem to have much knowledge of how the scientific method actually works.
What exactly do you mean, that the pressure was created by the flood mechanics? Water alone explains pressure; no flood mechanics need to be invoked to explain that. What the flood doesn’t explain is the amount of time needed to create sedimentary layers. I would be very interested to know the proposed mechanism by which a short-term event could do the work of several million years.
Your use of the word “presuming” is interesting. I’m not presuming anything- the current models used to explain these processes are backed up by heaps of evidence. I employ a uniformitarian model because it seems to be the correct one.
Noah’s Ark presents a fiesta of logical fallacies and problems so panoramic that I’ll stick to the one you brought up here- it is not only air-breathing land animals that required the safety of the ark. A global flood would be devestating to marine organisms as well. Ocean salinity is one major factor to consider- you can’t add a lot of water to the oceans without affecting this- as is temperature. Many species of fish and other marine organism require specific habitats to survive- habitats like shallow-water coral reefs, which would have either been destroyed or become deep-sea reefs during the flood.
- Actually, I’m presuming the strata represent periods of rock formation. It’s the fossils that represent evolution. I also note that I’m tagged with the perjorative “presumed” while creationists merely “see” their conclusions. A double standard?
The idea that the strata represent periods of burial is not viable. Why do many flying animals appear lower than land-dwelling animals? Shouldn’t we expect the fossils to be sorted by this sort of criteria- or to not be sorted at all? Why do mammals appear at a certain point and not before? Shouldn’t we expect at least one to have been buried alongside, say, a dinosaur or an early reptile?
- Let us dispense with the “were you there” nonsense- it’s childish
No, I do not assume this. Scientists haven’t dated geological strata by the fossils found within them for decades, at least (fun bonus fact= the idea of an old earth originated long before evolution did). As I stated, we know that the layers are millions of years old due to those pesky absolute dating methods (which can indeed be used to date rocks themselves, rather than just organic material found within them. For example, isochron dating can be used this way).
Hundreds of thousands, because, again we know that these layers were laid down over millions of years and not in one event (I will address any objections you have to this claim at a later date).
Scientists go with whatever explanation fits the evidence. Whether it fits the Bible isn’t really taken into account.
By: Penguin_Factory on September 12, 2008
at 11:45 pm
I pick the explanation that is suggested by evidence. The evidence is overwhelming, and accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The creationist “theory” is not accepted by anyone who doesn’t believe in God as far as i know. This is because it directly contradicts reason and evidence in every aspect of serious science.
While we’re at it.. how do you explain that the pyramids seem untouched by a flood? Most are dated pre-flood. If you claim that they are post-flood, when would you date them?
Where do you get your dating from? Most ARE dated pre-flood by non-creationist science. You’re saying that scientist have no clue on what they’re doing when their discoveries contradicts the Bible, but whenever they’re not, they’re right. Even if you date the pyramids post-flood, why would Noahs sons emulate the structures of pre-flood cultures instead of their own? Why are the pyramids built for pharaos…? You’re saying that pharaos were noahs sons in disguise? They just went straight to egypt and converted to egyptian pre-flood belief? WHY would they pick up the egyptian culture? .. The building of the pyramids took hundreds of years.. where did they get the slaves and labour?
How could we repopulate earth in only 4000 years, and evolve from only a handful of israelis to blacks, whites, asian, indian etc…? We know that the africans have been where they are for some years now… and the mayas have a lot of structures dated at least 3000 years back…
The key thing here is “where one parent is of one ethnicity and the other parent is of another”. You didn’t have those conditions post-flood. There were only one ethnicity to take from. And yes, this DOES take LONG time.. this is an evolutionary process which is driven by natural selection. I don’t believe in superevolution. Why are there still black people in the USA?
By: Stian on September 13, 2008
at 12:52 am
I’m getting nowhere here.
You have obviously picked your side, no matter how unlikely it is and no matter how many fantastic coincidences is needed. It doesn’t matter to you that it makes absolutely no sense, as long as its not in conflict with your bible.
Most of your “theories” are, as previously stated, just you gripping on to the last straw. The tiny “could be” that you can use to delude yourself into believing this is actually science.
How would adding multi-ethtnicity in Noahs family help? If so, they would have evolved in the same environment into completely different ethnicities. White people, indians, asians, blacks.. all happily along on a giant boat with two animals of each “kind”? Why would there be different ethnicities? How could there be, as it was only 2000 years since Adam and Eve?
I never said anything about the idea of God.. I said the creationist “theory”. It contradicts science because you have no real theory. You have no falsification criteria. You have no predictions. You only have a useless idea. It also contradicts science because you draw the conclusion first, then look at the evidence…
[Sirius: Darwinism also lacks true falsification criteria. And we do make predictions from the creationist model. We have predicted that only certain kinds of animals will be able to interbreed with one another. Genetic science bears this out. We also predict that coal can be formed rapidly and our research in this area has led us to be able to find coal deposits more efficiently.
You really haven't bothered to examine the creation model at all, have you? Has it occurred to you that you're only attacking a straw man creation model of your own making? Do you have any idea what we actually propose?]
By: Stian on September 13, 2008
at 4:05 am
You know, Sirius, I find this strategy of constantly bleating “presumption, presumption!” very wearisome. I won’t be acknowledging any such replies in the future, unless you can substantiate them with something other than basless accusations.
- Everything we learn in school is “dumbed down” in this way. Every scientific idea has flaws, but understanding those flaws often would require knowledge that students are simply not equipped for at a primary or secondary school level. This is not something that’s confined to evolution, but it is the only subject that attracts accusations of indoctrination.
As for alternate theories- there are no alternate theories.
Scientists do not recognize creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, just as historians don’t recognize the theories that the holocaust never happened or that Shakespeare’s plays were written by Francis Bacon. Should we be teaching these ideas as “alternate theories” as well, simply because people have suggested them? Of course not.
And there you go again! I’m not assuming anyhthing. You can accuse me of presumption till the cows come home, but that’s not a valid refutation of anything I’ve said. A noachian flood simply doesn’t explain the evidence, and what’s more, invoking one causes far more problems than it solves. The amount of scientific objections raised against the idea are too numerous to list here, but you can find them with a simple google search.
The chronological interpretation of the fossil record is indeed the best explanation. We know the strata are different ages, and that they were laid down over millions of years (from dating methods). We see some species disappear and new ones take their place, and this happens in the sort of gradual progression that we should expect to find if evolution is taking place, AND the process displays exactly the sort of nested hierarchies that evolution calls for.
- Of course layers can be laid down quickly, but can they be compressed into sedimentary rock quickly?
The answer to the fish question didn’t address coral reefs.
By what process did the fossils sort themselves to give the impression of gradual evolution?
- Of course scientists are biased, but they’re not biased against the Bible. It’s been noted that the initial interpretation of a new discovery often seems to confirm the hypothesis of the discoverer, until outside sources (ie other scientists) set things straight. This is unfortunate, but it’s human nature, and in science errors will eventually be corrected by peer review.
By: Penguin_Factory on September 13, 2008
at 11:12 am
Having re-read this tedious but enlightening string of comments, I will say this, boys and girls:
It has become apparent that many who disagree with the Creation Model are really only attacking a straw man creation model of their own making. It’s possible that they have little or no idea what we’ve actually proposed.
This being apparent, I shall endeavor in the near future to lay out just exactly what Creationists believe about the Ark, the Flood and the post-Flood world. Be please patient in the meantime.
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 13, 2008
at 2:38 pm
I see you’ve … a fairly substantial section of my …, including the … that actually backed up what I’ve been saying, essentially destroying my … without having to… Very well then- I present below a condensed summary of my reasons for rejecting flood geology and creationism, so that we can lay to rest all of these accusations of bias and presumption. This is by necessity going to be fairly long, but you’ve left me with no other choice (in the event that you decide to … this too, I’ll be posting it on forknowledge’s blog as well)
1) The flood calls for the quick, recent creation of fossil-bearing strata, but we know this is not the case because we can measure the radioactive decay of elements in rocks and calculate how long the atoms within the elements have been decaying for (note that this is not radiocarbon dating, which is used to date organic matter), beginning with the rock’s formation. There are over 40 methods of radiometric dating in use today and all of them, testing different elements from the same and different samples, hundreds and thousands of times, have reached the same conclusion: the earth is not young. The strata of the geologic column were deposited for the most part over millions of years, and the animals fossilized within them similarly lived and died over millions of years. The decay rates of radioactive isotopes are, with a few exceptions, stable- there is no way to speed it up or slow it down, and those few exceptions require the sort of conditions found only within a laboratory.
This is completely contrary to what the flood model calls for, and is a major blow to it’s status as a viable hypothesis.
Furthermore, the dates given by radiometric testing make sense in light of the evidence. Our planet bears signs of a vast array of geologic drama over it’s history, inlcluding but not limited to: multiple ice ages, continential drift, mass extinction events, supervolcano eruptions and multiple asteroid impacts. Radiometric dating gives all of these events time to occur within- a young Earth model would have all of these events occuring within a short span of time, which is simply not possible, as the asteroid impacts alone would very likely have destroyed the planet’s ability to support life if they had really taken place in the space of a few thousand years.
Furthermore, many facts that the flood seeks to explain are better explained by the action of plate tectonics, which we can observe directly and in real-time. We thus find that the flood not only contradicts radiometric dating but is rendered obsolete by a different theory that we can see happening around us. We know that ancient features of the planet are accounted for by plate tectonics because we can look at the effects it has on our world today and see those same effects in past geologic strata.
2) Why I reject creationism
If we can reasonably conclude, through the dating methods explained above…
…that the geologic column is ancient and represents periods of time lasting millions of years, we can infer some interesting things about the fossil record.
It follows from “knowledge” of the Earth’s antiquity that fossilized life forms were deposited slowly and over time in their respective strata. This gives us snap-shots of what life has been up to for millions of years, and putting these together lends credence to evolution.
Evolution predicts that life should start off simple and progress, over millenia, from there. This is what we find- go far back in the geologic column and life becomes extremely simple and small, so that Ediacaran (pre-cambrian) fossils are difficult to even see without a microscope.
Evolution predicts that we should expect to find transitional fossils, and we have.
Hyracotherium skulls show a clear progression into Equus (modern horse) skulls. The chronology is sound- Equus skulls don’t appear earlier than they should. The fossils progress logically and naturally. Fossils also show the evolution of horse limbs from multiple toes to just one.
We should expect, if evolution is true, for new types of animals to start out more similar to each other and then diverge over time, and again this is what we see. Early carnivores followed this pattern, with ungulates and carnivores being quite similar in the beginning, but branching as time went by.
You’re of course entitled to protest that these predictions were created after the fact to fit the evidence, but this isn’t so. Darwin (among others) predicted that, if his theory were correct, we would find all of the things I’ve listed above before any of these fossils was discovered.
Furthermore, genetic evidence also supports evolution. We can use it to prove that humans and other great apes share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. There is a type of virus called an endoginous retrovirus, or ERV. ERVs leave “elements” in the DNA of their hosts, and these elements consist of only one nucleotide base out of millions. The only reasonable way for one organism to have the same ERV elements as another is for them to be related.
Humans don’t share one ERV element with chimps- we share THOUSANDS. This is beyond the realm of coincidence.
Furthermore, one of our chromosomes is actually two fused chromosomes. Both of these chromosomes are found, unfused, within other great ape species. Again, common descent is the only viable explanation for how this came to be.
So, Sirius, I’ve dealt my hand.
This is only a small selection of the evidence- I could literally fill this comments box with links to further information, if I wasn’t so sure you would delete them all.
[Sirius: Yes, those "simple google searches" lead, I'm sure, to such unassailable conclusions. And enough with "the list goes on and on" stupidity. You didn't even discuss the inconsistencies to your favored theory that I pointed out in this post. You avoided them like the sodding plague and moved the goalpost. Not that I blame you, since you couldn't answer them without a simpering yet faithful utterance of darwindidit.]
No more accusations of presumption, bias or presupposition.
I’ve presented my facts. Let’s see yours.
By: Penguin_Factory on September 13, 2008
at 3:41 pm
[...] Forms, Trilobites This is a followup to an earlier posting that examined the first part of this posting by somebody who calls himself Sirius Knott. Creationists tend to make bold claims that attempt to rubbish the consensus of biologists, [...]
By: Examining a creationist argument on the fossil record « Lambda Delta: Tony Sidaway’s science blog on September 13, 2008
at 4:13 pm
“Sirius comments: I’m not sure how to answer your question, so I’m emailing the guys at BiblicalGeology.net for their advice. I’ll get back to you, provided, of course, that they get back to me”
I don’t get it. You write here about flood geology – without the premise of a young earth, or for that matter – without the premise of accurate dating methods – then the whole idea of a young earth model is moot, isn’t it? So how can you possibly be sure of such a model if you haven’t, in detail, learnt how such a model dates phenomena on earth? Do note that, considering the fact that old earth dating methods still produce consistent, corroborated results, a young earth model would still require a plausible alternative explanation for these results (and at least some means of replacing the dating estimates on the geological column based on these methods, that is, not simply comparing any evidence to historical/biblical texts.)
By the way, I’ve heard of young earth dating methods but so far, it’s all rather weak stuff (Po halo method, for example, is one particularly bad method that’s been circulating and AFAIK, has withered a bit since it spawned) – I’d be happy to learn of any new method or at least of a method that’s still accurately used today.
By: freidenker85 on September 13, 2008
at 4:57 pm
I’m sorry, but I’m quite surprised.
You’ve spent some time writing a whole paragraph rehashing why you’re not answering me now while, of course, if you neglect insulting my intelligence, it’d be perfectly clear to anyone why you wouldn’t (it’d be the reason you mentioned, and I had no qualms with that) – that I almost forgot what I orignally inquired about.
I inquired about you not knowing anything about young earth dating.
It’s also highly bizarre that after I inquired you about this matter, you (at least that’s what you mentioned) sent an e-mail to someone instead of just linking me to the, I guess, huge repository of flood geology information that’s out there. I asked you because you purport to be, if not an expert, then at least some learned pundit in this field.
At any rate, let me emphasize it if it weren’t clear enough – I would not, by any length, be happy if you simply made something up. That’d be boring. I’m really interested in what makes you believe that the earth and the universe are young contra all the evidence otherwise I’ve learnt about. I’m not writing this or asking you questions so that I could mock your intelligence or the authorities you use or whatever, but considering the fact that I’ve spent a lot of time and money to learn what I know, in part, about his particular bit of origin science, so I’m quite curious to hear anything other than what I learnt.
By the way – about radiometric dating, I know how messy radiometric dating can be, and apparently geologists know this too. This is why I’ve never read an article (and I’ve read a few) that uses RM dating that doesn’t contain either multiple radioisotopes/multiple samples/other dating methods and in any case – there’s always plenty of tests in endless tables for any sample being used. The interesting and, well, the reassuring part about RM dating is that it produces so many consistent results. The unconsisted results, be they for young or old – are, well, unconsistent. That’s why it’s easy to disregard them – there’s plenty of reasons why you’d get a funny result -reasons apart evil scientists who presuppose that anything that does not conform to their presuppositions is bad results. The samples could be bad, the machinary could get screwed up, calculations could be jumbled up, or in worse cases, fabricated. In short – there’s plenty of ways in science to get into bad results apart from scienctists being evil and although I’m sure some scientists are evil – I’m pretty damn sure the majority of them are not – and there’s a majority of them who find RM dating a trivially accepted dating method.
By: freidenker85 on September 14, 2008
at 6:20 am
Would you believe that I accidentally deleted my original post haway through? This is therefore going to be brief, so if I skip over anything or leave out detail, point it out and I’ll post it at a later date.
Your objection to radiometric dating techniques is fallacious. Recent changes to quantum tunneling rates would alter fundamentally the properties of matter, leading to continual changes in the size of planets and the orbits of the moon and Earth (among a lot else). No such changes have ever been detected. Your obection to radiometric dating is deflected, and my point still stands.
How did a flood cause planet-wide volcanism, and if this actually happened why didn’t it destroy the atmosphere? Floodwaters would have been he least of the survivors’ problems.
(Also, you can’t dodge the asteroid problem- a lot of these things have collided with the Earth. How did ecosystems recover in such a short period of time?)
I have addressed the anamolies- localized events that caused mass burials.
Your other point- that I’m wrong if God exists- places you in the enviable position of proving that God does indeed exist.
What do you mean, the Cambrian doesn’t allow enough time for diversification?
Let’s take a look at your objections to horse evolution. I have no idea why you brought up Hyrax, since it’s not a horse and scientists never claimed it was.
Ribs are irrelevant- rib numbers vary even within species, and there’s nothing in evolutionary theory which states that species must keep a consistent number of ribs throughout the process.
Old and New World fossils can be put side-by-side because the Old and New worlds were once side by side themselves- plate tectonics, remember?
Even if hyracotherium fossils were found alongside one-towed horses, this proves nothing because evolution allows for ancestor species to co-exist with descendant species. However, this claim has never actually been substantiated. One H.Rimmer first made the claim in 1935, but the earliest known descriptions of Equus Navadensis make no mention of hyracotherium fossils found alongside it, and neither do any known scientific papers since then. Occidntalis seems to actually be the same animal as navadensis, discovered and named twice.
I can find nothing about your claim that one-towed horses were found below three-towed in South America (you’re being a tad vague there). Where did you get this from?
Before I answer this, please define what you mean by micro-evolution, and what exactly a “kind” is.
Why would God design both us and Chimpanzees to look as if our ancestors were infected with ERVs in exactly the same places, thousands of times? You’d almost think he WANTS us to believe in evolution!
Chesterton was a Christian Apologeticist, not a scientist, who wrote that in 1908, decades before the modern study of genetics arose. His opinion doesn’t really count for a whole lot. This is rather ironic consdering the quote condemning appeals to higher authorities you have on your main page.
Anyway. Only a relatively small amount of genetic difference is needed to explain the physical difference between humand and other great apes. The fused chromosome doesn’t create the differenct between apes and humans, the other chromosomes do.
By: Penguin_Factory on September 14, 2008
at 11:15 am
You said: “Perhaps they aren’t mistakes. Perhaps they indicate a flaw in the long-age presumptions [including assumptions about the original composition of the rocks and the consistent rate of decay used in all RM dating methods] and we need to look futher into what they might mean rather than chucking them because they don’t agree with the establishment view. Isn’t that what real science is about”
But… and this is important – you don’t have any evidence to suggest this stuff, right? I’m all agreement when it comes to this paragraph.
Expanding our horizons IS what science is all about. That’s why winning ideas like genetics win (even if I accept what you wrote about Mendelian genetics to be correct contra to what I learnt in introductionary genetics this year, historical overview and all) – winning ideas like, possibly, flood geology.
Let me sidestep the issue of you misquoting me or misunderstanding me and just rephrase myself: you brought evidence that the earth is young in this post – so I asked you if any of this evidence has anything to do with dating techniques – since saying that “things take a short time” doesn’t mean much if it could take a short time billions of years ago, unless, of course, there’s a verifiable way of dating anything (especially stuff that’s “supposed” according to current evolutionary theory to date a lot more) that corresponds to a young earth model.
This is an extremely relevant question that receives not only any address in your post, but that you do not know of or would care as much to link to. Let’s put out the whole ideology of “not linking to other places” thing behind and let me say that I will accept what you say even though I don’t find myself agreeing with you. It’s your blog and it’s also your call if you want to do this or not.
In any event, I did make it quite clear that I found it surprising, actually, quite shocking, that you present evidence for a young earth without even knowing of any dating method that corresponds to what you seem to imply about the earth – that is, that it’s young. Unless the reason you believe it’s young has nothing to do with any materialistic dating methods (which would make the entire issue completely different. If your faith in the age of the earth relies on, say, the bible, and the bible alone, then why waste time on putting pictures of fossils in here?)
Then why are you going through the effort with showing pictures of fossils? Just bring the evidence you see as proof and induce it on anything the bible says.
In short, you don’t believe the earth is young because any physical evidence tells you this, but because it lies in accordance to what biblical texts say (if you interpret them literally, which many seem not to. Including some Jewish sects I know of, including the secular Jewish sect I’m familiar with and was raised in)
There’s really nothing more to talk about, then. If your belief in a young age has nothing to do with science, then my entire approach to this blog entry is pointless, and I believe I have wasted both of our time. You’ve every right to believe what he bible tells you about the history of the earth. I was curious if you believed the world to be young because of something science told you. If you presuppose that science can only affirm the bible (and if it doesn’t, it’s not science) – then there’s nothing in science that’s relevant to your beliefs anyway. You’d believe the bible first and nothing you find or I present to you will change that.
I’ll be delighted to read about any creationist dating methods if you post on them here, though.
Thank you for your time and patience. You’ve answered my questions.
By: freidenker85 on September 14, 2008
at 3:51 pm
Church of Darwin or Church of religion: what does it really matter in the final analysis?
Life has been here on our earth a very long time and certainly longer than we humans have been.
The only thing that seems certain as far as I can tell is life will continue to change and species will come and go,no matter what the cause may be.The real issue anymore about life here on earth is simple-will we humans allow it to continue on or our we going to doom it and have it gone forever?
Evolution is just another word for change over time and how life came to be is not easy or even possible to answer no matter what church you subscribe to.
I take a middle of the road view because I care not for the useless argues over an issue that can’t be reasonably resolved .The reality of this world basically for the most part, is what you see is what you get.
People like to be antagonistic and elitist when they think that they are right and that is human nature. Both schools of thought on the subject of how life came to be here on earth sure have a lot to say and oddly end up negating each other so in the end it seems nothing was accomplished. Logic and reason are the only things we have to distinguish our selves from all the rest of life here on earth.
By: Anonymous on September 15, 2008
at 2:41 am
“If darwin is correct, we will be replaced by something better and the end of our individual lives spells personal oblivion.”
Believing in evolution doesn’t rule out the possibility of an afterlife. Honestly, this “Darwin or God” dichotomy is completely false.
By: Penguin_Factory on September 16, 2008
at 3:36 pm
Really? Since Darwin’s theory is based on the presupposition of naturalism,that the supernatural is unnecessary to explain the observable world, how does Darwinism allow forthe existence of the supernatural, of the soul and unlimately of God?
I’m not quite sure you’re being consistent. Have you thought out the ramifications of what you say you believe?
–Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 16, 2008
at 8:24 pm
The view you have of science and the supernatural is….
By the way, what happened to my latest reply in our debate?
By: Penguin_Factory on September 16, 2008
at 10:10 pm
You said: “He basically accuses of setting up a false dichotomy between Darwinism and God, and whines that I’m unfairly singling out Darwinism because [drumroll please and cue the predictable mantra of the faithful Darbot] there is no science but naturalism. ”
That’s not what I said.
Your linked post states, and I quote:
..
Firstly, naturalism isn’t atheism- naturalism states that natural phenomena have natural explanations.
It just doesn’t have an effect on the natural.
Or, to quote wikipedia:
“Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events”
You said: “Mydogateit”
Well, that’s no problem- I have another copy right here on my desktop. I’ll just post it up again and all will be well. Just keep your dog away this time, alright?
By: penguinfactory on September 17, 2008
at 7:15 pm
You said: “It is the insistence that natural phenomena can ONLY have natural explanations that is in debate.”
But that’s not what scientists are insisting. Like I said, science takes the position that if the supernatural exists, we can’t study it scientifically. Therefore, scientists don’t consider supernatural explanations, because it would be pointless. If they ever found some phenomonon that could only be explained via the supernatural, they’d admit to that, but so far (and here’s the salient point) they haven’t.
You said: “1c. Since the world has a supernatural designer, a minority of data and problems shall certainly require a supernatural explanation [again, if God does indeed exist].”
Woah, woah, hold on. And You’re accusing me of having presumptions? This entire point rests on the assumption that God exists. Why should scientists, or myself, or anyone else for that matter, assume this?
You said: “This assumption is the very issue we are debating.”
No, we’re not. There’s a clear distinction between naturalism that assumes outright that the supernatural doesn’t exist and naturalism which doesn’t take it into account. Or to put it another way, science is agnostic towards the supernatural, rather than atheistic.
By: penguinfactory on September 18, 2008
at 7:37 pm
[...] us to the subject of one Sirius Knott. Mr. Knott and I have been engaged in a somewhat heated discussion, over the course of which it has become clear that Sirius has no hesitation in editing or simply [...]
By: What Mr. Knott Wouldn’t Reply To « For Knowledge! on September 19, 2008
at 6:35 pm
freidenker85,
I have recieved a response from Tasman Walker at biblicalgeology.net. His response to your query is as follows:
Hope that helps,
Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 19, 2008
at 9:51 pm
From:
http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Biblical-Chronology.html
“Because we believe the Bible is true, we assume that its plain reading gives an accurate understanding of Earth history. Biblical chronology is used as the basis for geological investigation.”
Okay, I read through both the links you posted here and I’m feeling kinda dizzy. Even if I take *everything* written on both blogs at face value, no one actually admits that there’s consistent dating of samples indicating a young earth. There are data regarding relative sedimentation and rapid burial, all perfectly fine with an old-earth model as well, but even your guy admitted himself that there’s no “young earth dating methods” used by, well, young earth flood geologist. I’m quite disappointed. Both sources failed to address my original question or admitted that there isn’t an answer.
By: freidenker85 on October 13, 2008
at 10:50 pm
Sirius comments: Friedenker85 has written a reductionist faith versus science straw man over on his blog, obsessedwithreality. This was my response:
By: Why Some Creationists Believe in Flood Geology « Obsessed with reality on October 13, 2008
at 11:33 pm
Hi Sirius Knott,
I am impressed with the tenor of your comments in general and feel relieved about having found a kindred soul in interpreting Holy Scripture litterally as read.
I have a manuscript with my publisher with the title “The Greatest Scientist Alive” which discusses Genetic Engineering and its ramifications in which I suggest a ‘possible’ scenario explaining the old-earth versus new-earth controversy and how they might fit together. I like to touch base with you, to discuss this. Yours sincerely Kees.
By: Kees van den Bosch on March 1, 2009
at 7:28 pm
The notion that there is any “controversy” in geology over dating is completely misconceived and factually incorrect. Only numbskulls like SIrius dissent from the mainstream view, which has been well supported for well over a century.
By: Tony Sidaway on March 2, 2009
at 12:39 pm
The notion that there is not a controversy in geology over dating is wishful thinking. Mt Saint Helens made catastrophists and neo-catastrophists out of a good lot of geologists. Rapid erosion, rapid deposition of sediment layers, the explanation for polystrates and even how coal in a relatively short amount of time were all observed. Lyell did a good job of convincing people of uniformitarian processes. Darwin applied this theory to biology. Both forgot how large a role catastrophes play in both fields. [Catastrophes observably interrupt the uniform processes of gradualism; some theories of micro-evolution - which is compatible with the creationist theory of adaptation with created kinds - suggest that catastrophes may be a catalyst for rapid speciation.] I’m afraid “tony” [which is too good of a name for such bad notions] may be only seeing what he wishes to see.
But keep your head in the sand, if you must. While I’m thinking of it, thank you for the erroneous and unnecessary ad hominem. Unfortunately, “numbskull” is completely lacking in imagination and says nothing to the fact.
Regards,
Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on March 10, 2009
at 5:26 pm
Your contention that Mt. St Helens eruption has provoked a controversy over dating demonstrates why the term “numbskull” is appropriate here.
Holding minority ideas in geology is one thing, but you go further than that, grossly misrepresenting the support your ideas have, to the extent of saying that there is a dating controversy in geology to the extent that creattionist dating is plausible.
There are two possible explanations of your unfounded and untenable claims: ignorance or dishonesty. If the former, open a textbook on geology and learn.
By: Tony Sidaway on March 10, 2009
at 6:18 pm
Now I remember you. You’re the “go read a textbook” fellow! Wow. You really are a one-trick pony, aren’t you?
That aside, you’ve inserted a straw man into this conversation. I’m not saying that the existence of said controversy makes creationist dating plauisible. To the contrary, creation dating and proposed mechanism are plausible, hence the controversy. Again, Lyell advocated near pure gradualism, attempting to circumvent the Noachim Flood. This, despite the fact that a majority of ancient people groups have flood legends about a universal flood. If such an event, such as the Bible and flood legends record, gradualism has been grossly interupted at some point. Here’s a suggestion: Read a bit more about what happened at Mt Saint Helen, then tell me whether the Grand Canyon, strata layers and polystrates necessarily had to take long ages. The answer will surprise you. It didn’t have to take long ages, especially if a Noachim Flood actually occured. Coupled with ignored evidence suggesting a young earth [the decay of earth's magnetic field, the amount of salt in the ocean, the amount of helium in crystals, et cetera] suggests that a Biblical dating of the earth is plausible. It’s not the controversy which suggests it’s plauisible; its the plausibility that engenders the controversy.
Now you are correct in that the official party line amongst scientists is uniform geology. That doesn’t make them right. I think we both know that. But neo-catastrophist geologists are growing in number. Meanwhile, schools still spout the official dogma, right?
Therefore, there are two possible explanations for your faith in uniform, gradualist geology: willful ignorance or successful indoctrination.
Regards,
Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on March 11, 2009
at 2:52 pm
I know that arguing with a creationist (especially of the YEC variety) is like trying to kick water uphill, but just in case anyone reading this really thinks there’s anything to any of your claims…
1. Of course the layers can be “flip-flopped”, as you put it. Such cases are called unconformities and they’re well documented and well accounted-for by geologists. The fact that in most cases the sequence of layers agrees with the dates provided by radiometric dating of igneous ricks in close proximity to or sandwiching layers validates the geological column (in a broad sense – scientific data are always open to revision of particulars, unlike religious fundamentalism). You also seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that we never find, say, dinosaurs, octopuses, or puppy dogs along with the fossils associated with Cambrian strata.
2. While it’s true that, as Kent Hovind puts it, we can’t tell that a fossilized organism ever had kids, the broad strokes of evolution are preserved by the fossil record. For establishing pedigrees, DNA, RNA, and protein data from living organisms are far more effective and impressive than the fossil record ever was, and also support evolution, by the way.
3. The Cambrian explosion wasn’t much of an explosion. If I’m ever attacked by crazed fundamentalists, I’m hoping they use an IED that operates on geological time, so I can continue to enjoy my coffee (and the rest of my life, and the rest of human history…). And phyla are one of the broadest taxa of animals. It sounds impressive when you say that most phyla are represented in Cambrian strata, but what does that really mean? Insects, spiders, crabs, lobsters, jawed fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals… none of the above exist in Cambrian strata, because they’re all the result of much later diversification.
And the idea that “worms” and jellyfish even SHOULD be followed by fish and trilobites seems to be your own prejudices speaking. All are members of different phyla (heck, “worms” alone could refer to several very different phyla – it’s more a description of shape than of ancestry!), and as such are the result of earlier divergences, and not divergences from each other.
As for punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian “explosion” has nothing to do with it, and it’s not a radical departure from gradualism anyway (many biologists cringe when they’re treated as separate, incompatible concepts). Look up Hardy-Weinberg equations if you really care about punctuated equilibrium (except as an “evolutionists are idiots lol” buzzword).
4. Tas Walker’s chart does provide an alternative to the standard geological column. And Joe Vlasic’s stork model provides an alternative to those wacky concepts of cell division and differentiation in embryonic development. Follow the evidence, kids.
I’ll skip to the end of your long piece now.
“[T]he debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records.
Guess which one the Darwinists are promoting? Yep, the one that doesn’t lend credence to the Bible.”
Nice usage of square brackets, BTW. (Were you doing that just to sabotage acts of ellipsis?) Anyway, those silly Darwinists and their goofy Darwin fetish! (Hey, did I mention how they like Darwin?) I mean, imagine how ludicrous it would be if we had… *snorts*… small, local floods!
Oh wait, there are over 100 small (well, except to those affected!), local floods around the world in an average year. So you’d better revise that number up to “millions”.
By: Josh on September 8, 2009
at 1:36 am
Josh,
Before I respond, compassion compells me to inquire whether you’re quite serious and whether you would not prefer in any way to ammend your response to something more cogent and indicative of sapience and with rather less uninspired drivel and ad hominem?
Sweetly,
Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 8, 2009
at 8:00 pm
Josh aka EyeDunno,
1. I really can’t believe you’ve pulled the “why don’t we find velociraptors with bunny rabbits?” card. Thus far, we haven’t. True. Neither does current catastrophist theory predict such a thing, which is what makes this a straw man. We predict instead that successive intact ecosystems succumbed to the Global Flood. [Hot water reefs, floating forests, shore, inland forest, etc etc].
As to your first point, the fact that radiometric dating agrees with with uniformitarian geology’s presuppositions about the age of rock layers isn’t at all surprising. They tend to throw out dates that don’t confirm their assumptions. And radiometric dating is itself based on old earth assumptions. There are three assumptions in particular: that the rate of decay has remained constant, the original parent/daughter ratio and the assumption of a closed system.
Note also a few inconsistencies with said dating methods. For example, The urianium-lead age of zircons from a New Mexico granite is 1.5 billion years, but the leakage rate of by-product helium gas from the same zircons yeilds an age of only 6,000 years. Also deep earth diamonds which cannot be contaminated contain measurable radiocarbon, implying that the earth is young. And don’t get me started on polonium radiohalos. In short, you’re spouting uniformitarian dogma but no one’s ever given you the whole picture [we call it indoctrination].
Keep digging.
2. The alleged pedigrees of DNA, RNA etc often flatly contradict the pedigrees suggested by evos from the fossil record. If you really want to get into this, I will, but you’ve been seriously mislead as to the reliability of this sort of rubbish. Similarities in DNA codings between organisms that share similar homology more imply similarity of design and similarity of function. Common descent is presumed, not observed. And since the fossil record simply shows stasis [a dog remains a dog and recognizably so] and sudden appearance [no evident ancestral forms], those dots are only connected in your heads – and damnably in public school textbooks. But of course molecules to man evolution is simply a belief.
3. Nice dodge, but on the geological scale proposed by uniformitarianism, we both know it’s more like a flash. No evident ancestral forms and simply not enough time for evolution to have done it’s theoretical work.
As for the statement: Insects, spiders, crabs, lobsters, jawed fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals… none of the above exist in Cambrian strata, because they’re all the result of much later diversification,” you’re simply presuming that goo-to-you evo occured. Again, current catastrophist theory suggests that ecosystems were successively overwhelmed during the Flood. So just as I don’t find lions in the ocean, I should expect the layers to contain unique fauna [rather than a blender mix that evos typically suggest as a straw man]
Hang on a bit. Are you equating saltations with gradulaism? I realize now that evos have attempted a patch-job synthesis between the two, but fast and slooooooooow are simply not the same thing, sir!
But this takes the cake: “And the idea that “worms” and jellyfish even SHOULD be followed by fish and trilobites seems to be your own prejudices speaking. All are members of different phyla (heck, “worms” alone could refer to several very different phyla – it’s more a description of shape than of ancestry!), and as such are the result of earlier divergences, and not divergences from each other.” Sir, I’m only getting the idea from PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS which consistently illustrate this sort of succession as fact.
4. I’m particularly enamored of the Vlasic stork reference. Ironically, it’s something as demonstrably false that adorns our textbooks: Ernst Haekel’s flasified embryo drawings. I note however that you offerered no specific reason as to why Tas Walker’s chart was false.
That’s of course because the last of your commentary descends into snarky mockery. Thanks for obscuring the issue. We’re talking about millions of small, local fossil-making floods which are not really evident [the generic floods are there, but are they making fossils?] or one massive Flood, which btw also lines up with the phenonmenon of universal flood legends found the world over.
-Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on September 17, 2009
at 1:46 am
Regarding the salinity issue… It is a non issue. All these brilliant minds that support darwinism forget that between creation and flood there was not enough time for the water to become salty. 1. there was no rain. A mist watered the earth. 2. All of the oceans salt comes from minerals leached from the dirt the rivers erode. 3. Micro evolution does not preclude that fish in the non-salty ocean adapted to live in a slowly increasing salinity environment. 4. If the earth is truly billions of years old (and all things continue as they have since the fathers fell asleep); why does seawater have so little salt.
Unfortunately to for the adherents of the origins religion there are too many little details that break the macro argument. Lack of verifiable (scientific) evidence is the major one. Show me ONE mid-state fossil and I will BELIEVE you. There are NONE and none will ever be found. The closest matches to “missing links or intermidiate forms have long be proven to be hoaxes. An affliction in palaentology and archeology that does not seem to go away. I suppose if yoiu have NO evidence you have to make some up. 2 skull fragments lead to a composite model of some ape-like thing – what a CROCK!!!
One of the prime reasons I am no longer an evolutionist but a creationist.
The weight of the evidence does not add up. All you have is a couple of really loud mouthed individuals spouting the same thing over and over and over and over and over… ad nauseum.
No new evidence has been found to support darwin. More evidence is coming from biology and astronomy to support creation than darwin. All I can say to these poor deluded individuals is: “Good Luck with that, hey!!!” The weight of evidence is shifting more and more away from darwin, and his supporters (like the flat earthers) of Galileos day are getting increasingly vocal in an attempt to make all evidence to the contrary dissapear. The arguments for darwinism are essentially the same as being called a racist for critising the Obamanator. “You don’t worship darwin so you must be stupid, ignorant, unscientific, etc. (insert your own blah blah). Darwinism is a crutch for psuedo scientists who are not brave enough to admit that we just might not be alone…
PS: Excuse the English – 2nd language and all that…
By: Sean on October 26, 2009
at 8:28 pm
You idiot… This is absurd!
By: Max on October 30, 2009
at 3:08 am
Max apparentlly has Tourette’s but little of substance to offer.
-Sirius Knott
By: Sirius on November 3, 2009
at 3:14 pm